Netflix may have covered themselves by simply stating at the beginning of the series that they were not diagnosing anyone but only speculating what might be happening in a situation like this.
Right? If there is nothing in the series that is true about her, then what is the basis for defamation? She outed herself. She wasn’t outed by the series.
@@joannawinters6592 someone developed a fictionalised character based on you, and that character had none of your traits, and none of the events depicted in the narrative resembled events from your life?
As a person in the entertainment industry I can tell you that Netflix has rooms full of lawyer and never would have released this series if their ducks weren't in a row.
@@joannawinters6592 There is a lot of money involved. This story was dangerous, so you can bet they played 3D chess with this one. They may just settle a small amount to get her to go away. I think she deserves something.
@@jackmedcalf6254 Well, they say they aren't going to settle. I'm glad, it will force all of this into the courts with real evidence. I don't think she deserves anything except possibly a jail sentence or a psyc hold. I don't think she has a case. I think she's doing this as an extension of her harassment toward her victim.
Yep, from what I've been learning, it's a lot like the Blair Witch Trials, the whole schtick is that it's "found footage". It declares itself really really real, guys. Is it? No. It's part of the show. And anyone who "outs themself" is highly questionable anyway, imo. She doesn't have a leg to stand on, not to mention she's extremely sinister and dangerous, I have less than zero sympathy for her.
Why didn’t Dr. Grande mention that? Did he miss it ? Hmm. Guess I’ll have to watch the beginning opening scene of the series - not going any farther in though. Too close to the “causes me nightmares” kind of story! 🫣 ☮️
@@imaginepeace7588 Netflix doesn’t seem too worried about defining artistic license in court, or fictionalizations. As the original poster wisely stated Netflix’s legal team will have several outs for this.
I could never be a therapist/mental health specialist. Apart from lacking the requisite credentials, I have no empathy for a serial stalker who was okay sending thousands of emails and tweets to harass a person. What Dr. Grande and his peers do is commendable.
@mongoose6685 I think there's whole lot people who understand what empathy is but don't actually feel it and then can't figure out why it's so hard to relate to troubled people. Like as soon as it's them they can fully understand their decisions and actions no matter how twisted or convoluted and even justify them. But as soon as it's not them they just judge because deep down they are not trying to relate to another person out of any kindness or intent to understand but just picking apart their shortcomings in a sort of twisted self gratification. It's easy to support being an understanding and empathic person as long as you're on the receiving end of it and a whole lot easier to judge when you're in the position to dispense the empathy and understanding.
Just a small correction. Fiona was stalking her boss BEFORE she was ever hired. She was sending letters, congratulations cards (for an engagement which is crazy because it was pre-internet). She was aslo stalking her ex boss WAY longer, the longest of all people. I believe she actually probably went to study law just to get a job with that woman because she was already obsessed. That poor woman thought that Fiona was someone she met and forgot and thats why she was getting crads and such from her. Before she ever hired her.
I saw someone say "Laura was the person she thought she was entitled to be, and Richard was the person she thought she was entitled to date". If that is true then Laura shaking Fiona will be much harder because her self image is so wrapped up in the stalking.
Laura Wray who endured over 5 years of abuse from this woman and she also had her identity revealed. She was also traumatised when she had to relive the experience through Fiona doing the Peirs Morgan interview and also the Netflix Show
Thanks Dr.G, I’ll definitely be adding this to my watch list on Netflix now. When she was describing her symptoms of anxiety and being scared to leave her house, I found it ridiculous that she legitimately doesn’t seem to realize that what she was describing is very often the EXACT things that victims of stalkers have to go through and live with. Instead of playing the victim she should be taking a long, hard look at herself. People like her make me sick honestly.
1. She defamed herself when she publicly harassed him at comedy events. 2. Netflix claiming the story is true could just be a device to enhance the storyline. Conversely, the movie Fargo did the reverse -- it was claimed to be a true story, but it is not. 3. Perhaps this all a gigantic publicity stunt orchestrated between Netflix and Fiona. But whatever the outcome, Fiona will continue to stalk and harass.
For your second point, I believe it's just one title card they say it's a true story. At the end of the series with the credits they do the whole spiel of "based on true events but things were changed blah blah"
@user-rn8jw7dh7j most hecklers don't obsessively follow and contact a performers or turn up at multiple shows to scream highly personal insults at them.
My sister has stalked many people (myself and my family included) and would see absolutely no wrong in what this woman did. She's a very dangerous person. So is Fiona and anyone else with a mindset like this.
In the UK a crinimal check is called a DBS check, what Fiona’s lawyer failed to mention is that this particular DBS check was a short one, for the last five years. There is an enhanced DBS check thst cover everything ever recorded, for some reason he didn’t attach a full DBS certificate !
Fiona has also brought up suing Piers Morgan. She thinks that he didn’t pay her enough for appearing on her show. It’s a shame that the criminal justice system didn’t hold her accountable. Perhaps mandated therapy and sanctions would have done her some good
He plainly exploited and took advantage of her to make a lot of money, just like Netflix and Richard, and half of UA-cam are exploiting her to make money. Stop picking her every blink apart. Stop picking apart every sentence. She’s a little different and the correct thing to do if you are being stalked is to contact the police and let them handle it.
@@Jacksmadaf She does have a law degree and should have known better how to negotiate. She agreed eagerly because she wanted fame and only realized afterwards she could have made more bank.
A female officer was just paid half a million dollars despite pulling a train with half the police force and ruining numerous lives. Is anyone surprised by this woman’s entitlement? We infantilize women and refuse to hold them accountable, period. It’s ridiculous.
She's going to have to establish that Martha, from the series, was her - if she's to have any hope of winning a defamation case. How is she going to do that? Without proving it - she's just some random woman that reacted badly to being falsely fingered by the Netflix watchers. In which case - surely that could be anybody? There would never be any visual dramatic arts ever again - just in case one viewer turns to another and says, "Hey - that could be you!!" Given the only identifying feature of 'Martha' is that Martha is a demented and seasoned stalker - Fiona Harvey is going to have to prove that she's guilty of stalking before she can claim for defamation. How many people are Scottish and female? How many, then, had a toy reindeer as a child (I know - the selection just got much shorter at that point but it's NOT 'one' yet). There could be, perhaps, a dozen other people who could protest that (without the attachment of the really emblematic criminal activity) they are the real Martha and they want reparations. So Fiona Harvey is going to have to stand out - and she's not suing the audience for its 'error' - she's going after production and they can easily just declare that Martha ISN'T Fiona. Ultimately, if this debacle were allowed to grind on greedily (and it looks like it probably will as there is at least one relentless maniac in the mix), it comes down to whether it is more criminal to stalk a person or for the victim to talk about it. That should be interesting. We'll get it in writing just how 'criminal' relates to 'ethical' and if we are indeed, as I think we might be, living in the upside down place. Fiona definitely should have been intercepted before now. Glaring, stark inadequacies regarding the British concept of the mental health safety net are being exposed. It's really not easy to get help, here, even when we want and need it. If Fiona Harvey has no real social connections, and she's so far gone that she has no idea that there may be something wrong with her, it might be why she is still very much around. Just about impossible, in those situations, to get somebody therapy. The only way it might happen is if she was diagnosed with a mental illness at a pre-trial assessment - and to get to that stage she'd have probably had to kill somebody.
@jacksmadf If you think that it is exploitative to comment on the case then you shouldn’t be watching and commenting on the video. It just adds to revenue.
