The Baby Reindeer Legal DISASTER! Did Netflix Lie UNDER OATH?

Fiona Harvey, the real life Martha from Netflix' hit series, Baby Reindeer, continues to allege that the show has lied about her and defamed her. In an official letter to the media she has stated her intention to sue Netflix and Richard Gadd for spreading lies about her in the series. In the meantime, the Scottish National Party has asked Netflix to produce evidence that she was in fact convicted as they have stated under oath. But does she actually have a winnable case and has Netflix protected themselves sufficiently? Join me and my guest ‪@LegalBytesMedia‬ to find out now!
Check out my favorite books on how to read body language (affiliate links):
amzn.to/3TNNYdf
amzn.to/3Jmff3z
amzn.to/3QWbXYp
amzn.to/3orQNWF
Find me on:
TikTok: vm.tiktok.com/9X42QX/
Instagram: / spideyhypnosis
Facebook: / spideymagic
Follow Legal Bytes here:
/ @legalbytesmedia
Analysis of Piers Morgan/ Fiona Harvey Interview:
• Was BABY REINDEER A LI...
Fiona Harvey Media Letter:
thetab.com/uk/2024/05/21/fion...
MP Asks Netflix for Evidence
www.pedestrian.tv/entertainme....
Richard Gadd on "This Morning"
• 'Baby Reindeer' Creato...
Parliament Hearing Video:
• Baby Reindeer producer...
The Sun/ Times Article with Richard Gadd's Statement:
www.thesun.co.uk/tv/27702377/...
Netflix Article About Baby Reindeer Being Real
www.netflix.com/tudum/article...
TIMESTAMPS
01:58 Did Netflix Lie Under Oath?
06:40 Was Fiona Telling the Truth?
15:45 Can Fiona Sue Netflix?
27:57 Why Did She Say This?
#behavioralanalysis #behavioralpsychology #bodylanguage #howtoreadbodylanguage #psychology #thebehavioralarts #howtoreadpeople #fionaharvey #babyreindeer #piersmorgan #netflix #richardgadd

[@HydiHoeger]

Another excellent video. Good to see @legalbytes again. And not to get all nomdeplume on you but you are THE BEST.

[@TheBehavioralArts]

Lolol did you just use “nom de plume” as a way to describe making absolute statements??? 🤣 🤣!!!! You just won KZbin! Congrats Yeah I’m so glad Alyte can join us and make sense of all this. She’s awesome

[@HydiHoeger]

@@TheBehavioralArts I did what I had to do and I regret nothing.

[@thekeysman6760]

​@@BeaumirabelDid you mean to post a link?

[@thekeysman6760]

​​@@HydiHoegerTotal misuse of nom de plume, yeah! 😉

[@HydiHoeger]

@@thekeysman6760 Except when it isn't.

[@meggo329]

All of this is going to end up being season 2

[@badfairy9554]

They can put the Sir Keir Starmer emails in that one.

[@thekeysman6760]

😂 In which case, she can definitely sue and win!

[@ignacio4389]

I thought maybe they were going to make a second season talking about the abuser

[@iwona917]

Well, even if not, it is a free marketing and rating boost for the show. I think that many people who otherwise wouldn't even take a look watched it.

[@aurora_arumi]

Whether she has a case or not, in my opinion, publicly coming out with that interview was a very bad move on her part. She sent out those tweets and she is responsible for her actions. The more I think about it, the more I feel like she's shooting herself in the foot.

[@yanderevenom9793]

THANK YOU!!!!!

[@beaniecolleenie9155]

EXACTLY!

[@oksanaml9279]

Agree 👍

[@TheBehavioralArts]

Yeah I think you’re right. I also think that’s why her letter to the media is what it is. I think she’s cleaning up the interview and refocusing on what she can actually deny.

[@deegralak-roe]

Yes, and l'm glad she is 😊

[@elivelasquez9517]

question, when a show says "this is a true story" but has actors in it and is obviously NOT a documentary, isn't it automatically assumed to be dramatized ?

[@gail242]

Yes, if you have any type of intelligence. I am pretty sure most of us are aware that TV is for our entertainment.

[@HanChap2]

@@gail242 👏👏👏👏👏 Unfortunately, reading through a lot of these comments, there seems to be a worrying lack of Intelligence out there. There also seems to be an equal amount of humans who lack any kind of empathy. We live in a scary world.

[@SpikeLover1863]

@@gail242 there was a panel of people discussing "Baby Reindeer" with Piers Morgan on his YT channel. One man kept referring to the show as a "Docu-series" and actually called it a "documentary" at one point. I find it alarming that some people can't tell the difference between a TV drama and a documentary. "Baby Reindeer" was listed under the genre of TV Drama on Netflx.

[@Abi_81]

Didn't the tv series Fargo always start with "this is a true story"?

[@Perla120]

Exactly my thoughts!

[@judith346]

I love how kind and considerate Spidey is in everything he does, says, and expects.

[@thiccletics]

💯 super level headed and takes all angles into consideration.

[@thekeysman6760]

"Expects"? How so?

[@cyberbusker5079]

He is my favorite - even better than The Behavioral Panel

[@judith346]

@@thekeysman6760 starting at 14:06 minutes +

[@judith346]

@@thekeysman6760 14:00 minutes +

[@harryhill8543]

Will she sue? She already spent her life suing people, ask her local council.

[@tracyaf6084]

It’s never a good idea to get the attention of this type of person.

[@dshe8637]

Do you have references for that, Harry?

[@breezewayrecords]

Some thoughts: 1) the courtroom scene, if fictional, is Martha at her most sympathetic. It is a redemption of sorts. So for her to put all her chips on that point serves to reinforce her culpability in the rest of the tale, which reflects much more poorly on her. 2) on Piers, she said she wasn’t Martha, which was incongruent with any defamation claim. Her lawyers must have pointed that out to her when crafting her statement. 3) in the show, Donny discovers a previous stalker conviction, so if true, Netflix guy could be telling the truth when referring to “convicted stalker” and still allow for a fictional confession/conviction in Donny’s case. 4) perhaps the reason Netflix hasn’t provided any public evidence of Fiona’s conviction is that they don’t want to confirm her identity. After all, no one associated with the show has ID’d her. For all we know, they may have an NDA with her! 4) for me, her behavior on Piers and the released emails to Starmer absolutely comport with her portrayal on Baby Reindeer. I find Gadd’s writing to be deeply nuanced, layered, and very self effacing. He makes it clear that he sees the villain as mental illness, not Martha, and courageously shares his own - along with taking accountability for encouraging Martha at times.

[@jewdd1989]

