Head to policygenius.com to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save. Go to shopify.com/lawnerd now to grow your business-no matter what stage you’re in.
@TheEmilyDBaker Does it make a difference that the words at the beginning were TYPED on the screen? To me, Netflix wasn’t saying it was a true story. It is a shot of Donny Dunn typing on his computer - beginning to type out his story. A fictional character typing on the screen. Plus at the end of each episode it states that things have been changed for dramatic purposes.
Same woman that was mentioned in that interview. She also said she will go after Harvey if she wins this case. Her staff were so frightened of her. I would also assume the she would have receipts being an att.
I felt truly sorry for that woman (I can’t remember her name off the top of my head,) because she did explain (quite rightly,) that there were no laws against stalking at the time this occurred. It sounds like she still has receipts if she intends to go after her post-Netflix, and the truth is, if Richard Gadd had been to the police about what he was going through and submitted the 411,000 emails, 106 letters and however many voicemails, the chances are that the very most that would happen is that a restraining order (with a time limit on it,) would be issued. Even the solicitor who said that Ms Harvey had sent social services to her house alleging child abuse against her and her MP husband’s severely disabled son (which could have caused untold damage, most of all to the son had he been placed in our often appalling foster care system,) was later said by Piers to have been a victim of a “troll” rather than a stalker - even though her entire staff team were issued with panic alarms. This was so dismissive of Piers who clearly has no understanding of the seriousness of stalking and how it affects people’s lives. I felt bad for this lady that she too had had her identity blown open too, as she’s mentioned in the show, but I do feel if everything she said is true, there could be a kind of rough justice for “the real Martha,” who will have now learned how it feels to be in terror of opening your door, to switch your phone on, for the safety of her loved ones, etc, as well as now having the risk of having any money she wins in the lawsuit taken off her for defaming the woman she stalked (when there will in fact still be police records of this in Scotland even if a conviction was never secured because no specific crime had been committed at that time in legal history.) As for now, here in the U.K. even women or men who have been subjected to literal torture by an ex-partner who is now stalking them having got out of prison, and even if a restraining order is in place, are usually told “we can’t do anything unless they actually commit a crime.” Those people (usually women,) very often end up unalived, so the fact that the criminal convictions aren’t factual is totally unsurprising. I wonder if the script editors felt they had to put that in there for dramatic license, but from what I’ve heard so far it only proves Ms Harvey wasn’t imprisoned - not that she shouldn’t have been.
What don't people understand about the "disclaimer" in Baby Reindeer?! The "This is a true story" at the beginning of the show is NOT A DISCLAIMER! It's part of the main character typing his story out on his computer as we see in the last episode. THE ACTUAL DISCLAIMER THAT "THIS IS BASED ON A TRUE STORY" APPEARS AT THE END OF EACH EPISODE.
exactly! I‘m so confused why none of the creators I have watched mentions the legal disclaimer at the end. They only double down on this one - clearly typed by Donny - line. Sadly inculding EDB. Also either they „made up“ things to protect her identity or everything is true but then they did not disguise her identity at all. Both can‘t be true.
@@ItsmysoapboxAgree. I can’t see how she can claim one minute “it’s not me, I didn’t do any of those things”, and then claim “ it’s me , but with embellishment”. It can’t be both if you want to claim defamation.
@TheEmilyDBaker please read this ( @lainoh9578 ) comment. This will answer a lot of questions, especially as to why Harvey doesn't have an actual case.
Netflix testified , under oath, to parliament that it was a true story and she was a convicted criminal. There was no disclaimer that they were committing perjury and contempt of parliament.
How relevant is this tho? When the audience is let to believe initially that it's a true story, a legal disclaimer at the end might not suffice to dispel this.
Well whether or not she has seen it is irrelevant. She could choose to have seen it anytime after the Piers interview. Her lawyers will have seen it, people around her saw it and told her details about what was in it. The parts that make her look bad is what the lawsuit is about. It is a crime to defame somebody. The parts about him being true aren't all that relevant to the case except to maybe undermine his character.
@@kevinstrother8712 this is where you're wrong , because her lawsuit is specifically: she wasn't arrested, she wasn't accuse of stalking an officer , she wasn't convicted or sentenced over the stalking of the lead of baby reindeer . those are what she's fighting against , which yeah regardless of how you feel or I feel, is seemingly on Netflix for not doing their job and confirming this
So she didn't get caught or convicted. But she did also say that she has changed her name. I wander if they have looked at previous names to see if she has been convicted?
1. I think one cultural thing that will change is the this is "a true story" thing not being used as much. 2. I'm really glad in a way Netflix and Gadd have shone a light on stalking. 3. I found Piers Morgan's second interview with lawyer Laura Wray very insightful. 4. Keir Starmer is on track to become the next UK prime minister and she was on a police watchlist because of sending him hundreds of abusive emails, over 8 months. Not a good look.
There are a few reasons I think that Fiona cannot prevail on defamation per se. She has a history of stalking people. She has been reported in the press as a stalker. There are 4 past victims of her stalking. Gadd has the evidence that she sent him 10s of 1000s of emails. I have seen other interviews with another victim of her stalking. How can you tarnish her reputation if her reputation is that she is a stalker? At some point whether or not she went to prison is beside the point. Also, the way that records are kept in the UK she could have had her record expunged for certain crimes after 5 yrs. In order to find those crimes one would need a more detailed report. The report she submitted as evidence is a basic background check, not the more thorough report, which makes me think that she's hiding something.
If he stated she went to trial about his case and that never happened I think it's fair her to have an issue with that. Gadd could have told that story with very minor changes and "Martha" would have remained anonymous. And the series would have still been popular. It just seems like an unnecessary risk to identify a private citizen. Her claim for damages is insane but I understand being upset about being shown as a convicted criminal if she is not.
I would argue that just because someone has a reputation for doing something doesn't mean you can't defame them. If someone had a history of being a thief 10 years ago, but since has turned their life around and become a better person, if they are accused of stealing again recently and it was a lie, would that lie not be MORE believable because of their history? That's just all the more reason to take serious action against the defamation.
@@Lollipop_Lexiok, that's not what I was talking about. Don't mistake what I was saying for supporting her, truthfully i don't know what's true or not. my only point was that if someone lies about a person who has been known to have past behavior in line with what they said, it could potentially be more damaging and defamatory then if it were someone with no history of that.
@@KarazolaXthis is the key thing , even if she's gulity (in terms of action ) of stalking someone else , unless you can prove she is gulity of stalking him(both in action and legally )and the police officer (in action ) then your whole case is shot.
It's actually difficult to get a full report in the UK. The one they provided is a BASIC DBS check which does not show any "spent" convictions. If she was convicted, it would be considered "spent" by now and would not show up.
I'm sure Fiona Harvey's lawyer had no problem getting an official document that his client has never been convicted of a crime. He refers to it in the lawsuit.
That's the due diligence she says netflix didn't do though. Before airing this Netflix would've to make sure that this is not untrue. It's not her problem to proof whether or not she was ever convicted and behind bars, but it's Netflix responsibility to make sure to not claim it about her without proof. They have two ways of doing this, either by disguising her enough or by only airing things they can proof.
Fiona's complaint chooses very specific language when talking about a prior criminal history. She never plead gulity. How about no contest? She says she was never convicted. Well, you're not convicted if you get any version of deferred adjudication and the case is dismissed. She also doesn't say she hasn't been arrested. Many lay people don't know the difference between pleas and if a conviction is entered after adjudication. I'm interested to see what happens with this suit.
No, probably because the process of suing here in the UK is completely different. Will require different forms of funding and legal representation. She will be able to afford it once she wins/settles this case.
The show literally states that "certain characters, names, incidents, locations, and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes" in every episode.. 😭 Also Fiona even said in an interview that he never followed her home and spied through her window so how is she going to now use that in a lawsuit.. jesus
Not true. It was advertised in the UK as a true story. Gadd was all over TV here. Netflix was brought up to parliament and stated under oath it was a true story. It doesn't say it at the beginning and she's been defamed by people listening to nonsense online and have not seen that disclaimer. Anyway... Netflix lied under oath and failed to protect her identity - and you blamed her? He didn't out the person who SA'd him tho. You're saying nothing about that
Well it was still a gross thing to be depicting in a show. If the show was about you or a relative of yours and some guy was depicting himself to be following them/you home and getting off to your/their pictures then there would be issues around the embarrassment that would cause and any emotional distress that comes with it. You can't just say "Well she said it didn't happen" No, but then the question comes up:- Why on earth did he depict that in the show? It seems relevant to defamation imo. Would you/ or your relative not be having your/their reputation potentially damaged by such and embarrassing and gratuitous act being depicted against them? It would certainly be embarrassing for me! And I would be livid if he did that to one of my relatives. Also how would Fiona know if he did stalk her but she just never saw him? Or what he did with her picture behind closed doors?