@carpathianken 😮 I hadn't connected that but being in a surgery support group (tummy tucks not the other) I could very much see that. Oh, no she must be at least a bit off her rocker to admit that the similarities to her are enough to be offended...
I really don't get why, netflix just did not say based on a true story if she gets even 1 million from netflix, Laura Wray must sue her and get that money.
I believe that Netflix, perhaps sneakily, had the character typing the words, "This is a true story" at the very beginning of the first episode. So Netflix can argue that the character was saying those words and not Netflix. Then Netflix made the disclaimers at the end of the whole thing.
@@user-be2umui86k yes, at the end of the episode seven after three trailers . It’s quite frankly buried on Netflix know that Netflix need to behave themselves stop distorting the word Documentary
That's because there is no "my truth". There is THE truth, and not the truth. There is no such thing as "my truth". That's what losers say when they're making shit up to make themselves feel better about being a loser.
@@BigDaddyJinx I don't disagree with what you are saying, however it is context, because "my truth" and I hate this as much as you do, could be another way of someone saying "this is my side of the story", which to me is much less ambiguous and a better way of communicating the truth or facts as you yourself see it.
@@catscratchfever7540 You don't have to agree or disagree. That's the great thing about life. In my experience, anyone who uses the phrase "my truth" ends up saying some wildly preposterous things, or uses it when they are called out for previous preposterous claims. Like regret sex that suddenly becomes grape. "Well this is my truth..." Yeah. Just like that. Or people who claim to have Native ancestry ("Pretendians") and have lived a life full of lies and stolen many accolades and awards that should be for actual Natives...and when called out on it, they use those words "my truth" in their defence. So yeah, believe what you will, that's the great thing about life. I'll keep believing that the "my truthers" are liars and this is why they use the phrase. They see their lie as truth, so they will call it "my truth".
Last line of credits at end of ‘Baby Reindeer’. “This motion picture is based on true events. Certain ‘incidents’ ‘characters’ etc may have been fictionalised for dramatic purposes”. It’s in the small print, but I believe Netflix covered themselves.
It’s ironic that the series included a theme of empathy for the stalker, which is probably its most “criminal” suggestion. Stalkers should only receive understanding in psychiatric settings, as part of efforts to get them to stop their dangerous behaviour.
The criminal suggestion is the claim that the woman is a "convicted criminal" and a Netflix rep doubled down on this at a parliamentary committee. That alleged defamation is the foundation of Fiona Harvey's case.
That wasn't my interpretation of it all. I thought it was that we all have darkness inside and we tend to indulge our self destructive behaviour. Idk whatever, what do I know.
According to an interview by Laura Wray, she served Fiona with an interim restraining order, which lasted 1 year and 1 day and was then dropped from Fiona’s record. She said as Fiona had not contacted her for more than 20 years, it had done its job and she didn’t proceed further.
The character Martha would ‘out’ herself like Fiona did, it is in her nature. Most people who were depicted like that would keep quiet and move to place where nobody knew them. I heard what she did in Scotland, during the lawyer‘s interview with Piers Morgan. The lawyer had started criminal proceedings against Fiona, but fiona moved to England and the case was dropped. Fiona should have gone to prison for actions against the lawyer, her behaviour was disgusting. Anyone who behaves in the way described by the lawyer is not capable of normal behaviour for very long. I believe that Fiona’s behaviour was very similar to what was portrayed in the series. If she was taken to court in England and given a prison sentence, I wonder if the sentence was suspended. Which is why she says she hasn’t been in prison. If Fiona was not charged in England for her behaviour and the defamation case does go to trial in the US, I hope the English police open a case against her and look into what she has done in England.
Why are you lying? The lawyer never started criminal proceedings because there was no chance to do it. Did you even listen to her story? Also, are you from the UK? Because it doesn't work like that, that you can just move to England and you get off 😂
@@joannawinters6592 I understand that the lawyer in Scotland started, what we would call in England, exparte injunction proceedings against Fiona. You are probably right that the injunction was a civil matter, I don’t know much about Scottish law. I’m English. Fiona moved to England, as far as the Scottish lawyer was concerned, it didn’t matter if it was England, France or the highlands. What mattered was that Fiona was no longer near enough to stalk her, so the injunction was no longer necessary. There are some British laws that apply to both Scotland and England, but they are separate legal jurisdictions.
@@joannawinters6592you’re partly wrong, the law is different in Scotland and the lawyer dropped the case because Fiona C left do she was no longer being stalked and harassed . She did say it’s pointless suing someone who doesn’t have any money, she’s not a lawyer family’s or otherwise but was a solicitor trainee.
Her record is squeaky clean. They even got the UK government to write a writ stating so. The defence is that she was never arrested let alone charged. Also if you get arrested in England you don't need an extradition order to get her to Scotland lol. Typical American.
FARGO started the show with "this is a true story" but none of it is true. That line it's part of the creative art. Netflix did say its based on a true story in the credits. That's where the name of all the real people and stuff happening. The first line is part of the drama story.
170mil? She must be crazy at most she could receive around 2-8 million because she's not someone of high notoriety and there's no way that Netflix doc has made them that much money. Nor has the attention from the doc cost her or potentially could cost her anywhere near that amount of earnings now or in the future. But if I was Netflix I'd take her to court you can't submit to this blatant level of legal extortion. Especially when she wasn't the main focus of the documentary nor was she even recognizable until she came out and brought the attention onto herself
Netflix NEVER said that it is a true story. They didn't. When those words were used. It was by the character while writing on his computer making his script. At the end of every episode they used the words This is BASED on true events. Netflix NEVER made that assertion that has been widely misunderstood. Go rewatch the first episode. You will see that those words are not a claim by netflix. Its an in the show world character writing those words on a script. Unlike the based on true events claim thats on every episode. Which in American case law is more then enough to cover their as*. Multiple times over its been tried in court. As long as its put at the beginning or end of the media in question. And the names and characters are fictionalized if they do not have the permission of the original person or persons. They had all their bases covered. Its not netflix's fault for random people finding the real person. They would have done so no matter what Netflix did to try to hide her identity. Literally. They could have cast a poc to play Fiona claimed she was from somewhere far away. And people still would have found Fiona due to the pseudo factual nature of the story. Beyond that. Richard Gadd has a right to tell his story, in fact he has the right to tell his true story. He didn't even have to go the route he did with it. He could have told it 1 for 1 like it happened if he wanted too with a disclaimer that these are the events as Richard Gadd remembers them. Netflix takes no stance on the legitimacy of his memories or thoughts. Because these ARE things that happened to him in that case he has that right regardless of the form of media it came in. He still went the dramatized route and netflixed still covered themselves by saying based on a true story at the end of every episode. Which is all the law requires on that front if the characters identities are fictionalized they have fullfilled all legal requirements for a dramatization based on true events. Especially because AGAIN the first episode when it says 'this is a true story' its a character in universe of the dramatization writing a script on his computer. Not NETFLIX SAYING THIS IS A TRUE STORY lol.
At about 1:30 in episode 1, the words "this is a true story" appear against a black screen here in London, UK. At the end of each episode there is the "based on true events" claim, as you say. I think a court would say Netflix wished to have its cake and eat it.
@@johnnygate3399 Yea but go back and watch it again. You will find that those words were being written by Gadd on a screen in universe. Its not netflix making a claim. Its not lol. The only claim they make is at the end of each episode. I have rewatched it like 9 times now. Its 100% Richard Gadd typing those words while writing a script in universe. The clue should be that it comes in around 1 minute 30 seconds. Not BEFORE the show. And its in one episode. Its because its a character in universe writing.
