“She’s Lying, She’s Truthful Or Has A Disorder” Baby Reindeer Interview Verdict

Piers Morgan Uncensored
10 May 202440:05

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

00:00

🕵️‍♂️ 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.

05:02

🤔 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.

10:03

📚 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.

15:05

🎭 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.

20:08

📝 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.

25:11

🤝 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.

30:11

💬 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.

35:12

🏆 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

Stalking is the act of persistently following and harassing another individual, often with the intent to intimidate or threaten. In the video, it is a central theme as the discussion revolves around the allegations of stalking made by Richard Gad against Fiona Harvey, as depicted in the Netflix series.

💡Personality Disorder

A personality disorder refers to a long-term mental health condition where a person has a troubled sense of self and has difficulty forming relationships. The video mentions this in the context of evaluating the credibility of the individuals involved, suggesting that such a disorder could affect their perception of reality and the events in question.

💡Conviction

A conviction is a judgment of guilt against a criminal defendant in a criminal case. The video discusses the lack of evidence for Fiona Harvey's supposed conviction for stalking Richard Gad, which is a critical point of contention and a key element in assessing the truthfulness of the Netflix series' claims.

💡Duty of Care

Duty of care refers to a legal obligation to avoid causing harm to others. The video questions Netflix's duty of care in broadcasting the series as a 'true story' without apparently verifying the facts, potentially leading to harm for the individuals involved who are not public figures.

💡Defamation

Defamation is the act of making a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual. The video script discusses the potential for a defamation lawsuit if the claims made in the series about Fiona Harvey's conviction and actions are proven to be false.

💡True Story

A true story is a narrative or account that is based on actual events or facts. The video highlights the controversy surrounding the Netflix series' claim to be a true story, especially when there is doubt about the veracity of the events as portrayed, which has significant implications for the parties involved.

💡Credibility

Credibility refers to the quality of being believable or trustworthy. The discussion in the video frequently returns to the credibility of the accounts given by Richard Gad and Fiona Harvey, questioning the reliability of their narratives in light of the conflicting stories and lack of evidence.

💡Cross-Examination

Cross-examination is the legal process in which a witness is questioned by the opposing counsel. In the context of the video, the term is used metaphorically to describe the rigorous questioning of Fiona Harvey during the interview to test the validity of her claims against the narrative presented in the Netflix series.

💡

💡Public Opinion

Public opinion refers to the collective views of the public on a particular matter. The video mentions the court of public opinion, indicating that the ultimate judgment on who is exploiting whom and the truth of the situation may be influenced by the public's perception, shaped by the media and the series.

💡Identifiable

Identifiable means capable of being recognized or identified. The video discusses how easily Fiona Harvey was identified despite the claim that the series took measures to disguise the identities of the individuals involved, raising questions about the duty of care and the ethical considerations of the production.

💡Exploitation

Exploitation is the act of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their resources or weaknesses. Fiona Harvey alleges that she was exploited by Richard Gad, Netflix, and the production company for their gain, suggesting a power imbalance and a misuse of her personal story for financial benefit.

