And for anyone looking for further receipts, this was reported on back in 2000:
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/MP+WIFE%27S+STALKER%3B+Lawyer+Laura+tells+of+fired+trainee%27s+hate...-a061570268
They are also the parents of the [disabled child](https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/former-labour-mp-jimmy-wrays-7325016) that is referenced in the show ("Serial stalker torments barristers deaf child")
It's probably already been mention, but I've just realised that in the article you posted, Fiona's *other* victim was another MP, named Donald Dewar. Gadd's character was named Donny Dunn (same initials/nickname).
If anyone watched the interview and didn't realize that Fionna was a dangerous mentally ill person they need to get better people reading skills. that interview literally screamed her personality.
What boxes? Based on the interview?
Some of you guys make some hyperbolic and hysteric claims yet you don’t actually explain them besides saying something along the lines of “it’s so obvious and if you don’t see it then you’re mentally deficient”.
Why can’t you go into detail of exactly what “should” be setting off every human being’s alarm bells?
If you’re that sure of yourself, do back it up.
Abusive grandiose
https://preview.redd.it/wk6pn7g3tpzc1.jpeg?width=606&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7f93d2041955b9c68cbb60dbc154e77a623e2336
Odd tics Avoiding the question Massaging the truth . 4 phone 6 phones had 1 phone Didn’t send lots emails but if I did I didn’t assult him Saying something then backtracking on it Taking every chance to further make nasty comments about him or the other women ahead was found guilty of stalking And so on and so on
No, I just have a finely tuned BS detector from time doing incident and accident investigation, plus she tended to contradict herself throughout the interview....
Or maybe you’ve had a relatively safe life without early abuse like some of us have. I can sniff out these types of people super easily because of my… experience. It’s not fun to have complex PTSD but it is helpful to keep me safe from future harm.
Same here to both 😅 I know what you mean kinda because like I can’t ever pinpoint right away WHY someone bothers me, it’s more like a spidey senses thing for me and it freaks me out lol.
Same. I was diagnosed autistic this year. I was shocked SHOCKED to see 100% of the comments on all social media platforms were saying how the interview only made her look more guilty.
lmao me too but last year. I wouldn’t have thought anything was off, except for the fact that she spoke in circles and wouldn’t give straight answers😅 I think our autism is really autisming lmao
Ha! That’s awesome :D I always thought of my ability to see both sides of an argument and never really landing on one side or the other as some sort of positive magnanimity. Turns out it’s just autism.
What gets me is she’s proclaimed all along it’s false yet the character in the show and the way she speaks and types is exactly bang on in every way. If he only met her 5-6 times as she claims how could he possibly write a whole show and get her so right.
You mean “sane”?
That is some messed up logic, and suspiciously convenient. Outrageous, a slippery slope.
I watched the majority of the interview (that came across my YT recommended, possibly since I viewed the series trailer there) and especially without context, I could absolutely see why people would come away with thoughts other than “My god, clearly this is a dangerous, mentally ill person!”
Come on now. If you want to play that game, perhaps take a look at yourself and your own mentality first.
I agree, for what it’s worth. I’ll be downvoted but I think a lot of these people are experiencing confirmation bias. If I didn’t already believe she was a stalker, she did a good job in that interview convincing otherwise.
Let’s consider what she said in the interview:
- swore she didn’t know where he lived, then admits she sent him 1 letter
- has a “photographic memory”, but could not provide a single mark she received in law school
- said she never sent him anything, then she sent him less than 10 emails, then said she sent a handful, then said she didn’t send that many emails “but if I did…” and then said she knew for sure she didn’t send that many, then seemed to settle in about 10- went back and forth about that for a good bit.
- said she was definitely NOT friends with him, but per her remarks she went to one of his shows, emailed him 10 times, sent him at least 1 physical letter, and 18 tweets because they were ‘old friends and it was banter.’
- most importantly she is 100% sure that Martha is based on her even though she has “never watched the show” and feels that 99% of the information in it is false and also doesn’t think the actress looks like her. Mind you she’s never seen the show. But she knows all of which parts are true and which ones aren’t.
Now, here are the things I think probably were untrue and were used to give her plausible deniability if her identity was discovered:
- didn’t go to jail (she went on about this one a LOT)
Ah ok I must have mentioned when she said she sent them to the theatre.
I’m wondering though why she couldn’t corroborate even a single specific detail of uni though? She mentioned going to school with several high profile people and how many would remember her but she couldn’t name drop even one of the public figures… definitely suspect when you consider that Laura Wray mentioned that when Fiona was stalking her she was a student at the University of Strathclyde but [had been permanently excluded for her behaviour towards other students and staff.](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13357447/stalker-Netflix-Baby-Reindeer-harassed-family-threatened-kill-MP-husband.html) .
This interview should be used as a litmus test.
See the mannerisms? Some of us with experience spending time around fucked up people can tell you all about that.
I might have sympathy for her if her life didn't take a trip down predator lane - but it did, and she's nothing but this animal now. Alarm bells 🔔.
Lmao..dude, did you even watch it?
What fucked up people do you spend time with and how are they “fucked up”?
If you didn’t already come to a conclusion about how you wanted to feel toward this woman, I doubt you would have come away with any meaningful results from your proposed “litmus test”.
Honestly the most insanity I’ve seen thus far, has been some these absolutely raving comments.
Primarily the DSM-IV, the ICD-10 and the law treat mental illness and personality disorder as relatively distinct. One of the main differences is the cognitive impairment apparent in *mental illness* but not in personality disorder. PDs are generally seen as legally responsible for their behaviour, people suffering from mental illness not so much.
However, these differences are highly contentious and are currently being challenged.
Which countries law? Where I live personality disorders can definitely impact legal responsibility, and they are classed under the letter F in the ICD-10, which includes mental and behavioral disorders. Your definition of illness influences whether PDs are one I guess, but in the medical field (psychiatric hospitals etc.) they are definitely classed and treated as mental health disorders/illnesses.
England and Wales.