Very good points, all of them! Very well laid out I might add. I’ve thought similar thoughts after watching about halfway or more but didn’t finish and then of course when the character was found in real life I decided to watch Piers Morgan’s interview and this channels analysis of it. I agree, multiple times throughout the show Gadd sympathizes even makes excuses for her bad behavior or blames the mental illness not the person, even blames himself and explains in depth why, etc. almost as though he were relaying a message to viewers and with the quick clips of the court room scenes, I agree show a disturbed, remorseful yet ill person which I’d think most can sympathize to some degree with and certainly the tone of the film was portrayed in an empathetic light of her. Two reasons I stopped watching was his continued inability to confront the situation by reaching help like police leading to his loved ones being targets and his excuses for her conduct. I find it very interesting she appeared on Piers Morgan! Firstly to reveal her identity as “the one” but perhaps she felt she had no choice but to, I don’t know enough of the backstories with this if she was harassed by viewers and pushed to outing herself or what her reason was. That interview was interesting and I don’t think it helped her image to the public. If anything there are things that seemed to coincide with her portrayal in the show, like you, there were too many similarities one for me being her ability to be innocent almost and unaware and then change almost drastically when confronted and then be so specific a lot like the show depicted her to be like. Which your last point that may be the most meaningful, his ability to tell such a detailed, nuanced and realistic story is so believable even to the ugliest parts that involved sexual incidents, etc. I know there are great writers in the world but it felt as though he lived it. Another reason I didn’t finish the show was the raw, emotionally disturbing aspects and the sexual misconduct. There were experience rich bits throughout that I wouldn’t imagine unless I’ve faced stalking or sexual abuse, etc. I don’t know but it’s an incredibly convincing and disturbing story real or not but one that leads me to think it happened for the most part. One thing I haven’t seen mentioned enough in general is Netflix and their history with documentaries and historical stories they’ve done. There are accusations of Netflix being misleading and even deceptive of actual events for views by using unethical tactics to depict a narrative they want the viewers to get. A great ie is their most famous Making a Murderer. Candace Owens covered those discrepancies in her own documentary which were pretty incredible and well rounded with interviews of those involved not just in the case but those personally affected, even giving a voice to those who believe in the man’s innocence and then the shows narratives of the evidence and how much bias was used in Netflix’s depiction of it. It’ll be interesting what comes out in the future not just about Netflix but about those involved in baby reindeer. I don’t put it past Netflix to be corrupt or use immoral tactics to sway viewers or get views but I also am suspicious of this woman just by her presence and behavior on Piers and because the story is so realistic with such unflattering and disturbing parts I can see a lot of truth in what was presented as well.

[@DokisKalin1]

Thank You! Point two is so important.

[@breezewayrecords]

Thanks. She really isn’t coming off well.

[@evandest1983]

Baby Reindeer Season 2 is writing itself live...

[@vickinator]

They NEVER said Fiona Harvey did anything! However, she clearly stalks and harasses people so not sure what the argument is about. Instead of a lawsuit the focus should be protecting the public from this person.

[@X.T.]

Had Gadd put false tweets, not depicted his stalker as best to his experience then it wouldn't be based truthfully on Richard's story. He owns his memories, received msgs and interactions with his stalker. Bottom line, had Fiona not outed herself, the world would not have factually known she was Martha based on the show alone and Netflix can't be responsible what netizens choose to research

[@mellyred1]

If she only saw him 3 or 4 times how would he know all these things about her? Multiple phones ,which she admitted ..too many to list. This lady came out of the woodwork to cash in. How about you sell the 'real' story to Netflix and make your own money.

[@Balletified]

“This is not a true story and it’s not based on me”. “I’m suing Netflix because they didn’t protect my identity in this show about what definitely did not happen and is not me”. Make it make sense…

[@CottonKandyCake]

She’s just re stalking him.. she can’t leave him alone.. The end..

[@chrissyscholl816]

But tbh he can't leave her alone either. And he even admitted to liking that attention she gave him even tho he didnt wanna be with her. And now he has been enjoying the attention he gets off of talking about her too... I don't get why it's not more about the r*pe. That was worse than the stalking tbh.

[@HanChap2]

​@@chrissyscholl816how do you know? Are you a survivor of rape AND a stalker? The damage by both is equal and horrific The aftermath of rape alters your psychi in similar ways to being stalked. But when being stalked you're in a prolonged state of fear, terror, hypervigilance, paranoia etc. neither is worse than the other and, for someone like myself who has lived experience of both (and my life blown apart) comments like the one you made, minimising someone's experience without truly understanding what it is like, is actually cruel and damaging.

[@therian_forever12]

Yes, this has all come about because of him, not her.

[@HanChap2]

​@@chrissyscholl816PS. When being stalked you turn into a kind of stalker yourself. You end up going into a worm hole trying to find out everything about this person who is making you live in a heightened state of fight or flight. Actually, I am incredibly grateful that you lack understanding of the situation because it's an actual horrendous nightmare to live through. But please don't judge what you don't understand. 😔

[@rwaneuin6259]

I like your comment.

[@cctrio1769]

“Based on the play ‘Baby Reindeer’ by Richard Gadd” is at the end of each episode just before it goes to the next episode. He said “This is a True Story” while he was talking as his character and that case can easily be made. Am I really so crazy to think they have no case here?

[@Kellyjellycones78]

If he was Richard Gadd and Netflix were presenting an entirely true story they would have used the real names of the characters! The argument Fiona is making is that certain parts aren't true, So would she have been happier if he had named the character Fiona and told the entire story 100% accurately? Fiona herself has confirmed that it is her being portrayed. Richard Gadd has not made any statements of confirmation regarding the identity of the Martha character. Obviously writers get an artistic licence to change names or embellish characters.

[@LoRosa0224]

I'll be the first to say I have only seen videos on KZbin and articles online but nowhere does it say that they said "this person is the real life Martha" it seems like she genuinely came out and kinda proved it herself by trying to disprove it. Just what I've seen tho🤷🏽‍♀️

[@sophieglatz]

I, 100 percent with you in that the character writes that it’s a true story this is great publicity all this controversy but it not a court case

[@kayemm1973]

She was identified pretty quickly by internet folks and that was picked up in the press, she went on television about a week later. She was outed before she spoke publically. ​@LoRosa0224

[@HanChap2]

And if you watch the credits to the very end, it also says... This program is based on real events: however certain characters, names, incidents, locations and dialogue have been fictionalised for dramatic purposes. Literally have Baby Reindeer end credits on pause as I type so I could copy it word for word. And that is written at the end of every episode.

[@MayaMaia311]

I totally agree that i cannot emagine her ever pleading guilty. Even if evidence was in front of everyone. Just like Amber Heard - the recordings were played before all of us and she was gaslighing that we did not hear what we thought we heard.

[@toyyatoy]

I’m curious, as this is not American based…. I always say, I only have one speeding ticket. I say this as an absolute truth, no hesitation. Any evidence would show you this to be true. But… it’s not the only speeding ticket I’ve had. The first one, paid a fine, took the class, it was expunged from the record. I wonder if in their legal system, she was convicted, but because she pled guilty or maybe agreed to some program, that after some time, that record disappears. That way all things can be true, except for her saying never was convicted. But perhaps because the record is gone (hypothetically), maybe to her that is as good as having “never happened”.

[@gail242]

But she knows the law. She knows that pleading guilty has its benefits. For instance, if they offered her a deferred sentence (meaning the charge gets sealed if she successfully completed her probation) she knew enough to plead guilty.

[@sharfalor4244]

​@@toyyatoyyou wouldn't find any evidence if she was offered, and accepted, mental health intervention in place of a criminal conviction.

[@LegalBytesMedia]

Thanks so much for having me on, Spidey!! It was so much fun!! 💙

[@TheBehavioralArts]

Thanks for clearing up some of this mess for me haha 💙. Always a pleasure 🤗

[@thomasrios3913]

Alyte you were so great as always!!! You very clearly explained things that have been bothering me for weeks now. Thank you for joining Spidey on this one, you guys always make a great team.

[@MBeano]

On "This is a True Story". My belief is this is using a common writing style of the "unreliable narrator". Here is the evidence for this: 1. It STARTS with “A Netflix Original Series” 2. Donny Dunn enters a polic station 3. He attempts to report being stalked 4. The police officer isn’t very helpful and doesn’t believe Donny 5. Police Officer asks “Why’d it take so long to report it?” with an incredulous tone 6. Camera Zooms into to Donny’s blank face 7. He stays silent 8. At around 1 minute and 35 seconds the screen goes black, and the sentence “this is a true story” appears on the black screen. 9. It is TYPED, we hear the sound of typing. 10. It does NOT pop up as a fully completed sentence. We See and hear the TYPING as it is being created. It is literally being CREATED right before our eyes. 11. DONNY is the typer. 12. Then the backstory begins 13. ALL of this is from Donny’s perspective So it is inaccurate to say this series STARTS with “this is a true story”. The creators also hone in on Donny, letting us know it is his STORY. They zoom in on him beforehand. It is framed within the context of Donny being challenged with “WHY did it take so long”

[@tanyalee11.11]

thank you. someone finally makes sense.

