“She’s Lying, She’s Truthful Or Has A Disorder” Baby Reindeer Interview Verdict
Summary
TLDRThe video features an in-depth discussion analyzing a Netflix series that claims to depict a true story of stalking and its consequences. The debate centers on the accuracy of the depicted events, particularly the protagonist's alleged criminal convictions which remain unverified. Experts from various fields, including legal, psychological, and entertainment, discuss the potential implications of the narrative inaccuracies and the ethical responsibilities of the creators. The conversation highlights the complexities of determining truth in storytelling and the significant impact it has on the individuals portrayed and the audience.
Takeaways
- 🤔 There are concerns about the truthfulness of the Netflix series 'You' and its portrayal of events, with doubts about the reliability of both the accuser and the accused.
- 🚨 The series claims to be based on a true story, but no convictions or prison sentences related to the harassment allegations have been found, casting doubt on the narrative.
- 📧 The issue of 41,000 emails being sent is disputed, with suggestions that this number may be inflated or fabricated to support a narrative of stalking.
- 🎥 Netflix's decision to label the series as 'a true story' and their efforts to protect identities have been criticized as inadequate and potentially reckless.
- 💸 Richard Gad, the subject of the series, has allegedly profited significantly from the show, which has raised questions about exploitation and the ethics of turning a personal trauma into a commercial product.
- 🚫 Legal experts suggest that if the claims of a conviction are untrue, the individual accused could have a strong case for defamation.
- 🧐 There is speculation that the accused may have a personality disorder that affects her perception of reality, though this is not confirmed.
- 🔍 The public's ability to quickly identify the accused using social media suggests that Netflix's duty of care in protecting her identity was not adequately met.
- 🤝 The discussion highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of stalking, which can affect people regardless of gender and can occur without a clear connection to public figures.
- 📉 The credibility of both the accuser and the accused is questioned, with the accuser's admission of drug use and other behaviors that could distort his recollection of events.
- 💭 The situation has sparked a broader conversation about the nature of truth, the impact of media portrayals on public perception, and the responsibilities of content creators when dealing with sensitive and potentially defamatory material.
Q & A
What are the three possibilities regarding the truthfulness of the statements made by the individuals involved in the 'Baby Reindeer' case?
-The three possibilities are that they are being truthful, they are lying, or they have a severe personality disorder which distorts their perception of reality.
What is the significance of the 41,000 emails in the case of Fiona Harvey?
-The 41,000 emails are significant because they are presented as evidence of obsessive behavior in the Netflix series. If Fiona Harvey did not send these emails, it could indicate that the narrative of her being a stalker is fabricated.
Why is the claim of Fiona Harvey's conviction for stalking important?
-The claim of Fiona Harvey's conviction is important because it forms the basis of the Netflix series' portrayal of her as a stalker. If this claim is false, it could undermine the credibility of the entire series.
What did Netflix officials claim in relation to the series 'Baby Reindeer'?
-Netflix officials claimed that the series is a true story and that they took every reasonable precaution to disguise the real-life identities of the people involved.
What is the potential legal implication if Fiona Harvey was never convicted of any crime related to Richard Gad?
-If Fiona Harvey was never convicted of any crime related to Richard Gad, she could potentially sue for defamation under UK law, given the serious allegations made against her in the series.
What is the role of Richard Gad in the controversy surrounding the 'Baby Reindeer' series?
-Richard Gad is the writer and protagonist of the series who claims to have suffered abuse at the hands of a convicted stalker, Fiona Harvey. His claims form the basis of the series, and his credibility is questioned due to his admission of reckless drug use and potential mental health issues.
Why was the actress chosen for the portrayal of Martha significant?
-The actress chosen for the portrayal of Martha was significant because she bears a striking resemblance to Fiona Harvey, both physically and in her manner of speaking, which led to the quick identification of Harvey in the series.
What is the general public's reaction to the 'Baby Reindeer' series and the subsequent interview with Fiona Harvey?
-The series and the interview have sparked widespread interest and debate, with many viewers captivated by the story and its implications. The public reaction is mixed, with some expressing concern about the potential exploitation of a private individual and others fascinated by the legal and ethical questions raised.
What are the potential consequences for Netflix if it is proven that they misrepresented the facts in the 'Baby Reindeer' series?
-If it is proven that Netflix misrepresented the facts, they could face legal action for defamation, as well as public backlash for failing in their duty of care to accurately represent a true story.
What steps could be taken to verify the truth of the claims made in the 'Baby Reindeer' series?
-To verify the claims, one could look at hard evidence such as emails, letters, court documents, and conduct interviews with the individuals involved. If legal action is taken, the discovery process could reveal further evidence.
Why is the duty of care that Netflix has in producing the 'Baby Reindeer' series important?
-The duty of care is important because it ensures that the company does not defame individuals or present false narratives as true stories, which could have serious legal and ethical implications.
Outlines
🕵️♂️ Assessing Truthfulness in a Complicated Case
The first paragraph discusses the complexities of discerning truth in a case with multiple narratives. It explores the possibility of dishonesty or severe personality disorders affecting the credibility of the individuals involved. The speaker expresses skepticism about the claims made by both sides and questions the lack of evidence for convictions or imprisonment. The paragraph also addresses the responsibility of Netflix in portraying the story as true and the potential consequences of misrepresenting facts.