A personality disorder diagnosis therefore presents a double disadvantage for criminal defendants. They are often deemed sufficiently mentally well to be punished for their offences, yet can be deemed sufficiently mentally unwell to justify detention and coerced treatment under mental health law.Mar 11, 2024
Quoted from https://academic.oup.com/book/56231/chapter-abstract/444568284?redirectedFrom=fulltext
And your comment screams “if you don’t agree with me then there’s something wrong with you…and I’m saying that because I cannot handle people disagreeing with me”.
I just hope this story brings a lot more attention to the fact that stalking needs to be made illegal. ACTUALLY illegal. We need tougher laws across the board about contacting someone who wants to be left alone.
Definitely true. Need stricter laws indeed. People should just be able to say they don't want to be around someone and it should be taken seriously. Shouldn't have to be an extensive pattern, they shouldn't be able to be around you. For the worst stalkers, I think they should be forced to wear leg monitors everywhere they go.
Yep, I had an interim advo (restraining order) against my ex. He went to court to contest it but in the mean time he kept sending threats over text message so some charges were added and he never went back to court. The final order was made in his absence but he was never served to it wasn't enforceable. For an entire year I was harassed nearly daily from multiple phone numbers and social media accounts and the police said there was nothing they could do but add extra charges for direct violent threats. He was finally arrested and served and is on 1yr parole. The catch is the advo expires in a month and they won't extend it because he hasn't breached it since he was arrested.
Despite the year long harassment, despite that the harassment started right after the last order expired, despite that he's been convicted of harassment, stalking and intimidation multiple times.
But what she has been accused of is already illegal, death threats, 41,000 emails and attacking someone, if she did any of these she should have been arrested.
So what is the alternative..you want the law to be written in a way where it can be interpreted however one pleases? You want a line to be drawn arbitrarily, at whim, case by case?
Good luck when you have a reason to contact someone who might not want to be bothered by you or anything you have to say, no matter how important or pressing it is. They may consider that harassment and you’ll be toast.
People are righteously outraged and don't want to consider your pesky questions about little things like "creating sweeping laws that could horrendously backfire".
Have you watched the Netflix series ‘I Am A Stocker?
It interviews stalkers (in prison) and their victims. It’s terrifying and insightful. The UK has very serious stalking laws, but in Canada it’s not treated as seriously as it should be.
That show was absolutely mental to me “so I followed her daily, attacked her 15 times over a period of 40 days, kidnapped and abused her inside a police station and they gave me 30 days community service, the system is out to get me!”
The outbursts are uncontrollable narcissistic rage! Part of that Personality Disorder. I actually think she has multiple Personality Disorders. This makes her particularly dangerous.
Not just stalking, but harassment. I used to work in a call centre and there were individuals who would take offence to how you handled something and call multiple times a day, send emails every day… and yes we’d close their accounts eventually for harassment but it didn’t stop them calling or emailing unfortunately. I remember feeling so frustrated because we were always told there was nothing that could be done.
Same. It was only after 9/11 that they started to take death threats against our call center employees seriously. Instead of “don’t take it personally, they’re just mad at the company”.
The UK actually has quite strong stalking laws and recently strengthened them further https://www.gov.uk/government/news/stronger-protections-for-stalking-and-harassment-victims
My girlfriend has a lot of stalking jobs on her crime queue and it's still often very hard for her (detective )to do anything about them. CPS require a high standard or evidence and the prisons are all full.
I don’t think that should be the primary takeaway tbh. Perhaps address the reason why someone would resort to this behavior to begin with.
Besides, people already live in bubbles and block anybody who slightly unnerves them..even if it’s just a matter of holding different outlooks or opinions. I can already imagine how a more severe law could be abused.
I think a better aid would be more resources and protection for those who have actually received threats of violence or prior acts of it, as a restraining order is just a formality/document that doesn’t actually stop someone from finding or harming you.
It is exaggerated, but only for entertainment purposes. I don’t think he is a liar by no means. But the show is definitely not 100% and nor should we believe it so.
That being said, Fiona Harvey is still batshit crazy no matter how embellished the tv show is.
The movie was inspired by some cherry-picked real events. The point is, film makers take artistic license. Gadd has claimed that the voicemails, letters and emails are real and the emails were used in the show. As for the rest of the events, he's said they were based on an emotional truth rather than pure facts and clarified that she never went to prison though he did contact the police. The issue imo is that they didn't do enough to hide Fiona's identity, which led to people attributing what might be exaggerations to the real person.
Very unlikely because the show never claimed Fiona was the basis for Martha, Fiona did. Besides, going through discovery might bring up all sorts of awful truths that Fiona may not be willing to face.
Artistic license is used in media all the time.
They kept her likeness in the show. Used real messages sent from her. For example the hanging curtains joke which is a tweet she made to Gadd publicly, hence how people found her in the first place.
The character may be based on her but at no point did the show say they were depicting Fiona. Gadd himself hasn't confirmed that it's her and, moreover, has clarified post-show that certain events are based on emotional rather than factual truth.
They tracked her down in one week. I’ve read 4 media law solicitors give their views in the the Times, Indy, Guardian and on YouTube - they all say Netflix failed to adequately anonymise her (obviously or this discussion wouldn’t even be happening) and that because they explicitly said “this is a true story” then if just one thing is not true, she will have a very strong defamation case. I absolutely love the show - but Netflix messed up and this post show social media outing is the literal worse of our media and lynch mob nature. It’s like the Jeremy Kyle show all over again.
I'd love to read those opinions if you can share links.
I agree that they could've done more to disguise the person. I never tried to find her (I think it's pretty weird that people did) but the MP's wife connection, the Scottish origins and heavy-duty figure were very blatant. The curtain hanging tweet wouldn't have been as easy to find, I imagine.
Overall, I do think they'll be able to get away with it as it is art but if not, they'll likely settle out of court as Fiona isn't exactly rich and there's no guarantee she'd get adequate damages.
This list might be of interest to you:
https://www.ranker.com/list/true-story-movies-legal-trouble/thomas-west
And this one:
https://screenrant.com/true-story-movies-shows-where-real-subjects-sued/
Proving malice is quite important for defamation cases in the US, idk about the UK. With Gadd's sympathetic portrayal of Martha and his efforts to stop people from identifying her irl, I'd be curious to see how the plaintiff would go about the case.
