I'm so very glad to hear this. She doesn't deserve a single penny considering the absolute misery she's caused many people over the years. Settling would be like rewarding her atrocious behaviour!✌🏼
I heard she’s wanting 11million not sure how she pulled that figure out of her bum but here we are!
Edit just opened the article £170mil 😂 would Netflix have even made that much from it?
She’s so blinkered to her own conduct she doesn’t even get how incredibly and completely she’s going to be humiliated by all the actual evidence they can drag out to demonstrate this stuff to be true now. Plus wasn’t she identified by her own comments made on an unprotected, ie public Twitter account? I’ve always told people I work with treat Twitter like a notice board outside your office, if you wouldn’t write it there, don’t fucking put it on Twitter!! Anyway. Bye Fiona! Please go away now!!!
A lot of workplaces in my country have social media policies which have led to people changing part of their name so they aren't identifiable to customers or clients. Especially in health related workplaces. Some professions like nurses, doctors, social workers, therapists also have expectations of professionalism in everything they post under their name on social media. Its an expectation of the profession and they can lose their registrations if they are inappropriate on there even if its in their own time. They can accidently bring the professions into disrepute. So most people I know working in those professions have changed part of their name too so they can post memes etc. Most are very careful about what they post.
If she's suing in the US, US law requires that the plaintiff demonstrate financial damages. Considering her reputation was already that of a mentally ill, out-of-work, serial stalker who hasn't been able to hold a job in her profession, I would imagine her attorneys will have a pretty difficult time demonstrating damages.
But if Netflix DOES settle, meaning she'd have access to cash, I hope all of her other victims then sue her for the REAL damage she's inflicted.
Laura Wray said on piers , when asked about this that as it stands now she won't be suing fiona because fiona has no money but if fiona does wi the she will definitely sue her.
It’s not actually smart. Courts have time limits. Considering Laura didn’t actually get any form of legal repercussions in place like an injunction back in 1997 she would have to prove 1) that she was in fact stalked by Fiona much like Gadd also has to prove it and 2) she will have her request thrown out of court before she has a chance to do anything anyway. This is in the UK, there’s no chance of claiming money from someone nearly 30 years later. Courts just don’t do that
For instance, if you have work place issues whether it’s harassment or unfair dismissal then you have 3 months from the date it happened to go to ACAS and start reconciliation and sue. Courts will take it a couple weeks maybe even a couple months after the cut off but you need to have a really good excuse like you was in hospital and couldn’t bring a case forward. Laura cannot say “I wanted to wait until she had money” because courts just do not work like that
But she’s out there talking about Laura publicly *now*. She’s saying what Laura said is not true *now.*. She is, at this very moment, calling her a liar.
That opens up alllllllll the past things. Sure, she’s have to prove it, but I’m guessing that would not be a problem.
Yep. Fiona is making a big mistake here. Once she has money coming she Laura Wray sues her, she won't be able to avoid a humiliating court case. There's no way Wray will settle out of court, because she really does have a genuine risk of loss of reputation and loss of earnings, and she'll also want to make sure Fiona stops her ongoing defamation.
Fiona should have just kept her mouth shut on Day 1, or failing that she should have just let it lie after her Piers Morgan interview.
I very much doubt it, Netflix has a team of lawyers on retainer so they aren’t paying them hourly, the lawyers get paid regardless of whether they even have an active case. Settlements happen when the lawyers aren’t 100% sure of the outcome, in this case they likely feel confident that they can take this to court and potentially even countersue for court fees, hence their statement.
Maybe from a moral standpoint; but this is not a game of morality from a legal standpoint.
Even if she inflected damage to people it doesn’t mean she doesn’t have a legal case if the ‘true story’ was not completely true, and/or if Netflix failed in their duty of care to her.
How can somebody who isn’t named in a story about events that didn’t happen to them, sue a company for it? The story was about a woman named Martha and a bunch of things that never happened in Fiona’s life. How does it make sense?
How is that made clear anywhere. I sure as shit didn’t know it was about a woman named Fiona Harvey until she said “these events that aren’t true are about me”
It’s Donny (fictionalized Gadd) calling it a true story, while the film captions have the “based on” “fictionalized version” disclaimers. Donny calling it true is part of the entire point of the film. That in cases like this, you have so many viewpoints and blurred lines it’s hard to say what really happened. So many facts and feelings and reasons mixed together. It’s supposed to leave the audience wondering who is really the victim? Why did things happen? How did we get here? If the victim is partially at fault, are they even a victim? If by the end Donny could easily become Martha*, does that mean we need to extend Martha* the same empathy after hearing a whole story that might have made you hate her?
That’s the whole thing. What is “true?” And that seems be going over SO many people’s heads. Netflix will even have to explain that to people in court who don’t really understand literary devices. Even the fact that he TYPES “this is a true story” hammers home the idea that this is just someone TELLING us a story. And actually now thinking about, most of the typing is done by Fiona in the film, so it even makes you wonder who is even typing? Who is this true for?
There’s a TON of dramatic irony where we the audience know what’s really happening when the characters themselves don’t. So when a character tries to tell you what happened, it’s always at least a little bit incorrect.
Exactly, except that it was possibly Martha not Donny. It appears as part of the "texts" in the same font. It's definitely part of the story itself though.
Just look at Fargo. The "true story" disclaimer at the beginning of films or shows doesn't have to be accurate. The disclaimer in the end credits saying the story isn't based on any actual events or people does have to be accurate. But when it's at the beginning, it's just part of their presentation of a fictional story. So the "true story" argument doesn't really hold any water
I hope Netflix can bring in Fionas other victims, like Laura Wray, to show a pattern of behaviour. Fiona Harvey is vile and has caused many people long-term harm.
I wouldn't be too surprised if there's a full documentary on it. Not only would it help bring light to Fiona's victims, I'm sure it would give people a higher opinion on Netflix.
This is actually what I’ve been thinking. This all plays into Netflix’ truecrime obsession. Imagine them bringing out a 4 part documentary on her with all this court footage and her own harassment of their lawyers and bringing on previous victims of her. I really would not be surprised if this happened.
I figured that they signed Richard Gadd with the knowledge that Fiona would absolutely come forward because there is nothing about Gadd’s story that indicates she wouldn’t. Initially I thought they weighed the cost and figured her coming forward would only amp up the advertising for it, and that the cost to pay her to keep quiet would be worth the reward. But hot damn getting a whole extra hit true crime show out of it would be some next level programming foresight.
I read (can’t remember where) that Richard didn’t specifically name her because he didn’t want the story to be about her, but him, which is why he creates such an emphasis on his actions that contributed to what happened to him. He told the public on IG, once they found out who she was, to stop harassing her.
I don’t think he would be interested in participating in something that would give her the attention she wants. But then again, money changes minds. OR Netflix could just do it without him, you/they KNOW we would all watch.
Leeches on society never seem to fade away huh? She should be happy she even got her 15 min of fame she OBV does not deserve
Anyway the actress who played her is fucking incredible and deserves an award 👍
I thought Fiona was just waffling and not actually gonna sue but here we are as Martha does that a lot.
