To think that everything Fiona Harvey said in her Piers Morgan interview was a lie? [Edit by MNHQ]

She is now bombarding Janey Godley with messages on X and calling her a liar because she sides with the writer of Baby Reindeer

With reference to the number of emails sent - it was also claimed that 744 tweets were sent. I have only seen a couple referenced to when the internet sleuths linked FH to being the stalker - the curtains one and another….so I don’t believe 744 tweets were sent. She wouldn’t delete them, because she clearly doesn’t believe she’s done anything wrong. So unless the evidence is produced, I think the email thing was an embellishment too. Again, I’m not condoning or excusing any of her behaviour.

He resigned as a director in 2017.

Looks like BBC own Clerkenwell Films - own more than 75% of shares.

Is Clerkenwell Films still John Hannah’s production company?

Didn't she say it was "a handful" or something?

I’d have thought the police involvement and prison sentences would be the easiest to verify or deny, it’s public record once someone’s convicted and if they've embellished that no matter what else I’d have assumed she’d have a case against Netflix.

Out of curiosity, I just asked Copilot and got this:

*When it comes to docudramas or series based on true stories, the line between creative freedom and defamation can be quite delicate. If a series claims to be based on a true story but includes exaggerated details, it could potentially open up the creators to liability for defamation, especially if the portrayal is deemed to harm the reputation of real individuals or entities involved.

In the case of Netflix, there have been instances where individuals depicted in their series have filed lawsuits alleging defamation. For example, in the docudrama "The Queen's Gambit," a defamation claim was brought against Netflix by Nona Gapringashvili due to her portrayal in the series¹. Similarly, Rachel DeLoache Williams sued Netflix over her portrayal in "Inventing Anna," claiming that the show depicted her negatively and caused damage to her reputation².

To prevail in a defamation claim, the plaintiff typically needs to prove that the depiction was false or created a false impression about them, was highly offensive or defamatory, and that the creators knew the representation was not true or made it with reckless disregard for the truth. Disclaimers stating that some events have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes can be used as a defense, arguing that no reasonable viewer would believe the depictions were assertions of fact. However, recent case law suggests that disclaimers cannot completely absolve producers from liability¹.

So, exaggerating details such as the number of emails sent could matter if it significantly alters the portrayal of a character in a way that could be defamatory. It's a complex area of law that often requires careful navigation to balance storytelling with the rights of those being portrayed.*

I'd guess that it might be quite difficult for Fiona to "prove that the depiction was false or created a false impression about [her], was highly offensive or defamatory, and that the creators knew the representation was not true or made it with reckless disregard for the truth."

But perhaps this will change things.

It will be interesting to see what level of detail is required to be verified. How much can they exaggerate? if it was 17,362 emails and not 41,000, or at least 350 emails, does that matter in terms of liability?

But the 41000 emails?
Surely this will have been verified for them to say it's a true story. Surely that's the most basic thing to expect?

I think the trouble is that there's enough obvious overlap to make it clear who she is in real life, but there's enough ambiguity to make it unclear what she actually did. That's awkward territory to navigate and it looks as though Netflix either didn't think it through or don't give a fuck. Presumably the latter.

That's exactly what i thought

Absolutely.

The comments regarding "what if this was a female victim, no one wouid be offended questioning their version of events then" ....

I actually believe many people would not only be challenging events but, based on so many parts of the story being untrue, be questioning whether the rape had indeed even occurred

There is also a 'verdict' from Piers in regards to the interview that is worth watching on his youtube channel.

I just watched the interview and while I think she is a strange person who is a bit of a fantasist, I think that Gadd hugely embellished his story and that Netflix didn't do nearly enough to protect the identities of the people involved. Morgan's interview style was awful, and his badgering her about her degree was ill-informed and ridiculous. Absolutely no one comes out of this looking good.

It's ironic that she was outed by her own tweets.

I’d not realised they’d been interviewed at a select committee, went googling and found this too which is an interesting read on editorial policy and ethics other broadcasters are held to.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/10/piers-morgan-baby-reindeer-netflix-interview

A wise person once said-

“ don’t do anything you don’t want to see on the front pages of the news”

What they meant was, don’t do things you don’t want public.

IMO - If there was NO truth at all, there would be no story. IMO fact she called him Baby Reindeer, a long ago childhood toy is indicative of a depth of involvement from FH. Not a casual “banter”

There is no doubt that FH doesn’t think she has done anything unusual.
Gadd clearly felt the impact of FH very strongly.

If the whole thing is fiction, including “This is a True Story”, so be it. I laud Gadd as creative genius.

FH outed herself, and admitted she thinks it’s her, what’s the problem?

Gadd didn’t name her, He mentioned her MP harassment, but that - a writer can take anything from public domain for inspiration. Many many writers draw from research, experience, and it’s his “truth”.
Good luck in court FH.

And Netflix certainly sounded confident of the facts when they were interviewed by a select committee. They referred to her as a 'convicted stalker' so it seems likely that she is. I imagine the bar must be quite high to secure a conviction.

I did law at Aberdeen a couple of years earlier than her. Most of us did a three year Ordinary degree, because in order to become a solicitor you also had to do a one year postgraduate Diploma in Legal Practice. So four years at University. In my year (I went back and checked) 57 of us graduated with an ordinary degree and 35 with an honours. Some of those who did honours weren't planning to become solicitors e.g. they did the four years honours then did chartered accountancy training.

I did an ordinary, then my DLP, then my two year legal traineeship and became a solicitor.

It was definitely not a "lesser" thing, it was what most of my year did.

I think it would be very hard to sue for defamation.

How do you argue that the character so closely resembled you that you were identifiable, whilst complaining that some elements were untrue? Yes, the parts put in to differentiate the character from the real person.

Yes Fiona is a fat, Scottish law graduate.

No she did not serve time in prison or physically assault a woman.

If Gadd can produce the emails then that would also blow a hole in her case. As he used to display them and play audio in his stage show it seems likely that he has.

Also, how many lawyers would want her case? I think she'd be hard to work with.

He has every right to tell his story.
She has every right to defend herself.

All of the stuff is able to be verified or not so I don't see what the problem is? Just provide the evidence and be done with it.

Surely the only thing she needs to do is to get the police to (not) find the emails, calls, messages, witness statements etc and be done with it.

In the adaptation from stage to TV, RD has really been done over by the Executive Producers on the series.

The team behind the series (Clerkenwell Films) are hugely experienced, with a raft of award winning series for Netflix and British tv channels.

If Clerkenwell Films was young company and this was one of their first big commissions, then it’s possible they didnt have the clout to push back if it had been the Netflix commissioners who wanted to up the suspense.

But given the Exec Producers are so experienced you can assume they led the decision to make such an unethical re-write.

Incidentally, on Companies House, the BBC are listed as one of the Directors of Clerkenwell Films. No way Baby Reindeer would have got through BBC compliance.

And Netflix isn’t regulated by Ofcom, another structural problem that needs to be addressed.

@SunnyUpland, comment, as requested