@@johnnygate3399 I am not here to argue of course. But its even typed out in the same way and format that they show on the computer when he is typing at it. It is clearly his character typing it. Unlike the netflix statement at the end. they are wholly different. Also if they were making the claim that this is all a true story. they would say that on every episode. they dont. It was a thematic in universe decision. Not a claim made by Netflix. Yes it was a hook. But it was also being typed out by the character in universe. Intentionally so. Also a second set of crediting in between the start of the story is common and just proves my point lol. That is a very common thing to do. Especially on Netflix series. Cold open's into the starting credits then back to the story.
Such a bizarre series. I don’t think Fiona has any chance against Netflix since this was Richards story and the series didn’t use her real name. If she would have just stayed in the background, she might not have had people harassing her.
I agree... that and she should have privatized her Twitter and Facebook accounts! I just don't get how she thinks she can say all that stuff online and then try to play that she's the victim.
Watch the end credits, Netflix are safe, it says the following. This program is based on real events: however certain characters, names, incidents, locations and dialogue have been fictionalised for dramatic purposes. What should actually be happening here is that Richard presents his evidence of stalking against her and that she's tried and convicted and goes to prison, here in the UK Alex Belfield got 6 years in prison for doing far less yet here we are trying to make out she's the victim and should be compensated? This won't even get to court as there is no case to answer because Netflix are claiming the story is your but parts of it aren't, it's called poetic licence.
The Netflix production did not identify the stalker, the plaintiff brought attention to herself. Any character in a script or book is often a compilation of true and fictional persons.
I thought the cleverest part of baby reindeer was to gradually draw parallels between the character Donny and his stalker Martha. They were actually both sharing many similarities in the end, and in the closing scene you wonder if Donny then goes on to stalk his Good Samaritan. Donny’s character also shows us the difference between empathy and sympathy, and how the latter can be very dangerous if given to the wrong sort of indvidual
In the series it was Donnie the fictional character who said this is a true story. It was never said by the producers. It was actually part of the narration made by one of the characters.
If Netflix didn’t name her. And she says it’s all fake….then how is about her??? She is claiming that a story that is completely made up and is about a different named person is actually about her?!? And she deserves compensation for that??? Maybe Netflix could make a 2nd season telling her side 😂😂
Reading between the lines there was enough identifying information for her to be suspected. It is likely that and the derogatory way in which she was portrayed which caused her upset.
This is freakin surreal 😂❤ I always love your laid back delivery. You play the straight man vs all this ridiculousness. Do you ever burst out laughing and edit it out? It's the title Baby Reindeer I guess. I was looking into the issue of libel and found exactly what you said: if a written claim about someone is true, it can't be libel.
It is a very serious thing to claim that someone has a charge or conviction when they do not. We’ve all had bad relationships. Young people step over the line of acceptable behaviour often and hopefully learn not to do it in future. It would be a shame to legislate or sue ourselves into a situation where people can no longer tell their stories, but to assert that someone has been sent to jail for extreme behaviour when it did not happen is a serious offence. I have no sympathy for Netflix and the man who sought revenge in this manner.
Netflix should have a season 2 where he wakes up and just dreamed she went to jail then that would settle everything since the only thing that she seems to have a fixation on is that she never went to jail.
Everyone seems to have that same fixation. It's mental. It didn't happen, so what. That's not the point of the drama series lol. I don't understand why everyone is so fixed on this when Richard gadd himself has stated he never pressed charges against her, and that not everything in the show is true. A true story dramatisation is NEVER 100% completely true
Yes, well, more like infamous, and the notoriety is not paying her the big bucks she's looking for 😂😂. In my opinion. But my opinion also is that she's dangerous and not someone you'd ever want anywhere near your life.
I think some law firm has contacted her and offered their services on a no-win no fee basis, which is a common thing here in the UK. They are most likely looking for a quick settlement offer. However, I think it will back fire horribly for them , as she is clearly insane and will want to take it as far as she can.
This is so sad. Richard Gadd tried to humanise this women, never judging but she just shown herself beyond hope of redemption. She does not deserve any money and I hope any judge can see that the pain she caused was far greater that a little discomfort she had after deciding going to Piers Morgan uncensored.
In the doctor's last video about this woman, he declared her dangerous due to her unpredictability. Which has got me thinking that maybe I'll check out this series after all. And he did give it a thumbs 👍 up already.
Ok but i had no idea who she was till she went on Piers Morgans show and then filed this lawsuit, obviously a crazy few decided to seek her out but her saying "everyone" knew it was her is a major exaggeration.
I think saying someone has a criminal history when they do not is defamation when it comes to potential employment opportunities. Background checks wouldn’t even be completed because employers would assume she’s been jailed and this would prevent her from finding employment. I don’t condone stalking but if she wasn’t convicted by a court of law and sentenced she has the presumption of innocence right Dr Grande???
But Fiona told Piers Morgan that she never stalked the guy, so the story isn't about her. The story portrayed "Martha" as being convicted of stalking and going to jail. Fiona denied ever going to jail. So again, she is not the person in the story. She inserted herself into this story for who knows what reason. If she had just stayed quiet, this whole thing would have blown over by now.
She probably has many alternate accounts on social media, under different names. She drew attention to herself by writing these things to herself, then she could be ''famous" AND sue Netflicks. She really is nuts. Meanwhile, the worldwide public gets to watch, 'Baby Reindeer 2 -the Saga Continues' in real time, and some more collateral damage from this delusional pathological liar. Fun times.
I watched the series not knowing anything about the subsequent drama with Fiona at the time. Assuming this isn't any kind of hoax/publicity stunt, I have to say I think it's a disservice to victims of stalking that the focus has fallen on this defamation scandal. When it was an opportunity for a real conversation about the effects of being violated and mentally tortured by people who know how to escape accountability like this woman. Naturally she would recognize herself as the character, bc she did do those things. So she gets one more go at her victim by trying to punish him for telling his story, which is typical. She's nasty and hateful, and I hope she doesn't get a dime.
@@AndreaValentine-w4o Yes. You can still be arrested and tried and still be innocent if not convicted; however, her proven actions are enough in my opinion to have her investigated which would lead to arrest and trial.
Dr. Grande, I appreciate your analysis of this case. Thank you . As a matter of urgency. Would you like to consider analysing the case of the death of Dr. Michael Mosley. He died recently on a Greek island while walking on a very hot day while on vacation there with his wife. I would like to know your thoughts?
Essentially the people bothering her are acting the same, if not worse as she did. You can't say your standing up against a stalker by stalking them and being creepy. Multiply this by thousands of however many people are harassing her and imagine how she feels. Do these people not realize they are in the same circle of life and have the same actions and fault of character as the person they think they're better than? Ugh. She should win the lawsuit. But not 170 million. Give her 3 million so she can live her life anywhere and call it a day.
I haven't watched. I think she's not telling the truth by what Dr. Grande has said. It's a money grab imo. She might be awarded some money but not what she's asking.
I watched the interview she did with Piers Morgan. My impression was that this is an extension of her harassment campaign against her victim. The money and attention she gets will be a bonus.
What is a few million to Netflix, it keeps them in the spot light .How much would they have to pay in advertising. I am somewhat shocked that people are so focused on Fiona as apposed to the alleged assault. I would not have ever thought a grown man could be groomed, it certainly was an eye opener.