🤔 Legal and Ethical Considerations in a Publicized Case
The second paragraph delves into the legal implications of the case, with a focus on the potential for a defamation lawsuit if the claims made in the series are untrue. It discusses the concept of truth in a legal context, emphasizing the importance of evidence and the balance of probabilities. The panelists debate the validity of personal truths versus factual truths, and the potential repercussions of Netflix's decision to broadcast the story as a true event without sufficient evidence to back its claims.
📚 Analyzing the Impact of a Viral Story
The third paragraph examines the unexpected viral nature of the story and its widespread impact. The discussion includes the reactions of various experts, including a criminal defense lawyer, an addiction specialist, and a pop culture critic. They consider the legal and ethical responsibilities of Netflix in broadcasting the story and the potential for a sequel or similar productions. The panelists also reflect on the public's fascination with the case and its broader implications.
🎭 The Consequences of Blurring Fact and Fiction
The fourth paragraph focuses on the consequences of presenting a story as factual when there may be doubts about its accuracy. It discusses the potential legal and social ramifications of such a decision, especially concerning the portrayal of individuals involved. The panelists express concerns about the impact on the individuals' reputations and the public's perception of the story. They also touch upon the psychological aspects of the case and the challenges of dealing with stalkers.
📝 Examining the Evidence Behind a Publicized Conviction
The fifth paragraph scrutinizes the evidence presented in the series and the claims made about the subject's conviction. It questions the authenticity of the depicted events and the lack of public evidence supporting the claims. The discussion also addresses the potential legal actions that could be taken if the claims are proven to be false, including defamation suits. The panelists express surprise at the extent of the allegations and the public's reaction to them.
🤝 The Role of Media and Legal Precedents in High-Profile Cases
The sixth paragraph discusses the role of media in shaping public opinion and the importance of legal precedents in high-profile cases. It highlights the potential for a sequel or similar stories to emerge following the success of the series. The panelists consider the ethical implications of profiting from a potentially false narrative and the responsibility of media platforms in verifying the truth of their content. They also touch upon the public's right to know the truth and the potential for legal recourse if the story is found to be fabricated.
💬 Public Reaction and the Pursuit of Truth in a Mediatized Case
The seventh paragraph explores the public's reaction to the case and the pursuit of truth in a heavily mediatized situation. It discusses the potential for a sequel and the ethical considerations of continuing the story for profit. The panelists debate the responsibility of media companies in presenting accurate information and the impact of their content on the individuals involved. They also consider the public's appetite for true crime stories and the potential for exploitation in such cases.
🏆 The Ethics of Profiting from a Controversial Story
The eighth and final paragraph addresses the ethics of profiting from a controversial and potentially false story. It discusses the responsibility of the media and individuals involved in presenting the story to the public. The panelists consider the potential legal and moral implications of the case and the importance of establishing the truth. They also reflect on the public's fascination with the story and the potential for it to inspire further exploration into similar cases.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Stalking
💡Personality Disorder
💡Conviction
💡Duty of Care
💡Defamation
💡True Story
💡Credibility
💡Cross-Examination
💡
💡Public Opinion
💡Identifiable
💡Exploitation
Highlights
Discussion revolves around the credibility of a woman's claims in a case portrayed by Netflix as a true story, raising questions about the nature of truth and the portrayal of events.
Concerns are raised about the lack of convictions or prison time for the woman in question, casting doubt on the validity of the Netflix series' claims.
The number of emails allegedly sent by the accused, 41,000, is questioned as excessive for someone trying to build a narrative of stalking.
Netflix's initial claim that they took precautions to protect identities is disputed, as the woman was identified quickly through social media.
The reliability of Richard Gad, the man at the center of the stalking narrative, is questioned due to his admission of self-confessed damage and potential mental health issues.
The panelists express skepticism about the portrayal of events by Netflix, suggesting a potential duty of care failure by the streaming service.
The legal implications of the case are discussed, with the possibility of defamation lawsuits if the allegations against the woman prove to be false.
The role of social media in quickly identifying individuals involved in high-profile cases is highlighted, raising privacy concerns.
The impact of the series on the public's perception of stalking and the potential for glamorizing such behavior is a point of contention.
The ethics of exploiting personal stories for financial gain by both the accused and the accuser are examined.
The potential for a sequel to the series is discussed, with speculation on its content and the possibility of further legal action.
The importance of distinguishing between fact and fiction in storytelling, especially when dealing with sensitive and potentially defamatory content, is emphasized.
The psychological impact of the portrayal on the individuals involved, including the accused woman's state of mind, is considered.
The role of the media in shaping public opinion and the responsibility that comes with presenting a narrative as 'true' is debated.
The potential for a legal recourse if the accusations are proven false, and the ramifications for Netflix and Richard Gad, are explored.
The broader conversation about the nature of consent, victimhood, and the complexities of personal relationships within the context of the case is touched upon.
The panelists agree on the compelling nature of the series but stress the need for a careful examination of the facts presented as true.
