“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