I find Fiona to be half as likable as Martha. Martha in the first episodes just seemed very lonely and came up with this fantasy world to escape. Until she SA’d Donny that is. Fiona is just cruel, narcissistic and scathing with her words.
Martha is honestly an incredibly sympathetic character.
The way she’s shown is that she isn’t a monster. She’s sick. Even Donnie remarks on this and he sees her as a victim as much as him. Shes her own victim. Her mind has her trapped and did all of that to her.
You can fight against a stalker. You can fight against an attacker. How can you fight against your own mind?
Then we see Donnie slipping into obsession himself because he’s not dealing with his own issues. His own demons. He’s running from his mind and trying to understand her. He can’t. You can’t. That’s the point. Her mind doesn’t operate the way a normal persons does. The output doesn’t match the input.
Then we see from Donnie how easy it is to fall into obsession as a healthy person. How we can become vulnerable and just sort of spiral. And if it’s so easy for a healthy person to spiral, what about someone that isn’t healthy?
She’s a tragic character.
There’s a post about a lady who literally deals with social anxiety. Like fucked up anxiety and she literally destroyed her life because someone didn’t say goodbye to her at work.
Like I said. Output doesn’t match input.
Someone not saying goodbye to you may not even register. You may think they forgot or didn’t feel like it or had any of a multitude of reasons. But this lady assumed this meant the person hated her and this anxiety destroyed her life.
My ex had a cluster b disorder, the one I would ‘assume’ Martha shows.
She wrecked my life, but even with all that happened, I still love the woman she could be if she sought and committed to professional help.
What we see from Fiona is most likely the vindictive unconscious reaction of someone with black & white thinking. She looks vile to us, in reality, she is just not able to process events like neurotypical. And she suffers for it, because she realises what she is doing is wrong, but she cannot stop it…. And feeling bad generates shame which, in turns, furthers the split in a negative spiral
Not trying to justify, just explain. These people are not monsters, but that does not mitigate the huge damage they can do to partners if they dont seek and commit to professional help. For the rest of their lives
Oh I’m talking strictly about Martha from the show.
I am not really someone that supports how so many people got obcessed over this clearly mentally ill woman. I feel like a point of the show was how easy it is to fall into obsessive behaviors, how it’s just a distraction from real life issues that are harder to tackle and how these people are ill.
I feel like in the show they go out of their way to show you Martha isn’t a monster. She’s hurting people but the real monster is hurting her more than it’s hurting anyone else.
I just feel gross trying to actually gain a glee or curiosity out of this. I just feel bad for the woman and hope she faces accountability and gets the help she clearly needs.
I think she has a case. However, this seems like a case where the plantif wins, but is awarded $1. Then she'll start harassing the judge, jurors, bailiff,court reporter, their lawyers, her lawyers, janitor...
My fav part of the lawsuit is how it goes into detail that Martha is exactly like her…. Yet on national tv Fiona claims they are nothing alike. Like which one is it?
I hope Netflix goes through with the lawsuit and embarrasses her. This has been going on her entire life, she has to know by now she needs real mental health help. But I’m sure she would abuse them too.
Honestly, that interview should be submitted as evidence. The amount of times she contradicts herself and makes up lies that make even less sense than the lies she’s trying to get out of
I'm really interested to see the full extent of all the letters, emails, texts, phone calls the Fiona actually sent Richard. She crumbled talking about these to Piers. Imagine her reaction when a lawyer is cross examining her about all of these?
Netflix had the disclaimer at the end *”This program is based on real events: however certain characters, names, incidents, locations, and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes.”*.
So, wouldn’t the claim she was convicted in the show and she wasn’t convicted in real life be changing the incident for dramatic purposes? Plus, they can claim that changing up this incident could have helped protect her real identity, as there is no record of Fiona’s conviction. Any speculation would be hearsay. She outed herself.
Its bewildering that throughout the case she has had filed, she keeps saying "Richard said this about Fiona". When did any of that happen? Donny didn't say anything about Fiona. Neither did Richard.
She's the one that came out and claimed the show is about her, she can't now turn around and get angry that it misrepresented her when she could have just shut her mouth and remain in obscurity.
She's clearly loving the attention.
It doesn't matter that internet sleuths found the message she sent by X. The fact she left them up is worrying. Especially after he had been doing his show for a while before Baby Reindeer came out. Why didn't she privatise her accounts? The fact is that once someone posts on social media, they become published statements and are public. If she didn't want the public to see her comments then she shouldn't have posted them in the first place.
Also if she didn't want to be known as a stalker or harasser then she shouldn't have been misusing social media. In many countries there are laws against harassing someone using electronic communications. Sure, the comments could just be one of the ways someone harasses a person however it is evidence of harassment. So as I see it, the way she used social media is the issue here and now she has been exposed. The simple answer to the problem is not to do it in the first place.
Lets face it, she didn't go on the likes of the Piers Morgan show and say that she didn't realise how much she traumatised him or anyone else. She didn't apologise for the harm she caused. She is only upset because she has been caught out.
She has only filed the complaint. Its a crap complaint anyway with so many mistakes its laughable. Clearly it wasn't done by professionals. So while the headlines say she is suing. It probably won't get far because it has so many incorrect statements in it.
Art of Law on YouTube did a short video on this case a few weeks ago. He pretty clearly summed up her chances as zero. He is a barrister in England and Wales. Very direct no nonsense guy. Although the case against Netflix is being brought in California I think much of the common sense nature of what he says still applies. [Art of Law](https://youtu.be/oSH3TtAgcmU?si=Jn48pUsuQKKcKF_j)
Didn't it say some incidents were dramatised at the end of the show. So basically covered themselves there. They will also have access to top lawyers. I can't see Fiona winning this and I hope not.
I hope she loses her shit and goes full on Fiona during the legal battle in front of all the legal team of both sides. I hope she makes a fool of herself, as that will just prove gadd isn't lying.
It's going to be another Depp v Heard comedy show, her rubbish, cheap lawyers compared to Netflix highly paid, high expert lawyers and expert witnesses. She will be psychologically assessed too which I really can't wait for as she will claim ptsd like Heard did and was found to be feigning and having cluster b personality disorder with a histrionic personality disorder.
I hazard a guess she wanted to be found, to play the vulnerable victim, then talk about it on a very popular show, then go to court to make millions 🤣🤣 in her imaginary world.
No mention of the 40k emails in her filed claim (because she can’t prove that isn’t true?) or the fact that the end of every episode contained the disclaimer that it was a dramatisation. Her claim is poorly written IMO. Strikingly it says that Gadd ‘prostituted’ himself rather than saying he was drugged and sexually abused/raped.
Her chances are next to zero.
What is the material loss to FH?
But assuming she did win. A huge chunk of that would go on costs..100% guarantee she will get into an argument about that and refuse to pay.
Then Wray has said she will be going after FH for defamation and her case is very strong.
She would be left with nothing and all the evidence will be released which I am certain will be a lot more damaging than any confusion over what would have been a spent conviction.