She'll get a settlement. She won't get $170M, but she'll get enough to be comfortable. To be honest, Netflix screwed up here. I predict she'll get a settlement. I won't bet my life on it, but That's just what I think.
Dear Dr Grande the reindeer has not spent sufficient time cantering and going from roof to roof and as it is it currently appears it has no hope of getting down a chimney. Also the no win no pay Lawyer, is counting on a reindeer = pre xmas settlement. Fantastic annalysis.
The fact still remains that media needs to be held more accountable for spreading nastiness and rumors about people, and the harm that they do with their actions.
You should probably start looking at news sources from other large countries. Spreading nastiness is the least horrible thing the American media has done
one important point that is overlooked, at the beginning of the first episode, it is Donny Dunn, the fictional character whos is typing the words "this is a true story' and the whole series is the fictional character of Donny narrating what happened to him, in the last episode we see him sitting at the computer, about to write out the story we just watched. I.e, for the fictional character it is a true story. And at the end of each episode there is a disclaimer about events being changed for dramatic purpose. I suspect that, the real life Richard Gadd went to the police and reported it, and the police approached Harvey with the charges - you can see her odd body language in the Piers Morgan interview when she is played the Court room scene in BR - it looks like she checking off the charges in her head, and is about to say something before she thinks better of it. Gadd probably didn't press charges, and it didn't take it to court. Either way, for the fictional character Donny Dunn his stalker Martha had been convicted, but that doesn't imply the real-life person, who came forward claiming the story is based on her, is a convicted stalker. The netflix exec who said "convicted stalker" was unwise, so I suspect Netflix might have to settle for some $, unless they have proof otherwise.
Sounds like she’s still stalking and grifting… She’s doing a great job of reminding everyone that the original case against her was legitimate… Smooth move.
Dr. Grande: I'm not diagnosing anybody in this video, even though I am, and get a thrill out of it. Just speculating on what could be happening, even though the evidence is clear as day and right as rain and nothing could be further from the truth. In closing, leave you comments down below on what are your thoughts on this case even though the proof is in the pudding 🍮. Cheers 🍻
Netflix may have covered themselves by simply stating at the beginning of the series that they were not diagnosing anyone but only speculating what might be happening in a situation like this.
🤣
😂😭😂
😂😂😂
Clutch!
🤣🤣😂
Plot twist: Fiona goes on Ozempic, loses 100 lbs, goes on Dancing w/ the Stars, becomes obsessed w/ her dance partner. There’s Baby Reindeer #2 for ya….
Or she could kill 2 birds with one stone by starring in a porn movie & call it *" My curtains need hanging badly "*
haha! I love that!
Sounds like a good show. I'm there for it! 😄
😂😂😂
@@valentinakren8816Hilarious
"This character is definitely based on me but is in no way an accurate reflection of me or my actions"
I don't know what you think you did there...?
That sentence can absolutely make sense and is coherent. The same happened to me.
Right? If there is nothing in the series that is true about her, then what is the basis for defamation? She outed herself. She wasn’t outed by the series.
@@joannawinters6592 someone developed a fictionalised character based on you, and that character had none of your traits, and none of the events depicted in the narrative resembled events from your life?
@@joannawinters6592 ever heard the phrase if the shoe fits wear it?
@@GalileoFigar0 This!!!
As a person in the entertainment industry I can tell you that Netflix has rooms full of lawyer and never would have released this series if their ducks weren't in a row.
Rooms full of lawyers failed before.
@@joannawinters6592 There is a lot of money involved. This story was dangerous, so you can bet they played 3D chess with this one. They may just settle a small amount to get her to go away. I think she deserves something.
@@jackmedcalf6254 Well, they say they aren't going to settle. I'm glad, it will force all of this into the courts with real evidence. I don't think she deserves anything except possibly a jail sentence or a psyc hold. I don't think she has a case. I think she's doing this as an extension of her harassment toward her victim.
@@jackmedcalf6254deserves something for what exactly?
It could be seen as negative press for her, being portrayed as a stalker. I agree the way Netflix set disclaimers up wasn't the right way to do it.
The thing is… Neither Netflix nor Gadd have stated that Martha is Fiona Harvey. Fiona Harvey herself claims that she is Martha.
Finally, someone with sense 👍
Word is she has called the court 100,000 times and has been sitting on the steps for over a week!!!
Where did that info come from? So the court told someone that she’s called over 100k times?
Source?
(´༎ຶོρ༎ຶོ`) Sounds legit
Guys it is a joke lol.
@@junipersages Obviously so, not sure how it went over anyone’s head lol
"THIS IS A TRUE STORY" was typed onto a computer screen by Donny (a fictional character) writing a screenplay.
Yep, from what I've been learning, it's a lot like the Blair Witch Trials, the whole schtick is that it's "found footage". It declares itself really really real, guys. Is it? No. It's part of the show. And anyone who "outs themself" is highly questionable anyway, imo. She doesn't have a leg to stand on, not to mention she's extremely sinister and dangerous, I have less than zero sympathy for her.
If only they misspelled it …
Dis is a Troooo Storey
Sent from myPad
@@PariahQuail😂😂😂
Why didn’t Dr. Grande mention that? Did he miss it ? Hmm. Guess I’ll have to watch the beginning opening scene of the series - not going any farther in though. Too close to the “causes me nightmares” kind of story! 🫣 ☮️
@@imaginepeace7588 Netflix doesn’t seem too worried about defining artistic license in court, or fictionalizations. As the original poster wisely stated Netflix’s legal team will have several outs for this.
I could never be a therapist/mental health specialist. Apart from lacking the requisite credentials, I have no empathy for a serial stalker who was okay sending thousands of emails and tweets to harass a person. What Dr. Grande and his peers do is commendable.
Yeah compulsive behaviour is a bitch.
It's difficult to empathize with things we don't understand. It takes a lot of understanding to work with the mentally ill
@mongoose6685 I think there's whole lot people who understand what empathy is but don't actually feel it and then can't figure out why it's so hard to relate to troubled people.
Like as soon as it's them they can fully understand their decisions and actions no matter how twisted or convoluted and even justify them.
But as soon as it's not them they just judge because deep down they are not trying to relate to another person out of any kindness or intent to understand but just picking apart their shortcomings in a sort of twisted self gratification.
It's easy to support being an understanding and empathic person as long as you're on the receiving end of it and a whole lot easier to judge when you're in the position to dispense the empathy and understanding.
@Azulakayes Inqas born with Psychopathy & an a credentialed Psychologist It’s not that hard I promise. 😁
It’s a good thing you’re not a therapist.
From what I've seen so far Fiona is proof that there's an asylum missing a patient.
Just peed my pants.
Underrated comment, by far 💯
Just a small correction. Fiona was stalking her boss BEFORE she was ever hired. She was sending letters, congratulations cards (for an engagement which is crazy because it was pre-internet).
She was aslo stalking her ex boss WAY longer, the longest of all people. I believe she actually probably went to study law just to get a job with that woman because she was already obsessed. That poor woman thought that Fiona was someone she met and forgot and thats why she was getting crads and such from her. Before she ever hired her.
I saw someone say "Laura was the person she thought she was entitled to be, and Richard was the person she thought she was entitled to date". If that is true then Laura shaking Fiona will be much harder because her self image is so wrapped up in the stalking.
@@justine8387 all very odd and disturbing.