[@MBeano]

This DOES NOT Excuse the producers and executives doubling down on saying that its a TRUE story. Especially when they are asked if specific parts are true. Its unnecessary

[@TheBehavioralArts]

The logic here is very clever but remember what Alyte said, could a reasonable person not put all this thought into it? I think it’s very possible. Especially given that their own website has an article doubling down on how true it is (link in description.) it’s not a coincidence that despite what you have said a LOT of people out there took this to be a very true story.

[@serinadelmar6012]

@@TheBehavioralArts It's a literary technique, Donny is writing his true story. They had a disclaimer. The statement by Netflix is true just as it is based on the true experiences of Richard Gadd. Those are not mutually exclusive. Assumptions in dramatised true stories are common. He emphasises it is art, a fictional world, in multiple interviews. Hope that clarifies. Thank you for your videos.

[@TheBehavioralArts]

@@serinadelmar6012 I agree. It was never unclear but again, we’re analytic people who overthink things as a baseline. Most people don’t and if most people watched it and believed it’s actually true (and the simple fact is we know that’s happening) it could be a legal problem for Netflix despite what a deep thinker might think.

[@flyygurl18]

She loves to brag so she couldn't completely resist taking some credit for it

[@johnanthony9923]

If this woman has a case, I *DEFINITELY* have a case. She came out of nowhere to claim the movie was about her....but that it's not accurate. So, if I claim it's actually about *ME* ...I can prove they got literally EVERYTHING wrong.

[@idkwhodos2840]

😂 No it was about me! And my wife!😜

[@thomasrios3913]

Haha. Did you call Richard Gadd baby reindeer because of a toy you once had and tweet him about curtains? Because if so. You should sue!

[@Potamotrygorgeous]

I wonder though.. if everything in a series 'about you' is wrong, based on what do you still have claims that the serie is about you?

[@RobinJusticeWoods]

She didn't come out of nowhere though. People tracked her down due to clues in the show. And they did very quickly. Then media started going after her. That's when she accepted Pier's invitation to his show. I 100% believe this woman stalked people relentlessly but it doesn't give Netflix the right to make things up about her and try to pass it off as facts. This is all on Netflix. They screwed up. All they had to do was say it was based on a true story. And not at the end of credits that no one watches. They claimed in promos, on their website and even in parliament that it was a true story which leads most people to believe all of it is true.

[@RobinJusticeWoods]

​@@PotamotrygorgeousProbably but Fiona and her lawyers aren't actually claiming all of it is untrue in court documents. I read them. They're claiming certain parts are untrue specifically the convicted stalker part.

[@russell2233]

IF this woman stalked him, seems like she's still doing it.

[@coralieelliott2076]

she left him alone for many years--he never stopped talking , writing and directing about his encounter--I might be naive but why didn't he just block her from contacting him via phone and social media-- and send the letters back--return to sender?

[@mangersavoir4213]

You can always get another account in 2 seconds. Why should he protect his stalker? That's gross.​@@coralieelliott2076

[@nicolegroves6880]

@@coralieelliott2076 Fiona??? Is that you?! 😂😂😂

[@Randomequestrian-pm4hl]

@@coralieelliott2076 This is what I don't understand - but I haven't watched the series itself - but it's very easy to block emails, and to block unwanted callers/messagers on your mobile/cell phone. Mr Gadd doesn't appear (in news reports and interviews) to have made much effort to minimise any alleged harm to himself?

[@iElepple]

@@Randomequestrian-pm4hl you should watch the show.. what you’re saying is practically the whole point of it

[@sarahkosak520]

She also said that people "usually just pay a fine" that is still a conviction.

[@yanderevenom9793]

THANK YOU!!!!!!!

[@tabithaalice9369]

It may be different in the UK, but in NZ a person can be found guilty and/ or fined, but still be discharged without conviction if the effects of a conviction would be disproportionate to them when compared to their offending.

[@atleastimnotginger]

it is just so sad for fiona as a person. no matter whether she is a crazy stalker or just the victim she views herself as, barely anyone outside her personal life would have any idea that this is about her but she goes on interviews, publishes a (imo) strange statement and gets a whole lot of media attention through this whole lawsuit-story. half the world knows about her now BECAUSE of what she turned this into. sure, a few people were very sure about her being the real martha but for one, noone knew for sure and also those were so few random people. she is clearly upset over this story being spread about her, whether it's true or not, but the only reason hundreds of thousands now know it was about her is purely because she went public about it.

[@idkwhodos2840]

It's nice to find a comment like this. I have NO idea who this person is, (not interested in the series!), but it just strikes me as sad to see an ordinary person trying to defend themselves in the media. It feels exploitative somehow 🫤

[@empathic.supernova]

But what if Netflix says "at the hands of a convicted stalker" because she was convicted previously on the MP stalking case and, therefore, is, just not in the baby reindeer case. I have not researched this, but that was just a thought.

[@karenm8239]

She was not convicted at all. It's rumours like this that fuel the false narrative. No interdict was ever served. It's public record.

[@LindaC616]

But she wasn't convicted previously, and it was a female lawyer (her employer, briefly), a woman who happened to be married to an MP. See how easily things get distorted wgen you get your news from a YT comment section?🎉

[@empathic.supernova]

@@karenm8239 Well Karen if people believe someone who starts a statement with "what if..." and qualifies it with "I have not researched this" and it's just a thought then there are bigger problems at play. That is by far NOT a rumor! Seriously! It is clear I am not trying to state facts here. But thank you for your harsh correction! Much appreciated!! 👏 💐

[@empathic.supernova]

@@LindaC616 I am reposting this comment as a reply to you Linda, as well. The same goes for you... @karenm8239 Well Karen if people believe someone who starts a statement with "what if..." and qualifies it with "I have not researched this" and it's just a thought then there are bigger problems at play. That is by far NOT a rumor! Seriously! It is clear I am not trying to state facts here. But thank you for your harsh correction! Much appreciated!! 👏 💐 Linda ... this not "news" (in my opinion, this is gossip), nor do my thoughts "distort" other people's view of the news. If that were the case then discussions would be a serious offense, but thank you for being so encouraging of free thought and free speech. Job done! Btw I get my real news from many sources, seeking to confirm credibility; and when I do discuss important news, with conviction, I have facts, not thoughts and speculation.

[@LindaC616]

@@empathic.supernova well you can go tweet about it over some avocado toast under your weighted blanket. It will make you feel better

[@jeffhidalgo6037]

After the Diddy video I didn't expect a followup on Baby Reindeer. Thanks Spidey!

[@TheBehavioralArts]

Thank YOU haha. I put in that grind this week haha.

[@Obad87]

I dont trust any movies or shows that says this is a true story. True stories dont make as much money and are not nearly as exciting as fiction. Theyre gonna make something up somewhere.

[@sparkless7106]

They did say before the episode start that there are some things that are added for extra excitement

[@adamstevens5518]

In the movies or shows I’ve seen that say they are “based on true events” and things of that nature it seems like by “true” they are basically meaning “something like this, kind of, we think, maybe, happened.” It definitely waters down the meaning of “true”. At least we still have “factual”, for now, that we can use to mean “literally, specifically, and exactly true.”

[@chrissyscholl816]

This is EVERY show that's based off a true story. None of them are 100% all factual. Because for starters, they're told from one person's POV usually. And as you said, some details are typically added or changed for dramatic effect. Which it's literally says in babu reindeer and every other show that's based on true events...