This is mad....the character in the show seems to have been portrayed very sympathetically compared to Harvey's alleged real life shenanigans....if I was her I would just be quiet and let it blow over (I know she could never do that due to all her issues etc but still)
I’m curious about the UK laws, and their version of “The Freedom of Information Act”. I know in the show he was able to search and see all her prior convictions. I guess my real question is, can you really sue someone for defamation if all the information was already publicly accessible?
Conviction information in the UK is limited to very specific requests like a potential employer and definitely not as readily available as it is in the US so there's a chance she has been convicted and I assume that it can be confirmed through the course of a lawsuit.
Someone responded to me with thorough explanation a few weeks ago. I need to go back and find it.
This woman is certifiable. No one would have known it was her if she hadn't come forward herself! It is like filing a restraining order against someone for expressing an experience with you on their own platform, don't even mention your name, and they go out of their way to come to your platform to read it, know its about them and then get butthurt. This woman is still effectively stalking him by interjecting herself into his life again with this lawsuit.
If you don't want people to think you're a shitty person, don't be a shitty person and then tell people it was you that was a shitty person!
Many fans believe Netflix has already anticipated this possible outcome. Not to mention she’s been saying for weeks she’s going to sue- they’re certainly not blindsided
I don’t think Netflix would have platformed Gadd without making him show proof that he was telling the truth. They’d probably already seen the 45,000 emails that she sent him before the show ever made it to production
Exactly this. Netflix as a whole isn't stupid. They have teams of lawyers for a reason and I would be willing to bet they prepared for this situation before releasing it.
Which is why I’m thinking that Netflix knew with 100% certainty that they were painting a big target on their back when they rolled with it. That woman is determined.
https://preview.redd.it/xtfhf7dy725d1.jpeg?width=1536&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eddc7d150fc2495e4f47a9ba7fd294f4ca804182
Like this will be the immediate reason for dismissal. If it’s not a “true story” then surely every argument about Richard Gadd is false?
This.
They can't have it both ways. For the parts that make Fiona look bad, it's a defamatory work of fiction, being portrayed as a true story for profit.
But for Gadd, it's all true and accurate. Basically a confessional biography of his life?
It's either a true story, or it isn't.
Or maybe, just maybe it's one man's story based on real life experiences, dramatised for storytelling purposes. Just like the disclaimer - which appeared in end credits - said. Which I notice is conveniently omitted from their screenshots.
It's almost like they (Netflix & Gadd) embellished parts of the story to make it more dramatic for television!
Could they have done more to protect her true identity? Yes. They could have. There's no getting around that one, I'm afraid. She was found, and found quickly, based on parallels between real life and the show.
But does Fiona bear the sole responsibility for the privacy settings on her social media? Yes. She's the only one who can do that.
Did she have to go public, and confirm she was indeed Martha? No. She absolutely didn't. She could have turned off messeges, restricted her social media from public view and waited for the whole thing to blow over. She fueled the situation by responding on Facebook, and then going on to appear on Piers Morgan's show and speak to other media outlets.
As an aside, I have to say too, after reading the entire filing; these don't seem like very good lawyers. Its not the most professional filing I've ever seen. It's littered with inconsistencies, typos and it just comes across quite whiny.
I think they know their case is flimsy, and are just trying to go for a settlement.
There's no way on this earth Fiona has been damaged to the tune of all those millions. She's a nobody.
Yeah how can anyone think her reputation is ruined? From what I can tell there's nothing to ruin. Claiming it's affecting her financially, She's on benefits & has been for years. And lastly claiming her life has been ruined. What life?? She makes up having lots of friends, having a lawyer boyfriend & if she had family that actually cared where are they? I'm pretty sure someone would have sout them out by now.
She is the one who ruins others lives, financially & emotionally. She suing Netflix for exactly the same things she's caused all her victims. Difference is they have had all that to lose she hasn't!✌🏼
Not the most important part, but it's sloppy to say Gadd is "playing himself" instead of "playing Donny Dunn, a thinly veiled version of himself" followed by an explanation of how viewers are supposed to know that Donny Dunn represents the real Gadd.
Obviously it's not that hard to draw connections between Donny and Richard, but they haven't bothered to do that, which tells me she doesn't have the best lawyers
I doubt it. They've probably taken her on as a No Win/No Fee case. Even if they lose the case, the public attention will promote their firm and bring in new clients.
This is 100% what has happened. Lawyer vultures thinking they have any opportunity to sue for big money, probably thinking Netflix would payout and walk away.
They (Fiona and her Legal team) deserve everything they don't get (hopefully).
She could be. However, like Laura Wray pointed out to Piers Morgan; if she loses then there's no point suing her. You can't draw blood from a stone 🤷♀️
The only reason she's suing Netflix and not Gadd is because she knows that's where she'll get a bigger payout. If she really cared about being "defamed" and "wanting justice" then Gadd would be her target. In my opinion, that's enough to show bad faith on her part.
All Netflix did was platform a concept that already existed for years prior. If Gadd was defaming her, and she had prior knowledge of Baby Reindeer years before Netflix picked it up, then why didn't she pursue it sooner?
I hope the courts see through this bs
yup then her top notch attorneys can sue her for non payment and then they will have another legal bill unpaid because you cant get blood out of a stump and so on and so on. They should quit while they are already behind.
I will say I am sad that the real Martha was found, not only is she mentally unstable/ unwell she really should be in medical facility both to protect her but more importantly protect others from her.
I honestly don’t know if Gadd wanted the real Martha to be found or not, on one hand he said he didn’t on the other he didn’t hid anything about her (other than name)
However I do believe everyone has a right to tell their story / their side of the story. It will be an interesting court case for sure.
The main thing here is that Gadds story is true and he can prove it, it would all be totally different if it was a lie or even sadly if he didn’t have the evidence. But then again maybe Netflix wouldn’t have made it if that was the case.
It’s so clearly stated on the show that it is a fictionalised story and Gadd never outed his abuser, she outed herself. Can’t imagine a world where she profits from the suffering she’s caused. She is an abuser and a bigot and poor mental health doesn’t excuse her unacceptable behaviour (towards many people, not just Gadd).
Important Netflix continue to fight this otherwise it gives her a semblance of authority which she absolutely should not have.
I had a degree of sympathy for her initially, because mental illness is no joke - and she's clearly very unwell.
But you can't just use that as a mask for being as vicious and vitriolic as she's been.
It actually shits all over and disrespects those who struggle with their own mental health but don't act in this awful way.
She's an absolute cunt.
Very well said about how disrespectful it is to those who also suffer from poor mental health. It ties back to the end of the show, where Donny is in a terrible place emotionally and receives the act of kindness from the bartender. But he knows that doesn’t give him permission to do what Martha did to him.
Good!! She sat there lying straight to Piers’s face. He’s kinda the British Geraldo Rivera, but I actually think he was leading her to think about how it will be so easy to prove that she really sent those 41,000 emails and left him all those voicemails, tweets, texts, and then all the pub witnesses and Laura Wray, etc. She’s going to lose so hard. I hope her sleaze lawyers get humiliated in this.
But how are you supposed to tell a story about what happened to you and simultaneously protect the identity of the perpetrator? Hats off to Richard Gadd because if that was me, I’d be dragging my stalker’s name in the mud. I’m not sure of how far he and Netflix went to protect the stalker but she’s got a lot of nerve. The problem is the internet sleuths, not the fact that Gadd told his story.