Transcripts
did you believe her there's sort of
three possibilities truthful lying which
is a volitional thing or a severe
personality disorder I don't really
believe a lot of what either side is
saying here we can't find any
convictions or of her spending nine
months in prison if that is not true
she's got a whale of a Cas she did slip
up on the email somebody setting 41,000
emails has got a problem if you were
trying to build up some kind of
narrative of a stalker you would not
need 41,000 emails to do that by Netflix
going all in at the start saying this is
a true story now we did everything we
could to protect identity no you didn't
people found her in 10 seconds yes
that's not a duty of care I just cannot
believe that everybody dropped the ball
on this person we yet to hear from is
Richard Gad Gad himself is a
self-confessed very damage guy you know
maybe as she said maybe he's concocted
some of this himself I don't know how
reliable a witness is he Reckless drug
use that is enough to lay down complete
distortions I do have a problem if he
has invented her conviction for stalking
him we'll tell you this it's about as
close to a slam dunk if that's
true I've interviewed many dangerous
people in my career including convicted
serial killers and medically diagnosed
Psychopaths the common denominator of
all these people tends to be that
they're very skilled Liars I think they
often truly believe what they're telling
me well fena Harvey hasn't killed
anybody but she did everything that
She's accused of doing as Martha in baby
reindeer then she would be an unstable
obsessive and threatening and Sinister
stalker who made Richard gad's life
outter hell and indeed other people's
lives utter hell but is it all true
Netflix says explicitly at the beginning
of the series that this is a true story
not based on a true story or inspired by
real events a true story unless there be
any doubt about what the streamer
company thinks of about this a Netflix
policy Chief said this to a
parliamentary Committee in the UK this
week baby ranger is an extraordinary
story and it is obviously a true story
of the horrific um abuse that um the
writer and protagonist Richard Gad
suffered um at the hands of a convicted
stalker we did take every reasonable
precaution in um disguising the real
life identities of the of of of the
people um you know involved in that um
in that story
well the series ends with Martha already
a convicted stalker in the series Sent
to jail for her harassment of the
comedian and his family and in fact it
shows her admitting that she had done
all this before she is uh sentenced but
no journalist or Internet slle have
found any evidence so far of f Harvey
being convicted for anything let alone
harassing or stalking Richard Gad it's
not a difficult thing to check and that
alone if it turns out that she has
hasn't actually been convicted of any
crime in relation to Richard Gad or
indeed anybody else would surely call
into massive question The credibility of
a lot of the rest of the drama and
indeed what he claims about Martha Fiona
Harvey because if that fundamental fact
is not true what else is not true at
what point does fact become
fiction Netflix and Gad have also
claimed we just heard one of the Netflix
officials claim it in Parliament that
they did everything they could possibly
do to hide her identity and the identity
of other people depicted in the in the
series but the reality is that she was
traced within hours by internet slew
simply by cross- referencing her real
life social media posts with the ones
that were used in the show and having
interviewed Fiona for nearly an hour
it's also clear to me they deliberately
chose an actress who Bears a striking
resemblance to her both physically and
in the way that she speaks in the series
now all of this points to what I would
say is a massive duty of care failure by
Netflix by Richard Gad and by Clark and
well films which produced the series but
let's be clear none of that means that I
think F Harvey told me the whole truth I
found it to be intelligent coherent
combative and quick thinking and on a
human level I felt sorry for that she's
become the object of global ridicule and
as she says the recipient of serious
death threats but there were plenty of
moments in the interview that rang alarm
bells to me uh moments where I think she
was frankly lying as we're about to
discuss but if Richard Gad feels
entitled to make millions airing his
side of the story and in the process
make very serious allegations against
Fiona Harvey on whom Martha is clearly
based in the process then she is surely
entitled to respond and defend herself
as she chose to do as for who is EXP
exploting whom well I'll leave that to
the court of public opinion to decide or
indeed an actual court if it comes to it
well Jord had discussed that and the
bombshell interview that's made waves
across the world seity criminal defense
lawyer Mark gagos from Los Angeles
addiction specialist Dr Drew I think
he's also in LA and from Scotland
YouTube's Premier pop culture critic the
critical Drinker and here in the studio
with me uncensored contributors Esther
krku and law lawyer Paula Ron Adrian
well welcome to all of you um let me
start with with Paula and Esther who are
with me here I mean Paula you've all had
a chance to watch the interview here um
what did you make of it utterly
fascinating and actually what you have
done is you provided a window into the
world of what happens in a courtroom you
asked a lot of questions um peers that I
would put to somebody um who I was
cross-examining in terms of this type of
action did you believe her it doesn't
matter whether I believe or not does no
let me explain to you why because you
and I have this discussion a lot about
the truth and my answer to you always is
who truth there's only one truth no
there isn't you're so wrong I mean and
this whole my truth I'm sorry clear this
whole my truth is
there is the truth which is based on
actual facts evidential facts and my
problem with this whole baby reindeer
Saga is I don't really believe a lot of
what either side is saying here think a
lot of Richard gad's uh stuff that he's
come out with is not borne out by facts
and if it turns out that uh that Martha
with her confession in the den numont of
his series confessing to harassing and
stalking him and getting a prison
sentence uh if that turns out to not be
true then the slap Dash way they've
allowed Fiona Harvey to be identified
immediately as the person depicted in
what they claim is a true story is going
to have very good cause and I'll come to
mark gagos from a legal perspective at
the moment very good call certainly