I also don’t think the “This is a true story” caption appears on every episode. When it comes to Gadd’s personal story, I think they show it. That will be something that comes up Im sure.
Exactly - Donny is a character 'based on' Gadd's life. Martha is his fictional stalker. Harvey already had a bad reputation before Clerkenwell Films made Baby Reindeer too
@@CaroleEvans93436 "Harvey already had a bad reputation before Clerkenwell Films made Baby Reindeer" - Yet they didn't show duty of care in protecting her identity and she was identified right after the first episode was released. Therefore endangering her.
There’s a disclaimer at the end of the episodes saying based on a true story; also, she’s a stalker who is currently stalking someone now! She should be in jail!
There’s a video on ‘simply said’ where he explains the different types of dbs checks in the uk, it looks like her lawyers only have the basic dbs check that doesn’t dig that deeply into previous convictions and in Scotland Laura Wray was explaining that some convictions once spent may not even appear on the dbs so just because it’s not on there doesn’t mean it didn’t exist
This isn't true. She has a kings council solicitor and he's more than capable. The alleged crime is within the timeframe for a basic disclosure anyway. The solicitor can see if she has any convictions at all and doesn't need an enhanced
But for baby reindeer - is it important if she saw resemblance to her? Isn't it more important that OTHER people saw it? And they clearly thought it was her.
She was already known as she had appeared in Scottish and National newspapers - due to her stalking behaviour. She's currently being investigated for sending Sir Keir Starmer - our soon to be new Prime Minister - 276 threatening emails. A temp secretary from a psychiatric unit has also come forward as she was harassed by Harvey. I'm sure more people will come forward
@@Lollipop_Lexigiven what as outlined here : a findable tweet with her real name attached saying exactly a phrase similar of hanging curtains and then getting bombarded by hundreds of messages , even if she didn't confirm it overly , it sounds like people put 2 and 2 together and she confirmed it was 4 but it doesn't take a genius to believe iit was 4
I SWEAR I remember seeing in the opening of the first episode that it said "A True Story" but THEN WENT ON TO SAY "Some events have been made up or dramatized"
I thougt it was the caracter Donny that wrote "this is a true story" and didnt think it was a documentary, but based on true events and dramatized.. I was really surpriced when this blew up in the media some time later.
Yes. I saw the "this is a true story" as a part of Donny's characters' journey in response to the policeman asking why he didn't report this earlier. Like a person spinning a story in a bar. A creative writing trope. "I swear it happened just like this" ...then it's their skewd memory or an wild ride. Like Fargo. Or a Hunter Thompson piece. I think because it was so emotionally visceral and honest feeling, we want to believe. We dint want to feel duped or emotionally manipulated. Or that it was a story presented for dramatic purposes. It wasn't a documentary. I think there is a discussion to be had - would anyone care about his trauma and growth if he had not said- this is true- to grab the audience?
Yes, there is a disclaimer at the end. But she’s fixated on the line at the start where he types “this is a true story”. Honestly, I hope this case gets thrown out. She made the decision to go VERY PUBLIC. I for one watched the show but had no idea who Fiona was until she decided to “out herself” on Piers Morgan’s show.
@@LucyStormbringerLastic She's a UK lawyer. This lawsuit is in California. It was almost certainly written by her US lawyer since California law is different than that of England or Scotland.
Why didn't she delete her Twitter and FB posts containing those words when he was, years previously, performing the play, let alone after Baby Reindeer was released? She wanted to be found.
Am I dense? The actual disclaimer in the credits for Baby Reindeer states that elements have been fictionalized. Gadd has said in interviews he didn’t pursue charges against his stalker, because he thought she needed help, not prison. He also never identified Fiona Harvey in the show or anywhere else. So, how does it matter that Fiona Harvey was never convicted? Also, I feel some kind of way towards her lawyers for claiming he “willingly prostituted himself.” I saw Monkey See, Monkey Do- I know that man was traumatized.
I think the only reason they could potentially be in trouble is because at the beginning Netflix wrote "This is a true story." We'll see if that actually holds any weight or not.
When I watched the show and saw the statement that it was a true story, not BASED on a true story, that made me think they were sticking very closely to the facts. "Based on true" is like La Croix flavor.
exactly, and the statement at the start "this is a true story" is made by gadd's character already as part of the show, not a netflix disclaimer before the show. It happens after Gadd already spoke to the police officer. The netflix statements before parliament are more serious where they say its true, but the netflix show alone has a disclaimer at the end saying its based on a true story ...I am not sure why nobody is talking about this.
The Roth law firm only carried out a BASIC check which only shows unspent convictions of the past 5 years. There is an Enhanced search which shows everything. Strange how they only chose the basic. A clear failure of due diligence
If you watch Piers Morgan interview the previous victim her employer for law in Scotland, she was stalked for 5 years, if she wins even 10% of this amount her ability to persecute others is immense and she will not be stopped again.
You have to watch the second interview Morgan did with the victim for 5 years she stalked, the female barrister in Scotland - she has legal papers for stalking, also at the time in Scotland, their stalker laws work different to other countries, so someone can’t really keep a stalker away from them!! Unless the stalker physically attacks them 🤷♀️
Yea that's how stalker laws still are in the UK. Police don't care and won't do anything until they actually have physically hurt you. It's even worse if it's a girl stalking a guy, there is basically nothing police will do, the guy won't be taken seriously. Hell, they rarely even take it seriously when it's reported there's a grown man stalking little girls. Not to mention there's basically zero legal self defense. You're just screwed through and through.
This s a true story is typed on a laptop by the character Donnie! only once! This was the characters true strory! And there is a dsclaimer at the end of every episode! Neither Netflix nor Gadd has ever said it is about Fiona Harvey, she decided it was about her, she outed herself!! Omfg this is a sick world if she gets a penny! This has been a play for almost 10 years - she never said anything before!
I’m excited if it goes to court to witness Fiona on cross!! I’m also excited if she wins anything because the lady she stalked for 5 years said she would sue her if she wins!!! 😂😂😂😂
Clerkenwell Films made the show. I've said this all along. Baby Reindeer was extremely successful as a stage show four or five years ago. Why didn't Harvey sue then? She admits she knew of the stage play (which ended up in New York). Her US legal team have carried out a basic DBS check (criminal record) and have not found anything. However, they should've carried out an 'enhanced' DBS, which includes police cautions as well as arrests/ASBO's/prison sentences etc.
It doesn't matter who made, netflix distributed it and aired it. The show was him talking to a chair or something and doesn't mention the person at all. And, it didn't include her identity or information that led directly to it. As for the basic disclosure, it covers what she has been accused of and therefore it should appear. The enhanced isn't required for the trial.
@@karenm8239 If the DBS check is relevant to the case - an enhanced DBS is required. We are looking at 'spent' and 'unspent' convictions and cautions as part of the complaint. Harvey was already known as a stalker through newspapers/local news/blog posts (the temp at a psychiatric unit wrote about Harvey on her blog a couple of years ago). Harvey has repeatedly stalked/harassed over many years including 276 emails to Sir Keir Starmer - which apparently, the Met police are investigating
@@karenm8239 They need the enhanced for the trial as it includes spent convictions. It wouldn't usually be needed for a trial but, this is one of the main complaints
@@CaroleEvans93436 she's got a kings counsel member as her solicitor. I'm sure he knows what he's doing. And it wouldn't be a spent conviction within the timeframe to require enhanced disclosure over basic. And, it might actually be a PVG if it's in Scotland
I know their system in the UK is different from ours. I blame the police and Scottish government for not putting her in jail for all she did to her employer and coworkers. The lady she harassed seemed to say Scotland still doesn’t have laws against stalking. The police Richard contacted never took him seriously either.
Lets be honest. She is the star of the show :) Without her Gadd wouldn't had made it. And if it was exaggerated, and she us suffering peoples retaliation...she deserves some compensation
Baby Reindeer credits closes with following text. This motion picture is based on real events: however certain characters, names, incidents, locations, and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes. The opening statement should not be taken as a legal statement, but is part of the entertainment.