Great insights from OP and the first response
Laura Wray who endured over 5 years of abuse from this woman and she also had her identity revealed. She was also traumatised when she had to relive the experience through Fiona doing the Peirs Morgan interview and also the Netflix Show
Thanks Dr.G, I’ll definitely be adding this to my watch list on Netflix now.
When she was describing her symptoms of anxiety and being scared to leave her house, I found it ridiculous that she legitimately doesn’t seem to realize that what she was describing is very often the EXACT things that victims of stalkers have to go through and live with.
Instead of playing the victim she should be taking a long, hard look at herself. People like her make me sick honestly.
Well said
She didn’t care so much about them!
Accusing people of child abuse is wicked!
🎯🎯🎯
It’s a great show! Some heavy scenes, but very good.
1. She defamed herself when she publicly harassed him at comedy events.
2. Netflix claiming the story is true could just be a device to enhance the storyline. Conversely, the movie Fargo did the reverse -- it was claimed to be a true story, but it is not.
3. Perhaps this all a gigantic publicity stunt orchestrated between Netflix and Fiona.
But whatever the outcome, Fiona will continue to stalk and harass.
What’s the line between the usual practice of heckling and her behavior?
For your second point, I believe it's just one title card they say it's a true story.
At the end of the series with the credits they do the whole spiel of "based on true events but things were changed blah blah"
I believe saying this is a true story is a circular part of plot because that is how he started his story at the end.
@user-rn8jw7dh7j most hecklers don't obsessively follow and contact a performers or turn up at multiple shows to scream highly personal insults at them.
She just can’t help herself
She needs full time therapy to get it under control
My sister has stalked many people (myself and my family included) and would see absolutely no wrong in what this woman did. She's a very dangerous person. So is Fiona and anyone else with a mindset like this.
Send her my number.
What was your sister looking for?
Stalkers deserve no sympathy
I'm a stalker and I helped a 13 year old catch her sex abuser. Do.i count
@@mat-ym8giyes, doing a good deed doesn't absolve you of stalking the girl.
Stalkers need professional help. I've been stalked 3 times, so having solutions is better than anger alone.
@@msbroomstick1 so you'd rather I let the sex offender free. OK. I'll do that then
@@yusefendure they don't need professional help. They need their abuser to not abuse them
In the UK a crinimal check is called a DBS check, what Fiona’s lawyer failed to mention is that this particular DBS check was a short one, for the last five years. There is an enhanced DBS check thst cover everything ever recorded, for some reason he didn’t attach a full DBS certificate !
Fiona has also brought up suing Piers Morgan. She thinks that he didn’t pay her enough for appearing on her show. It’s a shame that the criminal justice system didn’t hold her accountable. Perhaps mandated therapy and sanctions would have done her some good
He plainly exploited and took advantage of her to make a lot of money, just like Netflix and Richard, and half of UA-cam are exploiting her to make money. Stop picking her every blink apart. Stop picking apart every sentence. She’s a little different and the correct thing to do if you are being stalked is to contact the police and let them handle it.
@@Jacksmadaf She does have a law degree and should have known better how to negotiate. She agreed eagerly because she wanted fame and only realized afterwards she could have made more bank.
A female officer was just paid half a million dollars despite pulling a train with half the police force and ruining numerous lives. Is anyone surprised by this woman’s entitlement? We infantilize women and refuse to hold them accountable, period. It’s ridiculous.
She's going to have to establish that Martha, from the series, was her - if she's to have any hope of winning a defamation case. How is she going to do that? Without proving it - she's just some random woman that reacted badly to being falsely fingered by the Netflix watchers. In which case - surely that could be anybody? There would never be any visual dramatic arts ever again - just in case one viewer turns to another and says, "Hey - that could be you!!"
Given the only identifying feature of 'Martha' is that Martha is a demented and seasoned stalker - Fiona Harvey is going to have to prove that she's guilty of stalking before she can claim for defamation.
How many people are Scottish and female? How many, then, had a toy reindeer as a child (I know - the selection just got much shorter at that point but it's NOT 'one' yet). There could be, perhaps, a dozen other people who could protest that (without the attachment of the really emblematic criminal activity) they are the real Martha and they want reparations. So Fiona Harvey is going to have to stand out - and she's not suing the audience for its 'error' - she's going after production and they can easily just declare that Martha ISN'T Fiona.
Ultimately, if this debacle were allowed to grind on greedily (and it looks like it probably will as there is at least one relentless maniac in the mix), it comes down to whether it is more criminal to stalk a person or for the victim to talk about it. That should be interesting. We'll get it in writing just how 'criminal' relates to 'ethical' and if we are indeed, as I think we might be, living in the upside down place.
Fiona definitely should have been intercepted before now. Glaring, stark inadequacies regarding the British concept of the mental health safety net are being exposed. It's really not easy to get help, here, even when we want and need it. If Fiona Harvey has no real social connections, and she's so far gone that she has no idea that there may be something wrong with her, it might be why she is still very much around. Just about impossible, in those situations, to get somebody therapy. The only way it might happen is if she was diagnosed with a mental illness at a pre-trial assessment - and to get to that stage she'd have probably had to kill somebody.
@jacksmadf If you think that it is exploitative to comment on the case then you shouldn’t be watching and commenting on the video. It just adds to revenue.
When you exit another video when you see a Dr.Grande notification pop up! Happy Sunday! 😅
Happy Sunday!!
Facts.
Who tweets "My curtains need hung badly" ??
🤣😂🤣
Iv'e only ever seen women interested in getting a Labiaplasty procedure done tweet that.
@carpathianken 😮 I hadn't connected that but being in a surgery support group (tummy tucks not the other) I could very much see that. Oh, no she must be at least a bit off her rocker to admit that the similarities to her are enough to be offended...
😂😂😂
@jeffreybrewer8649 A frustrated draper 😜
I really don't get why, netflix just did not say based on a true story if she gets even 1 million from netflix, Laura Wray must sue her and get that money.
It gets more views
Netlfix did say that ("based on') it the credit.
I believe that Netflix, perhaps sneakily, had the character typing the words, "This is a true story" at the very beginning of the first episode. So Netflix can argue that the character was saying those words and not Netflix. Then Netflix made the disclaimers at the end of the whole thing.
@@user-be2umui86k yes, at the end of the episode seven after three trailers .
It’s quite frankly buried on Netflix know that Netflix need to behave themselves stop distorting the word Documentary
@@stereoreviewx The series is not a documentary, but listed as a drama miniseries.
Fiona is Queen of Grift, Duchess of Stalk
Gadd is the governor of gormless and ick of ickville
😂😂
Well, if she gets any money, at least she can then afford her own Diet Coke.
Anytime someone stats ‘my truth’ it sounds like they are absolutely lying
That's because they are being manipulative or just dopey.
There's "the truth" and "my perspective" but "my truth" isn't a thing.
That's because there is no "my truth". There is THE truth, and not the truth. There is no such thing as "my truth". That's what losers say when they're making shit up to make themselves feel better about being a loser.
@@BigDaddyJinx I don't disagree with what you are saying, however it is context, because "my truth" and I hate this as much as you do, could be another way of someone saying "this is my side of the story", which to me is much less ambiguous and a better way of communicating the truth or facts as you yourself see it.
@@catscratchfever7540 must people would say , that's not how I remember it'
Saying 'that's not my truth' sounds like you know you're lying
@@catscratchfever7540 You don't have to agree or disagree. That's the great thing about life.