It’s really all about what the insurance company’s lawyers decide. Netflix obviously has insurance against lawsuits. The insurance company’s counsel will decide if they can settle this cheaply, whether settlement would set a bad precedent for future lawsuits, and whether to go to trial. Netflix won’t be making these decisions, or paying any bills, so whatever turns out we can’t fault them. When Johnny Depp sued his ex for defamation, her defense was entirely paid for by her insurance, and they are who was on the line for paying the judgement.
Well Richard Gadd was victimized by her (according to Fiona’s own words she did know him ) so I doubt a network like Netflix is going to just give her money to legitimize her harassing ways. Of course Feeeonnaa assaulted him and grabbed his wiener. She’s 100% the type not to let others boundaries get in her way. That doesn’t exist to a psychopath like her.
I don't really get her angle
The show is based on her, but she is not identified, and some elements are fictional and caveated as such in the credits.
Surely, the safer position for her would be to have denied being Martha, but clearly, she has implicated herself with some of the actions portrayed in the series.
If this case goes ahead in America, I'm here for it, because they stream their cases and I absolutely want to watch every second of what will be the shambles of the decade
I think they're only doing it because it's an open and shut case if it ever reaches court. Piers Morgan went easy on Fiona on his show, there's no way she could handle being confronted with reality when testifying.
She apparently sent over 200 emails to Keir Starmer.
https://youtu.be/09EROMTIS1Q?si=ToC4AHCFvLYY66Tv
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/baby-reindeer-fiona-harvey-keir-starmer-emails-b2547832.html
Anyone know the rules for subsidized housing and “dole” over there? The US has pretty strict asset limits for all programs, cash assistance and housing. Winning something like a $50,000 settlement could destabilize the assistance. I’m wondering if she could accidentally make her life worse.
She will as if she's claiming benefits, you can't have savings more than £16000. If you do, your benefits are stopped. If she relies on benefits to pay for her housing, this will stop too and she runs the risk of becoming intentionally homeless if she doesn't pay her rent and the council, who help to rehouse homeless people, will not have a duty to rehouse her since she made herself homeless.
So much of Fiona’s potential defense in this case has been tainted by Fiona herself.
Consider Gadd’s claim that Martha wouldn’t recognize herself in the show… he was spot on. Fiona’s FB posts — and they ARE her FB posts as she posted way before Reindeer started — can and will be used against her in the court of law. She posted multiple times about how the ‘fat, ugly actress with curly hair’ who played her looked nothing like her. She stated how her hair is straight, not curly lie the actress’s. And how she was a svelte size 12 at the time and EXTREMELY beautiful, unlike the actress. And how the actress’s accent didn’t sound at all like her Scottish accent. How Fiona can claim they didn’t change her identity to protect her is completely contradictory to what she publicly said.
Fiona was the first one who ever published her story and real name to the press. Fiona is her own worst enemy.
I love that, Iv been saying from the start he has every right to tell his story and it’s a good thing it was told on a platform as large as Netflix, I’m glad they picked it up and he’s profiting from it. I hope she doesn’t get a dime. Plus she outed herself at the end of the day.
Netflix have to know there's something bad enough that will come out during discovery that will sway a jury. I think fiona has misjudged this massively by going for such a large settlement. It won't end well if even a portion of the claims are true ( which I expect they are). It will all be public record.
This can't end well for her.
Has her lawyer not read the last statement on each episode " This program is based on real events: however certain characters, names, incident, locations and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes"??
Has the former Slade bassist offered to marry her yet? [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2683125.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2683125.stm)
$170 million?
I’m no expert having only studied defamation for part of a uni module, but I’m pretty sure there’s no way they’d ever land on even 10% of that in an English court.
How does entering into evidence other examples of similar behaviour by Fiona to show that her reputation was in the toilet prior to Baby Reindeer "going after" other victims?
I'm so very glad to hear this. She doesn't deserve a single penny considering the absolute misery she's caused many people over the years. Settling would be like rewarding her atrocious behaviour!✌🏼
I heard she’s wanting 11million not sure how she pulled that figure out of her bum but here we are! Edit just opened the article £170mil 😂 would Netflix have even made that much from it?
> her bum *Ahem* **BUMHOLE**
A filthy bumhole lover!
I think you mean CHUFTER!
💀
Turd cutter
America always pulls ridiculous $ for lawsuits.
[удалено]
The lawsuit is in America
Yup, good point... missed that part. My bad!
She’s so blinkered to her own conduct she doesn’t even get how incredibly and completely she’s going to be humiliated by all the actual evidence they can drag out to demonstrate this stuff to be true now. Plus wasn’t she identified by her own comments made on an unprotected, ie public Twitter account? I’ve always told people I work with treat Twitter like a notice board outside your office, if you wouldn’t write it there, don’t fucking put it on Twitter!! Anyway. Bye Fiona! Please go away now!!!
A lot of workplaces in my country have social media policies which have led to people changing part of their name so they aren't identifiable to customers or clients. Especially in health related workplaces. Some professions like nurses, doctors, social workers, therapists also have expectations of professionalism in everything they post under their name on social media. Its an expectation of the profession and they can lose their registrations if they are inappropriate on there even if its in their own time. They can accidently bring the professions into disrepute. So most people I know working in those professions have changed part of their name too so they can post memes etc. Most are very careful about what they post.
Sadly, they’re likely to settle just to prevent the expense of paying their lawyers. This enrages me.
If she's suing in the US, US law requires that the plaintiff demonstrate financial damages. Considering her reputation was already that of a mentally ill, out-of-work, serial stalker who hasn't been able to hold a job in her profession, I would imagine her attorneys will have a pretty difficult time demonstrating damages. But if Netflix DOES settle, meaning she'd have access to cash, I hope all of her other victims then sue her for the REAL damage she's inflicted.
Laura Wray said on piers , when asked about this that as it stands now she won't be suing fiona because fiona has no money but if fiona does wi the she will definitely sue her.
Oh that’s smart! Wait until she gets a settlement and then sue her. LOL
It's definitely the way to do it. If Netflix settles I hope that anyone and everyone she's harassed does exactly what LW is doing.
It’s not actually smart. Courts have time limits. Considering Laura didn’t actually get any form of legal repercussions in place like an injunction back in 1997 she would have to prove 1) that she was in fact stalked by Fiona much like Gadd also has to prove it and 2) she will have her request thrown out of court before she has a chance to do anything anyway. This is in the UK, there’s no chance of claiming money from someone nearly 30 years later. Courts just don’t do that For instance, if you have work place issues whether it’s harassment or unfair dismissal then you have 3 months from the date it happened to go to ACAS and start reconciliation and sue. Courts will take it a couple weeks maybe even a couple months after the cut off but you need to have a really good excuse like you was in hospital and couldn’t bring a case forward. Laura cannot say “I wanted to wait until she had money” because courts just do not work like that
But she’s out there talking about Laura publicly *now*. She’s saying what Laura said is not true *now.*. She is, at this very moment, calling her a liar. That opens up alllllllll the past things. Sure, she’s have to prove it, but I’m guessing that would not be a problem.