So Gadd was all over UK press claiming it was a true story. Netflix has been up in front of parliament and the said under oath that it is a true story. So, it has been. Advertised as true and the disclaimer means nothing. They should have protected her identity as well
I’ve been having such a hard time being unbiased with this one because of 30 rock. For real. I’ll admit to being a human with human brain functions. My brain loves Jack and can’t unsee Jack. 🤷🏼♀️ Tina fey did him a big favor there
@@veronicavatter6436yep it's more ironic when you remember one notable roles of the 90s: The Shadow, was filming RIGHT AFTER Brandon Lee died on the Crow. This is notable as the Shadow uses guns, so Alec would probably have been drilled into his head by the crew on set "Hey here's the gun safety rules ,we don't want another situation like Brandon".
Piers Morgan also interviewed the woman who had hired 'Martha' to work at her law firm. It was very interesting and not very flattering at all to Fiona.
In Scotland convictions are more private/protected it’s not something just anyone can inquire on. But in the show it was good to see Martha confess, I think Gad wanted to show Fiona he feels her pain and wants only healing for her
As I understand it, she was so thinly disguised in the series that people who knew the area were able to work out who Martha was. Also, it was a journalist who found her, he said, very easily and approached her.
You missed all the messages she received immediately after the first episode was put out. She was identified very quickly and did not oust herself, Netflix did.
@@funkybuddhaInitit was based on only one tweet to Gadd. I think there is plausible deniability until she went on Piers Morgan and announced it. And physical resemblance is really only limited to people who know her and not the world.
It seems that it is not so easy to get background checks in the UK . There are 3 or 4 different levels. If they have not gotten to the bottom, they might not have the exact information yet… but need to dig more deeply.
She has a kings counsel member representing her. He isn't stupid. And, that's not true + there are 2 levels and they don't need an enhanced because it's covered by the timeframe suggested. They have the info. Netflix lied
I don't understand... Nobody knew Martha was her. Then she sort of outed herself on Twitter. Then everyone started looking into her. Then she really outed herself. So she identified herself to the world first, right? Am I missing something?
real question: it says that its a real story around 1.30 in. Gadd's character writes it onto the screen, after having already chatted to the police officer. So it this part of the ''show'' so not a disclaimer before the show? so its not netflix saying it, its a character in the show saying it. Does this not change the meaning behind the claim of it being true? Or am I thinking about this wrong? The end of episode 1 has a disclaimer at the end of the episode saying it based on a true story...
Thank you for covering this Emily. I love you pronouncing Scottish place names. They make the best Whiskey lol. Harvey's lawyers released her BASIC DBS check (rap sheet) which shows only limited info from past 5 years. There are 2 other versions that provide more info STANDARD and ENHANCED. I want to see Harvey's Enhanced DBS. A lady's written a blog saying Harvey was in a mental facility around 2000 just after she worked for Solicitors firms. Blog writter also got stalked as a member of staff. So she could have been section under mental health for stalking... I LOVE your channel Emily. Lots of love to you and your family ❤ ❤ ❤xxx
Richard Gadd wasn't a failed comedian. He was doing well (I think the fact Donnie was struggling is his modesty), won awards and was in the top 50 comedians above Chris Rock.
He was far from a failed comedian, baby reindeer started off as an edfringe show then was such a success it went onto the bush theatre, then the west end, then NYC, Gadd won an Olivier award for it...then Netflix Also Karen...a leading KC has not been retained as you have stated several times on this comment section, he helped Fiona find US lawyers but he is not instructing them he is named nowhere in the official court papers
@@karenm8239 he was working at fringe 6 years before he did Baby Reindeer, that was 2019 and was going to move to stage if covid hadn't happened. Being at fringe doesn't make someone failed. He was popular and won awards, he ranks higher than Chris Rock in the top 50 comedians. He has had screen acting and writing roles for the last 7 years.
I am not a lawyer , but your point about howncan this be defamatjon if it is a total fabrication was my initial thought. Its schrodinger's stalker, she both and is not martha. Lies cannot be also truth.
I'm amused that she uses a photo of her cosplaying Martha as proof that they look alike. I think it's important to remember it doesn't open with that phrase. If opens with Donnie trying to get help from the police and then typing up his experiences which we see happen in a future episode. This is Donnie's true story not Richard's. The DBS that she's included doesn't actually tell us that she's never been convicted of anything.
In the UK there are three levels of criminal check & Fiona’s lawyers have only provided the basic level, which only lists crimes going back 5 years. So not far enough back. Plus they only provide for her current name, she changed her name.
@@gothgammy666 I’m aware of that, my point is that the lawyers are only providing Fiona’s basic criminal check, saying “see no crimes committed” but a basic check only shows the last 5 yrs, they need to provide the top level check to show everything
OK, but if the claim is defamation, BECAUSE the show kept too many details the same, how do you argue they unjustly changed details from the real world facts. Seems like this argument requires constantly jumping back and forth over some line. Arguing that the character being convicted actually further differentiates the character from Harvey seems a reasonable response
What would you expect a human to do? Come out and say YEAH ITS ME THE DANGEROUS STALKER, obviously shes gonna try all sorts of mental gymnastics. You confuse me with the lack of common sense.
Fellow neuro spicy friends. Some shows on Netflix allow you to change the “language” to “English - audio description”. It describes the scene to you and reads titles and sun titles for you. I often get distracted and stop actually watching so this has been helpful to me :)
I think it's disgusting that she's trying to appeal! It. Was. Her. Job 😡. Her lack of experience and remorse is exactly why she needs to be held accountable!
With the Baby Reindeer complaint, my question is could any of the show specific claims be affected by the fact that they have a disclaimer about some things being fictionalized for drama at the end of every episode in the credits, like most "true story" non documentaries do. Aren't there some horror films that have stuff like that too, I know Paranormal Activity does or something similar. Would it depend on if it was a found footage like the Blair Witch or if it was doing more life dramatization content...? "This program is based on real events: however certain characters, names, incidents, locations, and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes." [transcribed from the credits] There was some controversy about this with The Crown series too iirc, or at least some articles about it. They can kind of use that disclaimer as a kind of legal CYA, so I wonder how that will impact the claims that are specific to the show's claimed exaggerated inaccuracies about her...
Defamation is against a persons “good” reputation. How can she prove she had a good reputation when she’s been reported to stalk someone else, unable to keep a job and lives in council housing.
Personally I think of anything the admission of guilt and conviction makes her look BETTER. It portrays her taking accountability for her actions and suggests she's done her time for it. If that were true, I'd argue to leave her alone. Don't hound people for mistakes when they've already paid for them. As it stands she looks like a terrible person that has got away with doing terrible goings and is now trying to profit off that.
Would love to see Bruce rivers and you together in a stream or video on Baldwin. Interesting to get the pov from a defence/ prosecution viewpoint at the same time. 👍
I think by the verbiage used that Ms Harvey may have created this filing herself and then filed it through her attorneys. There are aspects of the verbiage, that very much look like Ms. Harvey is projecting personality qualities she has, onto Mr. Gad in the filing. If she is as Mr. Gad has depicted .. Netflix may even offer her an outrageous amount of money to settle and she may still choose to throw the dice and go to trial, because it's the attention she is craving.
I’m surprised she’s not representing herself, which you know she would have done if he had actually pursued charges against her. She would have dragged him through the mud in the process, too. That’s my only qualm with the show, really- it’s out of character for Martha to plead guilty to anything.
@@whatiwasgoingtosay Fiona never got a license to practise as a lawyer. She could never stay calm & sane long enough in a Law Firms office to ever get any credentials. She lasted barely over a week at attorney Laura Wray's firm - yelling, screaming, turning away clients, bullying workers & Laura - before being escorted out of the office.
Good to see you once again covering a lawsuit that is of considerable interest here in the UK. Your involvement was brought to my attention via Simply Said who reviewed your coverage of Baby Reindeer. He's made a lot of interesting points concerning this case such as the basic nature of the DBS check made on past convictions, and a relative who came forward confirming the claims made in the show.
Regarding Baldwin...I found him repulsive even before this happened. Putting bias aside, I will say that I believe it was a horrific accident brought on by lack of due diligence regarding safety. I was taught to treat every gun as a loaded deadly weapon and would never in a million years point a weapon (loaded or not) at anyone unless I planned to do damage to that person. I believe the same gun safety should apply in movies. You NEVER take anyone's word on a weapon. You ALWAYS check it yourself. ALWAYS!!! No exceptions. In my world he is guilty of negligence.
New Mexico is on Mountain Standard/Daylight. They bounce around and stay in the MST zone all year around. Their Neighbor in the West (Arizona) is also on MST but does NOT do Daylight Savings (mostly. The Navajo Nation Does... MOSTLY... It's complicated.) Arizona does not change our clocks, so we winter in MST and summer in PST (Pacific). Also, when you get a chance, check out the Navajo Nation's time map. They're MST/Daylight, but have an island that is not DST, but there's an island in that island that is DST, and there's one more that is not DST. I told you it was complicated. Drive through that in Summer, and you're constantly changing your watch. (I wonder how cell phones fair.)