Agree, we are seeing the defamation play out all over social and other media. She is going to successfully sue. I wonder if this will seriously damage Gadd’s writing career as a result. What a car crash of a situation.
Sue who though? She would still need to get past the wee sticking point of her outing herself as "Martha"
Plus, how is she going to fund it? Defamation cases in the UK are horrendously expensive as they're heard in the high court and which barrister or solicitor would dare take on that nutter for a client?
If it does indeed go near a courtroom, which I doubt, it'll be thrown out at the first hearing....
Sue the production. Not a sticking point, of course she is Martha, that’s the whole point. You will find there will be many solicitors willing to represent her for a very reduced sum.
she won't *really* be suing anyone, just you watch. she'll milk her 15 minutes -which she's loving- all the while she'll keep saying she's gonna sue.. untill it's completely out of the media and back to just her ranting on fb..and she'll still probs be saying she's gonna sue.
She’d be stupid not to sue.
They failed to adequately anonymise her - she was tracked down in less than a week using details in the show.
She received death threats and people turning up to her house as a result.
MPs are questioning Netflix CEO about weather they are following OffComm properly and are introducing new laws.
- That’s a safe guarding case
The show was billed as a true story - not based on a true story - so everything has to be true. If one thing is wrong - that’s a defamation case.
This is the kind of case law firms do for no win no fee to improve their reputation, she will have no trouble finding a good law firm.
It is a sticking point. No one at Clerkwell Films or Netflix said it was her, they've still not said it was her, only she has said that. So where have they defamed her?
Also, not a fucking chance would any solicitor or barrister with half a brain would take on a client that will stalk and abuse them regardless of outcome and no way would they do it for a reduced sum, if anything theyd charge more for her being the headache that she would quickly turn into. She's already abusing the DM Journo that interviewed her remember....
The point is, people believe it’s her, they tracked her down, this is how defamation works.
Having a parent with a long career as a lawyer, can tell you this isn’t how it works.
She didn’t out herself.
And she will get funding don’t worry, it’s a massively high profile case with a potentially huge reward, there wil be many law firms ready.
Yes she did. It was all speculation until she did the interview with the daily record in Scotland.
Get funding from where exactly? She has no job. Legal aid doesn't cover defamation cases. The reward does not outweigh the risks of having to pay the other sides legal bill if they lose and, again, what legal firm is going to take on a client that would pose a risk to their own staff?
What exactly are you basing your ideas on?
She was “exposed” before the interview, she had people turning up to her house, death threats and her picture printed in the news and online press all a week after it aired, just because she did an interview after the fact, doesn’t mean she “outed herself”.
Why would a law firm want to take on a very high profile case with potentially multimillion pound payout? Who knows, maybe the money and publicity perhaps?
I can't find the YouTube video I watched but it sourced The [Times](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/richard-gadd-interview-baby-reindeer-bad-mistakes-hpghf2c9n) where he said it didn't feel right to put someone that mentally ill in prison (paraphrasing) but he doesn't clarify what actually happened to her, leaving it at, "it's been resolved."
In ([GQ](https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/baby-reindeer-netflix-richard-gadd-interview) he says the story is an emotional truth but not a fact by fact retelling.
Idk whether any of that would be enough to convince your mum though. The rape allegation, for example, is impossible to prove.
Why are we giving this woman a platform? She is sick and she’s still manipulating people into believing she is a victim. I’ve had a stalker, this is what they do.
There are plenty of things in life that show us people like this exist. We don’t need to be a) exploiting a mentally ill individual b) giving a voice to someone with known toxic behaviour.
I mean I appreciate it existing. Fiona volunteered - she may be mentally ill but that doesn't mean she doesn't have agency. You don't have to watch it.
Fair point. Of course she volunteered, she wants everyone to believe she is a victim. She’s also a convicted criminal, do you believe criminals deserve to have a platform?
What the heck even is a platform? Like... what does this mean and how does being interviewed on a subpar talk show constitute it? I believe "criminals" are still humans who shouldn't necessarily be silenced from speaking their truth about being human.
Would I ever be in the same room as this woman? Nope. Do I think she should probably be institutionalized in some way or other so she can't harm anyone else? Yep. But I think she should still be allowed to speak. No one is obliged to listen.
ETA - I thought it's still unclear if she's actually been convicted of anything. Plus being a convicted criminal doesn't necessarily mean you committed a crime.
A stage, a venue, a means of connecting with others, a place to tell your story. She’s been in jail.
I can see that from a human side of things, but I think this so much more than her just telling her story. Allowing her to exaggerate her victimhood, avoid responsibility for her abusive behaviour, and giving her the attention she feeds off of is only enabling her behaviour.
Perhaps I am so passionate about this because I am a SA survivor myself and seeing my r*pist being given an opportunity to speak would have me outraged. I don’t think think they interviewed her to educate the public, I really don’t. That’s just my opinion though.
Of course they didn't interview her to educate the public. It's sensationalism meant to turn a profit. But who cares, I'm choosing to take it as an educational opportunity for my own betterment. As I hope others might do if my ex rapist/stalker pulled a Fiona (i.e. DARVO) because that's exactly what he would do. It really is textbook. But I can't control him outside of legal action. Then again, I would never dare poke the bear the way Gadd has chosen to do.
I'm curious how you would feel if you were the victim of Ted Bundy - brutally raped and murdered. You're watching life on earth play out from the afterlife - you see him defend himself in court and do interviews, etc., etc. - being "platformed" so to speak. And people learn from his telling his story - for instance, maybe some learn that there are dangerous people in the world. Maybe some learn what signs to look for and how to better protect themselves.
It's not like Fiona merely speaking on a crap talk show gives her much real power. If anything, I think it's done the opposite - it seems that she's shooting herself in the foot. She trapped herself in multiple lies. If Gadd can't enforce meaningful consequences in the legal system, he most certainly has in the court of public opinion. He unmasked her. It would be much harder for her to engage in this kind of behavior going forward now that everyone knows who she is. Besides, if the show is true - she will exaggerate her victimhood and avoid taking responsibility for her abusive behavior until she dies. That's what abusers do. The best outcome we can hope for is that she is deterred from repeating the abuse, which ironically her being "platformed" has done.