[@ixizn]

My biggest respect is for media that not only states “based on true events” but actually adds “some content has been exaggerated or changed for dramatic effect” or something like that. Even before all of this happened I was super surprised to see the statement “this is a true story” when I first watched the show! Thought it seemed so legally iffy to speak in such absolutes for something that’s not a straight up documentary (no matter if it actually is 100% true from the writer’s POV)

[@gorjus_007]

Not many movies state "THIS IS A TRUE STORY" it's alway BASED which leaves wiggle room!! I love true stories, The Green Mile, The colour Purple n The Help for examples were all awesome!! You should watch more "based on a true story" genre n educate urself!!

[@cmp-vegan5136]

going to prison is different from being convicted and is different of committing a crime… also, in the 3 question, she was less sure and blinked more…

[@LindaC616]

I noticed the blinking, but there has never been a conviction against her. I believe Piers discussed it with her. A former employer of hers is a female lawyer who happened to be married to an mp. In 2000, after she fired Fiona (and Fiona says she walked /quit), the lawyer considered filing an injunction against her. Fiona said that Laura messed up the paperwork and it was never filed, Laura said that it was filed and Fiona did not defend it.

[@cmp-vegan5136]

@@LindaC616I see… I didn’t know that…

[@LindaC616]

@cmp-vegan5136 yeah, it was in an article published by The Guardian. They rehashed that part of the discussion on the Behavior Panel tonight.

[@zkxnkj534]

her nephew came out to say that she was lying and that she was convicted

[@LindaC616]

@@zkxnkj534 that was a different person.

[@PureMagma]

I haven't watched the show (and don't want to watch it) but as a retired filmmaker who had to deal with "Deliverable Assets" including "Errors & Ommissions Insurance" ...showing the words "This is a true story..." being typed out does (arguably) make it part of "The opening scene" as long as none of the other opening credits are presented in the same manner (or nor the type font, sound effects etc...)

[@thekeysman6760]

Isn't it typed by the main character once at the very start though? So it's fiction by default. Maybe it's that shot that is specifically "tweaked for dramatic effect" or whatever was written? 😉

[@TheWunder]

Hi Nina. Just watch it 😅.

[@barbq1976]

She made a huge mistake when she asked Piers Morgan if she could go on his show. She made a lot of questionable/ contradictory statements. She should have shut up (seemingly impossible for her), and let lawyers handle it for her, if she sues. And - it would have been better for Netflix to have a lawyer speak for them. The Netflix exec should have said "No comment now because it's potentially going to Court".

[@user-wj3bn1yi8f]

Piers Morgan asked her.

[@junkim5853]

she may have a huge ego thinking that because she's a lawyer she can do good in the interview but it seems clearly she did terribly.

[@tabithaalice9369]

As a follow up to the interview with Piers, she is now saying she wants to be paid a million pounds for it, she claims she was only offered £250 pounds for it. It would appear she is determined to seek financial gain from her situation as well as as address the alleged defamation. This gives insight into her character as my understanding from the Piers interview was that she requested it, and chose him to interview her for specific reasons, so to now request a huge sum for it seems a bit disingenuous.

[@dovbleichfeld9907]

To me, reading 'this is a true story' and then, even if in the end I see that 'however certain characters, names... have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes,' that won't make me think that significant parts of the story, like the conviction, are fiction.

[@LindaC616]

Exactly. Even her former employer, the woman she was accused of stalking after being fired (or quitting depending on whose story you believe), says that she believes Fiona has a leg to stand on in this case.

[@poerava]

Almost all ‘true stories’ have things changed for multiple reasons. Mostly because no one has a memory that good and secondly, because most real stories don’t happen in a way that is compelling for specific numbers of shows on TV. In the UK, ‘true stories’ don’t need to be 100% accurate, to be called a ‘true story’. Some examples that come to mind are dramatised series about near death experience weekly shows that are re created by actors. The people who lived through that ‘real’ life experience, often comment on the videos in the comments section and say ‘well in the tv show, when I was scuba diving and swept to sea, my whole family didn’t run to meet me when I was taken back to land, instead I was in hospital for 2 days before my family flew in’ etc. Do these embellished parts of the story, take from the ‘trueness’ of the story. No way. It’s still a true story.

[@TheMAmeph]

Hey poerava, you're right about the point of view and memory-bending. Also there most certainly will be more or less change to dramatise a story to present it succesfully in different media. However, I disagree on your last statement. There can be a point where an amount of embelishment causes the product to lose its claim to the label "true story". There has to, in my opinion. It depends on a variety of factors, for example whether the twisted part is important to the heart of the plot, like did or didn't person A punch person B, or if it isn't important like did pers A wear a blue shirt or a yellow one. I'm unsure I'm explaining myself here, I'm not used to write in English anymore and today was a long, tiresome day.

[@poerava]

@@TheMAmeph ​​⁠ Well said. Let’s see how the court case goes. I’m sure they will delve deeply into what ‘artistic license’ is in various jurisdictions.

[@qs2668]

"obviously" in British English doesn't always mean "obviously". It can be used as a filler word, and in that case it's said quite quickly and unstressed

[@LindaC616]

Like "literally " in the US, these days

[@6205100]

"Basically"

[@kgonzalez8098]

As in agreement of fact

[@Wilkyway2010]

But when he says obviously, who is it obvious to?

[@judithmorganjudyteen]

Wrongly, it always means something is obvious

[@mouselander]

I watched the begining again “This is a true story” is only TYPED by the character Donnie, it never appears again! a Character can write anything! - so this whole thing is a nothing burger Fiona has no case! I am just sad Piers Morgan used a likely ill woman for clicks 😿 Gadd always said “the story” was based in truth! If Fiona proves she is Martha then she actually can be charged. I don’t think she is Martha, I think she saw Gadd’s original play and is trying to get Gadd and Netflix to settle out of court. Neither Netflix or Gadd has said it is her, she can’t prove she is. Another thing I noticed is that Fiona gave zero evidence that was outside the plot of either the play or the series. ✌🏾❤️

[@chrissyscholl816]

Right. I think people forget that this is based on a true story and situations, names and details have been changed for tv purposes. It has this disclaimer at the end of each episode. Amd that begining part, you're right. This isn't even "gadds story" this is the fictional character "donnies" true story. Which why it says that in the beginning.

[@anniemiller9537]

Great catch!! I hope @TheBehavioralArts replies to this! Or @LegalBytes !

[@kaywren73]

I just commented the same. It's Donnie, a fictional character, typing his "true story." It comes full circle in the final episode when he deletes his timeline of events for the police and types out the very same words in his voice-over narration: "I felt sorry for her. That's the first thing I felt."

[@rwaneuin6259]

Great comment.

[@mismag822]

But, what would a reasonable person watching think?

[@privatepo5876]

This is a sad turn of events. This was an extremely difficult and powerful movie to have been made. It provided some insight in victims, their thought processes and the cycle of abuse that many people don’t understand unless they experienced. Helps answer the question “why do they go back” or why “they don’t report it”. This is an opportunity to grasp these concepts. Unfortunately, these teaching lessons are derailed by the mistake of not indicating “based on a true story” statement. Not the fact that stalking laws do not make victims safe. Or a rapist will continue to be free to victimize. Yikes the law even acted more swiftly in protecting the abuser in this instance.

[@ruchelleleonoredawe9315]

Okay but if she says she never did those things, what makes her think the show is about her?

[@VenusCurtis1]

Oh and 'convicted' doesn't always mean a prison sentence in UK. Convicted means pleaded or proven guilty. That would secure a conviction. Benjamin King doesn't say she served a prison sentence. He says she was 'convicted'. Which may be true going by the injunction Laura Wray took out.

[@letter1014]

You'd think somebody would have found something about it.