Netflix had the legal responsibility to vet the truth of the script don’t they ? I can see why she suing some specifically since she was tracked down and linked to being the main villain ..but it seems the effects are grossly over exaggerated to achieve a higher pay out. IMO😮
Baby Reindeer was a hard watch. I knew what it was about beforehand, but I never expected it to be so dark and so twisted and deep. It was hard to control my own feelings watching it between the suspense and the tragedy
As for baby reindeer, I think it’s a willful misuse of what happened to Gadd. But also it feels like a money grab to imply that Netflix grew only because of baby reindeer or at least that is how I took it. But if it’s defamation then shouldn’t the writer be sued also? But I feel like the alleged criminal stuff is easily verifiable
I always think people are exaggerating when they say theyre getting death threats, but i guess that counts. It seems like she would have used the most egregious example, though, so if that's the very worst she got, I can't imagine she's truly in fear for her life. Personally, I think this lawsuit is more defaming than the show.
She has no proof she is the stalker in baby reindeer. He hasn’t said that, Netflix hasn’t said that, SHE is the only one who is publicly saying it. This lawsuit should be dismissed without any consideration.
Re Baby Reindeer: Barbara Streisand effect. Even if the case is won, and full damages paid, revenue generated by both organic viewership as well as the additional views due to media hype, might be more than worth it for Netflix. As she is not a know person (and definitely not a celebrity) likeness claim will also be interesting.
Emily! Yes, so glad you've picked this up. (Baby Reindeer). As a subscriber and a fan since Depp/Gag 🤮, I can't wait to get you digging into this!! I was actually trying to drop a msg to get your attention on it but haven't figured how to reach out in UA-cam 🤔😁
...also, please note that there is a disclaimer at the end of every episode that some events have been dramatized and foctionalized. It's driving me nuts that bloggers et all (Piers Morgan) refuse to acknowledge this.
This isn't Netflix first rodeo with this stuff. Reminds me of how they handled the real people involved in the Dahmer miniseries who were retraumatized & not thrilled with their depiction
I’m a survivor of CSA SA and stalking I was very affected by the series But I’m glad I watched it I don’t think I’ll ever forget it tho At the very least I realise by all this that I can’t tell my story in public! It’s not fair at all
I haven't watched the series yet, but I have watched Fiona in interviews. She sometimes appears unhinged & often gets caught in lies. Dammit, now I'm gonna have to go watch Baby Reindeer!
Yes - she mentioned during the Piers Morgan interview that her prior surname was Muir, or Muir-Harvey, or Harvey-Muir (one of the three - I can't remember), and she dropped 'Muir' at some point and just used the surname 'Harvey.'
38:35 The certificate attached as Exhibit 1 confirms absolutely nothing. This is where they are being disingenuous: "Basic" DBS reports do not show past spent convictions as per the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act of 1974 (all records are wiped clean after a period of time). Even enhanced DBS checks only show spent convictions on a discretionary basis if relevant to the role (such as working with vulnerable groups). If everything in the show is 100% based, her convictions still would not show up on the document they provided as "evidence". It's actually not that easy for the public or journalists to check this.
Baldwin has become a laughing stock 🤦🏾♀️. His wife turned him into an old fool! Doing a "reality" t.v. show is just another nail in his professional coffin ⚰️ 🙄
Hi Emily, I just watched a channel called "Simply said" going through your take on the Baby Raindeer lawsuit. He has some information and inputs I think might be importent in his videoes on this lawsuit. He would really like to have a chat with you about these things and how these other aspects of ms Harvey can come into netflix proving it was not defemation. Im really curious about this too. Maybe you can look into it if you got some time, that would be really great.
Netflix would be wise to settle out of court. If she was never convicted, and if they were fully involved in production, I don't see how they are not liable. You can not go around defaming people which results in death threats.
that’s not even the part where i think he’s culpable. the fact that he pulled the trigger during the rehearsal. the fact that there are multiple situations where baldwin could be interpreted as negligent is what i think will lead to his conviction.
Ahhh nah that to me isn’t the thing, they hired an “armorer” for that. To me he’s at fault for putting his finger in the trigger of a non-dummy gun and pulling it while facing someone. You DONT pull the trigger - that’s industry standard, especially after The Crow.
That is not how it works on a film set and with the industry protocols. Checking the gun is messing with it. My mom is an armorer. There is a reason this happens so seldom.
Head to policygenius.com to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save.
Go to shopify.com/lawnerd now to grow your business-no matter what stage you’re in.
170 million is ridiculous, it is not going to bring her back. Trying to get rich of her death is ugly
do you think that making martha a convicted stalker was part of hiding her identity on the show?
@TheEmilyDBaker Does it make a difference that the words at the beginning were TYPED on the screen? To me, Netflix wasn’t saying it was a true story. It is a shot of Donny Dunn typing on his computer - beginning to type out his story. A fictional character typing on the screen.
Plus at the end of each episode it states that things have been changed for dramatic purposes.
After the real Martha came out on Piers Morgan, a prior "victim" of hers, an attorney, came forward, very credibly to say she was stalked for years.
Same woman that was mentioned in that interview. She also said she will go after Harvey if she wins this case. Her staff were so frightened of her. I would also assume the she would have receipts being an att.
The Observe YT channel he broke down her body language and it was glorious!
@@manderpandersalamander9977 Such a great channel!
@@manderpandersalamander9977 Boze's video on the interview are also great!
I felt truly sorry for that woman (I can’t remember her name off the top of my head,) because she did explain (quite rightly,) that there were no laws against stalking at the time this occurred. It sounds like she still has receipts if she intends to go after her post-Netflix, and the truth is, if Richard Gadd had been to the police about what he was going through and submitted the 411,000 emails, 106 letters and however many voicemails, the chances are that the very most that would happen is that a restraining order (with a time limit on it,) would be issued. Even the solicitor who said that Ms Harvey had sent social services to her house alleging child abuse against her and her MP husband’s severely disabled son (which could have caused untold damage, most of all to the son had he been placed in our often appalling foster care system,) was later said by Piers to have been a victim of a “troll” rather than a stalker - even though her entire staff team were issued with panic alarms. This was so dismissive of Piers who clearly has no understanding of the seriousness of stalking and how it affects people’s lives. I felt bad for this lady that she too had had her identity blown open too, as she’s mentioned in the show, but I do feel if everything she said is true, there could be a kind of rough justice for “the real Martha,” who will have now learned how it feels to be in terror of opening your door, to switch your phone on, for the safety of her loved ones, etc, as well as now having the risk of having any money she wins in the lawsuit taken off her for defaming the woman she stalked (when there will in fact still be police records of this in Scotland even if a conviction was never secured because no specific crime had been committed at that time in legal history.) As for now, here in the U.K. even women or men who have been subjected to literal torture by an ex-partner who is now stalking them having got out of prison, and even if a restraining order is in place, are usually told “we can’t do anything unless they actually commit a crime.” Those people (usually women,) very often end up unalived, so the fact that the criminal convictions aren’t factual is totally unsurprising. I wonder if the script editors felt they had to put that in there for dramatic license, but from what I’ve heard so far it only proves Ms Harvey wasn’t imprisoned - not that she shouldn’t have been.
What don't people understand about the "disclaimer" in Baby Reindeer?! The "This is a true story" at the beginning of the show is NOT A DISCLAIMER! It's part of the main character typing his story out on his computer as we see in the last episode. THE ACTUAL DISCLAIMER THAT "THIS IS BASED ON A TRUE STORY" APPEARS AT THE END OF EACH EPISODE.
exactly! I‘m so confused why none of the creators I have watched mentions the legal disclaimer at the end. They only double down on this one - clearly typed by Donny - line. Sadly inculding EDB. Also either they „made up“ things to protect her identity or everything is true but then they did not disguise her identity at all. Both can‘t be true.
@@ItsmysoapboxAgree. I can’t see how she can claim one minute “it’s not me, I didn’t do any of those things”, and then claim “ it’s me , but with embellishment”. It can’t be both if you want to claim defamation.
@TheEmilyDBaker please read this ( @lainoh9578 ) comment. This will answer a lot of questions, especially as to why Harvey doesn't have an actual case.
Netflix testified , under oath, to parliament that it was a true story and she was a convicted criminal. There was no disclaimer that they were committing perjury and contempt of parliament.