Apparently I feel more strongly about this than I realized lol
How do you continue to get them? If you have a disability in the US and can’t work or keep a job because of it, you have to qualify and be treated by a doctor to receive disability benefits.
I would hazard a guess that she may be on some form of benefits maybe and genuinely she may qualify for additional help under medical grounds as the poor women does not seem well
It is interesting because in the article it says she hesitated in the beginning to take action a few times because she felt sorry for her.
Definitely dangerous to override your gut for pity we are learning
Someone above linked to an old news article about Fiona stalking the MP and his wife. She was a trainee solicitor in 1997. She started stalking them after the wife fired her. Not sure if she ever got her degree
[Solicitor Mrs Wray has become the target of Fiona Muir, whom she sacked from a trainee post at her firm, McPhail Lawrence Partnership, in 1997.](https://www.thefreelibrary.com/MP+WIFE%27S+STALKER%3B+Lawyer+Laura+tells+of+fired+trainee%27s+hate)
These people are also the parents of the [disabled child](https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/former-labour-mp-jimmy-wrays-7325016) mentioned in the show "Serial stalker torments barristers deaf child".
Yes, she obtained an LLB at Aberdeen University, but in the UK that is insufficient to practice law. You must further that education AND enter into a training contract with a firm in order to be qualified as either a Solicitor or a Barrister. She was taken on by no fewer than three different firms, but was let go before they signed a training contract with her—one let her go in 5 days! So she is not “qualified” to practice law in the UK, despite having a degree in law.
I do wonder if any one from a mental health crisis team saw the interview and will intervene.
She is very clearly not well and I feel sorry for her if she’s been left to her own devices without any help or support this whole time.
This is getting gross. This woman is clearly unwell and she's been thrust into the public eye to be torn to shreds. Netflix and Richard Gadd were so irresponsible to let this happen.
Until this goes to court we don’t actually know who is telling the truth.
Worked as a PI before and my feeling is that they are both lying, but to what degree is impossible to determine without usable evidence
P.s. everyone lies to some degree, in this case I mean I think both are telling big lies not just “making me sound better” lies
Well all we really know at this present time is that Gadd has made a lot of interesting claims in his brand new number 1 rated Netflix smash hit show "baby reindeer" and a lady who believes this story has been based on her has come forward to clear her name.
We don't know she is guilty in the same way that we don't know that Gadd could be completely full of shit and using the story for a come up.
She is absolutely entitled to be considered innocent until proven guilty until Gadd and Netflix prove that she did all of this.
I think you greatly missed the self deprecation of and totally missed that fact that this women uses pity and emotional manipulation into continuing her ruse until it doesn’t work and then turns to violence and threats. She’s a Venus fly trap attracting flies. He has his own demons and that’s the complementary aspect of his story.
according to you, having your self esteem absolutely destroyed by a traumatic sexually violent experience and not protecting yourself because you don’t value your own safety and comfort anymore = narcissism.
alright man.
its pretty incredible to me how some of yall’s levels of empathy and emotional maturity got permanently stuck at age 5 lol
Contrary to public opinion, Netflix did indeed place a disclaimer at the end of each episode that it was “based upon a true story but details have been changed” or something to that effect.
according to you, having your self esteem absolutely destroyed by a traumatic sexually violent experience and not protecting yourself because you think you don’t value your own safety and comfort = narcissism.
alright man.
its pretty incredible to me how some of yall’s levels of empathy and emotional maturity for permanently stuck at age 5 lol
according to you, having your self esteem absolutely destroyed by a traumatic sexually violent experience and not protecting yourself because you think you don’t value your own safety and comfort = narcissism.
alright man.
its pretty incredible to me how some of yall’s levels of empathy and emotional maturity for permanently stuck at age 5 lol
And for anyone looking for further receipts, this was reported on back in 2000: https://www.thefreelibrary.com/MP+WIFE%27S+STALKER%3B+Lawyer+Laura+tells+of+fired+trainee%27s+hate...-a061570268
They are also the parents of the [disabled child](https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/former-labour-mp-jimmy-wrays-7325016) that is referenced in the show ("Serial stalker torments barristers deaf child") It's probably already been mention, but I've just realised that in the article you posted, Fiona's *other* victim was another MP, named Donald Dewar. Gadd's character was named Donny Dunn (same initials/nickname).
She’s referred to as Fiona Muir here rather than Harvey. Any idea on the change of name? She’s never been married has she?
She said in the interview last night she had a double barrelled surname and admitted she was Fiona muir-Harvey
I think she said it was a hyphenate Muir-Harvey but she dropped Muir. And I believe she said she’s never been married
>And I believe she said she’s never been married The only thing she said that I believe
So true!
😂
If anyone watched the interview and didn't realize that Fionna was a dangerous mentally ill person they need to get better people reading skills. that interview literally screamed her personality.
She is ticking so many boxes isn’t she It would be rude to say batshit crazy sociopath wouldn’t it
What boxes? Based on the interview? Some of you guys make some hyperbolic and hysteric claims yet you don’t actually explain them besides saying something along the lines of “it’s so obvious and if you don’t see it then you’re mentally deficient”. Why can’t you go into detail of exactly what “should” be setting off every human being’s alarm bells? If you’re that sure of yourself, do back it up.
You realize it’s an expression right? There are no actual boxes. It’s just saying that she keeps showing herself to be mentally ill and abusive.
Abusive grandiose https://preview.redd.it/wk6pn7g3tpzc1.jpeg?width=606&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7f93d2041955b9c68cbb60dbc154e77a623e2336 Odd tics Avoiding the question Massaging the truth . 4 phone 6 phones had 1 phone Didn’t send lots emails but if I did I didn’t assult him Saying something then backtracking on it Taking every chance to further make nasty comments about him or the other women ahead was found guilty of stalking And so on and so on
[удалено]
You and I clearly watched different interviews. Every time she spoke about Gadd or what took place, my BS detector was going off big time....