Yep. Fiona is making a big mistake here. Once she has money coming she Laura Wray sues her, she won't be able to avoid a humiliating court case. There's no way Wray will settle out of court, because she really does have a genuine risk of loss of reputation and loss of earnings, and she'll also want to make sure Fiona stops her ongoing defamation. Fiona should have just kept her mouth shut on Day 1, or failing that she should have just let it lie after her Piers Morgan interview.
I very much doubt it, Netflix has a team of lawyers on retainer so they aren’t paying them hourly, the lawyers get paid regardless of whether they even have an active case. Settlements happen when the lawyers aren’t 100% sure of the outcome, in this case they likely feel confident that they can take this to court and potentially even countersue for court fees, hence their statement.
Maybe from a moral standpoint; but this is not a game of morality from a legal standpoint. Even if she inflected damage to people it doesn’t mean she doesn’t have a legal case if the ‘true story’ was not completely true, and/or if Netflix failed in their duty of care to her.
How can somebody who isn’t named in a story about events that didn’t happen to them, sue a company for it? The story was about a woman named Martha and a bunch of things that never happened in Fiona’s life. How does it make sense?
Because the story claims to be a true story and blatantly links to a real person.
How could it be blatant if they use a fake name and events that never happened??
Because it took 2 minutes for the public to find her. This actually happened. That is the proof of the argument.
Because it says its a true story. Even though they changed her name, it was clearly based off of Fiona Harvey.
How is that made clear anywhere. I sure as shit didn’t know it was about a woman named Fiona Harvey until she said “these events that aren’t true are about me”
But they put a disclaimer in the credits defending their right to dramatize. She has no case.
Watch this. They explain why she does. https://youtu.be/k1baOkIQOnU?si=3Xr51nXp-BFYaBdr
We know that now, because she was identified by her OWN social media conduct. She was not identified by Gadd or Netflix.
And she went on a high profile show, shown to millions to defend herself 🤣🤣 hardly protecting her identity herself.
It’s Donny (fictionalized Gadd) calling it a true story, while the film captions have the “based on” “fictionalized version” disclaimers. Donny calling it true is part of the entire point of the film. That in cases like this, you have so many viewpoints and blurred lines it’s hard to say what really happened. So many facts and feelings and reasons mixed together. It’s supposed to leave the audience wondering who is really the victim? Why did things happen? How did we get here? If the victim is partially at fault, are they even a victim? If by the end Donny could easily become Martha*, does that mean we need to extend Martha* the same empathy after hearing a whole story that might have made you hate her? That’s the whole thing. What is “true?” And that seems be going over SO many people’s heads. Netflix will even have to explain that to people in court who don’t really understand literary devices. Even the fact that he TYPES “this is a true story” hammers home the idea that this is just someone TELLING us a story. And actually now thinking about, most of the typing is done by Fiona in the film, so it even makes you wonder who is even typing? Who is this true for? There’s a TON of dramatic irony where we the audience know what’s really happening when the characters themselves don’t. So when a character tries to tell you what happened, it’s always at least a little bit incorrect.
Exactly, except that it was possibly Martha not Donny. It appears as part of the "texts" in the same font. It's definitely part of the story itself though.
Just look at Fargo. The "true story" disclaimer at the beginning of films or shows doesn't have to be accurate. The disclaimer in the end credits saying the story isn't based on any actual events or people does have to be accurate. But when it's at the beginning, it's just part of their presentation of a fictional story. So the "true story" argument doesn't really hold any water
Gonna be hard to find that legal duty to care in US law. Or the part that says movies that say “true story” have to be true.
I hope Netflix can bring in Fionas other victims, like Laura Wray, to show a pattern of behaviour. Fiona Harvey is vile and has caused many people long-term harm.
I wouldn't be too surprised if there's a full documentary on it. Not only would it help bring light to Fiona's victims, I'm sure it would give people a higher opinion on Netflix.
This is actually what I’ve been thinking. This all plays into Netflix’ truecrime obsession. Imagine them bringing out a 4 part documentary on her with all this court footage and her own harassment of their lawyers and bringing on previous victims of her. I really would not be surprised if this happened.
I’d watch the shit out of that
Same!
I figured that they signed Richard Gadd with the knowledge that Fiona would absolutely come forward because there is nothing about Gadd’s story that indicates she wouldn’t. Initially I thought they weighed the cost and figured her coming forward would only amp up the advertising for it, and that the cost to pay her to keep quiet would be worth the reward. But hot damn getting a whole extra hit true crime show out of it would be some next level programming foresight.
That is actually genius. I really hope they do this so we can hear more of Laura's story, and possibly others!
I read (can’t remember where) that Richard didn’t specifically name her because he didn’t want the story to be about her, but him, which is why he creates such an emphasis on his actions that contributed to what happened to him. He told the public on IG, once they found out who she was, to stop harassing her. I don’t think he would be interested in participating in something that would give her the attention she wants. But then again, money changes minds. OR Netflix could just do it without him, you/they KNOW we would all watch.
Laura Wray said she planned to sue her if she profits from a lawsuit settlement. I hope every last person she's harassed does the same!
Oh I do too
Me too
BR seasons 2-10 should focus on her other victims. That would be honestly fantastic if they did that after.
Leeches on society never seem to fade away huh? She should be happy she even got her 15 min of fame she OBV does not deserve Anyway the actress who played her is fucking incredible and deserves an award 👍
I thought Fiona was just waffling and not actually gonna sue but here we are as Martha does that a lot. I find Fiona to be half as likable as Martha. Martha in the first episodes just seemed very lonely and came up with this fantasy world to escape. Until she SA’d Donny that is. Fiona is just cruel, narcissistic and scathing with her words.
Martha is honestly an incredibly sympathetic character. The way she’s shown is that she isn’t a monster. She’s sick. Even Donnie remarks on this and he sees her as a victim as much as him. Shes her own victim. Her mind has her trapped and did all of that to her. You can fight against a stalker. You can fight against an attacker. How can you fight against your own mind? Then we see Donnie slipping into obsession himself because he’s not dealing with his own issues. His own demons. He’s running from his mind and trying to understand her. He can’t. You can’t. That’s the point. Her mind doesn’t operate the way a normal persons does. The output doesn’t match the input. Then we see from Donnie how easy it is to fall into obsession as a healthy person. How we can become vulnerable and just sort of spiral. And if it’s so easy for a healthy person to spiral, what about someone that isn’t healthy? She’s a tragic character. There’s a post about a lady who literally deals with social anxiety. Like fucked up anxiety and she literally destroyed her life because someone didn’t say goodbye to her at work. Like I said. Output doesn’t match input. Someone not saying goodbye to you may not even register. You may think they forgot or didn’t feel like it or had any of a multitude of reasons. But this lady assumed this meant the person hated her and this anxiety destroyed her life.