How relevant is this tho?
When the audience is let to believe initially that it's a true story, a legal disclaimer at the end might not suffice to dispel this.
“The parts that make him look bad are totally true but NOT the parts that make me look bad!!! Also I haven’t seen any of it”.
Well whether or not she has seen it is irrelevant. She could choose to have seen it anytime after the Piers interview. Her lawyers will have seen it, people around her saw it and told her details about what was in it.
The parts that make her look bad is what the lawsuit is about. It is a crime to defame somebody. The parts about him being true aren't all that relevant to the case except to maybe undermine his character.
@@funkybuddhaInitHe's not defaming her. She did those things.
@@kevinstrother8712 this is where you're wrong , because her lawsuit is specifically: she wasn't arrested, she wasn't accuse of stalking an officer , she wasn't convicted or sentenced over the stalking of the lead of baby reindeer . those are what she's fighting against , which yeah regardless of how you feel or I feel, is seemingly on Netflix for not doing their job and confirming this
So she didn't get caught or convicted. But she did also say that she has changed her name. I wander if they have looked at previous names to see if she has been convicted?
@@jadebarron7657 No, the show changed the name of the character in order to disguise her identity. Which obviously didn't succeed.
Fiona Harvey is afraid to go outside… but not afraid to go on Piers Morgan every chance she gets
100% this
I know 🙄
She won't stop blabbering on Facebook either! She's got a few accounts - all older than 2 years so, we know they belong to her
She's been on once. That's all. Hes been everywhere claiming the story is true, including netflix stating the same in our parliament, under oath
She's got a right to tell her side.
I think the truth is in the middle as usual in that story.
the definition of a stalker is,when two people go on a romantic walk but only one person knows about it.
😂😂
100% 😂
😂
😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂
1. I think one cultural thing that will change is the this is "a true story" thing not being used as much.
2. I'm really glad in a way Netflix and Gadd have shone a light on stalking.
3. I found Piers Morgan's second interview with lawyer Laura Wray very insightful.
4. Keir Starmer is on track to become the next UK prime minister and she was on a police watchlist because of sending him hundreds of abusive emails, over 8 months. Not a good look.
I stand behind Alec Baldwin because it’s much safer than standing in front of him.
😂
😂
😂😂😂
😅😅😅😂😂
🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪
There are a few reasons I think that Fiona cannot prevail on defamation per se. She has a history of stalking people. She has been reported in the press as a stalker. There are 4 past victims of her stalking. Gadd has the evidence that she sent him 10s of 1000s of emails. I have seen other interviews with another victim of her stalking. How can you tarnish her reputation if her reputation is that she is a stalker? At some point whether or not she went to prison is beside the point. Also, the way that records are kept in the UK she could have had her record expunged for certain crimes after 5 yrs. In order to find those crimes one would need a more detailed report. The report she submitted as evidence is a basic background check, not the more thorough report, which makes me think that she's hiding something.
If he stated she went to trial about his case and that never happened I think it's fair her to have an issue with that.
Gadd could have told that story with very minor changes and "Martha" would have remained anonymous. And the series would have still been popular. It just seems like an unnecessary risk to identify a private citizen.
Her claim for damages is insane but I understand being upset about being shown as a convicted criminal if she is not.
I would argue that just because someone has a reputation for doing something doesn't mean you can't defame them. If someone had a history of being a thief 10 years ago, but since has turned their life around and become a better person, if they are accused of stealing again recently and it was a lie, would that lie not be MORE believable because of their history? That's just all the more reason to take serious action against the defamation.
@@KarazolaXyou can’t defame someone if it’s the truth. As Netflix can show the majority of the show is true, I don’t think she has a chance in hell.
@@Lollipop_Lexiok, that's not what I was talking about. Don't mistake what I was saying for supporting her, truthfully i don't know what's true or not.
my only point was that if someone lies about a person who has been known to have past behavior in line with what they said, it could potentially be more damaging and defamatory then if it were someone with no history of that.
@@KarazolaXthis is the key thing , even if she's gulity (in terms of action ) of stalking someone else , unless you can prove she is gulity of stalking him(both in action and legally )and the police officer (in action ) then your whole case is shot.
It's actually difficult to get a full report in the UK. The one they provided is a BASIC DBS check which does not show any "spent" convictions. If she was convicted, it would be considered "spent" by now and would not show up.
🤔🤔🤔
An ENHANCED check is needed
I'm sure Fiona Harvey's lawyer had no problem getting an official document that his client has never been convicted of a crime. He refers to it in the lawsuit.
That's the due diligence she says netflix didn't do though. Before airing this Netflix would've to make sure that this is not untrue. It's not her problem to proof whether or not she was ever convicted and behind bars, but it's Netflix responsibility to make sure to not claim it about her without proof. They have two ways of doing this, either by disguising her enough or by only airing things they can proof.
@@castlerock58 Her lawyer got the BASIC check... so he didn't get the right one.
Fiona's complaint chooses very specific language when talking about a prior criminal history. She never plead gulity. How about no contest? She says she was never convicted. Well, you're not convicted if you get any version of deferred adjudication and the case is dismissed. She also doesn't say she hasn't been arrested. Many lay people don't know the difference between pleas and if a conviction is entered after adjudication. I'm interested to see what happens with this suit.
Well said!
This. I think she went for mental health services as part of a deal. She stalked someone at a facility for people who were sectioned.
The government says she have never been cautioned or arrested.
Fun Fact comedy is covered entirely by American Free Speech Laws.
she sued Netflix and not Gadd because he can't give her as much money if she wins.
Pretty standard to go after the corporate deep pockets
She won’t win. Her case has too many flaws and contradictions. Best she can hope for is a settlement for a lot less, and most will go on legal fees
No, probably because the process of suing here in the UK is completely different. Will require different forms of funding and legal representation.
She will be able to afford it once she wins/settles this case.
@@KayDLOL satire and comedy are covered by freedom speech laws in America.
The show literally states that "certain characters, names, incidents, locations, and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes" in every episode.. 😭 Also Fiona even said in an interview that he never followed her home and spied through her window so how is she going to now use that in a lawsuit.. jesus
👆👆👆👆 exactly!
Not true. It was advertised in the UK as a true story. Gadd was all over TV here. Netflix was brought up to parliament and stated under oath it was a true story.
It doesn't say it at the beginning and she's been defamed by people listening to nonsense online and have not seen that disclaimer.
Anyway... Netflix lied under oath and failed to protect her identity - and you blamed her? He didn't out the person who SA'd him tho. You're saying nothing about that
Well it was still a gross thing to be depicting in a show.
If the show was about you or a relative of yours and some guy was depicting himself to be following them/you home and getting off to your/their pictures then there would be issues around the embarrassment that would cause and any emotional distress that comes with it. You can't just say "Well she said it didn't happen" No, but then the question comes up:- Why on earth did he depict that in the show? It seems relevant to defamation imo. Would you/ or your relative not be having your/their reputation potentially damaged by such and embarrassing and gratuitous act being depicted against them? It would certainly be embarrassing for me! And I would be livid if he did that to one of my relatives.
Also how would Fiona know if he did stalk her but she just never saw him? Or what he did with her picture behind closed doors?
@@funkybuddhaInit You missed the whole point.. 😭
I also don’t think the “This is a true story” caption appears on every episode. When it comes to Gadd’s personal story, I think they show it. That will be something that comes up Im sure.
The true story part is the character Donny typing after the police ask him why he didn't report it earlier. Seems like a creative writing trope.
I don't think that is going to matter
Exactly - Donny is a character 'based on' Gadd's life. Martha is his fictional stalker. Harvey already had a bad reputation before Clerkenwell Films made Baby Reindeer too
Exactly this. She’s just trying to make a fast buck. Plus, if she wins, I believe those she has wronged will go after her for compensation too
@@CaroleEvans93436 "Harvey already had a bad reputation before Clerkenwell Films made Baby Reindeer" - Yet they didn't show duty of care in protecting her identity and she was identified right after the first episode was released. Therefore endangering her.
She didn’t protect her own identity
I understood the line “this is a true story” to be written by the character, Donny Dunn, as part of HIS story
I’d love you to cover the baby reminder trial and I think it would be very popular.
There’s a disclaimer at the end of the episodes saying based on a true story; also, she’s a stalker who is currently stalking someone now! She should be in jail!
I would like to see the cross-examination of Fiona Harvey. The Piers Morgan interview is... something.