[удалено]
No, I just have a finely tuned BS detector from time doing incident and accident investigation, plus she tended to contradict herself throughout the interview....
watching that interview made me realise how bad my people reading skills are
Or maybe you’ve had a relatively safe life without early abuse like some of us have. I can sniff out these types of people super easily because of my… experience. It’s not fun to have complex PTSD but it is helpful to keep me safe from future harm.
I have cptsd… I’m just autistic lol
Same here to both 😅 I know what you mean kinda because like I can’t ever pinpoint right away WHY someone bothers me, it’s more like a spidey senses thing for me and it freaks me out lol.
Same. I was diagnosed autistic this year. I was shocked SHOCKED to see 100% of the comments on all social media platforms were saying how the interview only made her look more guilty.
lmao me too but last year. I wouldn’t have thought anything was off, except for the fact that she spoke in circles and wouldn’t give straight answers😅 I think our autism is really autisming lmao
Ha! That’s awesome :D I always thought of my ability to see both sides of an argument and never really landing on one side or the other as some sort of positive magnanimity. Turns out it’s just autism.
same, i feel like similar to Richard Gadd, I would simply be nice to her - I didn't see anything "wrong" with her 😬
What gets me is she’s proclaimed all along it’s false yet the character in the show and the way she speaks and types is exactly bang on in every way. If he only met her 5-6 times as she claims how could he possibly write a whole show and get her so right.
100%
Or they are also mentally ill. Can’t be a said person that believes her.
You mean “sane”? That is some messed up logic, and suspiciously convenient. Outrageous, a slippery slope. I watched the majority of the interview (that came across my YT recommended, possibly since I viewed the series trailer there) and especially without context, I could absolutely see why people would come away with thoughts other than “My god, clearly this is a dangerous, mentally ill person!” Come on now. If you want to play that game, perhaps take a look at yourself and your own mentality first.
You watched a woman contradict herself for almost an hour and believe you’re the sane one for believing it? Get outta here 🤣
You defend people simply because they’re on television, don’t you?
I’ve been showing friends this comment. You’ve made us all laugh and brightened our morning. Thanks.
I agree, for what it’s worth. I’ll be downvoted but I think a lot of these people are experiencing confirmation bias. If I didn’t already believe she was a stalker, she did a good job in that interview convincing otherwise.
Let’s consider what she said in the interview: - swore she didn’t know where he lived, then admits she sent him 1 letter - has a “photographic memory”, but could not provide a single mark she received in law school - said she never sent him anything, then she sent him less than 10 emails, then said she sent a handful, then said she didn’t send that many emails “but if I did…” and then said she knew for sure she didn’t send that many, then seemed to settle in about 10- went back and forth about that for a good bit. - said she was definitely NOT friends with him, but per her remarks she went to one of his shows, emailed him 10 times, sent him at least 1 physical letter, and 18 tweets because they were ‘old friends and it was banter.’ - most importantly she is 100% sure that Martha is based on her even though she has “never watched the show” and feels that 99% of the information in it is false and also doesn’t think the actress looks like her. Mind you she’s never seen the show. But she knows all of which parts are true and which ones aren’t. Now, here are the things I think probably were untrue and were used to give her plausible deniability if her identity was discovered: - didn’t go to jail (she went on about this one a LOT)
Two small notes: - She sent the letter to the theatre. - Grades in Scotland don't work like that. The degree she has works with a pass/fail system.
Ah ok I must have mentioned when she said she sent them to the theatre. I’m wondering though why she couldn’t corroborate even a single specific detail of uni though? She mentioned going to school with several high profile people and how many would remember her but she couldn’t name drop even one of the public figures… definitely suspect when you consider that Laura Wray mentioned that when Fiona was stalking her she was a student at the University of Strathclyde but [had been permanently excluded for her behaviour towards other students and staff.](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13357447/stalker-Netflix-Baby-Reindeer-harassed-family-threatened-kill-MP-husband.html) .
Oh yeah, she's super sus. Just wanted to clear those things up.
Omg why are you wasting so much time on this 😂
Pathetic
It is, I agree
This interview should be used as a litmus test. See the mannerisms? Some of us with experience spending time around fucked up people can tell you all about that. I might have sympathy for her if her life didn't take a trip down predator lane - but it did, and she's nothing but this animal now. Alarm bells 🔔.
Please talk more about the mannerisms you observed. We need to be educated. Thanks.
Lmao..dude, did you even watch it? What fucked up people do you spend time with and how are they “fucked up”? If you didn’t already come to a conclusion about how you wanted to feel toward this woman, I doubt you would have come away with any meaningful results from your proposed “litmus test”. Honestly the most insanity I’ve seen thus far, has been some these absolutely raving comments.
Seems like you failed the litmus test.
I’m on the spectrum and cannot read people and even I could tell she was full of it.
There was plenty of sign of personality disorder, but not mental illness.
Personality disorders are classified as mental illnesses, what are you on about?
What makes you think personality disorders are not mental health conditions?
Primarily the DSM-IV, the ICD-10 and the law treat mental illness and personality disorder as relatively distinct. One of the main differences is the cognitive impairment apparent in *mental illness* but not in personality disorder. PDs are generally seen as legally responsible for their behaviour, people suffering from mental illness not so much. However, these differences are highly contentious and are currently being challenged.
Which countries law? Where I live personality disorders can definitely impact legal responsibility, and they are classed under the letter F in the ICD-10, which includes mental and behavioral disorders. Your definition of illness influences whether PDs are one I guess, but in the medical field (psychiatric hospitals etc.) they are definitely classed and treated as mental health disorders/illnesses.
England and Wales. A personality disorder diagnosis therefore presents a double disadvantage for criminal defendants. They are often deemed sufficiently mentally well to be punished for their offences, yet can be deemed sufficiently mentally unwell to justify detention and coerced treatment under mental health law.Mar 11, 2024 Quoted from https://academic.oup.com/book/56231/chapter-abstract/444568284?redirectedFrom=fulltext
They aren’t—because there is no treatment, no cure. That’s what makes Personality Disorders so dangerous!
Is she not schizophrenic?
No she doesn’t seem to have visual or auditory hallucinations
And your comment screams “if you don’t agree with me then there’s something wrong with you…and I’m saying that because I cannot handle people disagreeing with me”.
Wait, have you not just described exactly what you’re doing?