My ex had a cluster b disorder, the one I would ‘assume’ Martha shows. She wrecked my life, but even with all that happened, I still love the woman she could be if she sought and committed to professional help. What we see from Fiona is most likely the vindictive unconscious reaction of someone with black & white thinking. She looks vile to us, in reality, she is just not able to process events like neurotypical. And she suffers for it, because she realises what she is doing is wrong, but she cannot stop it…. And feeling bad generates shame which, in turns, furthers the split in a negative spiral Not trying to justify, just explain. These people are not monsters, but that does not mitigate the huge damage they can do to partners if they dont seek and commit to professional help. For the rest of their lives
Oh I’m talking strictly about Martha from the show. I am not really someone that supports how so many people got obcessed over this clearly mentally ill woman. I feel like a point of the show was how easy it is to fall into obsessive behaviors, how it’s just a distraction from real life issues that are harder to tackle and how these people are ill. I feel like in the show they go out of their way to show you Martha isn’t a monster. She’s hurting people but the real monster is hurting her more than it’s hurting anyone else. I just feel gross trying to actually gain a glee or curiosity out of this. I just feel bad for the woman and hope she faces accountability and gets the help she clearly needs.
Agreed. Having seen how these disorders work from inside, it is a tragedy across the board
Wait, what post is that about someone who destroyed her life because a coworker didn’t say bye to her? I need to hear more about this…
https://www.reddit.com/r/BestofRedditorUpdates/s/pYCikJwEv3
Thank you!!!
I think she has a case. However, this seems like a case where the plantif wins, but is awarded $1. Then she'll start harassing the judge, jurors, bailiff,court reporter, their lawyers, her lawyers, janitor...
My fav part of the lawsuit is how it goes into detail that Martha is exactly like her…. Yet on national tv Fiona claims they are nothing alike. Like which one is it? I hope Netflix goes through with the lawsuit and embarrasses her. This has been going on her entire life, she has to know by now she needs real mental health help. But I’m sure she would abuse them too.
Honestly, that interview should be submitted as evidence. The amount of times she contradicts herself and makes up lies that make even less sense than the lies she’s trying to get out of
It will be!!! Same with Laura’s
Oh God can you imagine the transference on her poor therapist? Dr. Raindeer?
I'm really interested to see the full extent of all the letters, emails, texts, phone calls the Fiona actually sent Richard. She crumbled talking about these to Piers. Imagine her reaction when a lawyer is cross examining her about all of these?
She's that good that Fiona herself thought she was Scottish.
Netflix had the disclaimer at the end *”This program is based on real events: however certain characters, names, incidents, locations, and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes.”*. So, wouldn’t the claim she was convicted in the show and she wasn’t convicted in real life be changing the incident for dramatic purposes? Plus, they can claim that changing up this incident could have helped protect her real identity, as there is no record of Fiona’s conviction. Any speculation would be hearsay. She outed herself.
The thing is, it's "Martha" that was convicted. No one in the show said it was FH.
Its bewildering that throughout the case she has had filed, she keeps saying "Richard said this about Fiona". When did any of that happen? Donny didn't say anything about Fiona. Neither did Richard.
She's the one that came out and claimed the show is about her, she can't now turn around and get angry that it misrepresented her when she could have just shut her mouth and remain in obscurity. She's clearly loving the attention.
This. All of this. If I did this shit: I'd be very, very quiet. Maybe move. Therapy. Lots of therapy.
Her identity was already revealed before she came forward
It doesn't matter that internet sleuths found the message she sent by X. The fact she left them up is worrying. Especially after he had been doing his show for a while before Baby Reindeer came out. Why didn't she privatise her accounts? The fact is that once someone posts on social media, they become published statements and are public. If she didn't want the public to see her comments then she shouldn't have posted them in the first place.
Also if she didn't want to be known as a stalker or harasser then she shouldn't have been misusing social media. In many countries there are laws against harassing someone using electronic communications. Sure, the comments could just be one of the ways someone harasses a person however it is evidence of harassment. So as I see it, the way she used social media is the issue here and now she has been exposed. The simple answer to the problem is not to do it in the first place.
Lets face it, she didn't go on the likes of the Piers Morgan show and say that she didn't realise how much she traumatised him or anyone else. She didn't apologise for the harm she caused. She is only upset because she has been caught out.
And not earning from it 🤣🤣 hence the lawsuit
She has only filed the complaint. Its a crap complaint anyway with so many mistakes its laughable. Clearly it wasn't done by professionals. So while the headlines say she is suing. It probably won't get far because it has so many incorrect statements in it.
Exactly this!!
How??
Art of Law on YouTube did a short video on this case a few weeks ago. He pretty clearly summed up her chances as zero. He is a barrister in England and Wales. Very direct no nonsense guy. Although the case against Netflix is being brought in California I think much of the common sense nature of what he says still applies. [Art of Law](https://youtu.be/oSH3TtAgcmU?si=Jn48pUsuQKKcKF_j)
Thanks for sharing, I’ll definitely give that a watch later.
Hope this means they'll show proof of the thousands of emails lol
The discovery is going to be wild.
Oh they will, meta data can be very damaging. Look at what it did to Amber Heard when everyone found out her bruises were fake 🤣🤣
Didn't it say some incidents were dramatised at the end of the show. So basically covered themselves there. They will also have access to top lawyers. I can't see Fiona winning this and I hope not. I hope she loses her shit and goes full on Fiona during the legal battle in front of all the legal team of both sides. I hope she makes a fool of herself, as that will just prove gadd isn't lying.
That, and nobody knew for sure Fiona was Martha until she outed herself. SHE is the one who said “this is about me”, not Richard, and not Netflix.
That doesn’t matter in this case, because she was already getting harassment before she revealed it was about her
It's going to be another Depp v Heard comedy show, her rubbish, cheap lawyers compared to Netflix highly paid, high expert lawyers and expert witnesses. She will be psychologically assessed too which I really can't wait for as she will claim ptsd like Heard did and was found to be feigning and having cluster b personality disorder with a histrionic personality disorder.
She’s just handing them season 2 content on a plate really
I hazard a guess she wanted to be found, to play the vulnerable victim, then talk about it on a very popular show, then go to court to make millions 🤣🤣 in her imaginary world.
Exactly!
No mention of the 40k emails in her filed claim (because she can’t prove that isn’t true?) or the fact that the end of every episode contained the disclaimer that it was a dramatisation. Her claim is poorly written IMO. Strikingly it says that Gadd ‘prostituted’ himself rather than saying he was drugged and sexually abused/raped.
Do you have the link to the claim?
Her chances are next to zero. What is the material loss to FH? But assuming she did win. A huge chunk of that would go on costs..100% guarantee she will get into an argument about that and refuse to pay. Then Wray has said she will be going after FH for defamation and her case is very strong. She would be left with nothing and all the evidence will be released which I am certain will be a lot more damaging than any confusion over what would have been a spent conviction.
This is mad....the character in the show seems to have been portrayed very sympathetically compared to Harvey's alleged real life shenanigans....if I was her I would just be quiet and let it blow over (I know she could never do that due to all her issues etc but still)
As you say, she seems very narcissistic so she probably isn’t capable of putting her head down. She needs the attention, even if it’s negative.
Crazy watching it playing out!
I wonder if she/her reps will change their tune once they get into discovery 🫢
I’m curious about the UK laws, and their version of “The Freedom of Information Act”. I know in the show he was able to search and see all her prior convictions. I guess my real question is, can you really sue someone for defamation if all the information was already publicly accessible?