There’s a video on ‘simply said’ where he explains the different types of dbs checks in the uk, it looks like her lawyers only have the basic dbs check that doesn’t dig that deeply into previous convictions and in Scotland Laura Wray was explaining that some convictions once spent may not even appear on the dbs so just because it’s not on there doesn’t mean it didn’t exist
This isn't true. She has a kings council solicitor and he's more than capable. The alleged crime is within the timeframe for a basic disclosure anyway. The solicitor can see if she has any convictions at all and doesn't need an enhanced
@@karenm8239 No it is not.. it was well over 5 years ago, so it would need to be an enhanced dbs
But for baby reindeer - is it important if she saw resemblance to her? Isn't it more important that OTHER people saw it? And they clearly thought it was her.
She was already known as she had appeared in Scottish and National newspapers - due to her stalking behaviour. She's currently being investigated for sending Sir Keir Starmer - our soon to be new Prime Minister - 276 threatening emails. A temp secretary from a psychiatric unit has also come forward as she was harassed by Harvey. I'm sure more people will come forward
No one actually knew it was her though until she confirmed it.
@@Lollipop_Lexigiven what as outlined here : a findable tweet with her real name attached saying exactly a phrase similar of hanging curtains and then getting bombarded by hundreds of messages , even if she didn't confirm it overly , it sounds like people put 2 and 2 together and she confirmed it was 4 but it doesn't take a genius to believe iit was 4
@@Ike_of_pyke ty! Not sure why people keep saying it was her that came out herself.
@@Lollipop_Lexi Lots of people knew it was her. Didn't you hear the messages read out in this video?
I SWEAR I remember seeing in the opening of the first episode that it said "A True Story" but THEN WENT ON TO SAY "Some events have been made up or dramatized"
I thougt it was the caracter Donny that wrote "this is a true story" and didnt think it was a documentary, but based on true events and dramatized.. I was really surpriced when this blew up in the media some time later.
But doesn’t Netflix have the disclaimer at the end of each episode?
I am sure they write 'based on a true story ' at the end
Yes.
I saw the "this is a true story" as a part of Donny's characters' journey in response to the policeman asking why he didn't report this earlier. Like a person spinning a story in a bar. A creative writing trope. "I swear it happened just like this" ...then it's their skewd memory or an wild ride.
Like Fargo. Or a Hunter Thompson piece.
I think because it was so emotionally visceral and honest feeling, we want to believe. We dint want to feel duped or emotionally manipulated. Or that it was a story presented for dramatic purposes.
It wasn't a documentary.
I think there is a discussion to be had - would anyone care about his trauma and growth if he had not said- this is true- to grab the audience?
Yes, there is a disclaimer at the end. But she’s fixated on the line at the start where he types “this is a true story”.
Honestly, I hope this case gets thrown out. She made the decision to go VERY PUBLIC. I for one watched the show but had no idea who Fiona was until she decided to “out herself” on Piers Morgan’s show.
They do, a disclaimer at the end in the credits saying some things have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes.
@@ESPHMacDwhich all stories told based on a true story have fictionalized parts every one knows that! 🤦🏻♀️
‘Martha’ wrote this law suit, no doubt in my mind😂
@@LucyStormbringerLastic
She's a UK lawyer. This lawsuit is in California. It was almost certainly written by her US lawyer since California law is different than that of England or Scotland.
Why didn't she delete her Twitter and FB posts containing those words when he was, years previously, performing the play, let alone after Baby Reindeer was released? She wanted to be found.
Am I dense? The actual disclaimer in the credits for Baby Reindeer states that elements have been fictionalized. Gadd has said in interviews he didn’t pursue charges against his stalker, because he thought she needed help, not prison. He also never identified Fiona Harvey in the show or anywhere else. So, how does it matter that Fiona Harvey was never convicted? Also, I feel some kind of way towards her lawyers for claiming he “willingly prostituted himself.” I saw Monkey See, Monkey Do- I know that man was traumatized.
she is going to win or they will settle and pay her, Netflix is irresponsible. they are always in trouble for this,
Yep. I realize that not everything in the show was literally true. Perhaps they can call me as a witness...lol
I think the only reason they could potentially be in trouble is because at the beginning Netflix wrote "This is a true story." We'll see if that actually holds any weight or not.
When I watched the show and saw the statement that it was a true story, not BASED on a true story, that made me think they were sticking very closely to the facts. "Based on true" is like La Croix flavor.
exactly, and the statement at the start "this is a true story" is made by gadd's character already as part of the show, not a netflix disclaimer before the show. It happens after Gadd already spoke to the police officer. The netflix statements before parliament are more serious where they say its true, but the netflix show alone has a disclaimer at the end saying its based on a true story ...I am not sure why nobody is talking about this.
The Roth law firm only carried out a BASIC check which only shows unspent convictions of the past 5 years. There is an Enhanced search which shows everything. Strange how they only chose the basic. A clear failure of due diligence
AND Gadd was right, if it IS Fiona Harvey, she didn't recognise herself, so even that's true 😂
If you watch Piers Morgan interview the previous victim her employer for law in Scotland, she was stalked for 5 years, if she wins even 10% of this amount her ability to persecute others is immense and she will not be stopped again.
You have to watch the second interview Morgan did with the victim for 5 years she stalked, the female barrister in Scotland - she has legal papers for stalking, also at the time in Scotland, their stalker laws work different to other countries, so someone can’t really keep a stalker away from them!! Unless the stalker physically attacks them 🤷♀️
Yea that's how stalker laws still are in the UK. Police don't care and won't do anything until they actually have physically hurt you. It's even worse if it's a girl stalking a guy, there is basically nothing police will do, the guy won't be taken seriously.
Hell, they rarely even take it seriously when it's reported there's a grown man stalking little girls.
Not to mention there's basically zero legal self defense. You're just screwed through and through.
We still don't have anti-stalker laws in Scotland according to Laura Walker. That was a bit of a shock to find out
This s a true story is typed on a laptop by the character Donnie! only once! This was the characters true strory! And there is a dsclaimer at the end of every episode! Neither Netflix nor Gadd has ever said it is about Fiona Harvey, she decided it was about her, she outed herself!! Omfg this is a sick world if she gets a penny! This has been a play for almost 10 years - she never said anything before!
Agree 💯 %
💯
I’m excited if it goes to court to witness Fiona on cross!!
I’m also excited if she wins anything because the lady she stalked for 5 years said she would sue her if she wins!!! 😂😂😂😂
@@kasie680she's a lawyer , why would she ever put herself on cross ?
Clerkenwell Films made the show. I've said this all along. Baby Reindeer was extremely successful as a stage show four or five years ago. Why didn't Harvey sue then? She admits she knew of the stage play (which ended up in New York). Her US legal team have carried out a basic DBS check (criminal record) and have not found anything. However, they should've carried out an 'enhanced' DBS, which includes police cautions as well as arrests/ASBO's/prison sentences etc.
It doesn't matter who made, netflix distributed it and aired it. The show was him talking to a chair or something and doesn't mention the person at all. And, it didn't include her identity or information that led directly to it.
As for the basic disclosure, it covers what she has been accused of and therefore it should appear. The enhanced isn't required for the trial.
@@karenm8239 If the DBS check is relevant to the case - an enhanced DBS is required. We are looking at 'spent' and 'unspent' convictions and cautions as part of the complaint. Harvey was already known as a stalker through newspapers/local news/blog posts (the temp at a psychiatric unit wrote about Harvey on her blog a couple of years ago). Harvey has repeatedly stalked/harassed over many years including 276 emails to Sir Keir Starmer - which apparently, the Met police are investigating
@@karenm8239 They need the enhanced for the trial as it includes spent convictions. It wouldn't usually be needed for a trial but, this is one of the main complaints
@@CaroleEvans93436 she's got a kings counsel member as her solicitor. I'm sure he knows what he's doing. And it wouldn't be a spent conviction within the timeframe to require enhanced disclosure over basic. And, it might actually be a PVG if it's in Scotland
@@karenm8239 She's employed US based lawyers as she's suing in California
I know their system in the UK is different from ours. I blame the police and Scottish government for not putting her in jail for all she did to her employer and coworkers. The lady she harassed seemed to say Scotland still doesn’t have laws against stalking. The police Richard contacted never took him seriously either.
She did have the equivalent of an injunction served on her in Scotland by the lawyer . Her interview is also with Pierce Morgan ❤️🏴
Fiona Harvey is suing for money. I have so many thoughts. Watch the Piers Morgan interview with the Barrister that Fiona traumatized.