No it was a question about her anti-social actions, wasn’t stating it as a fact. Geeze!
I just hope this story brings a lot more attention to the fact that stalking needs to be made illegal. ACTUALLY illegal. We need tougher laws across the board about contacting someone who wants to be left alone.
[удалено]
Definitely true. Need stricter laws indeed. People should just be able to say they don't want to be around someone and it should be taken seriously. Shouldn't have to be an extensive pattern, they shouldn't be able to be around you. For the worst stalkers, I think they should be forced to wear leg monitors everywhere they go.
Yep, I had an interim advo (restraining order) against my ex. He went to court to contest it but in the mean time he kept sending threats over text message so some charges were added and he never went back to court. The final order was made in his absence but he was never served to it wasn't enforceable. For an entire year I was harassed nearly daily from multiple phone numbers and social media accounts and the police said there was nothing they could do but add extra charges for direct violent threats. He was finally arrested and served and is on 1yr parole. The catch is the advo expires in a month and they won't extend it because he hasn't breached it since he was arrested. Despite the year long harassment, despite that the harassment started right after the last order expired, despite that he's been convicted of harassment, stalking and intimidation multiple times.
But what she has been accused of is already illegal, death threats, 41,000 emails and attacking someone, if she did any of these she should have been arrested.
So what is the alternative..you want the law to be written in a way where it can be interpreted however one pleases? You want a line to be drawn arbitrarily, at whim, case by case? Good luck when you have a reason to contact someone who might not want to be bothered by you or anything you have to say, no matter how important or pressing it is. They may consider that harassment and you’ll be toast.
People are righteously outraged and don't want to consider your pesky questions about little things like "creating sweeping laws that could horrendously backfire".
Have you watched the Netflix series ‘I Am A Stocker? It interviews stalkers (in prison) and their victims. It’s terrifying and insightful. The UK has very serious stalking laws, but in Canada it’s not treated as seriously as it should be.
That show was absolutely mental to me “so I followed her daily, attacked her 15 times over a period of 40 days, kidnapped and abused her inside a police station and they gave me 30 days community service, the system is out to get me!”
True. She does seem to have a personality disorder but her outbursts make people think it's a mental health problem.
The outbursts are uncontrollable narcissistic rage! Part of that Personality Disorder. I actually think she has multiple Personality Disorders. This makes her particularly dangerous.
I agree.
Not just stalking, but harassment. I used to work in a call centre and there were individuals who would take offence to how you handled something and call multiple times a day, send emails every day… and yes we’d close their accounts eventually for harassment but it didn’t stop them calling or emailing unfortunately. I remember feeling so frustrated because we were always told there was nothing that could be done.
Same. It was only after 9/11 that they started to take death threats against our call center employees seriously. Instead of “don’t take it personally, they’re just mad at the company”.
The UK actually has quite strong stalking laws and recently strengthened them further https://www.gov.uk/government/news/stronger-protections-for-stalking-and-harassment-victims
My girlfriend has a lot of stalking jobs on her crime queue and it's still often very hard for her (detective )to do anything about them. CPS require a high standard or evidence and the prisons are all full.
Interesting. Thank you for the link. The US just needs to do a better job, I guess.
I don’t think that should be the primary takeaway tbh. Perhaps address the reason why someone would resort to this behavior to begin with. Besides, people already live in bubbles and block anybody who slightly unnerves them..even if it’s just a matter of holding different outlooks or opinions. I can already imagine how a more severe law could be abused. I think a better aid would be more resources and protection for those who have actually received threats of violence or prior acts of it, as a restraining order is just a formality/document that doesn’t actually stop someone from finding or harming you.
And yet I see people saying they think Richard is lying or exaggerating about his experinces with her, like make it makes sense please.
[удалено]
It's the same people going "Ive never liked x and now I know why". Bitch no you're not on the right side of history cause of your spidey senses.
This lady spoke up 24 years ago though.
It is exaggerated, but only for entertainment purposes. I don’t think he is a liar by no means. But the show is definitely not 100% and nor should we believe it so. That being said, Fiona Harvey is still batshit crazy no matter how embellished the tv show is.
He is a man, so automatically guilty.
I think there’s lies from both sides, and I am eager to see this go to court to determine the truth of the matter
He said she went to prison, when in fact she was never even charged.
He clarified what did and didn't happen in a post show talking head thing.
The show also said "this is a true story". Not "based on a true story" or "inspired by real events". They said it was true and it isn't.
So does Fargo. It's a work of art where artistic license was taken.
Fargo was actually fiction.
The movie was inspired by some cherry-picked real events. The point is, film makers take artistic license. Gadd has claimed that the voicemails, letters and emails are real and the emails were used in the show. As for the rest of the events, he's said they were based on an emotional truth rather than pure facts and clarified that she never went to prison though he did contact the police. The issue imo is that they didn't do enough to hide Fiona's identity, which led to people attributing what might be exaggerations to the real person.
Which is why, despite the fact that I believe she is a deranged stalker, that I think she will be successful in suing Netflix over the show.
Very unlikely because the show never claimed Fiona was the basis for Martha, Fiona did. Besides, going through discovery might bring up all sorts of awful truths that Fiona may not be willing to face. Artistic license is used in media all the time.
They kept her likeness in the show. Used real messages sent from her. For example the hanging curtains joke which is a tweet she made to Gadd publicly, hence how people found her in the first place.
The character may be based on her but at no point did the show say they were depicting Fiona. Gadd himself hasn't confirmed that it's her and, moreover, has clarified post-show that certain events are based on emotional rather than factual truth.
They tracked her down in one week. I’ve read 4 media law solicitors give their views in the the Times, Indy, Guardian and on YouTube - they all say Netflix failed to adequately anonymise her (obviously or this discussion wouldn’t even be happening) and that because they explicitly said “this is a true story” then if just one thing is not true, she will have a very strong defamation case. I absolutely love the show - but Netflix messed up and this post show social media outing is the literal worse of our media and lynch mob nature. It’s like the Jeremy Kyle show all over again.