under UK law I would think to sue for
defamation so so it does matter Paul PE
no what you asked me was or what you you
said was there is only one truth and I
disagreed with you on that and let me
explain to you why because in this
country we have Beyond Reasonable Doubt
and we have on the balance of
probabilities we do not have a 100 100%
safe proof in terms of how we can find
the truth we do our best to find the
truth and we do that on the basis of the
evidence that is put before the court
now your viewers are going to see some
of that evidence in relation to whether
they've watched the Netflix series
they're going to be see some of that
evidence in relation to the the expert
way quite frankly that you put questions
to Fiona but that still isn't all the
evidence and so we have to be careful to
be clear come to you I do not know
exactly where the truth lies it may be
that after this interview has aired and
everyone's now dissecting it and talking
about it and examining it and
journalists will be testing it that they
you know other stuff May emerge nothing
would surprising me I think this is a
crazy story from start to finish but
Esther uh so nothing was surprising me
but as things sit there does seem to be
a massive disparity between what has
appeared in the Netflix series and
everything that Fiona Harvey told me now
I don't believe everything she told me
but on certain key points which can be
verified yes or no it's going to be a
lot resing on this because the
credibility of the whole show will rest
on whether those key things like was she
convicted or not but what happens is
that true or not yeah well this is a bit
where you have to use a bit of common
sense if if they if if it's found that
she has not been convicted of anything
and she didn't spend nine months in
prison like this series is alleging
there is no Assumption of probability or
anything like that it's either true or
it's not true and you can look up
someone's records and fine if they've
spent nine months in prison like this
series is alleging I actually happen to
think that Martha's story or a version
of the truth is probably closer to the
actual truth yes there is a spectrum
here and none of us were there none of
us were direct Witnesses and we can't
you know talk about Richard G's feelings
or his truth fine but there are some
things that are not based on feelings
and are fact like if she was convicted
like if she assaulted the girlfriend
like if if she sent 41,000 emails which
is ludicrous I mean I do think she sent
some emails not like what she said in I
think she I think on the emails I do
think she sent email well let's play
that let's play that bit actually from
the interview this is f Fiona Harvey
talking to me about the emails so all of
this would come out in a cour case in
disclosure yes and you're prepared to do
that yes because I didn't write him the
emails who do you think did I have no
idea I think he probably made them up
himself I've no idea 41,000 emails
yeah I mean would you would you accept
that someone who did that would be very
obsessive about someone yes I mean
that's a lot of
emails now what was interesting was when
I kept pushing on this because I I
thought it was a very important part of
the interview she did then say Esther
well even if I did even if I had sent
those emails it still doesn't mean the
rest is true it was one of the few
moments I felt she slipped up where if
I'm a criminal lawyer again we'll come
toor Mark in a moment who's more expert
in these matters but that seemed to me a
very important moment where she was
raising the Spectre that she may have
done but it still didn't mean the rest
is true which by the way if that's the
case she was right to say that yeah but
she didn't actually admit I sent them
for what it's worth I think she probably
did I think that Netflix and Richard gab
must have actual evidence or they
wouldn't have been so precise about the
number of emails text messages and so on
it's kind of absurd to imply that
Richard Gad might have sent them himself
if he was trying to build up some kind
of narrative of a stalker you would not
need 41,000 emails to do that a few
dozen would have been enough you know
wasn't sending to I agree and critical D
I want to come to you actually just on a
wider point about baby Ranger and the
state let me just go to mark garos
because mark from a legal perspective
it's probably a different set of rules
here um if this was judged on airing in
America to the UK we have tougher
defamation laws here for example but
from what you've gleaned about this and
given her emphatic denial that she was
ever even charged let alone convicted
and confessed to the crime where would
she sit
legally well you're right the England
has to my mind much better rules when it
comes to defamation but having said that
and as somebody who is currently adverse
to Netflix I will tell you they in my
experience at least they do tend to take
great Liberties when they represent what
the particular facts are and
specifically in America you you have a
Doctrine both defamation by impl uh
implication defamation per se the
accusing her of being a criminal the and
kind of doubling down on it by saying
she served time if that is not true
she's got a whale of a
case yeah I think so
and hang on hang on one second I just
want to bring in Esther first just
because I was going to come to you did
youan did you believe a lot of what she
was saying but she was so because she
was so emphatic with a number of her
denials how credible did you find her in
that interview with me I found about 75%
of what she were saying to be true um
particularly on the conviction point
because I don't think that you can lie
about that and so far all the evidence
from what we've seen is bearing out we
can't find any convictions or of her
spending nine months in prison I do
think that she did probably make some
appropriate advances towards him but
this is also I mean this he admits he
admits leading a wrong well yes but also
this is I say and I don't want to be
lewed this is someone who admitted to
masturbating to pictures of of Martha so
clearly he was not someone of sound mind
or the most credible person he had his
own issues and the way he interpreted
any kind of interaction with them I also
think is also due like is is is will it
be valid to scrutinize it as well
because this is not someone that I
thought was all there quite frankly I
think the bigger issue here is the fact
the length that Netflix has gone to to
to create this fiction because they
can't actually create a story like this
because they'll be liable to all the
kind of social commentary of them
glamorizing stalking and all of that