In my experience, anyone who uses the phrase "my truth" ends up saying some wildly preposterous things, or uses it when they are called out for previous preposterous claims.
Like regret sex that suddenly becomes grape.
"Well this is my truth..."
Yeah. Just like that.
Or people who claim to have Native ancestry ("Pretendians") and have lived a life full of lies and stolen many accolades and awards that should be for actual Natives...and when called out on it, they use those words "my truth" in their defence.
So yeah, believe what you will, that's the great thing about life. I'll keep believing that the "my truthers" are liars and this is why they use the phrase. They see their lie as truth, so they will call it "my truth".
Legend has it you say Fiona's name three times and she will appear from nowhere and never leave your side!
She gives me psychopath vibes!
I got an over my bad
Last line of credits at end of ‘Baby Reindeer’. “This motion picture is based on true events. Certain ‘incidents’ ‘characters’ etc may have been fictionalised for dramatic purposes”. It’s in the small print, but I believe Netflix covered themselves.
It’s ironic that the series included a theme of empathy for the stalker, which is probably its most “criminal” suggestion. Stalkers should only receive understanding in psychiatric settings, as part of efforts to get them to stop their dangerous behaviour.
The criminal suggestion is the claim that the woman is a "convicted criminal" and a Netflix rep doubled down on this at a parliamentary committee. That alleged defamation is the foundation of Fiona Harvey's case.
100%, especially if they're actively interfering with other people's lives
Bellend
Stalking is an aspect of murder, which means it leads to murder
That wasn't my interpretation of it all. I thought it was that we all have darkness inside and we tend to indulge our self destructive behaviour.
Idk whatever, what do I know.
Thanks for putting this into perspective, doc. I can't fathom why such highly acclaimed lawyers have taken on the case.
I know! It's not like there's a former precedent or something!
Lawyers are going to be the winners in the case .. and receive the bulk of any settlement.
Money.
@@mol588 Right... and if Fiona stays true to form they will pay dearly for it.
According to an interview by Laura Wray, she served Fiona with an interim restraining order, which lasted 1 year and 1 day and was then dropped from Fiona’s record. She said as Fiona had not contacted her for more than 20 years, it had done its job and she didn’t proceed further.
The character Martha would ‘out’ herself like Fiona did, it is in her nature. Most people who were depicted like that would keep quiet and move to place where nobody knew them.
I heard what she did in Scotland, during the lawyer‘s interview with Piers Morgan. The lawyer had started criminal proceedings against Fiona, but fiona moved to England and the case was dropped. Fiona should have gone to prison for actions against the lawyer, her behaviour was disgusting.
Anyone who behaves in the way described by the lawyer is not capable of normal behaviour for very long. I believe that Fiona’s behaviour was very similar to what was portrayed in the series.
If she was taken to court in England and given a prison sentence, I wonder if the sentence was suspended. Which is why she says she hasn’t been in prison.
If Fiona was not charged in England for her behaviour and the defamation case does go to trial in the US, I hope the English police open a case against her and look into what she has done in England.
I agree with you
She can’t stop
She must BE stopped
Not paid!!!
Why are you lying? The lawyer never started criminal proceedings because there was no chance to do it. Did you even listen to her story?
Also, are you from the UK? Because it doesn't work like that, that you can just move to England and you get off 😂
@@joannawinters6592 I understand that the lawyer in Scotland started, what we would call in England, exparte injunction proceedings against Fiona. You are probably right that the injunction was a civil matter, I don’t know much about Scottish law. I’m English. Fiona moved to England, as far as the Scottish lawyer was concerned, it didn’t matter if it was England, France or the highlands. What mattered was that Fiona was no longer near enough to stalk her, so the injunction was no longer necessary.
There are some British laws that apply to both Scotland and England, but they are separate legal jurisdictions.
@@joannawinters6592you’re partly wrong, the law is different in Scotland and the lawyer dropped the case because Fiona C left do she was no longer being stalked and harassed . She did say it’s pointless suing someone who doesn’t have any money, she’s not a lawyer family’s or otherwise but was a solicitor trainee.
Her record is squeaky clean. They even got the UK government to write a writ stating so.
The defence is that she was never arrested let alone charged.
Also if you get arrested in England you don't need an extradition order to get her to Scotland lol.
Typical American.
FARGO started the show with "this is a true story" but none of it is true. That line it's part of the creative art. Netflix did say its based on a true story in the credits. That's where the name of all the real people and stuff happening. The first line is part of the drama story.
If none of it is true, why does she think the character is based on her?
170mil? She must be crazy at most she could receive around 2-8 million because she's not someone of high notoriety and there's no way that Netflix doc has made them that much money. Nor has the attention from the doc cost her or potentially could cost her anywhere near that amount of earnings now or in the future. But if I was Netflix I'd take her to court you can't submit to this blatant level of legal extortion. Especially when she wasn't the main focus of the documentary nor was she even recognizable until she came out and brought the attention onto herself
If Fiona gets even 2 million, she still comes out ahead. That said, that attorney suing her will leave her where she started
Netflix NEVER said that it is a true story. They didn't. When those words were used. It was by the character while writing on his computer making his script. At the end of every episode they used the words This is BASED on true events. Netflix NEVER made that assertion that has been widely misunderstood. Go rewatch the first episode. You will see that those words are not a claim by netflix. Its an in the show world character writing those words on a script. Unlike the based on true events claim thats on every episode.
Which in American case law is more then enough to cover their as*. Multiple times over its been tried in court. As long as its put at the beginning or end of the media in question. And the names and characters are fictionalized if they do not have the permission of the original person or persons. They had all their bases covered. Its not netflix's fault for random people finding the real person. They would have done so no matter what Netflix did to try to hide her identity. Literally. They could have cast a poc to play Fiona claimed she was from somewhere far away. And people still would have found Fiona due to the pseudo factual nature of the story. Beyond that. Richard Gadd has a right to tell his story, in fact he has the right to tell his true story. He didn't even have to go the route he did with it. He could have told it 1 for 1 like it happened if he wanted too with a disclaimer that these are the events as Richard Gadd remembers them. Netflix takes no stance on the legitimacy of his memories or thoughts. Because these ARE things that happened to him in that case he has that right regardless of the form of media it came in.
He still went the dramatized route and netflixed still covered themselves by saying based on a true story at the end of every episode. Which is all the law requires on that front if the characters identities are fictionalized they have fullfilled all legal requirements for a dramatization based on true events. Especially because AGAIN the first episode when it says 'this is a true story' its a character in universe of the dramatization writing a script on his computer. Not NETFLIX SAYING THIS IS A TRUE STORY lol.
At about 1:30 in episode 1, the words "this is a true story" appear against a black screen here in London, UK. At the end of each episode there is the "based on true events" claim, as you say. I think a court would say Netflix wished to have its cake and eat it.
@@johnnygate3399 Yea but go back and watch it again. You will find that those words were being written by Gadd on a screen in universe. Its not netflix making a claim. Its not lol. The only claim they make is at the end of each episode. I have rewatched it like 9 times now. Its 100% Richard Gadd typing those words while writing a script in universe.
The clue should be that it comes in around 1 minute 30 seconds. Not BEFORE the show. And its in one episode. Its because its a character in universe writing.
@@saibisureddo5657 Well, you do not see Gadd sitting with a computer till about 9:55. Also there is a second set of opening credits at about 3:55.