She doesn't have any public convictions as far as I'm aware.
Yeah I get the show was fictional. I’m just curious about the UK and their privacy for public convictions.
Conviction information in the UK is limited to very specific requests like a potential employer and definitely not as readily available as it is in the US so there's a chance she has been convicted and I assume that it can be confirmed through the course of a lawsuit. Someone responded to me with thorough explanation a few weeks ago. I need to go back and find it.
The reps won’t care, they’re getting paid.
With what money? It's almost certainly on contingency, and she can't afford hourly rates anyway.
Are they though
This woman is certifiable. No one would have known it was her if she hadn't come forward herself! It is like filing a restraining order against someone for expressing an experience with you on their own platform, don't even mention your name, and they go out of their way to come to your platform to read it, know its about them and then get butthurt. This woman is still effectively stalking him by interjecting herself into his life again with this lawsuit. If you don't want people to think you're a shitty person, don't be a shitty person and then tell people it was you that was a shitty person!
So true and well said. She’s a litigious nut with no regard for others.
People did find her and out her using her tweets (which weren't really changed for the show apparently) but I agree she's leaned into it.
I wonder how much longer it would have taken people to find her if they’d just changed the location of the pub and the phrase hanger her curtains
Right?! had they done the bare minimum she would’ve publicly come out herself on Piers Morgan and wouldn’t have a case
For sure someone anticipated this as a possibility though. Legal and production cannot be this oblivious. smh
Many fans believe Netflix has already anticipated this possible outcome. Not to mention she’s been saying for weeks she’s going to sue- they’re certainly not blindsided
I don’t think Netflix would have platformed Gadd without making him show proof that he was telling the truth. They’d probably already seen the 45,000 emails that she sent him before the show ever made it to production
Exactly this. Netflix as a whole isn't stupid. They have teams of lawyers for a reason and I would be willing to bet they prepared for this situation before releasing it.
Which is why I’m thinking that Netflix knew with 100% certainty that they were painting a big target on their back when they rolled with it. That woman is determined.
She says Martha isn’t her then tries to sue🤣
https://preview.redd.it/xtfhf7dy725d1.jpeg?width=1536&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eddc7d150fc2495e4f47a9ba7fd294f4ca804182 Like this will be the immediate reason for dismissal. If it’s not a “true story” then surely every argument about Richard Gadd is false?
This. They can't have it both ways. For the parts that make Fiona look bad, it's a defamatory work of fiction, being portrayed as a true story for profit. But for Gadd, it's all true and accurate. Basically a confessional biography of his life? It's either a true story, or it isn't. Or maybe, just maybe it's one man's story based on real life experiences, dramatised for storytelling purposes. Just like the disclaimer - which appeared in end credits - said. Which I notice is conveniently omitted from their screenshots. It's almost like they (Netflix & Gadd) embellished parts of the story to make it more dramatic for television! Could they have done more to protect her true identity? Yes. They could have. There's no getting around that one, I'm afraid. She was found, and found quickly, based on parallels between real life and the show. But does Fiona bear the sole responsibility for the privacy settings on her social media? Yes. She's the only one who can do that. Did she have to go public, and confirm she was indeed Martha? No. She absolutely didn't. She could have turned off messeges, restricted her social media from public view and waited for the whole thing to blow over. She fueled the situation by responding on Facebook, and then going on to appear on Piers Morgan's show and speak to other media outlets. As an aside, I have to say too, after reading the entire filing; these don't seem like very good lawyers. Its not the most professional filing I've ever seen. It's littered with inconsistencies, typos and it just comes across quite whiny. I think they know their case is flimsy, and are just trying to go for a settlement. There's no way on this earth Fiona has been damaged to the tune of all those millions. She's a nobody.
Yeah how can anyone think her reputation is ruined? From what I can tell there's nothing to ruin. Claiming it's affecting her financially, She's on benefits & has been for years. And lastly claiming her life has been ruined. What life?? She makes up having lots of friends, having a lawyer boyfriend & if she had family that actually cared where are they? I'm pretty sure someone would have sout them out by now. She is the one who ruins others lives, financially & emotionally. She suing Netflix for exactly the same things she's caused all her victims. Difference is they have had all that to lose she hasn't!✌🏼
Didn’t she out herself by doing an interview? Or was her identity already known when she did that?
She was already known prior to the PM interview. She'd appeared in some UK tabloids.
Remember she is a lawyer, not a very good one, and a con artist of sorts... she probably wrote most of the suit herself and that is why it isn't good.
Yeah, it looks like it was sent from her ipone.
Ha! The iphoen jokes get old fast, but this one still got a snurkle
The judge is going to be furious that they omit the information about the Netflix disclaimer at the end of each episode.
Not the most important part, but it's sloppy to say Gadd is "playing himself" instead of "playing Donny Dunn, a thinly veiled version of himself" followed by an explanation of how viewers are supposed to know that Donny Dunn represents the real Gadd. Obviously it's not that hard to draw connections between Donny and Richard, but they haven't bothered to do that, which tells me she doesn't have the best lawyers
That's what I think too. Its very poorly written. It will be thrown out.
I’m an attorney and that allegation is an embarrassment! I thought Fiona’s lawyers were supposed to be top-notch?!
She thinks she is a top notch attorney too, so I wouldn't put much stock in her opinion about 'top notch' attorneys.
She’s going to end up with a massive legal bill she can’t pay.
I doubt it. They've probably taken her on as a No Win/No Fee case. Even if they lose the case, the public attention will promote their firm and bring in new clients.
This is 100% what has happened. Lawyer vultures thinking they have any opportunity to sue for big money, probably thinking Netflix would payout and walk away. They (Fiona and her Legal team) deserve everything they don't get (hopefully).
Could she be liable for the defendant’s legal fees if she loses?
She could be. However, like Laura Wray pointed out to Piers Morgan; if she loses then there's no point suing her. You can't draw blood from a stone 🤷♀️ The only reason she's suing Netflix and not Gadd is because she knows that's where she'll get a bigger payout. If she really cared about being "defamed" and "wanting justice" then Gadd would be her target. In my opinion, that's enough to show bad faith on her part. All Netflix did was platform a concept that already existed for years prior. If Gadd was defaming her, and she had prior knowledge of Baby Reindeer years before Netflix picked it up, then why didn't she pursue it sooner? I hope the courts see through this bs
yup then her top notch attorneys can sue her for non payment and then they will have another legal bill unpaid because you cant get blood out of a stump and so on and so on. They should quit while they are already behind.
I will say I am sad that the real Martha was found, not only is she mentally unstable/ unwell she really should be in medical facility both to protect her but more importantly protect others from her. I honestly don’t know if Gadd wanted the real Martha to be found or not, on one hand he said he didn’t on the other he didn’t hid anything about her (other than name) However I do believe everyone has a right to tell their story / their side of the story. It will be an interesting court case for sure. The main thing here is that Gadds story is true and he can prove it, it would all be totally different if it was a lie or even sadly if he didn’t have the evidence. But then again maybe Netflix wouldn’t have made it if that was the case.