Lets be honest. She is the star of the show :) Without her Gadd wouldn't had made it. And if it was exaggerated, and she us suffering peoples retaliation...she deserves some compensation
Baby Reindeer credits closes with following text. This motion picture is based on real events: however certain characters, names, incidents, locations, and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes. The opening statement should not be taken as a legal statement, but is part of the entertainment.
So Gadd was all over UK press claiming it was a true story. Netflix has been up in front of parliament and the said under oath that it is a true story. So, it has been. Advertised as true and the disclaimer means nothing. They should have protected her identity as well
I’ve gone back and forth on Alec, but after HG’s trial, I think Alec is guilty of something
I’ve been having such a hard time being unbiased with this one because of 30 rock.
For real. I’ll admit to being a human with human brain functions. My brain loves Jack and can’t unsee Jack. 🤷🏼♀️
Tina fey did him a big favor there
Same.
Oh absolutely. If he wasn’t a producer, he might have an out.
He's guilty of having poor firearm safety at the very least. Then had the nerve to say he's been around guns for years and knew the safety rules 🙄
@@veronicavatter6436yep it's more ironic when you remember one notable roles of the 90s: The Shadow, was filming RIGHT AFTER Brandon Lee died on the Crow. This is notable as the Shadow uses guns, so Alec would probably have been drilled into his head by the crew on set "Hey here's the gun safety rules ,we don't want another situation like Brandon".
Piers Morgan also interviewed the woman who had hired 'Martha' to work at her law firm. It was very interesting and not very flattering at all to Fiona.
In Scotland convictions are more private/protected it’s not something just anyone can inquire on. But in the show it was good to see Martha confess, I think Gad wanted to show Fiona he feels her pain and wants only healing for her
I definitely understand “Martha” being upset….but we wouldn’t know who she was if she wasn’t like “ THATS ME !”
As I understand it, she was so thinly disguised in the series that people who knew the area were able to work out who Martha was. Also, it was a journalist who found her, he said, very easily and approached her.
@@BuntyMcBinternet sleuths found her, through Richard's social media. Took about ten minutes
You missed all the messages she received immediately after the first episode was put out. She was identified very quickly and did not oust herself, Netflix did.
@@funkybuddhaInitit was based on only one tweet to Gadd. I think there is plausible deniability until she went on Piers Morgan and announced it. And physical resemblance is really only limited to people who know her and not the world.
It seems that it is not so easy to get background checks in the UK . There are 3 or 4 different levels. If they have not gotten to the bottom, they might not have the exact information yet… but need to dig more deeply.
She has a kings counsel member representing her. He isn't stupid. And, that's not true + there are 2 levels and they don't need an enhanced because it's covered by the timeframe suggested. They have the info. Netflix lied
I don't understand... Nobody knew Martha was her. Then she sort of outed herself on Twitter. Then everyone started looking into her. Then she really outed herself. So she identified herself to the world first, right? Am I missing something?
Stalkers should never win
real question: it says that its a real story around 1.30 in. Gadd's character writes it onto the screen, after having already chatted to the police officer. So it this part of the ''show'' so not a disclaimer before the show? so its not netflix saying it, its a character in the show saying it. Does this not change the meaning behind the claim of it being true? Or am I thinking about this wrong? The end of episode 1 has a disclaimer at the end of the episode saying it based on a true story...
Thank you for covering this Emily. I love you pronouncing Scottish place names. They make the best Whiskey lol. Harvey's lawyers released her BASIC DBS check (rap sheet) which shows only limited info from past 5 years. There are 2 other versions that provide more info STANDARD and ENHANCED. I want to see Harvey's Enhanced DBS. A lady's written a blog saying Harvey was in a mental facility around 2000 just after she worked for Solicitors firms. Blog writter also got stalked as a member of staff. So she could have been section under mental health for stalking...
I LOVE your channel Emily. Lots of love to you and your family ❤ ❤ ❤xxx
Richard Gadd wasn't a failed comedian. He was doing well (I think the fact Donnie was struggling is his modesty), won awards and was in the top 50 comedians above Chris Rock.
No, he is a failed comedian. He did baby reindeer for years at Edinburgh fringe.
He was far from a failed comedian, baby reindeer started off as an edfringe show then was such a success it went onto the bush theatre, then the west end, then NYC, Gadd won an Olivier award for it...then Netflix
Also Karen...a leading KC has not been retained as you have stated several times on this comment section, he helped Fiona find US lawyers but he is not instructing them he is named nowhere in the official court papers
@@karenm8239 he was working at fringe 6 years before he did Baby Reindeer, that was 2019 and was going to move to stage if covid hadn't happened. Being at fringe doesn't make someone failed. He was popular and won awards, he ranks higher than Chris Rock in the top 50 comedians. He has had screen acting and writing roles for the last 7 years.
I am not a lawyer , but your point about howncan this be defamatjon if it is a total fabrication was my initial thought. Its schrodinger's stalker, she both and is not martha.
Lies cannot be also truth.
I'm amused that she uses a photo of her cosplaying Martha as proof that they look alike.
I think it's important to remember it doesn't open with that phrase. If opens with Donnie trying to get help from the police and then typing up his experiences which we see happen in a future episode. This is Donnie's true story not Richard's.
The DBS that she's included doesn't actually tell us that she's never been convicted of anything.
But how do they prove that Harvey is actually "Martha"?
They found the literal texts that were used in the series…….in Fiona’s Facebook and twitter accounts
In the UK there are three levels of criminal check & Fiona’s lawyers have only provided the basic level, which only lists crimes going back 5 years. So not far enough back. Plus they only provide for her current name, she changed her name.
The lawsuit was filed in America…UK law isn’t applicable.
@@gothgammy666 I’m aware of that, my point is that the lawyers are only providing Fiona’s basic criminal check, saying “see no crimes committed” but a basic check only shows the last 5 yrs, they need to provide the top level check to show everything
OK, but if the claim is defamation, BECAUSE the show kept too many details the same, how do you argue they unjustly changed details from the real world facts. Seems like this argument requires constantly jumping back and forth over some line. Arguing that the character being convicted actually further differentiates the character from Harvey seems a reasonable response
Fiona Harvey confuses me. You claim Martha is nothing like you. Yet you then turn around and say she's based on you? Ma'am.
Her truths are what works for her
What would you expect a human to do? Come out and say YEAH ITS ME THE DANGEROUS STALKER, obviously shes gonna try all sorts of mental gymnastics. You confuse me with the lack of common sense.
Fellow neuro spicy friends. Some shows on Netflix allow you to change the “language” to “English - audio description”. It describes the scene to you and reads titles and sun titles for you. I often get distracted and stop actually watching so this has been helpful to me :)
The piers Morgan interview is wild. She talks and talks until you are convinced she did all this for sure. She’s off the rails
I think it's disgusting that she's trying to appeal! It. Was. Her. Job 😡. Her lack of experience and remorse is exactly why she needs to be held accountable!
With the Baby Reindeer complaint, my question is could any of the show specific claims be affected by the fact that they have a disclaimer about some things being fictionalized for drama at the end of every episode in the credits, like most "true story" non documentaries do. Aren't there some horror films that have stuff like that too, I know Paranormal Activity does or something similar. Would it depend on if it was a found footage like the Blair Witch or if it was doing more life dramatization content...?
"This program is based on real events: however certain characters, names, incidents, locations, and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes." [transcribed from the credits]
There was some controversy about this with The Crown series too iirc, or at least some articles about it. They can kind of use that disclaimer as a kind of legal CYA, so I wonder how that will impact the claims that are specific to the show's claimed exaggerated inaccuracies about her...
Never thought I'd see the MP for Ochil and South Perthshire on the EDB show 😂😂😂
Defamation is against a persons “good” reputation. How can she prove she had a good reputation when she’s been reported to stalk someone else, unable to keep a job and lives in council housing.
Personally I think of anything the admission of guilt and conviction makes her look BETTER. It portrays her taking accountability for her actions and suggests she's done her time for it.
If that were true, I'd argue to leave her alone. Don't hound people for mistakes when they've already paid for them.
As it stands she looks like a terrible person that has got away with doing terrible goings and is now trying to profit off that.
Would love to see Bruce rivers and you together in a stream or video on Baldwin. Interesting to get the pov from a defence/ prosecution viewpoint at the same time. 👍
I don’t wish anyone agoraphobia or being afraid, but… how does it feel Fiona? Not very nice, right?
I think by the verbiage used that Ms Harvey may have created this filing herself and then filed it through her attorneys. There are aspects of the verbiage, that very much look like Ms. Harvey is projecting personality qualities she has, onto Mr. Gad in the filing. If she is as Mr. Gad has depicted .. Netflix may even offer her an outrageous amount of money to settle and she may still choose to throw the dice and go to trial, because it's the attention she is craving.