they decided to put the based on a true
story label to protect themselves
because they don't actually want to put
or original content out there that they
they think people would find interesting
they wanted to make this look like it's
exactly Richard let me okay on on that
point let me bring in critical Drinker
will Jordan because actually I don't
think Netflix could have had a clue how
big this was going to blow I was I was
absolutely stunned how big my interview
with Thea Harvey went from the moment we
announced it to put it in context I
think that I did one post on X just
announcing I'd done the interview and
it's had I think 10 million views right
just one post on X I mean crazy numbers
we were getting for all of this um and
crazy numbers of people uh I'm sure will
watch it over the next week or so um but
put put it into context for those who
are not familiar with the whole baby
reindeer phenomenon how big is this been
worldwide I mean it's something that a
lot of people are talking about and I
think it's just the nature of the medium
like sometimes certain things just go
viral and absolutely take off Way Beyond
what anyone expected it was the same
deal with something like Tiger King back
during lockdown um an obscure
documentary but for some reason it just
captured the the public Consciousness
and suddenly everyone was talking about
it and it just every once in a while it
happens and it's definitely been one of
those shows I mean it definitely helps
that it's a it's a very well acted show
it's well written it's well produced uh
it's genuinely a good piece of drama and
it deals with a lot of interesting
issues that are definitely worth talking
about so all of those things were
working in its favor and as a result
yeah it's become probably way bigger
than Netflix ever predicted that it
would if it was an act a work of drama
and they said it's a fictional account
but maybe Loosely based on something
that may have happened that's one thing
I think what by Netflix going all in at
the start saying this is a true story
and by their Executives going into
Parliament and speaking under oath and
saying this is a true story and saying
she was convicted with I don't think
they've got the evidence to support that
statement and then saying that you know
we did everything we could to protect
identity no you didn't you chose an
actress who looks very like her
physically and you made her speak very
like her uh and you made her behave and
talk very like her I know because I've
now sat down in interviewed the real the
real MTH let me bring in Dr Drew Dr Drew
you're one of the the great
psychologists I've ever met in my life
so give me a bit of psychoanalyst about
all
this well there's a lot going on here Pi
thank you for having me by the way your
job in the interview was absolutely
masterful because people get very
frustrated that somehow you're supposed
to go at people when you question their
veracity of what they're saying when in
fact the reality is what you want to do
is exactly what you did present the
facts and then ask questions we express
wonderment what might be going on here
and she did slip up on the email she did
say well if I sent the email so somebody
sing 41,000 emails has got a problem and
there's sort of three possibilities
she's lying she's truthful or she has
something called anosognosia which is a
block in the ability to see reality
serious mental illness serious
personality disorders literally distort
reality and cannot assess it accurately
and I mean no she was obviously very
intelligent no question of that when you
watched her I mean she spoke we did an
interview for 45 minutes I I wouldn't
say I'm the easiest interview you're
ever going to conduct in her kind of
position but I thought she conducted
herself pretty formidably well actually
all things considered I don't think
she's ever done a television interview
before and she was being held to account
you know I I don't think I held back
with her albe it I don't actually know
where the truth lies I don't want to go
too hard um or too soft but what was
assessment of her as an
individual again you can't know whether
I I didn't I've not assessed her so I
have no direct knowledge and there
really as I said three possibilities
truthful lying which is a volitional
thing or a severe personality disorder
consider things like dissociative
identity disorder where people really
don't even remember what they've been
doing so you're talking to somebody
who's in a different reality those kinds
of personality disorders can literally
distort everything and by the way he has
some evidence you know the stuff as he
is portrayed in the series he has some
significant stuff as well so what he has
portraying as reality may also be
distorted and on the question uh Drew of
stalkers generally let's assume for a
moment yes you know she's guilty as they
depict her in the in the thing you know
most public figures have had experience
with stalkers in some way I know that
you have I know that I have I know
friends of mine who've had terrible
experiences really terrible um you know
the the BBC uh star who's now um doing a
podcast Emily M has had nearly 30 years
of hell it's been documented through
courts and stuff very very hard to deal
with these kinds of people when they do
get fixated um how how much of this kind
of stalking goes on where it doesn't
involve a sort of explicable attachment
to somebody in the public eye where
maybe people watch people on television
or entertainers whatever and they get
obsessed with that I can sort of
understand that Dynamic it's harder to
understand on a sort of local pub level
where someone makes someone a cup of tea
and all hell erupts from that moment but
is it more common than we
think oh absolutely simple stalking
which is really what this is a case of
it's people with personality disorders
which is something we have a lot of
these days who become obsessed usually
with a romantic attachment that is brief
and then off it goes and it can go for
decades and the the object of the
stocking needs to end all contact any
negative contact even with law
enforcement tends to actually exacerbate
things so there's two ends of the
stalking Spectrum one is called Simple
stalking which is not so simple and the
other end is psychotic stalking and
psychotic stalking is what I had
somebody who was actually a meth addict
had a delusion about a relationship with
me and those guys you actually can grab
law enforcement's very good at getting
those and bringing them into treatment
and they get better but the ones with
the personality disorders and just go on
almost interminably right uh Mark gagas