@@johnnygate3399 I am not here to argue of course. But its even typed out in the same way and format that they show on the computer when he is typing at it. It is clearly his character typing it. Unlike the netflix statement at the end. they are wholly different. Also if they were making the claim that this is all a true story. they would say that on every episode. they dont. It was a thematic in universe decision. Not a claim made by Netflix. Yes it was a hook. But it was also being typed out by the character in universe. Intentionally so. Also a second set of crediting in between the start of the story is common and just proves my point lol. That is a very common thing to do. Especially on Netflix series. Cold open's into the starting credits then back to the story.
Ok, but there is parliament appearance and claim by netflix
10:31 Excellent explanation of this complicated issue, Dr. Grande!
Such a bizarre series. I don’t think Fiona has any chance against Netflix since this was Richards story and the series didn’t use her real name. If she would have just stayed in the background, she might not have had people harassing her.
Amber Heard also didn't use the name
I agree... that and she should have privatized her Twitter and Facebook accounts! I just don't get how she thinks she can say all that stuff online and then try to play that she's the victim.
Netflix never made the connection between Fiona and Richard. They gave her an alias to protect her. It was the fans that connected the dots.
If she wants to claim the alias as herself, her stupidity reigns. No culpability by Netflix.
She should hire Barbara Streisand as her lawyer
😂
Oh you didn't know? She has a handsome lawyer boyfriend
😂
Look in the Mirror, say Martha three times...and she will appear.
-sent from Ifon
Ifiona
If you say her name backwards three times will she go away? Anoif, Anoif, Anoif.
Watch the end credits, Netflix are safe, it says the following.
This program is based on real events: however certain characters, names, incidents, locations and dialogue have been fictionalised for dramatic purposes.
What should actually be happening here is that Richard presents his evidence of stalking against her and that she's tried and convicted and goes to prison, here in the UK Alex Belfield got 6 years in prison for doing far less yet here we are trying to make out she's the victim and should be compensated?
This won't even get to court as there is no case to answer because Netflix are claiming the story is your but parts of it aren't, it's called poetic licence.
Yeah, I wanna sue "The Rock" Dwayne Johnson because I thought he was the Tooth Fairy😮
The Netflix production did not identify the stalker, the plaintiff brought attention to herself. Any character in a script or book is often a compilation of true and fictional persons.
I thought the cleverest part of baby reindeer was to gradually draw parallels between the character Donny and his stalker Martha. They were actually both sharing many similarities in the end, and in the closing scene you wonder if Donny then goes on to stalk his Good Samaritan.
Donny’s character also shows us the difference between empathy and sympathy, and how the latter can be very dangerous if given to the wrong sort of indvidual
In the series it was Donnie the fictional character who said this is a true story. It was never said by the producers. It was actually part of the narration made by one of the characters.
I'm not sure Fiona should be suing Netflix over a loss of appetite.
I thought the same thing but was afraid to say it!
😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂
I was thinking that she should thank them as it will help with her sugar levels and therefore her diabetes, win win!
Loss of appetite?
For what?
10 seconds? Gimme a break.
People saying: 170 million $?! She must be crazy! Uh,hello, duh! 😂😂
If Netflix didn’t name her. And she says it’s all fake….then how is about her??? She is claiming that a story that is completely made up and is about a different named person is actually about her?!? And she deserves compensation for that??? Maybe Netflix could make a 2nd season telling her side 😂😂
..and she has stepped up herself and claimed to be the person in the series.
Reading between the lines there was enough identifying information for her to be suspected. It is likely that and the derogatory way in which she was portrayed which caused her upset.
Indeed. She should probably make up her mind.
Amber Heard also didn't name John Depp
I think they did use some of the exact messages she sent him and that is what led to people finding her identity
That Matha woman is pure evil. The lawyer she stalked endured years of her destructive stalking. Martha… go get help!
Both the lawyer and gadd make me ill
This is Fiona Harvey,.....I'm suing you now,...pls all your send info to me at this time,...thank you
Fiona make me ill
@@mat-ym8gi Is that you Fiona?
@windywednesday4166 Dude it honestly might be
This is freakin surreal 😂❤ I always love your laid back delivery. You play the straight man vs all this ridiculousness. Do you ever burst out laughing and edit it out? It's the title Baby Reindeer I guess.
I was looking into the issue of libel and found exactly what you said: if a written claim about someone is true, it can't be libel.
yesss i've been waiting for thissss!!!
If anything, I think going to prison would have redeemed her in many people's eyes.
She’s done this to previous employers, and colleagues. Dangerous woman
Netflix didn't say Fiona was convicted, they said Martha was, so technically, Fiona's name was never used. Does that make sense?
Martha would make an amazing Scientologist! 😂
It is a very serious thing to claim that someone has a charge or conviction when they do not. We’ve all had bad relationships. Young people step over the line of acceptable behaviour often and hopefully learn not to do it in future. It would be a shame to legislate or sue ourselves into a situation where people can no longer tell their stories, but to assert that someone has been sent to jail for extreme behaviour when it did not happen is a serious offence. I have no sympathy for Netflix and the man who sought revenge in this manner.
Netflix should have a season 2 where he wakes up and just dreamed she went to jail then that would settle everything since the only thing that she seems to have a fixation on is that she never went to jail.
Everyone seems to have that same fixation. It's mental. It didn't happen, so what. That's not the point of the drama series lol. I don't understand why everyone is so fixed on this when Richard gadd himself has stated he never pressed charges against her, and that not everything in the show is true.
A true story dramatisation is NEVER 100% completely true
Fiona Harvey is a joke and she's a terrifying stalker.
👏👏👏
Omg I was hoping to see a video for this from your channel amazing
Great analysis Dr. Grande and yes, what are her damages? Actually, Netflix has made her famous. Thank you Dr. Grande.
@jodiearrington, Netflix have made her INfamous, which is a different thing entirely.
Yes, well, more like infamous, and the notoriety is not paying her the big bucks she's looking for 😂😂. In my opinion. But my opinion also is that she's dangerous and not someone you'd ever want anywhere near your life.
Yeah she could always sell her side now and make money from that. I bet someone would pick it up.
She already said it wasn't her when being interviewed, how can she sue ?
Netflix also changes real history to fit their agenda. They change historic characters. Netflix know very well what they do, it is not the first time.
I think some law firm has contacted her and offered their services on a no-win no fee basis, which is a common thing here in the UK. They are most likely looking for a quick settlement offer. However, I think it will back fire horribly for them , as she is clearly insane and will want to take it as far as she can.
Richard Gadd hardly covers himself in glory in this show tbh.
He likes to be seen as weak and feeble. I think he is a sub at heart
This is so sad. Richard Gadd tried to humanise this women, never judging but she just shown herself beyond hope of redemption. She does not deserve any money and I hope any judge can see that the pain she caused was far greater that a little discomfort she had after deciding going to Piers Morgan uncensored.
In the doctor's last video about this woman, he declared her dangerous due to her unpredictability.
Which has got me thinking that maybe I'll check out this series after all. And he did give it a thumbs 👍 up already.
Yes
Watch it
I’ll never forget it
It gets to you!
This story is significant.
Its the 1st time my brain is incapable of knowing whats going on due to a very high level of not giving a shit.
Ok but i had no idea who she was till she went on Piers Morgans show and then filed this lawsuit, obviously a crazy few decided to seek her out but her saying "everyone" knew it was her is a major exaggeration.
Exactly.