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

00:00

did you believe her there's sort of

00:01

three possibilities truthful lying which

00:04

is a volitional thing or a severe

00:07

personality disorder I don't really

00:09

believe a lot of what either side is

00:11

saying here we can't find any

00:12

convictions or of her spending nine

00:13

months in prison if that is not true

00:16

she's got a whale of a Cas she did slip

00:18

up on the email somebody setting 41,000

00:21

emails has got a problem if you were

00:23

trying to build up some kind of

00:24

narrative of a stalker you would not

00:26

need 41,000 emails to do that by Netflix

00:30

going all in at the start saying this is

00:32

a true story now we did everything we

00:34

could to protect identity no you didn't

00:36

people found her in 10 seconds yes

00:38

that's not a duty of care I just cannot

00:41

believe that everybody dropped the ball

00:43

on this person we yet to hear from is

00:46

Richard Gad Gad himself is a

00:47

self-confessed very damage guy you know

00:50

maybe as she said maybe he's concocted

00:52

some of this himself I don't know how

00:54

reliable a witness is he Reckless drug

00:57

use that is enough to lay down complete

01:00

distortions I do have a problem if he

01:02

has invented her conviction for stalking

01:05

him we'll tell you this it's about as

01:08

close to a slam dunk if that's

01:12

true I've interviewed many dangerous

01:14

people in my career including convicted

01:16

serial killers and medically diagnosed

01:18

Psychopaths the common denominator of

01:20

all these people tends to be that

01:22

they're very skilled Liars I think they

01:24

often truly believe what they're telling

01:27

me well fena Harvey hasn't killed

01:29

anybody but she did everything that

01:30

She's accused of doing as Martha in baby

01:32

reindeer then she would be an unstable

01:35

obsessive and threatening and Sinister

01:37

stalker who made Richard gad's life

01:40

outter hell and indeed other people's

01:42

lives utter hell but is it all true

01:46

Netflix says explicitly at the beginning

01:47

of the series that this is a true story

01:50

not based on a true story or inspired by

01:53

real events a true story unless there be

01:56

any doubt about what the streamer

01:58

company thinks of about this a Netflix

02:01

policy Chief said this to a

02:03

parliamentary Committee in the UK this

02:05

week baby ranger is an extraordinary

02:07

story and it is obviously a true story

02:10

of the horrific um abuse that um the

02:13

writer and protagonist Richard Gad

02:15

suffered um at the hands of a convicted

02:18

stalker we did take every reasonable

02:20

precaution in um disguising the real

02:24

life identities of the of of of the

02:26

people um you know involved in that um

02:28

in that story

02:30

well the series ends with Martha already

02:32

a convicted stalker in the series Sent

02:35

to jail for her harassment of the

02:37

comedian and his family and in fact it

02:38

shows her admitting that she had done

02:41

all this before she is uh sentenced but

02:44

no journalist or Internet slle have

02:46

found any evidence so far of f Harvey

02:49

being convicted for anything let alone

02:51

harassing or stalking Richard Gad it's

02:54

not a difficult thing to check and that

02:57

alone if it turns out that she has

02:59

hasn't actually been convicted of any

03:02

crime in relation to Richard Gad or

03:04

indeed anybody else would surely call

03:06

into massive question The credibility of

03:09

a lot of the rest of the drama and

03:11

indeed what he claims about Martha Fiona

03:15

Harvey because if that fundamental fact

03:18

is not true what else is not true at

03:23

what point does fact become

03:25

fiction Netflix and Gad have also

03:27

claimed we just heard one of the Netflix

03:30

officials claim it in Parliament that

03:32

they did everything they could possibly

03:33

do to hide her identity and the identity

03:36

of other people depicted in the in the

03:38

series but the reality is that she was

03:40

traced within hours by internet slew

03:43

simply by cross- referencing her real

03:45

life social media posts with the ones

03:47

that were used in the show and having

03:50

interviewed Fiona for nearly an hour

03:53

it's also clear to me they deliberately

03:54

chose an actress who Bears a striking

03:56

resemblance to her both physically and

03:59

in the way that she speaks in the series

04:02

now all of this points to what I would

04:04

say is a massive duty of care failure by

04:06

Netflix by Richard Gad and by Clark and

04:09

well films which produced the series but

04:11

let's be clear none of that means that I

04:14

think F Harvey told me the whole truth I

04:16

found it to be intelligent coherent

04:19

combative and quick thinking and on a

04:22

human level I felt sorry for that she's

04:24

become the object of global ridicule and

04:27

as she says the recipient of serious

04:30

death threats but there were plenty of

04:32

moments in the interview that rang alarm

04:34

bells to me uh moments where I think she

04:37

was frankly lying as we're about to

04:39

discuss but if Richard Gad feels

04:42

entitled to make millions airing his

04:44

side of the story and in the process

04:46

make very serious allegations against

04:48

Fiona Harvey on whom Martha is clearly

04:51

based in the process then she is surely

04:54

entitled to respond and defend herself

04:56

as she chose to do as for who is EXP

04:59

exploting whom well I'll leave that to

05:01

the court of public opinion to decide or

05:04

indeed an actual court if it comes to it

05:08

well Jord had discussed that and the

05:09

bombshell interview that's made waves

05:10

across the world seity criminal defense

05:12

lawyer Mark gagos from Los Angeles

05:15

addiction specialist Dr Drew I think

05:17

he's also in LA and from Scotland

05:19

YouTube's Premier pop culture critic the