I want to play a clip from uh Fiona
Harvey watching the court scene from the
Netflix
drama there's one key point in the drama
that uh has Martha's character pleading
guilty to intimidating Richard Gad in
court and sentenced to nine months
prison time uh let's watch you are
charged with the stalking of Mr Donal D
between the dates of the 14th of August
2015 and the 22nd of March 2017 are you
guilty or not
guilty guilty you are charged with the
harassment of Gerald dun and Ellena dun
between the dates of the 6th of June
2016 and the 22nd of March
2017 are you guilty or not
guilty guilty
[Laughter]
a little read
here now again there is obviously a
resemblance between do you think
so flattery well I I don't mean to F you
or not F you I just think there is a
resemblance you know having met you and
you both speaks Scottish people um but
the fundamental point of this is did you
did you take part in that did you go to
jail did you have a of course not of
course not have you ever been to prison
no have you ever been charged with a
crimin offense no never no nothing
nothing so that scene is completely
invented that's completely
false now Mark garas what's interesting
is the the other uh charge there where
where she's supposedly admitting to that
as well uh involved a woman and her MP
husband who she worked briefly for the
the legal firm and then apparently
harassed them uh for a long time
afterwards she emphatically denies that
but it's it appears at worst there she
may have been served some kind of
interim uh legal uh thing but certainly
it never got as far as anything to do
with a courtroom or any charging of any
um criminal offense or let alone a
conviction so again there are two
separate things here both of which she
emphatically denies and both of which so
far there is zero evidence that she ever
went into court um so let's talk just
about before I get to that the the duty
of care aspect for a company like
Netflix one of the most successful media
companies in the world in fact in
history raking in billions of dollars a
year what kind of Duty of care do they
have if they slap this is a true story
over something like this and it turns
out it may not be
true well it's almost
inexplicable that they would allow an
executive to go and testify that they
would then have this as a central
feature of the series and
uh then would just concoct this I mean I
I I'm dealing with now and I've dealt
with in the past their legal department
and it's about as robust as you can get
so both their ins in-house counsel and
their outside counil so a lot of this
does not make or sense to me or has some
kind of there's something peculiar going
on even her reaction though to watching
that seemed just a wee bit peculiar to
me as well so I there seems to to Echo
some of your other guests here uh there
seems to be a something that is there
that is that we haven't discovered yet
and that the truth has not come out here
in terms of what actually happened
because yeah I not believe Netflix and
their legal team has let this go this
far we did ask Netflix for a response
they they decided not to comment I mean
Paula there was also uh there's a
graphic male rape scene in there but it
involves a lot of heavy duty drug taking
leading up to it which Richard Gad is
very honest about said he had a lot of
problems he had a lot of sexual
experimentation a lot of drug taking and
so on that's not to say the rape didn't
happen but what did happen as a
consequence of this again pertaining to
the duty of care aspect is that rather
than the actual person who is believed
to have committed the rape being
identified somebody else in the
television industry was wrongly
identified smeared all over social media
he also got threats and unwanted
attention um and the the real person has
not yet been identified so the whole
thing is a complete mess but this idea
that Netflix went out of their way to
protect people who they were depicting I
think it's for the birds frankly there
are a lot of concern it's kind of
interesting sorry to jump in there that
they were able to identify this woman
within a matter of hours a relatively
obscure private citizen and yet this
person who committed the rape against
Richard Gad who is presumably a public
figure and quite senior and well known
nobody seems to have been able to track
down the real person well and Richard
Osman has said on I think on his podcast
that everyone knows who it is including
him I mean I would have thought someone
should say then well let who is this
person or at very least go to the
authorities and have this properly
investigated so again Paulo uh it's all
a mess I mean I watched it and Richard
Gad is obviously quite a damaged guy
he's obviously tal is he's talented he's
obviously had a lot of success with this
but it's it's interesting Journey he
started off doing it on stage in front
of small audiences and you know it could
be that he just saw an opportunity which
is what Fiona Harvey told me to make a
lot of money out of this and didn't ever
consider the potential consequences of
not everything being completely true
dealing first of all with Netflix and
their duty of care there are a lot of
question marks aren't there peers first
of all did they consult with any
stalking organizations for example to
understand what the impact of this show
was going to have on the wider AI
apparently they did so on that they did
but what they what they cannot get away
from is that they have this actress and
they have fana Harvey and they look like
they could be pretty similar people and
they're both speaking Scottish the
actress is not actually Scottish but she
speaks in a Scottish accent very similar
to Fiona Harvey and a lot of the stuff
that they put on screen which includes
actual phraseology which came directly
from tweets Which F harier posted so
that's how the sloth Founders they just
put in things like the curtains quote
and so on and up she came straight away
turned out she was retweeting me quite a
lot as well at the time um so she was
quite an active social media user but
people found her in 10 seconds yes
that's not a duty of care well then the
next uh question mark is in terms of
that duty of care when they were
considering this this project as it
would have been then why choose the
entertainment route as opposed to the
documentary route and what were the
questions that were being asked about
that because you you have to understand
that as a viewer what we are being told
is that we are sitting down and watching
crude entertainment we are being told
that this is a true story it's a heroin
story and I just wonder if this was
really going to be about uh showing
evidence seen somebody who had been