[@alexandrialucius8351]

The article I read is from Rollingstone from May 13, 2024. "I’ve put out a statement publicly saying I want the show to be received as a piece of art,” Gadd said in his THR chat. “I’m called Donny Dunn. It exists in a sort of fictional realm, even though it’s based on truth, it exists in a fictional realm. Let’s enjoy the world that I’ve created.”

[@LindaC616]

That sounds more like a CYA than anything else

[@wistad]

I recently watched a KZbin video where they were discussing this very thing: that the whole work is fictional - INCLUDING the “This is a true story” part. I haven’t watched the series ( and I won’t) but, apparently, when it begins with “This is a true story” it looks and sound like it is being typed out on a keyboard. And then the series ends with Donny beginning to type out the story. Therefore, it can be reasoned that it is all fiction - albeit based on part of a true story. Makes sense to me and it may be Netflix’s loophole.

[@dbencic]

Nothing short of a literal live broadcast is a “true story “

[@serinadelmar6012]

@@wistad exactly this.

[@Pgschool37]

Couldn't Netflix simply have said this is "based on a true story" so people could more easily extract fact from fiction? Also, this would align with the end credit info ultimately removing them from liability.

[@lindagray1809]

They did!

[@kupcakesugar817]

In the interview, as Fiona is watching the court scene, she is seen ‘calculating’ or looking like she is trying to clarify some of the dates Martha is being convicted for stalking. Fiona nods, seeming to have verified some things in her memory. Has this been discussed before?

[@BrookeYoder]

yep! Spidey pointed that out in his analysis of that interview.

[@vickyohara3458]

I thought the statement at the beginning was a part of the drama rather than a statement of fact.

[@bcoull290]

She will never sue because all her dirty laundry will be brought to life

[@kayemm1973]

I don't think she's capable of thinking she has dirty laundry. I'm amazed she has got lawyers who have talked her into not interacting with the media for now.

[@TuningAnApple]

​@@kayemm1973I'm almost convinced the people staunchly defending her are fake accounts made by her sometimes.

[@kayemm1973]

@@TuningAnApple that wouldn't surprise me at all.

[@alisondean1979]

I hope she does & I hope it all comes out & she does get charged! 😂

[@suzpeden]

I do wonder if she was convicted before stalking Gadd. Maybe she was convicted in a previous stalking case before she even met him as it’s a pattern for her.

[@nanamhz5295]

So let me understand one thing... the trial scene, which is goes against her disturbed personality, what caused her and her reputation harm? Not all the other sickening crazy nonsense she obviously did! If there was a trial for defamation, it would be illogical to win it because of this false spectacle, because the rest is clearly true!

[@ericacrittendon6035]

My understanding is that she would have to prove it that her reputation was indeed harmed, which I personally have trouble believing.

[@evee_peavey]

She probably works in the legal sector considering she studied law. It's feasible that the insinuation that she did all this and possibly went to jail for it could harm her job prospects 🤷

[@graememorrison333]

@@evee_peavey She's 58. she would have made it by now. My guess is she works as a paralegal.

[@DokisKalin1]

@@graememorrison333 My guess is she is long-term unemployed. Piers Morgan mentioned they paid for her to get a haircut before coming on the show. Someone with a full-time job does not have the time to be sending out nonsense online all day and everyday. She mentions in the interview that Richard was allegedly "on benefits". I think this comment is really about her and how insecure she is about receiving social assistance and living in public housing.

[@graememorrison333]

@@DokisKalin1 yes, I imagine. Funnily enough I do work for the borough she lives in and was scheduled to move some stuff from her old flat to of her new one in another part of the borough, just a few weeks ago. I hadn't seen BR then so wasn't aware who she was, but was told 'not to engage with the tenant'. That day got pulled and other team members attended, so although it might have been interesting to meet her, in retrospect, I'm glad I didn't.

[@adamstevens5518]

Spidey, the bigger you get, the more of “these kinds of people” you are going to get, who make assertive, definitive statements about things they are false about. I appreciate you calling them out on it. God bless you. But don’t let it get to you. If you need to, learn to just skim over them and ignore them, as I do, since, it seems, you cannot truly get rid of them. Although again I am incredibly grateful and respectful that you try to help them.

[@tiffanymichaels2429]

I have to say when I saw him do this I kinda cheered him on. I know that's probably petty on my part. But I was glad he called them out and made it clear he doesn't want people like that messing with the community he's built in this channel. I felt like he was being a mama bear protecting us. And I really appreciate that he doesn't approve of people being condescending jerks. I love him for that. But yeah, it would get rough on him if he starts trying to put every troll in their place. Most of us are reasonable here and know they exist so we let their words run off our back.

[@TheBehavioralArts]

Oh you’re so sweet but please don’t worry about me. Remember ive been posting on KZbin and appearing on tv since my younger 20s. I’ve seen it all and got used to it a long time ago. It takes up 0.3% of my thoughts. I just thought the person who posted that needed a bit of a reality check.

[@thomasrios3913]

I didn’t see any indication that this got to Spidey. He’s very active in his comments and someone made a point and he debated it with tact and calmness. As he said, he’s been at this a long time, I would be very surprised to learn he hasn’t developed a thick skin by now.

[@thomasrios3913]

@@tiffanymichaels2429yes! Exactly! 100% mama bear vibes. It wasn’t about him, it was “don’t bring that BS around my people, we don’t welcome it.” He is setting boundaries and sending a message that if you come in with nonsense you’re going to get called out

[@adamstevens5518]

Your 0.3% comment made me smile as a statistician. Insignificant when considering the 3 SD rule of a normal distribution, eh? There’s more going on with you than I knew.

[@archerandthemouse]

I predict she will try. I predict she won't be successful. The disclaimer at the end of the video states they changed names and altered events for dramatic effect. I think Netflix has their booty covered. I also think they are allowing all of this and not saying a damn thing because it is driving up streams, so many more people are interested and watching because of the drama. Wouldn't it be funny if they paid her to go out and stir it up...my guess is worst case they settle and she gets a little bite for making them so much money.

[@Woolhelm]

It’s possible Gadd didn’t properly conceal Fiona’s identity because he wanted the public to find her. This could be his way of punishing her. If the court scene where she pleads guilty doesn’t reflect the real life event, it could be a form of wish-fulfilment on Gadd’s part. If Fiona has no convictions she can easily prove this with a DBS check. Perhaps she will.

[@annapancake1232]

Exactly my thoughts too.

[@dshe8637]

There's a strong anti-woman theme in the show. Gadd led her on and exacerbated her mental health problems. Yet the man who raped him and his own actions partaking in risky sex with strangers and heavy drug taking isn't given anywhere near the same condemnation

[@Myllys2]

South Park, which frequently features well-known public figures or parodies of them, always opens with a disclaimer that begins by stating, "All characters and events in this show-even those based on real people-are entirely fictional. All celebrity voices are impersonated... poorly. The following program contains coarse language and due to its content it should not be viewed by anyone."

[@Randilynn66]

But, she’s a lawyer!

[@latristessdurera8763]

Not a good one at that lol 😂

[@michaelasquith2321]

Netflix saying she is a “convicted stalker” doesn’t mean she was convicted with Richard Gadd but could have been convicted before or after Richard. Would that be possible?

[@bsnowden]

When the words "this is a true story" was done in the dramatic typing, as the character Donnie does. It is the true story of the character, not real life. It's merely an artistic presentation, just like the movie and series Fargo. I'm baffled that the public is making this a news report instead of drama, which is based on real events.

[@TheBehavioralArts]

What about the Netflix website and the Netflix rep talking to congress? Like Alyte said, it’s not about what they’re going for, it’s about what a reasonable person would assume and a reasonable person could take “this is a true story” for face value

[@idkwhodos2840]

And people believed it enough to go looking for her so....I think they probably had some sort of 'duty of care' to how they represented real people?🤷🏼‍♀️

[@marniekilbourne608]

No, not at all!