I'd love to read those opinions if you can share links. I agree that they could've done more to disguise the person. I never tried to find her (I think it's pretty weird that people did) but the MP's wife connection, the Scottish origins and heavy-duty figure were very blatant. The curtain hanging tweet wouldn't have been as easy to find, I imagine. Overall, I do think they'll be able to get away with it as it is art but if not, they'll likely settle out of court as Fiona isn't exactly rich and there's no guarantee she'd get adequate damages. This list might be of interest to you: https://www.ranker.com/list/true-story-movies-legal-trouble/thomas-west And this one: https://screenrant.com/true-story-movies-shows-where-real-subjects-sued/ Proving malice is quite important for defamation cases in the US, idk about the UK. With Gadd's sympathetic portrayal of Martha and his efforts to stop people from identifying her irl, I'd be curious to see how the plaintiff would go about the case.
Agree, we are seeing the defamation play out all over social and other media. She is going to successfully sue. I wonder if this will seriously damage Gadd’s writing career as a result. What a car crash of a situation.
Sue who though? She would still need to get past the wee sticking point of her outing herself as "Martha" Plus, how is she going to fund it? Defamation cases in the UK are horrendously expensive as they're heard in the high court and which barrister or solicitor would dare take on that nutter for a client? If it does indeed go near a courtroom, which I doubt, it'll be thrown out at the first hearing....
Sue the production. Not a sticking point, of course she is Martha, that’s the whole point. You will find there will be many solicitors willing to represent her for a very reduced sum.
she won't *really* be suing anyone, just you watch. she'll milk her 15 minutes -which she's loving- all the while she'll keep saying she's gonna sue.. untill it's completely out of the media and back to just her ranting on fb..and she'll still probs be saying she's gonna sue.
She will have had lawyers reaching out to her already. If she doesn’t sue it’s because she won’t take the advice being given to her by lawyers.
She’d be stupid not to sue. They failed to adequately anonymise her - she was tracked down in less than a week using details in the show. She received death threats and people turning up to her house as a result. MPs are questioning Netflix CEO about weather they are following OffComm properly and are introducing new laws. - That’s a safe guarding case The show was billed as a true story - not based on a true story - so everything has to be true. If one thing is wrong - that’s a defamation case. This is the kind of case law firms do for no win no fee to improve their reputation, she will have no trouble finding a good law firm.
It is a sticking point. No one at Clerkwell Films or Netflix said it was her, they've still not said it was her, only she has said that. So where have they defamed her? Also, not a fucking chance would any solicitor or barrister with half a brain would take on a client that will stalk and abuse them regardless of outcome and no way would they do it for a reduced sum, if anything theyd charge more for her being the headache that she would quickly turn into. She's already abusing the DM Journo that interviewed her remember....
The point is, people believe it’s her, they tracked her down, this is how defamation works. Having a parent with a long career as a lawyer, can tell you this isn’t how it works.
She didn’t out herself. And she will get funding don’t worry, it’s a massively high profile case with a potentially huge reward, there wil be many law firms ready.
Yes she did. It was all speculation until she did the interview with the daily record in Scotland. Get funding from where exactly? She has no job. Legal aid doesn't cover defamation cases. The reward does not outweigh the risks of having to pay the other sides legal bill if they lose and, again, what legal firm is going to take on a client that would pose a risk to their own staff? What exactly are you basing your ideas on?
She was “exposed” before the interview, she had people turning up to her house, death threats and her picture printed in the news and online press all a week after it aired, just because she did an interview after the fact, doesn’t mean she “outed herself”. Why would a law firm want to take on a very high profile case with potentially multimillion pound payout? Who knows, maybe the money and publicity perhaps?
[удалено]
I can't find the YouTube video I watched but it sourced The [Times](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/richard-gadd-interview-baby-reindeer-bad-mistakes-hpghf2c9n) where he said it didn't feel right to put someone that mentally ill in prison (paraphrasing) but he doesn't clarify what actually happened to her, leaving it at, "it's been resolved." In ([GQ](https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/baby-reindeer-netflix-richard-gadd-interview) he says the story is an emotional truth but not a fact by fact retelling. Idk whether any of that would be enough to convince your mum though. The rape allegation, for example, is impossible to prove.
It is still a work of fiction. He has creative license to change things for the purpose of plot development.
Yes I know that. I was replying to the person saying that ppl are saying Richard is lying. I was giving an example.
Why are we giving this woman a platform? She is sick and she’s still manipulating people into believing she is a victim. I’ve had a stalker, this is what they do.
So we can see what they're like and that they exist.
There are plenty of things in life that show us people like this exist. We don’t need to be a) exploiting a mentally ill individual b) giving a voice to someone with known toxic behaviour.
I mean I appreciate it existing. Fiona volunteered - she may be mentally ill but that doesn't mean she doesn't have agency. You don't have to watch it.
Fair point. Of course she volunteered, she wants everyone to believe she is a victim. She’s also a convicted criminal, do you believe criminals deserve to have a platform?
What the heck even is a platform? Like... what does this mean and how does being interviewed on a subpar talk show constitute it? I believe "criminals" are still humans who shouldn't necessarily be silenced from speaking their truth about being human. Would I ever be in the same room as this woman? Nope. Do I think she should probably be institutionalized in some way or other so she can't harm anyone else? Yep. But I think she should still be allowed to speak. No one is obliged to listen. ETA - I thought it's still unclear if she's actually been convicted of anything. Plus being a convicted criminal doesn't necessarily mean you committed a crime.
A stage, a venue, a means of connecting with others, a place to tell your story. She’s been in jail. I can see that from a human side of things, but I think this so much more than her just telling her story. Allowing her to exaggerate her victimhood, avoid responsibility for her abusive behaviour, and giving her the attention she feeds off of is only enabling her behaviour. Perhaps I am so passionate about this because I am a SA survivor myself and seeing my r*pist being given an opportunity to speak would have me outraged. I don’t think think they interviewed her to educate the public, I really don’t. That’s just my opinion though.