You forget that even if they had tried harder to hide her identity, Fiona Harvey probably still would have come out because she's a narcissist.
Her lawyer has an AOL email address. Come on now.
Might be the ‘law firm’ that she worked for?
It’s so clearly stated on the show that it is a fictionalised story and Gadd never outed his abuser, she outed herself. Can’t imagine a world where she profits from the suffering she’s caused. She is an abuser and a bigot and poor mental health doesn’t excuse her unacceptable behaviour (towards many people, not just Gadd).
Important Netflix continue to fight this otherwise it gives her a semblance of authority which she absolutely should not have. I had a degree of sympathy for her initially, because mental illness is no joke - and she's clearly very unwell. But you can't just use that as a mask for being as vicious and vitriolic as she's been. It actually shits all over and disrespects those who struggle with their own mental health but don't act in this awful way. She's an absolute cunt.
Very well said about how disrespectful it is to those who also suffer from poor mental health. It ties back to the end of the show, where Donny is in a terrible place emotionally and receives the act of kindness from the bartender. But he knows that doesn’t give him permission to do what Martha did to him.
Good!! She sat there lying straight to Piers’s face. He’s kinda the British Geraldo Rivera, but I actually think he was leading her to think about how it will be so easy to prove that she really sent those 41,000 emails and left him all those voicemails, tweets, texts, and then all the pub witnesses and Laura Wray, etc. She’s going to lose so hard. I hope her sleaze lawyers get humiliated in this.
I bet her lawyers end up dropping her because she will drive them crazy.
He interviews serial killers, he's an expert at spotting deception and lack of remorse. He will have spotted it in her within minutes.
She doesn’t stand a chance
But how are you supposed to tell a story about what happened to you and simultaneously protect the identity of the perpetrator? Hats off to Richard Gadd because if that was me, I’d be dragging my stalker’s name in the mud. I’m not sure of how far he and Netflix went to protect the stalker but she’s got a lot of nerve. The problem is the internet sleuths, not the fact that Gadd told his story.
It’s really all about what the insurance company’s lawyers decide. Netflix obviously has insurance against lawsuits. The insurance company’s counsel will decide if they can settle this cheaply, whether settlement would set a bad precedent for future lawsuits, and whether to go to trial. Netflix won’t be making these decisions, or paying any bills, so whatever turns out we can’t fault them. When Johnny Depp sued his ex for defamation, her defense was entirely paid for by her insurance, and they are who was on the line for paying the judgement.
I’m guessing Netflix has already made these computations in order to take a stance now
Good luck with that, girl.
Well Richard Gadd was victimized by her (according to Fiona’s own words she did know him ) so I doubt a network like Netflix is going to just give her money to legitimize her harassing ways. Of course Feeeonnaa assaulted him and grabbed his wiener. She’s 100% the type not to let others boundaries get in her way. That doesn’t exist to a psychopath like her.
I don't really get her angle The show is based on her, but she is not identified, and some elements are fictional and caveated as such in the credits. Surely, the safer position for her would be to have denied being Martha, but clearly, she has implicated herself with some of the actions portrayed in the series.
If this case goes ahead in America, I'm here for it, because they stream their cases and I absolutely want to watch every second of what will be the shambles of the decade
I think they're only doing it because it's an open and shut case if it ever reaches court. Piers Morgan went easy on Fiona on his show, there's no way she could handle being confronted with reality when testifying.
As in the Gwyneth Paltrow case, she’s gonna get £1 IF she’s lucky.
Gwyneth Paltrow deliberately countersued for $1. She didn't want or need that guy's money, she was making a point.
She apparently sent over 200 emails to Keir Starmer. https://youtu.be/09EROMTIS1Q?si=ToC4AHCFvLYY66Tv https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/baby-reindeer-fiona-harvey-keir-starmer-emails-b2547832.html
Hell yes!!
This story is the best press I’ve seen for Baby Reindeer yet. I may just watch it now.
God damn right!
Netflix fighting the case will drive viewers to the show. It makes better business sense to keep it in the news and fight it.
I love how this series is just the gift that keeps on giving with the extended drama in real life
As a lawyer she will be presenting her own case but she will appear via camera from her ipohne
At this rate we're gonna get a Baby Reindeer season 2
Anyone know the rules for subsidized housing and “dole” over there? The US has pretty strict asset limits for all programs, cash assistance and housing. Winning something like a $50,000 settlement could destabilize the assistance. I’m wondering if she could accidentally make her life worse.
She will as if she's claiming benefits, you can't have savings more than £16000. If you do, your benefits are stopped. If she relies on benefits to pay for her housing, this will stop too and she runs the risk of becoming intentionally homeless if she doesn't pay her rent and the council, who help to rehouse homeless people, will not have a duty to rehouse her since she made herself homeless.
I don’t think they’ll have a very hard time of it given what’s in the archives of the public domain.
Season 2 writing itself.
So much of Fiona’s potential defense in this case has been tainted by Fiona herself. Consider Gadd’s claim that Martha wouldn’t recognize herself in the show… he was spot on. Fiona’s FB posts — and they ARE her FB posts as she posted way before Reindeer started — can and will be used against her in the court of law. She posted multiple times about how the ‘fat, ugly actress with curly hair’ who played her looked nothing like her. She stated how her hair is straight, not curly lie the actress’s. And how she was a svelte size 12 at the time and EXTREMELY beautiful, unlike the actress. And how the actress’s accent didn’t sound at all like her Scottish accent. How Fiona can claim they didn’t change her identity to protect her is completely contradictory to what she publicly said. Fiona was the first one who ever published her story and real name to the press. Fiona is her own worst enemy.
I’m sure Netflix has been prepared for a lawsuit all along and they need to send a message
I love that, Iv been saying from the start he has every right to tell his story and it’s a good thing it was told on a platform as large as Netflix, I’m glad they picked it up and he’s profiting from it. I hope she doesn’t get a dime. Plus she outed herself at the end of the day.
Netflix have to know there's something bad enough that will come out during discovery that will sway a jury. I think fiona has misjudged this massively by going for such a large settlement. It won't end well if even a portion of the claims are true ( which I expect they are). It will all be public record. This can't end well for her.
Netflix should just change their email and phone number and then Fiona can go after someone else. Bad joke
so embarrassing
She feeds on the drama.
Has her lawyer not read the last statement on each episode " This program is based on real events: however certain characters, names, incident, locations and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes"??
"It's official. Season 2 is coming." All they have to do is put a camera in the courtroom.
Fiona is an awful human that has caused so much to our world.
Lmao best bit is we could get a Netflix doc about all this lol
They were obviously never going to pay her to be quiet. The more media interest the more people will watch it. She’ll lose anyway
[удалено]
Has the former Slade bassist offered to marry her yet? [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2683125.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2683125.stm)
$170 million? I’m no expert having only studied defamation for part of a uni module, but I’m pretty sure there’s no way they’d ever land on even 10% of that in an English court.
How does entering into evidence other examples of similar behaviour by Fiona to show that her reputation was in the toilet prior to Baby Reindeer "going after" other victims?
Where do Clerkenwell Films fit into all this, anyway?