05:21

critical Drinker and here in the studio

05:23

with me uncensored contributors Esther

05:25

krku and law lawyer Paula Ron Adrian

05:27

well welcome to all of you um let me

05:30

start with with Paula and Esther who are

05:32

with me here I mean Paula you've all had

05:34

a chance to watch the interview here um

05:38

what did you make of it utterly

05:40

fascinating and actually what you have

05:42

done is you provided a window into the

05:45

world of what happens in a courtroom you

05:47

asked a lot of questions um peers that I

05:51

would put to somebody um who I was

05:53

cross-examining in terms of this type of

05:56

action did you believe her it doesn't

05:59

matter whether I believe or not does no

06:01

let me explain to you why because you

06:03

and I have this discussion a lot about

06:06

the truth and my answer to you always is

06:09

who truth there's only one truth no

06:12

there isn't you're so wrong I mean and

06:15

this whole my truth I'm sorry clear this

06:18

whole my truth is

06:21

there is the truth which is based on

06:23

actual facts evidential facts and my

06:27

problem with this whole baby reindeer

06:29

Saga is I don't really believe a lot of

06:33

what either side is saying here think a

06:35

lot of Richard gad's uh stuff that he's

06:37

come out with is not borne out by facts

06:40

and if it turns out that uh that Martha

06:43

with her confession in the den numont of

06:46

his series confessing to harassing and

06:48

stalking him and getting a prison

06:50

sentence uh if that turns out to not be

06:53

true then the slap Dash way they've

06:56

allowed Fiona Harvey to be identified

06:58

immediately as the person depicted in

07:01

what they claim is a true story is going

07:03

to have very good cause and I'll come to

07:05

mark gagos from a legal perspective at

07:06

the moment very good call certainly

07:08

under UK law I would think to sue for

07:11

defamation so so it does matter Paul PE

07:15

no what you asked me was or what you you

07:17

said was there is only one truth and I

07:19

disagreed with you on that and let me

07:20

explain to you why because in this

07:22

country we have Beyond Reasonable Doubt

07:25

and we have on the balance of

07:26

probabilities we do not have a 100 100%

07:30

safe proof in terms of how we can find

07:34

the truth we do our best to find the

07:36

truth and we do that on the basis of the

07:39

evidence that is put before the court

07:41

now your viewers are going to see some

07:43

of that evidence in relation to whether

07:45

they've watched the Netflix series

07:47

they're going to be see some of that

07:48

evidence in relation to the the expert

07:50

way quite frankly that you put questions

07:53

to Fiona but that still isn't all the

07:56

evidence and so we have to be careful to

07:58

be clear come to you I do not know

08:02

exactly where the truth lies it may be

08:04

that after this interview has aired and

08:07

everyone's now dissecting it and talking

08:08

about it and examining it and

08:10

journalists will be testing it that they

08:13

you know other stuff May emerge nothing

08:15

would surprising me I think this is a

08:16

crazy story from start to finish but

08:19

Esther uh so nothing was surprising me

08:21

but as things sit there does seem to be

08:23

a massive disparity between what has

08:26

appeared in the Netflix series and

08:29

everything that Fiona Harvey told me now

08:32

I don't believe everything she told me

08:33

but on certain key points which can be

08:36

verified yes or no it's going to be a

08:39

lot resing on this because the

08:40

credibility of the whole show will rest

08:42

on whether those key things like was she

08:44

convicted or not but what happens is

08:47

that true or not yeah well this is a bit

08:49

where you have to use a bit of common

08:50

sense if if they if if it's found that

08:53

she has not been convicted of anything

08:54

and she didn't spend nine months in

08:56

prison like this series is alleging

08:57

there is no Assumption of probability or

09:00

anything like that it's either true or

09:02

it's not true and you can look up

09:03

someone's records and fine if they've

09:04

spent nine months in prison like this

09:05

series is alleging I actually happen to

09:07

think that Martha's story or a version

09:09

of the truth is probably closer to the

09:11

actual truth yes there is a spectrum

09:13

here and none of us were there none of

09:14

us were direct Witnesses and we can't

09:16

you know talk about Richard G's feelings

09:18

or his truth fine but there are some

09:20

things that are not based on feelings

09:21

and are fact like if she was convicted

09:23

like if she assaulted the girlfriend

09:25

like if if she sent 41,000 emails which

09:27

is ludicrous I mean I do think she sent

09:30

some emails not like what she said in I

09:32

think she I think on the emails I do

09:34

think she sent email well let's play

09:35

that let's play that bit actually from

09:37

the interview this is f Fiona Harvey

09:39

talking to me about the emails so all of

09:42

this would come out in a cour case in

09:44

disclosure yes and you're prepared to do

09:46

that yes because I didn't write him the

09:49

emails who do you think did I have no

09:51

idea I think he probably made them up

09:52

himself I've no idea 41,000 emails

09:57

yeah I mean would you would you accept

10:00

that someone who did that would be very

10:02

obsessive about someone yes I mean

10:05

that's a lot of

10:08

emails now what was interesting was when

10:10

I kept pushing on this because I I

10:12

thought it was a very important part of

10:13

the interview she did then say Esther

10:17

well even if I did even if I had sent

10:21

those emails it still doesn't mean the

10:23

rest is true it was one of the few

10:24

moments I felt she slipped up where if

10:26

I'm a criminal lawyer again we'll come

10:29

toor Mark in a moment who's more expert

10:31