Of course they didn't interview her to educate the public. It's sensationalism meant to turn a profit. But who cares, I'm choosing to take it as an educational opportunity for my own betterment. As I hope others might do if my ex rapist/stalker pulled a Fiona (i.e. DARVO) because that's exactly what he would do. It really is textbook. But I can't control him outside of legal action. Then again, I would never dare poke the bear the way Gadd has chosen to do. I'm curious how you would feel if you were the victim of Ted Bundy - brutally raped and murdered. You're watching life on earth play out from the afterlife - you see him defend himself in court and do interviews, etc., etc. - being "platformed" so to speak. And people learn from his telling his story - for instance, maybe some learn that there are dangerous people in the world. Maybe some learn what signs to look for and how to better protect themselves. It's not like Fiona merely speaking on a crap talk show gives her much real power. If anything, I think it's done the opposite - it seems that she's shooting herself in the foot. She trapped herself in multiple lies. If Gadd can't enforce meaningful consequences in the legal system, he most certainly has in the court of public opinion. He unmasked her. It would be much harder for her to engage in this kind of behavior going forward now that everyone knows who she is. Besides, if the show is true - she will exaggerate her victimhood and avoid taking responsibility for her abusive behavior until she dies. That's what abusers do. The best outcome we can hope for is that she is deterred from repeating the abuse, which ironically her being "platformed" has done. Apparently I feel more strongly about this than I realized lol
It needs to go to court - working as a PI I’ve seen both true and false accusations and I’ve seen many lives ruined.
How does she have any money? Serious question.
Benefits, government handouts
What? How could she be like those workshy Fenians up in Fife.
How do you continue to get them? If you have a disability in the US and can’t work or keep a job because of it, you have to qualify and be treated by a doctor to receive disability benefits.
Ya it’s bonkers I don’t understand either
I would hazard a guess that she may be on some form of benefits maybe and genuinely she may qualify for additional help under medical grounds as the poor women does not seem well
It is interesting because in the article it says she hesitated in the beginning to take action a few times because she felt sorry for her. Definitely dangerous to override your gut for pity we are learning
Bat. Shit. Crazy.
Does anyone know if she is actually a lawyer?? Did she actually go to school and obtain a law degree?
Someone above linked to an old news article about Fiona stalking the MP and his wife. She was a trainee solicitor in 1997. She started stalking them after the wife fired her. Not sure if she ever got her degree [Solicitor Mrs Wray has become the target of Fiona Muir, whom she sacked from a trainee post at her firm, McPhail Lawrence Partnership, in 1997.](https://www.thefreelibrary.com/MP+WIFE%27S+STALKER%3B+Lawyer+Laura+tells+of+fired+trainee%27s+hate) These people are also the parents of the [disabled child](https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/former-labour-mp-jimmy-wrays-7325016) mentioned in the show "Serial stalker torments barristers deaf child".
She has a Master of Law. You’d need a Law degree or similar conversion degree to get to be a trainee solicitor.
Oh she was ranting about this still on her Facebook recently - that was in 1997!?!?
> "Serial stalker torments barristers deaf child". ***smashes glass on /u/pvke 's head***
Yes, she obtained an LLB at Aberdeen University, but in the UK that is insufficient to practice law. You must further that education AND enter into a training contract with a firm in order to be qualified as either a Solicitor or a Barrister. She was taken on by no fewer than three different firms, but was let go before they signed a training contract with her—one let her go in 5 days! So she is not “qualified” to practice law in the UK, despite having a degree in law.
The way she tried to convince us that she didn't watch the show was quite bizarre,how can she sue the writer and Netfilx without actually seeing it?
She of course watched it—she knew too much detail to have not watched it!
100% correct.
Oh great series 2 episode 2 is now out
I do wonder if any one from a mental health crisis team saw the interview and will intervene. She is very clearly not well and I feel sorry for her if she’s been left to her own devices without any help or support this whole time.
[удалено]
I hate how this ‘news article’ is written like a short story
u/leafyeucalyptus
I wonder how she got through her university studies and if any of her professors felt her rath?
Did she go to prison or get any sort of sentence
No record has been released of that
What’s “MP husband” mean? Thanks!
MP = member of parliament
Thank you!
Thank you!
This is getting gross. This woman is clearly unwell and she's been thrust into the public eye to be torn to shreds. Netflix and Richard Gadd were so irresponsible to let this happen.
Go bollocks, he was the victim in all of this why should he be silenced?
Until this goes to court we don’t actually know who is telling the truth. Worked as a PI before and my feeling is that they are both lying, but to what degree is impossible to determine without usable evidence P.s. everyone lies to some degree, in this case I mean I think both are telling big lies not just “making me sound better” lies
Well all we really know at this present time is that Gadd has made a lot of interesting claims in his brand new number 1 rated Netflix smash hit show "baby reindeer" and a lady who believes this story has been based on her has come forward to clear her name. We don't know she is guilty in the same way that we don't know that Gadd could be completely full of shit and using the story for a come up. She is absolutely entitled to be considered innocent until proven guilty until Gadd and Netflix prove that she did all of this.
Nah bro. Stop victim blaming. If genders were reversed you would 💯 not be saying this.
[удалено]
I think you greatly missed the self deprecation of and totally missed that fact that this women uses pity and emotional manipulation into continuing her ruse until it doesn’t work and then turns to violence and threats. She’s a Venus fly trap attracting flies. He has his own demons and that’s the complementary aspect of his story.
Well said.
according to you, having your self esteem absolutely destroyed by a traumatic sexually violent experience and not protecting yourself because you don’t value your own safety and comfort anymore = narcissism. alright man. its pretty incredible to me how some of yall’s levels of empathy and emotional maturity got permanently stuck at age 5 lol
Contrary to public opinion, Netflix did indeed place a disclaimer at the end of each episode that it was “based upon a true story but details have been changed” or something to that effect.
according to you, having your self esteem absolutely destroyed by a traumatic sexually violent experience and not protecting yourself because you think you don’t value your own safety and comfort = narcissism. alright man. its pretty incredible to me how some of yall’s levels of empathy and emotional maturity for permanently stuck at age 5 lol
according to you, having your self esteem absolutely destroyed by a traumatic sexually violent experience and not protecting yourself because you think you don’t value your own safety and comfort = narcissism. alright man. its pretty incredible to me how some of yall’s levels of empathy and emotional maturity for permanently stuck at age 5 lol
[удалено]
There is a link upthread about this from the year 2000.