severely harassed uh suffered you know
countless criminal actions against them
and against others why they didn't
choose to go down I me we spoke to her
our team spoke to her today and Esther
she is still getting bombarded with
phone calls people found her number very
easily and she's getting a lot of
threats from people who believe that she
is this psycho stalker who got convicted
for the psycho stalking without the
being so far any evidence and you got to
think if Netflix had any evidence she
had been convicted we'd have seen it by
now it's a pretty serious thing to put
at the end of a True Story series if
that turns out not to have happened yeah
and you you have to wonder why Netflix
decided to go down the road of calling
it a true story I hate to draw parallels
here with the royal family but I feel
like this is kind of like a Megan Harry
royal family sitch because you have one
one party speaking their truth and going
to the media and saying whatever they
want and you have the other party that
you know is probably not going to say
anything just because of protocol and
what is expected of them I actually
think Netflix banked on the fact that
Martha real life Martha would never
actually speak out I didn't think they
banked on the fact that she would do an
interview and say her side of the story
and say listen none of this happened at
least not in the way it's been depicted
there are no conv let me bring in let me
bring in Dr Drew on on this point which
is Richard Gad himself is a
self-confessed very damaged guy he
admits that very openly honestly uh he
he took a lot of drugs you see that
depicted in the series he had you know
he had relationships with trans women he
had relationships with gay men with
straight women and so on he admits to a
lot of experimentation with that a lot
of it fueled by drugs and so on how
reliable a witness is he to even his own
life no that absolutely that was a point
I made a few minutes ago which is that
he is also distorted in his not just
memory but his actual perception of
reality just take the Reckless drug use
that is enough to lay down complete
distortions of what was actually
happening at the time plus the trauma
plus the recurrent traumas plus he must
have some characterological things going
on as well from all those traumas think
about being a trauma Survivor
particularly in childhood trauma his
father was a trauma Survivor these
things have a way of recurring
themselves and the distortions of how
they happen can be profound so who knows
where the truth actually is it's going
to be very difficult to tell but you
were zering in on the one thing which is
what is the evidence let's look at the
emails let's look at the letters let's
look at the court documents and see what
actually there is hard evidence of and
if there is actually a c if she does sue
them and it gets to Discovery then all
this will come out because I can't
believe she's been able to if it is her
but sent all this stuff I mean I thought
actually The crucial thing for me with
the left the handwritten letters because
Richard guy claims to have 106 I think
she admitted to sending him one well
it's very easy for experts to look at a
I'm sure Mark gagos let me just bring
you in quickly on this point it's very
easy isn't it for experts to look at a
handwritten letter and compare to a 105
others and and work out whether they're
all the same person you almost don't
even need an expert for that it's that
so and there's you can do requests for
admissions you can do a document
production and if they don't have it
that's a that's a real problem um
critical thinker critical thinker you
are a you are a critical thinker but
crucially you're also a critical drinker
um and look you're in Scotland what is
the what's the vibe in Scotland The
Daily Record today splashed on an
interview with her about my interview
with her um obviously a lot of interest
but what's the general feeling about
this I mean I I don't claim to speak for
all the people of Scotland on this
interview but uh you know both of the
people that were involved in this were
were Scottish anyway so uh I think
there's just general interest in the
case it's stirred up a lot of um
interesting discussions about um you
know the whole whole nature of stalking
the fact that yes it can happen to men
as well as women um and I think I guess
that's a useful conversation to have
it's a useful realization to have what
about and what about the people who say
immediately to me the moment I announced
I was doing the interview how dare you
exploit a mentally ill woman what would
you having watched the interview do you
think that's the way it came over I mean
it's not my place to make a ruling on
her mental state when it comes to this
stuff um if she came forward as a
functioning adult who was able to make
her own decisions and decided she wanted
to do the interview that's her decision
it's not for me to say whether she
should have or not I also think that's
quite unfair because you're making a
judgment of her mental health based on
on a basically what's looking more like
a fictionalized series and also her
whole point of doing the interview is
that she believes she has been exploited
by Richard Gad by Netflix and by Clark
and well films that's why she did the
interview she thinks she's been
deliberately exploited let's take a look
at another clip this is her talking
about the money being made
here can I ask a question do you happen
to know how much he's made out of this
Netflix thing I would imagine several
million pounds yes I I would say three
to four million a lawyer I know well
thought he was a we knowbody and he
suggested 750 to 100,000 I said no I
think you're looking more about 3 or 4
million and I think the more he
publicizes um it goes up um you know uh
according to how how much it's streamed
I don't know I don't know what the
contract they signed I think he's done
bloody well out of Defending you resent
that um I don't resent any Scott getting
on this is not what this is about and
but he's effectively making money out of
what he says making money out of my he
is you stalking him yeah he's making
money out of untrue
facts Paula I mean what's interesting is
a Daily Mail journalist interviewed her
and then she did start to bombard him
with calls you know he says he got over
50 calls uh in a few hours so on so that
is indicative of somebody who may have
done this before it doesn't mean she
necessarily did everything She's accused
of doing but it's interesting it is
interesting what what else is
interesting that I I found from your
interview is that she was able to
recognize herself she says from when the