[@bsnowden]

@@TheBehavioralArts I must be a very unreasonable person then, which is very possible.😆 But thank you for the reply! The Netflix rep confused me as well. Because there is a difference btwn art and law, and when he said it was a true story to the gov't, that was not art. So yes, my initial artful paradigm must be flawed.

[@TheBehavioralArts]

@@bsnowden it’s heavily nuanced honestly. There are arguments for both sides. I think that’s the reason it’s such a hot topic. I think reasonable people can be found on either side of the argument

[@Kellyjellycones78]

Has anyone considered that the court acts differently in cases of mental illness? It may be the case that the court could have ordered her to be hospitalised under medical supervision for a length of time determined by the court or based on progression of treatment. She was thinking in that clip about dates! She even made clear hesitation as she was going to say something but stopped herself. I wonder if there is a kernel of truth in the court stuff. The end conclusion maybe that she was entered into a program. In the UK medical files are confidential and certain facts of a case can be hidden under the Mental Health Act. Just an idea, by no means the truth, but it does offer an alternative possibility.

[@MixedTake]

Semi-relevant, From the angle of a Product Designer in regards to the 'disclaimer' statement at the end of episodes: Baked into the actual functionality of the Netflix product by default now and has been for many years - and this button is actually recognised by the wider UX & Product Design community as being a major trigger in the rise of binge-watching culture - is a 'Next Episode' button. This button pops up before this disclaimer appears. So Netflix's actual product design is also going to hurt them here too. And if it does contribute to the case, then this feature may then be considered 'Dark UX' by way of precedent. P.S: Love your work.

[@TheBehavioralArts]

Yes!!! Alyte touched on this and I didn’t build on it but I’ve been saying this all week. The next episode button doesn’t even require an action on the viewers part. It just skips unless you make a lot of effort to not let it do that lol. You have to purposely go looking for the end of the credits.

[@HanChap2]

@@TheBehavioralArts as I found out when trying to figure out WHERE people were seeing the disclaimer! I'd never noticed the "watch credits" option before because, no one does. We usually just allow it to go to the next episode. Great video. As a survivor of an extreme stalker myself, I'm grateful to Richard Gadd for doing this show, and all these discussions and videos covering it, are quite helpful. He covers things, feelings, actions on his part, that only another stalker victim can understand. And I do believe the end scene of her admitting her stalking in court and being convicted, is the ending he (and likely many other stalker survivors like myself) wishes had happened. Unfortunately, reality is, it's hard to get these people convicted. I just feel bad for him that his 'ending' to his story, which was likely to help bring him closure, has now blown up in his face.

[@mouselander]

In England it is very difficult to get court records for someone else, but what I don’t understand is why Fiona Harvey did not get her own records and this is easy. She certainly could have produced these records, but she doesn’t - this indicates to me she has been convicted, is not Martha and/or she is milking this for everything she can get.

[@clarefrench4669]

Surely there would be no records if she had never been convicted?

[@Aw_tig]

Things can also be dropped or removed on psychological grounds. From reading someone’s blog of who Fiona harassed prior to Richard Gadd it seems that she was under some form of psychological care, but who knows

[@therian_forever12]

You can't get court records for something that never went to court.

[@LindaC616]

​@@Aw_tigs ah, well, if someone says it in a blog, then it must be true

[@LindaC616]

​@Kittyscraftcorner-ud6ij exactly, she's left to prove a negative

[@SueB_3]

Love this! Thank you Spidey… I think that quote you got about Richard Gadd during the Fiona interview is where it entered my brain. All this social media is so hard to keep things clear! I think Netflix should have stated “based on a true story”. Btw… l ❤ legal bytes!

[@SueB_3]

Another question Spidey… at the end of Netflix credits it states “ Baby Reindeer was first produced for the stage….(by so and so productions)”. Could the statement “this is a true story” be based on it being a tue story of the show he was doing? I hope I’m being clear. Thanks 😊

[@eleanorjacobs1210]

Spidey is savage with his polite rebuttals.

[@thekeysman6760]

"Rebuttals" where, please? 🤔

[@hbarlaam]

​@thekeysman6760 did you watch the video?

[@thomasrios3913]

Haha it was so diplomatic yet destructive. Loved it

[@LauraHarwood-sg4eg]

@@thekeysman6760 at approx 14 mins 😊

[@LauraHarwood-sg4eg]

@@hbarlaam .....polite 😊

[@dougbryant5417]

The “in her sleep bit” she misspoke, she meant she wrote it without realising or actively intending to have written/inspired the story. I think she was nervous (rightly so) and just talking out her arse.

[@247Sarah]

Spidey, I really appreciate the level of thought and detail you put into your work. You're a great teacher. Thank you.

[@ZaakirahHattas]

The Fact that everyone accepts the fact that in "this true story" - The Actor Playing Donny is actually the real person who went through the actual event and is portraying himself in a Dramatization of himself with a different name. And all the other characters are just normal actors playing people. Nobody that reasonably knew that is not a documentary can possibly say that they thought the series is an actual true story played out exactly how it was?

[@karin9373]

It is a true story with some characters and scenes changed for dramatisation. It’s in the credits after each episode. The story itself is true but some of it isn’t.

[@rwaneuin6259]

Yes indeed, 'it is a true story' is written WITHIN THE STORY itself as part of Donna Dunn's explanation about him. It is not at the beginning of the series. And there is the disclaimer in the credit after each episode.

[@stelladawn1729]

I think she's going to open her up to a lot of scrutiny as to what was real; and I don't know that she knows for sure what was real. Specifically the emails and phone messages.

[@mariee.5912]

Hah!! You made me doubt what I saw. I thought I truly saw the actor denying the conviction. SPIDEY!! Great analysis. ❤

[@ameliagraceelliott]

At the worst, Netflix will have to give her some of their profits. But they still get lots of publicity.

[@ashdarq]

Fargo says "This is a true story" at the start of every episode, even though it's definitely not.

[@Tcheera]

On Fiona being a convicted stalker: Netflix at parliament referred to fiona as a "convicted stalker" - they didn't say she was a convicted stalker who went to prison, and didn't say she was a convicted stalker who went to prison for what she did to Gadd. So there are several different potential things here that I think are being missed. TONS of convicted stalkers never go to prison. Plenty get some kind of diversion, or just probation or long-term restraining orders, as long as they don't violate those orders. There's some info circulating though waiting for it to be confirmed also that she wasn't convicted under her current name "Fiona Harvey," but under her former name Fiona Muir, which also could muddy the waters -- waiting on it but unconfirmed reports from her nephew that she was convicted and went to jail for 8 months at one point but as of yet no confirmation on which charge. Keep in mind that she's also accused of stalking at least 3 people and this just came out, 2 different political figures and Richard Gadd. In Richard Gadd's situation it could be that the police said "here's the evidence and here's your choice A) diversion or B) prison with your record. Or it could be 1 of 100 different combos of scenarios. If she was ever convicted of stalking in Scotland or England or anywhere, then the statement that she's a "convicted stalker" would be true regardless of when and regardless of whether or not she went to prison, whether or not her alleged nephew's statements are true. On "This is a true story" -- I've seen a lot of artistic breakdown of projects where they use artistic use of "this is a true story" (like the Blair Witch project), and Netflix may be covered by the artistic license of how "This is a True Story" is typed out on the beginning credits and how the series ends if you watch until the end. It's typed, the character "Donnie" (NOT Richard Gadd, but Donnie) is a failed comedian, victim, and at the very end writer who writes his story. And the very first lines he writes are about that and the first lines he speaks about "Martha" in the show about pitying her. So the opening credits can be seen as the catharsis of Donnie as a stalking and assault victim finally telling his "true story". Legally, I have no idea whether or not this will hold up in the UK, but the first amendment is very widely protected and art and free expression often win the day, so Donnie as a victim typing his story as a true story may be protected speech. I'd be curious for a lawyer's take on that. And finally as for defamation - if it does turn out that the going to prison for Gadd's stalking is not true, but everythign else is and her admitting to being a stalker, being caught, going to prison for stalking someone else, and mountains of evidence and a restraining order and Gadd just not pressing charges or the police going for diversion instead of Prison -- I'm curious if this will end up as a winning "defamation per se" case. While yes in normal circumstances saying someone pled guilty and went to prison could be defamation per se, in THIS case, saying that she was defamed if she was caught red handed committing all these crimes, never owned up to any of them and was let off easily for it without any accountability, I'm not sure if she can say that this "harmed her reputation". If anything a stalker admitting their problem and getting help would probably make the MORE sympathetic and seen more positively and not LESS POSITIVELY and so you actually have to show harm to reputation in defamation. In this case I'd say her getting let off the hook for horrific stalking would make her look worse than her going to prison and I doubt I'm the only person. Most people like accountability and redemption. If this story is true and she never took accountability or got help, then it makes her a less sympathetic character in many ways. So for her sake if she did this stalking, it would be better if she got help - I'm not sure a defamation case will hold that much weight. I have a feeling though that netflix has a lot more up their sleeves.