I think saying someone has a criminal history when they do not is defamation when it comes to potential employment opportunities. Background checks wouldn’t even be completed because employers would assume she’s been jailed and this would prevent her from finding employment. I don’t condone stalking but if she wasn’t convicted by a court of law and sentenced she has the presumption of innocence right Dr Grande???
But Fiona told Piers Morgan that she never stalked the guy, so the story isn't about her. The story portrayed "Martha" as being convicted of stalking and going to jail. Fiona denied ever going to jail. So again, she is not the person in the story. She inserted herself into this story for who knows what reason. If she had just stayed quiet, this whole thing would have blown over by now.
The minute you said she suffered 'loss of appetite' I gone. 😅
Ahahahahaha big Bertha 😃
I see no loss of appetite…
Perhaps she cannot even lie about that
She probably has many alternate accounts on social media, under different names. She drew attention to herself by writing these things to herself, then she could be ''famous" AND sue Netflicks. She really is nuts.
Meanwhile, the worldwide public gets to watch, 'Baby Reindeer 2 -the Saga Continues' in real time, and some more collateral damage from this delusional pathological liar. Fun times.
Yes, I'm pretty sure I've seen her in the comments section already!
Netflix have also exploited her story for profits
I watched the series not knowing anything about the subsequent drama with Fiona at the time. Assuming this isn't any kind of hoax/publicity stunt, I have to say I think it's a disservice to victims of stalking that the focus has fallen on this defamation scandal. When it was an opportunity for a real conversation about the effects of being violated and mentally tortured by people who know how to escape accountability like this woman. Naturally she would recognize herself as the character, bc she did do those things. So she gets one more go at her victim by trying to punish him for telling his story, which is typical. She's nasty and hateful, and I hope she doesn't get a dime.
Who cares if she was convicted or not in the past. The fact is, she SHOULD be arrested and tried!
But she wasn’t and until she is she has the presumption of innocence.
@@AndreaValentine-w4o Yes. You can still be arrested and tried and still be innocent if not convicted; however, her proven actions are enough in my opinion to have her investigated which would lead to arrest and trial.
A person who steals is a robber
Convicted or not
(They know, the people who’ve been stolen from know)
She knows
Her victims know
Adding a comment for algorithm. I cannot do a better analysis than you. Thank you for your content.
I wonder how this conversation would go if the Baby Reindeer was female and the Martha stalker was male??
I think it would be significantly different
Nah, not in these circumstances. and women are often blamed even more.
I know it would
Thank you for covering this as I rarely watch those type of shows. Great points & analysis as always. Thanks Dr G😊💝💝
I'm assuming Fiona Harvey "was never convicted" because she was deemed criminally insane and spent time in a criminal psychiatric ward
No
@pathfinder6993 yes in Scotland. Nothing you can do unless she assaulted her.
Dr Grande is so smart.. he thoroughly explains so many topics along with mental health.
Fiona Harvey suing about a show she herself has publicly claimed she has never watched before 😂🙄
Dr Grande, how does one deal with a stalker that wont go away regardless of restraining/no contact orders.???
Dr. Grande, I appreciate your analysis of this case. Thank you .
As a matter of urgency. Would you like to consider analysing the case of the death of Dr. Michael Mosley. He died recently on a Greek island while walking on a very hot day while on vacation there with his wife. I would like to know your thoughts?
Essentially the people bothering her are acting the same, if not worse as she did. You can't say your standing up against a stalker by stalking them and being creepy. Multiply this by thousands of however many people are harassing her and imagine how she feels.
Do these people not realize they are in the same circle of life and have the same actions and fault of character as the person they think they're better than?
Ugh. She should win the lawsuit. But not 170 million. Give her 3 million so she can live her life anywhere and call it a day.
I haven't watched. I think she's not telling the truth by what Dr. Grande has said. It's a money grab imo. She might be awarded some money but not what she's asking.
I watched the interview she did with Piers Morgan. My impression was that this is an extension of her harassment campaign against her victim. The money and attention she gets will be a bonus.
important PSA: Baby Reindeer ISNT A DOCUMENTARY
Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk…
What is a few million to Netflix, it keeps them in the spot light .How much would they have to pay in advertising.
I am somewhat shocked that people are so focused on Fiona as apposed to the alleged assault. I would not have ever thought a grown man could be groomed, it certainly was an eye opener.
At the end of the series it states it is “based on a true story”
The folks at Netflix seem to have a real talent -- for making bad decisions.
Netflix philosophy:
There's no such thing as bad publicity
Not really. They will have made a fortune on the misery of fiona. They will be fine even if they take a tiny loss keeping her from killing herself
So Fiona's the victim? Look up the emails she sent to Kier Starmer and her former employer, she's vile
She has every right to defend herself.
I never believe anything I see on Netflix anyway. They have a tendency to rewrite history.
That’s true. They’re full of shit.
She'll get a settlement. She won't get $170M, but she'll get enough to be comfortable. To be honest, Netflix screwed up here. I predict she'll get a settlement. I won't bet my life on it, but That's just what I think.
She makes her own drama then puts on the victim badge.
Gadd does that
Dear Dr Grande the reindeer has not spent sufficient time cantering and going from roof to roof and as it is it currently appears it has no hope of getting down a chimney. Also the no win no pay Lawyer, is counting on a reindeer = pre xmas settlement. Fantastic annalysis.
The fact still remains that media needs to be held more accountable for spreading nastiness and rumors about people, and the harm that they do with their actions.
You should probably start looking at news sources from other large countries. Spreading nastiness is the least horrible thing the American media has done
@@ThegreekchickLouisianaFREEDOM OF PRESS.... IT'S A RIGHT!!!!!!!
But the nastiness is not rumor its real things she has done that are nasty. They're not depicting her falsely. She cray
As usual Dr Grande’s summation is brilliantly accurate
It's partially true and partially fiction is my guess. And Netflix only cares about $$$$
wow this is a great summary of the baby reindeer story and how Fiona might be thinking
one important point that is overlooked, at the beginning of the first episode, it is Donny Dunn, the fictional character whos is typing the words "this is a true story' and the whole series is the fictional character of Donny narrating what happened to him, in the last episode we see him sitting at the computer, about to write out the story we just watched. I.e, for the fictional character it is a true story. And at the end of each episode there is a disclaimer about events being changed for dramatic purpose. I suspect that, the real life Richard Gadd went to the police and reported it, and the police approached Harvey with the charges - you can see her odd body language in the Piers Morgan interview when she is played the Court room scene in BR - it looks like she checking off the charges in her head, and is about to say something before she thinks better of it. Gadd probably didn't press charges, and it didn't take it to court. Either way, for the fictional character Donny Dunn his stalker Martha had been convicted, but that doesn't imply the real-life person, who came forward claiming the story is based on her, is a convicted stalker. The netflix exec who said "convicted stalker" was unwise, so I suspect Netflix might have to settle for some $, unless they have proof otherwise.
Sounds like she’s still stalking and grifting… She’s doing a great job of reminding everyone that the original case against her was legitimate… Smooth move.
The mental health profession still has a lot of challenges
I think the law firm should be ashamed for exploiting a very unstable person for fame and money.
Dr. Grande: I'm not diagnosing anybody in this video, even though I am, and get a thrill out of it. Just speculating on what could be happening, even though the evidence is clear as day and right as rain and nothing could be further from the truth.
In closing, leave you comments down below on what are your thoughts on this case even though the proof is in the pudding 🍮.
Cheers 🍻
Harassment, abuse, and subsequent stress have a negative physical impact on a person.