in these matters but that seemed to me a

10:33

very important moment where she was

10:35

raising the Spectre that she may have

10:37

done but it still didn't mean the rest

10:39

is true which by the way if that's the

10:41

case she was right to say that yeah but

10:44

she didn't actually admit I sent them

10:46

for what it's worth I think she probably

10:47

did I think that Netflix and Richard gab

10:50

must have actual evidence or they

10:52

wouldn't have been so precise about the

10:54

number of emails text messages and so on

10:57

it's kind of absurd to imply that

10:59

Richard Gad might have sent them himself

11:01

if he was trying to build up some kind

11:02

of narrative of a stalker you would not

11:05

need 41,000 emails to do that a few

11:08

dozen would have been enough you know

11:11

wasn't sending to I agree and critical D

11:13

I want to come to you actually just on a

11:14

wider point about baby Ranger and the

11:16

state let me just go to mark garos

11:18

because mark from a legal perspective

11:20

it's probably a different set of rules

11:22

here um if this was judged on airing in

11:25

America to the UK we have tougher

11:28

defamation laws here for example but

11:30

from what you've gleaned about this and

11:32

given her emphatic denial that she was

11:34

ever even charged let alone convicted

11:37

and confessed to the crime where would

11:40

she sit

11:41

legally well you're right the England

11:44

has to my mind much better rules when it

11:48

comes to defamation but having said that

11:51

and as somebody who is currently adverse

11:54

to Netflix I will tell you they in my

11:58

experience at least they do tend to take

12:00

great Liberties when they represent what

12:04

the particular facts are and

12:07

specifically in America you you have a

12:10

Doctrine both defamation by impl uh

12:13

implication defamation per se the

12:16

accusing her of being a criminal the and

12:20

kind of doubling down on it by saying

12:22

she served time if that is not true

12:25

she's got a whale of a

12:27

case yeah I think so

12:30

and hang on hang on one second I just

12:32

want to bring in Esther first just

12:34

because I was going to come to you did

12:36

youan did you believe a lot of what she

12:38

was saying but she was so because she

12:39

was so emphatic with a number of her

12:42

denials how credible did you find her in

12:44

that interview with me I found about 75%

12:46

of what she were saying to be true um

12:48

particularly on the conviction point

12:49

because I don't think that you can lie

12:51

about that and so far all the evidence

12:53

from what we've seen is bearing out we

12:54

can't find any convictions or of her

12:55

spending nine months in prison I do

12:57

think that she did probably make some

12:59

appropriate advances towards him but

13:00

this is also I mean this he admits he

13:02

admits leading a wrong well yes but also

13:04

this is I say and I don't want to be

13:06

lewed this is someone who admitted to

13:07

masturbating to pictures of of Martha so

13:10

clearly he was not someone of sound mind

13:12

or the most credible person he had his

13:13

own issues and the way he interpreted

13:15

any kind of interaction with them I also

13:17

think is also due like is is is will it

13:20

be valid to scrutinize it as well

13:22

because this is not someone that I

13:23

thought was all there quite frankly I

13:25

think the bigger issue here is the fact

13:27

the length that Netflix has gone to to

13:29

to create this fiction because they

13:30

can't actually create a story like this

13:32

because they'll be liable to all the

13:33

kind of social commentary of them

13:34

glamorizing stalking and all of that

13:36

they decided to put the based on a true

13:38

story label to protect themselves

13:40

because they don't actually want to put

13:41

or original content out there that they

13:43

they think people would find interesting

13:45

they wanted to make this look like it's

13:46

exactly Richard let me okay on on that

13:49

point let me bring in critical Drinker

13:50

will Jordan because actually I don't

13:52

think Netflix could have had a clue how

13:54

big this was going to blow I was I was

13:57

absolutely stunned how big my interview

14:00

with Thea Harvey went from the moment we

14:02

announced it to put it in context I

14:04

think that I did one post on X just

14:07

announcing I'd done the interview and

14:09

it's had I think 10 million views right

14:12

just one post on X I mean crazy numbers

14:15

we were getting for all of this um and

14:18

crazy numbers of people uh I'm sure will

14:21

watch it over the next week or so um but

14:24

put put it into context for those who

14:25

are not familiar with the whole baby

14:27

reindeer phenomenon how big is this been

14:30

worldwide I mean it's something that a

14:33

lot of people are talking about and I

14:34

think it's just the nature of the medium

14:36

like sometimes certain things just go

14:38

viral and absolutely take off Way Beyond

14:40

what anyone expected it was the same

14:42

deal with something like Tiger King back

14:45

during lockdown um an obscure

14:47

documentary but for some reason it just

14:49

captured the the public Consciousness

14:51

and suddenly everyone was talking about

14:52

it and it just every once in a while it

14:54

happens and it's definitely been one of

14:56

those shows I mean it definitely helps

14:58

that it's a it's a very well acted show

15:00

it's well written it's well produced uh

15:02

it's genuinely a good piece of drama and

15:05

it deals with a lot of interesting

15:06

issues that are definitely worth talking

15:08

about so all of those things were

15:09

working in its favor and as a result

15:11

yeah it's become probably way bigger

15:13

than Netflix ever predicted that it

15:15

would if it was an act a work of drama

15:18

and they said it's a fictional account

15:21

but maybe Loosely based on something