[@paulapreston937]

😮 that's impressive! Love it!

[@therian_forever12]

Surely if she had been convicted of stalking, that would be very easy for any journalist to confirm.

[@HanChap2]

@@therian_forever12 but would it be? I'm actually curious how they bypass human rights to get that information to start with? Just going by my own experience with a convicted stalker, I had to request a Clare's Law to find out if he was known to the police or not, and I had to give details as to why I was making the request and even then, I was only told what was on file that was relevant, IF it was on file (people don't report a LOT of things) and that wasn't all convictions, it also covered allegations, calls to the police etc. My stalker never went to prison but he slipped up one time and said he couldn't go to work one day because it was raining, but he'd told me he worked in a care centre. He then admitted he was "working" his community service hours, which I later found out were court ordered from being arrested and charged for his previous victim.

[@LindaC616]

Oy.... There is no conviction on record for any stalking from her. Her former employer, briefly, was a female lawyer who was going to file an injunction against her after she was fired. That woman happened to be married to an mp. The lawyer says that Fiona did not defend the injunction, Fiona in her interview with Piers said that Laura, the lawyer, messed up on filing the papers and it was never in existence. Laura herself says that because they made it so easy to find Fiona, she definitely has a right to some sort of settlement, because they did not take due care to protect her identity. The bit about the nephew was a different person. This is what happens when one gets one's facts from the KZbin comment section instead of looking up articles oneself.

[@nanamhz5295]

Exactly my thoughts!

[@scillataylor3883]

It is now being alleged that she sent hundreds of abusive emails to Sir Keir Starmer, leader of Labour Party.

[@dshe8637]

Alleged by whom? Where?

[@jeanne_margaret]

Why didn’t they say “based on a true story “!? Like a lot of the life time films do, basically we go in expecting exaggerations. Great job on explaining ❤

[@TuningAnApple]

Says it at the end credits. The beginning was a scene where Donnie is typing his own account.

[@Sentientdreamer]

Spidey, I just realized that I'd watch you discuss damn near anything. It just so happens that I really love this subject. You would be wonderful at whatever you decide to do!

[@janejones1932]

Was she convicted of stalking the MP’s family?

[@LindaC616]

No. There is an interview from the Guardian in the year 2000 where the lawyer, a woman named Laura who was briefly her employer and happened to be married to an mp, said that Fiona was fired. Fiona claims she walked. In any case, Laura said she filed an injunction against her and Fiona did not defend it. Fiona said she did not file the paperwork for the injunction properly and that there was never a case.

[@Stormy575]

Ever since this all came out I've found it so perplexing that the show creators didn't pick a lane on this. They chose to call it a drama, yet they changed virtually no important details of Martha's character to make her an actual fictional character. From ethnic background, to profession, to prior criminal history, even to appearance. They could have made her a tall, thin Englishwoman with a degree in accounting and it would have changed nothing important to the story. Expose her or hide her, but I don't get this weird barely-veiled docudrama strategy. The internet sleuths are also searching out the male abuser, and apparently there are a couple of people who fit the bill. So these men are potentially getting their reputations dragged through the mud because they fit the details in the series. Seems kind of a mess.

[@hicsumfabulalepus]

The other reason she knew was several times she referrs to his staff talking to her before the show. They may have told her what he was going to be bringing up.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

I'm a simple man. I see a Spidey vid. I click.

[@TheBehavioralArts]

Haha thanks man ❤️

[@TheoriesofEverything]

@@TheBehavioralArts You got it, friend.

[@karaynaR1132]

Spidey please consider doing a live soon. Last one was so much fun. We need one With Rob and Dr Das. Your subscribers deserve it. 🙏

[@TheBehavioralArts]

Haha Rob is in the middle of moving into a new place so his life is chaos but that does sound like fun. I often think about doing lives the problem is KZbin really pushes you to stick to what you do best so it’s hard to break that mold. But I’ll think about what we can do even if it’s just for fun

[@nicolea6601]

​@TheBehavioralArts I would love any kind of fun live with you... even if it's once you're settled in 😊 I missed your last live

[@6205100]

Please bring back Chase Huges!

[@amyt2035]

Thank you for finally being the one to talk sense and clear things up, both in terms of the legalities and the baseless rumours that have been going around. It has been disheartening to see not only countless comments, but also content creators with large platforms just reciting this stuff and presenting their incorrect opinions as if they are facts when they really don't know anything about the law.

[@ToolTalkChannel]

Edit: every question I had was answers and more! Amazing. Please continue to keep us in the loop with this great level of analysis! Cheers

[@upStomp]

Big difference between "based on a true story" and "this is a true story". Whoever made that decision probably can't read without moving their lips.

[@angelabuchan9872]

It's like Blair witch saying it's a true story at the beginning. Besides I'm sure being a true story doesn't mean every detail is exactly what occurred. The story is she's a stalker and abusive. That's true. She's done it to others. That's true.

[@mego5078]

Oooh SPIDEY THROWING SHADE😂😂

[@oliviaoxley]

Spidey, not only are you amazing at providing us consistent content and delivering us with facts in an unbiased way, but you’re also incredible at asking the questions that we want to hear the answers to! Another great video, and such a treat to see legal bites!

[@TheBehavioralArts]

Thanks so much. I think it helps that alot of us were wondering the same things haha

[@jeffheimsch6395]

Perhaps she’s splitting hairs on the convicted versus plead out.

[@LindaC616]

Or perhaps there has never been a case against her. She has left to prove a negative not that I think she's completely blameless, nor is he. I think they both have issues

[@monicapatton1405]

Perhaps. Easily proven so we will see.

[@lay-dee]

Nomedeplume been awful quiet since this video dropped 😂

[@thomasrios3913]

Hahaha the way he destroyed her with logic was flawless 😆. Even the “classic nom de plume” 🙄. Was hilarious

[@RedTrish]

She's got bigger problems having had her tweets to our Labour leader. Over 200 vile ones

[@HEXMACHiNE374]

Knocking it out of the park, as usual, Spidey. So nice to see Legal Bytes! Thanks for the explanation, Alyte ❤

[@GothicVioletVixen]

Bruh! That was a beutiful and diplomatic way to put someone in their place. I am going to strive to use this tactic in my own life. Thanks for that lesson in deflecting negativity.