baby reindeer was a theater show um and
I found that quite intriguing because I
didn't understand why somebody who
considered themselves to not have
anything to do with a gentleman to have
perhaps met them five or six times to
have perhaps sent one letter to have
perhaps sent five or six emails would
then suddenly be able to recognize thems
from a theater show yeah I I I wasn't
clear about how she made that link off
the cuff comment about the baby reindeer
as well interestingly interestingly she
did yeah interestingly she has gone on
to identify herself as well as I I
accept being identified by by by the
sofa sleuths but she's also she has also
continued to identify herself as being
that character the only person we're yet
to hear from identify her as that
character is Richard Gad now when we
talk about Richard making money out of
this do I have a problem with with that
not particularly there's lots of
criminals even who are serving sentences
as hang who will make money I do have a
problem if he has invented her
conviction for stalking him I I think if
he's making a lot of money out of a
false narrative um and Mark gagos again
coming back to the legality of this is
why I think she may have if what she's
saying is correct about that I think
that you may you may conclude watching
the interview look I don't think she's
telling the truth here here here and
here but on that Central Point if she is
able to establish Beyond any doubt that
she was not convicted of any offense
that alone a
and has never been to court in relation
to any of this stuff I think she has a
pretty open and shut
case well I you know there's nothing
that I that I've ever seen that's open
and shut but I will tell you this it's
about as close to a slam dunk if that's
true but I'll tell you there there's
some just peculiar reactions there's
some peculiar things and like I said
before the robust in-house and outside
Council that they have I just can not
believe that everybody dropped the ball
on this that just seems that
unbelievable to me I mean that's that's
the real Scandal here Netflix I mean
well I tell you what you know I've asked
listen I'm a big fan of Netflix I watch
it all the time I think it's run by very
smart guys I know some of them
personally uh if they want to come on
and talk about this absolutely we have
an open platform to hear their side of
events I'd love to know what Richard Gad
told them or whether they relied on
everything he said and what evidence he
gave them and you maybe as she said
maybe he's concocted some of this
himself I don't know um I don't think
any of us can say with any real
certainty at the moment exactly what we
think has happened here or how much of
either account is true and that's what
makes it of course as uh as critical D
rightly said it makes it such a talked
about thing because there are so many
unanswered questions and you know you I
I always come back to Richard Gad admits
that he did lead her on quite a lot that
he did perform sex acts to her picture
on
laptop that's weird right I mean I don't
care what your view of the whole thing
is but that doesn't say to me that
you're necessarily good enough I feel
like he's he's dressing it up just
because you admit oh I may have done
something wrong or I may not have been
in the best mental state doesn't mean
you get to basically lie about her
criminal convictions that's what I have
the biggest issue with whereas my big
issue um in listening to this I'm and
I'm a little bit uncomfortable with some
of the things that I've heard you say
appear for example that oh he was using
drugs oh for ex well yes but why Sim the
series yes I know that I've I've watched
it but what I'm concerned about is the
vulnerable people who may be watching
this who are thinking oh okay my skirt
was a little bit too short oh okay maybe
I had too much to drink so must what
that's what that's why I'm saying this
that's why I'm saying this need to be
really care don't misquote me I was I'm
say we need be very careful I was going
to his credibility and whether if you
take a lot of hard drugs for a sustained
period of time is he openly shows us he
did then that can affect as Dr Drew
rightly said and Mark gagos I'm sure
would say the same in a court of law it
obviously impacts on your credibility
also referenced why he thought that he
had been abused and why he thought Heap
and when you watch the show he
expen on a general point I think I think
I think the baby reinder is an
unbelievably compelling watch no one
think doubts that if you sat and watched
it as I did at the weekend is completely
compelling brilliantly acted very well
written very powerful but is it drama or
is it reality and that's the reality of
the debate let me just go to critical
Drinker about the possibility of course
when when a streamer has a massive hit
like this the natural inclination
normally is to order the sequel are we
going to see the sequel and if so am I
going to be in it and if so what are the
chances of getting Brad Pit who is going
to play you indeed uh yeah I mean we
could have now Martha's reveng where she
goes on this trip to clear her name you
just you don't know where they could
potentially take it but yeah when you
get something of this level of success
they're either going to try and continue
the story or they're going to try and do
things in a similar vein it'll become a
series of um true life stories of of uh
revenge or stalking or whatever you want
to call it um so yeah there's a lot of
potential there and if they can make
money out of it I'm sure they will
listen thank you to all of you a
brilliant panel I have to say I thought
you all were great on this it is a
fantastically fascinating story and I do
not know how this will play out other
than I fundamentally believe that Fen
Harvey had every right to have her say
and what she said to me will now be
properly examined I'm sure by the
world's media and maybe maybe we will
get to the real truth about all this but
I suspect we'll end up where we are at
the moment which is the truth is it was
a hell of a mess and uh and that's where
we are with this anyway uh thank you to
my panel much appreciate it thank you
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)
"Bad Boy For REAL" - Diddy's Home Raided As Part of Sex Trafficking Probe
'You're lying': George Conway clashes with Republican commentator over Trump guilty verdict
George Conway Explains: SCOTUS order could be BAD NEWS for Trump | George Conway Explains It All
NYC Protest Begins🔥Truckers Block New York! Gov Kathy Hochul SHOCKING Decision Freeze Truckers Acc
Trump’s attorneys fail MISERABLY in court on first official trial date
Bluey Just Did Something Incredible...