I’m surprised she’s not representing herself, which you know she would have done if he had actually pursued charges against her. She would have dragged him through the mud in the process, too. That’s my only qualm with the show, really- it’s out of character for Martha to plead guilty to anything.
@@whatiwasgoingtosayshe would have to be truthful in court, and she is unable to.
Finally, Fiona Harvey can cosplay being a lawyer
@@whatiwasgoingtosay Fiona never got a license to practise as a lawyer. She could never stay calm & sane long enough in a Law Firms office to ever get any credentials. She lasted barely over a week at attorney Laura Wray's firm - yelling, screaming, turning away clients, bullying workers & Laura - before being escorted out of the office.
The shade Emily throws at the baby Reindeer situation lol
Good to see you once again covering a lawsuit that is of considerable interest here in the UK. Your involvement was brought to my attention via Simply Said who reviewed your coverage of Baby Reindeer. He's made a lot of interesting points concerning this case such as the basic nature of the DBS check made on past convictions, and a relative who came forward confirming the claims made in the show.
Regarding Baldwin...I found him repulsive even before this happened. Putting bias aside, I will say that I believe it was a horrific accident brought on by lack of due diligence regarding safety. I was taught to treat every gun as a loaded deadly weapon and would never in a million years point a weapon (loaded or not) at anyone unless I planned to do damage to that person. I believe the same gun safety should apply in movies. You NEVER take anyone's word on a weapon. You ALWAYS check it yourself. ALWAYS!!! No exceptions. In my world he is guilty of negligence.
Gadd has accomplished getting Harvey back in his life... making this series was dangerous. Its not a big shocker she sued.
So? You speak as if abusers should be free to do whatever they want while being the victims walk on eggshells
New Mexico is on Mountain Standard/Daylight. They bounce around and stay in the MST zone all year around. Their Neighbor in the West (Arizona) is also on MST but does NOT do Daylight Savings (mostly. The Navajo Nation Does... MOSTLY... It's complicated.) Arizona does not change our clocks, so we winter in MST and summer in PST (Pacific).
Also, when you get a chance, check out the Navajo Nation's time map. They're MST/Daylight, but have an island that is not DST, but there's an island in that island that is DST, and there's one more that is not DST. I told you it was complicated. Drive through that in Summer, and you're constantly changing your watch. (I wonder how cell phones fair.)
Just got through the show, so I could come back here.
...Wow.
So, is "Martha" real, and this woman self-reported?! Otherwise, it could be anybody.
Good afternoon. Watching from Southern California.
Netflix had the legal responsibility to vet the truth of the script don’t they ?
I can see why she suing some specifically since she was tracked down and linked to being the main villain ..but it seems the effects are grossly over exaggerated to achieve a higher pay out. IMO😮
Be interesting if the defendants say that Harvey isn't the person portrayed .... but is another person entirely.
This is awesome! From KR to updates!!
To hear the University of Strathclyde being mentioned is amazing
Baby Reindeer was a hard watch. I knew what it was about beforehand, but I never expected it to be so dark and so twisted and deep. It was hard to control my own feelings watching it between the suspense and the tragedy
The BeeGees song made it worse
Couldn’t get it out of my head for weeks!
I'm so glad there's something else besides the karen reed trial!! I just can't get into that trial. ❤
The one man show wasn't seen by nearly as many people as the Netflix series. I would think her exposure was far greater with Netflix
So many disappointing comments here, proving exactly why she sued- and deserves to win.
Excellent as usual EDB & fascinating ❗️
As for baby reindeer, I think it’s a willful misuse of what happened to Gadd. But also it feels like a money grab to imply that Netflix grew only because of baby reindeer or at least that is how I took it. But if it’s defamation then shouldn’t the writer be sued also? But I feel like the alleged criminal stuff is easily verifiable
I always think people are exaggerating when they say theyre getting death threats, but i guess that counts. It seems like she would have used the most egregious example, though, so if that's the very worst she got, I can't imagine she's truly in fear for her life. Personally, I think this lawsuit is more defaming than the show.
She has no proof she is the stalker in baby reindeer. He hasn’t said that, Netflix hasn’t said that, SHE is the only one who is publicly saying it. This lawsuit should be dismissed without any consideration.
Re Baby Reindeer: Barbara Streisand effect.
Even if the case is won, and full damages paid, revenue generated by both organic viewership as well as the additional views due to media hype, might be more than worth it for Netflix.
As she is not a know person (and definitely not a celebrity) likeness claim will also be interesting.
Emily! Yes, so glad you've picked this up. (Baby Reindeer). As a subscriber and a fan since Depp/Gag 🤮, I can't wait to get you digging into this!! I was actually trying to drop a msg to get your attention on it but haven't figured how to reach out in UA-cam 🤔😁
...also, please note that there is a disclaimer at the end of every episode that some events have been dramatized and foctionalized. It's driving me nuts that bloggers et all (Piers Morgan) refuse to acknowledge this.
Came from court today on 1.25…changed back to normal and it sounded like EDB sighed and caught her breath. 😅
Don't forget to 👍 this video! Our girl EDB is doing the most right now 💜
This isn't Netflix first rodeo with this stuff. Reminds me of how they handled the real people involved in the Dahmer miniseries who were retraumatized & not thrilled with their depiction
How can you defame someone if you don't reveal the actual person? I am so confused.
Watching baby reindeer now and blown away by this show.its brutally raw
Thank you for the Baby Reindeer warning. I'm a survivor and won't watch it.
I’m a survivor of CSA SA and stalking
I was very affected by the series
But I’m glad I watched it
I don’t think I’ll ever forget it tho
At the very least I realise by all this that I can’t tell my story in public!
It’s not fair at all
I haven't watched the series yet, but I have watched Fiona in interviews. She sometimes appears unhinged & often gets caught in lies.
Dammit, now I'm gonna have to go watch Baby Reindeer!
Same…😂
Thanks Emily !
It was a HUGE trigger for those of us who have experienced what he did. I kind of stumbled upon it and it was upsetting.
Is it possible she had some charges expunged? Or charges under another name?
Yes - she mentioned during the Piers Morgan interview that her prior surname was Muir, or Muir-Harvey, or Harvey-Muir (one of the three - I can't remember), and she dropped 'Muir' at some point and just used the surname 'Harvey.'
38:35 The certificate attached as Exhibit 1 confirms absolutely nothing. This is where they are being disingenuous: "Basic" DBS reports do not show past spent convictions as per the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act of 1974 (all records are wiped clean after a period of time). Even enhanced DBS checks only show spent convictions on a discretionary basis if relevant to the role (such as working with vulnerable groups). If everything in the show is 100% based, her convictions still would not show up on the document they provided as "evidence". It's actually not that easy for the public or journalists to check this.
This is completely random. But Alec Baldwin and Ray Liotta both have given me the creeps since I was a little kid and I don't know why.
Same. And we weren't wrong.
Baldwin has become a laughing stock 🤦🏾♀️. His wife turned him into an old fool! Doing a "reality" t.v. show is just another nail in his professional coffin ⚰️ 🙄
I'm pretty sure they view a show about themselves as a win.
Hi Emily, I just watched a channel called "Simply said" going through your take on the Baby Raindeer lawsuit. He has some information and inputs I think might be importent in his videoes on this lawsuit. He would really like to have a chat with you about these things and how these other aspects of ms Harvey can come into netflix proving it was not defemation. Im really curious about this too. Maybe you can look into it if you got some time, that would be really great.
Netflix would be wise to settle out of court. If she was never convicted, and if they were fully involved in production, I don't see how they are not liable. You can not go around defaming people which results in death threats.
I was just wondering if you were gonna cover baby reindeer, you did ages ago! whoop!
I may be in the minority but imo Alec is ultimately at fault because he had the gun in his hand last and didn't check the bullets.
that’s not even the part where i think he’s culpable. the fact that he pulled the trigger during the rehearsal. the fact that there are multiple situations where baldwin could be interpreted as negligent is what i think will lead to his conviction.
Ahhh nah that to me isn’t the thing, they hired an “armorer” for that. To me he’s at fault for putting his finger in the trigger of a non-dummy gun and pulling it while facing someone. You DONT pull the trigger - that’s industry standard, especially after The Crow.
He pulled the trigger. That's what makes him at fault in my opinion.
That is not how it works on a film set and with the industry protocols. Checking the gun is messing with it. My mom is an armorer. There is a reason this happens so seldom.
I think he's guilty/liable as a producer who hired her and ran a chaotic, unsafe set set.