[@Kellyjellycones78]

In the Piers interview, she was asked specifically have you ever been to prison, She wasn't asked if a case had been made. She may feel she is innocent if she was sectioned under Diminished responsibility. We will not know of the facts until it goes to court, if it goes to court? Both sides could pull medical records in this legal case, or use medical evidence to make a case and point.

[@dshe8637]

When the Netflix representative talked about 'horrific abuse' I assumed he was referring to the rape. The stalking, if it happened, is complex and the writer definitely contributed to the situation.

[@DrPatriceBerry]

Thank so much for pointing out the possible misinformation 🙌🏾 I didn’t even seen the disclaimer when I watched the show until a KZbinr talked about it. Thanks for covering this!

[@DrPatriceBerry]

I’m watching now and I was one of the ones who binged this series and never saw the disclaimer. Initially thought most if not all was true. Ive also seen some people hypothesize that this is the “true story” of Donnie (the character) and not the exact story of Richard Gadd

[@paulfox4636]

Of course she is going to sue. If the allegations (put forward by the show) that she was convicted and even pleaded guilty aren't true, then she has grounds. Even if they made superficial attempts to hide her identity. It's absolutely in her interests to be named as "The Real Martha" if the story is defamatory. It's very easy to prove of disprove that allegation, and that is the most damning . There might be an argument that she self-exposed herself as Martha so that she would then be able to sue. Even if she stalked him, or anyone else for that matter is irrelevant in her defamation case. Her only reason to not sue would be to hide the truth of the other claims (e.g. 41,000 emails, etc). Sure they make her looks somewhat crazy if true. In my experience with stalkers, they have no shame or filter, and act on impulse. So I don't think the risk of exposing full truth bothers her, just that there's a chance that she can have a very big payday should Netflix fail to substantiate the conviction claims in the story. Netflix's biggest mistake was not using words like "inspired by true events" unless they were able to defend any legal case claiming defamation. By all accounts, she seems unemployable, and perhaps not a good lawyer. So will be a good nest egg for her if she gets the money from Netflix. Perhaps the Netflix lawyers will offer her a settlement if the evidence they have is incomplete or weak. Will be interesting to see how this all plays out, and if the records are made public. Hopefully we don't have to wait until Netflix releases part 2 before we find out.

[@RiseShineGlorify]

Any thoughts on analyzing the defendant and the witnesses in the Karen Read trial? This is such a fascinating case! Many think she is innocent and being framed. Witnesses in the case are Boston PD. The defense thinks the officers are responsible for the death of a Boston cop and are trying to frame his girlfriend. The majority of legal analysts on YT (including Legal Bytes) are covering this. I’m not an expert but the facial expressions on Jen McCade, Matt McCabe, etc are crazy. 🤪 I think she is innocent and the cops killed him.

[@EsliMedrano]

Goodness! I love how prepared you are in your videos!!! Thank you!!!

[@lauraon]

Great video, addressed questions I’ve been wondering about!

[@barbarabuttler7647]

There's no doubt about it: Stating that someone pled guilty to a crime is defamation; if you can't prove it with court records.

[@TuningAnApple]

But they stated Martha got convicted, not Fiona.

[@Woolhelm]

@@TuningAnAppleBut they didn’t make an effort to conceal ‘Martha’s’ true identity (despite saying they had done so).

[@chubby_deity3143]

yea, that first part with the "convicted" and "obvious" really set off alarm bells for me, couldn't place my finger on it but Spidey is always on point with the explanations, lol

[@GGFarofa]

Tweak - 1. : to change (something) slightly in order to improve it : Making someone a convicted felon is not a tweak or small changes for dramatic effect.

[@DokisKalin1]

Thank you for clearing this up! I've never seen the series but I was very confused by the comments people were making on the court scene.

[@blaiseblack7175]

Jist like in Florida you assume a Gator is in any and every body of water.. Anything on a screen is embelished.

[@mariaguadalupegonzalez9938]

I’m shocked at how people are focusing on finding the real Martha when people should be looking for and outing the identity of the 40 year old man who literally raped him. Thera no way that this was an isolated incident and I’m pretty sure there are more victims out there. THAT’S the malicious person people should be going after. Not some needy, obsessive woman who was damaged herself

[@yanderevenom9793]

They did!! Sean Foley got accused of being Darrien and police even got involved. That’s when Richard posted saying, “don’t try to find these people, that’s not the point of our show”.

[@TuningAnApple]

​@@yanderevenom9793And worse,but sounds like everyone in the industry knows who it is, but no one is coming forward. Another Weinstein ...

[@FeschaRocka]

What I would have liked to know is: What would the outcome be if pretty much everything in the show was true except for that prison topic? If they could prove the thousands of emails, stalking the family etc? I mean, to me as a viewer of the show I‘m making assumptions about her character based on all of the messed up things she did, not on whether or not she was sentenced right?

[@Midnightcrimefiles]

Netflix should have said based in a true story. Unfortunately they said true story. So they don't get select which part is true or not.

[@lindagray1809]

No, they didn't- they had a disclaimer.

[@Smellybellyworld]

@TheBehavioralArts The thing that I question is: Did netflix open with "This is a true" OR did the fictional Richardd Gadd in the show type it on his computer as the story starts as part of the story he is narrating ? At the end he is sat at a computer and looking over the timeline he had been asked to make by the police. So its like "This is a true story" is part of the fictional story. Even Richard Gadd is a fictional representation in the series. Does that make sense and would it make a difference?

[@lieslforbes6631]

It makes perfect sense to me. It’s a literary interpretation of a story, not a documentary.

[@stacym31]

At the end of Baby Reindeer, while credits start to roll, they typically minimize the size of the credits and promote another show, such as Bridgeton. The minimzation makes it extremely hard to read. So the average person would likely never see the 2nd statement by Netflix.

[@otterotterottercid]

omg I thought you were introducing EDB in the middle and was so confused that I didn't know! hahaha

[@kaywren73]

Love you Spidey! I just want to point out something about the "This is a true story" card typed in the beginning, and the fact that it is typed with keyboard sounds one letter appearing at a time. In the final episode, we see Donny deleting the timeline for the police and beginning to type his story. The "true story" is Donny's story, being typed by Donny, a fictional character based on Gadd's experience. I think Netflix would have smart to lean into this, as opposed to doubling down that it's all true.

[@ZaakirahHattas]

Yes that is also along the line of my thoughts

[@ixizn]

Ohhhhh, I never caught this. Makes sense and is really clever. (But evidently not clear to every viewer 😅)

[@LindaC616]

But even if they could use that excuse, the fact that they reproduced her tweets verbatim is a neglection of duty or responsibility to protecting her identity. And honestly, I don't think the general public is smart enough to piece out what you did with the deletion and the one letter at a time bit.

[@ixizn]

@@LindaC616I don’t disagree necessarily but it might still be something in the show’s favour legally speaking

[@LindaC616]

@@ixizn I think that you're right, they could try it, but I don't know that it will help, because they would have to prove that a large percentage of viewers are sufficiently intelligent to figure it out. And I don't see that happening!🤣

[@SheilaODrane]

If Fiona can produce evidence she was not arrested, convicted and imprisoned, a good lawyer will take her case and Netflix will settle.

[@Sentientdreamer]

All she and her lawyer have to do is go for the settlement.

[@debbiehughes8034]

How can one prove they were never arrested, etc? How does one prove a negative? Provide documentation for each moment of one's life? Very cumbersome.

[@Sentientdreamer]

@@debbiehughes8034 That's not accurate. It's easy to prove one's never been arrested. That's what background checks are for.

[@iElepple]

@@debbiehughes8034what about criminal records? I think there you would find if she has ever been arrested

[@debbiehughes8034]

@@iElepple yes, those records could be used to prove she had been arrested.What records show she has not been arrested? I'm sure her lawyer will find a way to establish it isn't true.