Piers Morgan interview with real Baby Reindeer Martha

[Luxell934]

I am strangely looking forward to hearing her side….shame it’s with Piers Morgan though 🙈

https://www.ladbible.com/entertainment/tv/baby-reindeer-real-martha-piers-morgan-fiona-harvey-richard-gadd-112360-20240508

I started watching the interview expecting her to be a mess. She was odd, no doubt, but it made me wonder how anyone would come across in this situation? Like, I have no idea what grades I got in my school or uni exams - l actually thought she was right on when she said that in the 80s no one worried too much about working too hard at uni because that was certainly my experience (although I would not be boasting about having a photographic memory). I have 5 email addresses myself (although 2 are for work and 1 is for professional correspondence outside of work). I never got married or had kids. I have pets. Would I look crazy if everyone had been told I was? I wonder if anyone could look sane in that situation. And having someone pick on particular words, not letting you finish your sentences - I just think anyone would look a bit strange. She actually made better points than I expected she was going to. Even though it was often a bit rambling or odd.

The whole thing reminds me of that poor man who was pilloried for killing the young woman who lived in his building, but turned out to be completely innocent, just a bit eccentric. I cant remember his name (hers was Jo?) but there was a tv show about what happened to him.

Whatever the ins and outs of her personality and behaviour, the show said it is a true story - but there are significant aspects which are fiction. The creator said he disguised the stalker = yet chose an actress who was made to look like her and used a lot of identifying features which makes it seem like he is referring to this woman. The creator said he did not press charges in real life because he felt she had MH difficulties. But has laid her open to worldwide threats. Its is either spectacularly naive, or really really Machiavellian.

so the people saying it is his story to tell if he wants. That may be true. But a lot of what he says is not internally consistent and the way this has been handled is irresponsible.

The interview was extremely uncomfortable. I felt sorry for her and Piers repeating that he wasn't trying to 'catch her out' when thats exactly what he was doing was so devious. He was exploiting someone, in my opinion, not of sound mind and making a mockery of her, knowing she is lying but pretending to entertain the possibility she was plausible. Can't stand him.

But what I cant understand is why 'Martha' is the main focus of the show, when in my view the grooming rapist is the real villian. He should have been the one easily outed. God knows how many other young men he has groomed, fed cocktails of drugs and raped.

Agree. He's clearly not a stupid man and knows what the internet/people are like. So I don't buy for a minute that he didn't realise people would find her, he just doesn't care

My take of the series was that Gadd understood Martha and despite everything had sympathy for her. He is one fucked up man and knows it.

Fiona Harvey seems unhinged and that totally backs up what Gadd wrote about. I cringed watching the interview but also felt sad for her. She may be telling the truth but she contradicted herself so much it was hard to believe.

I also understand why he protected his abuser. He hates himself for letting it happen and tries to justify it. I did the same with my rapist. I mourned his death for years. Abuse can screw the brain and everyone reacts differently.

In his own words (paraphrased) 'I loved hating myself more' than anything. I totally relate to this

Changed her nationality (she was Irish in the play), changed her job, changed her physicality, changed where it was set and not using her tweets ad verbatim.
Also changing the headline from 25 years ago more significantly might have helped. He wrote what he knew but he didn't change much at all.
Whereas his rapist appears to be more of a composite.

He owes her fuck all to be honest. It’s not his responsibility to help her any more than it’s the responsibility of a woman to help her male stalker.

Do you think?
He's a journalist.
He'll have done his homework.
I think he was very gentle on her actually.
He gave her the chance to concede a few times.
She doubled down.
There were contradictions throughout.

• Claimed only met Gadd 2 or 3 times. Later, says she met him 5-6 times in her life.
• Says she has a photographic memory but cannot recall her exam grades.
• Says was off FB as of the day before the interview but is prolific on there.
• Says she is educated but pronounces hyperbole as hyper-bowl.
• Says she sent only a couple of emails, no texts, no FB messages, one letter and 18 tweets. Later, says ten emails.
• Says she only knew him 2-3 months, 10-12 years ago but wrote the letter about his rape 2016 (show/podcast were 8 years ago).
• "Doubts" he has voice mails from her when had said before she didn't have his number/so there should be no doubts: the messages either exist or they don't.

He could have gone in a lot harder.

Netflix ought to have made a statement.

This woman is clearly mentally ill. I am not condoning what she did to Gadd but there has been zero effort to make her difficult to identify.

I am utterly horrified at how people are basically viewing her, clearly unwell behaviour, and this interview as ‘series 2’ of Baby Reindeer.

If you felt so affected and for Gadd then maybe go with his ‘wishes’ and leave her alone, he apparently didn’t want her identified.

This isn’t a drama, this is lives.

OK so. I've literally just watched the Piers Morgan interview with Fiona. Aside from my personal opinions, which are rather tainted because I actually did have a real life stalker myself for a few years...My mind is blown, this is fucked up. She is textbook material. Don't know or even care about Gadd's writing or Netflix production or their profits. I've absorbed her words, and I am seriously creeped out. There are so many holes in this person's story, I could write pages.

Although she came across as untruthful (I don't believe she's not watched the show, I don't believe she had as little contact with him as she says, I don't believe she has lots of friends), I don't think this woman came across as unhinged as I was expecting her to. From her Facebook (if it is her) and fromw what the Daily Mail said about meeting her, I was expecting wild rants and clear signs of not being in touch with reality. Whereas she actually came across calm, composed, reasonably articulate etc. I didn't like her and thought she came across as an unpleasant lady but I thought it was a damp squib of an interview for sure.

Source please

Seriously? If it was the other way round and it had been a woman stalked by a man I can just imagine what people on here would say if you suggested it was the woman's responsibility to help the male stalker!

@PinkyFlamingo Nailed it.

I came on here just to say I totally agree that it’s not his responsibility to pay for her mental health help.

It is such a strange thing to say, that he should pay for her mental health treatment. It shows a total misunderstanding about what poor mental health is and how it is treated.

First of all, if she has a personality disorder, this is not something treatable. Secondly, it is very clear that she thinks she is perfectly rational and fine. She does not think there is anything wrong with her. What help could she possibly have with her mental health? Absolutely nothing. It’s nothing to do with money.

Even the richest people in the world have mental health problems. To get better, you have to consent to taking medication regularly and/or engage with a talking therapy. Both of these things involve having insight into your situation. She does not have any insight. No amount of money would fix that.

I agree with this regarding PM's interview style with her. He's a clever man in many ways and knew that if he'd gone in all guns blazing he would have been accused of bullying a woman with mental health issues.

Not sure what to think after the interview. I mean, the email differential is staggering. I'm presuming Gadd has proof because a couple to 41,000 isn't going to cut it as artistic licence.

The lawyer boyfriend was very unconvincing, as was the I haven't spoken to my mum piece.

Slightly amused that Piers' set was held together with duct tape.

Her point about the emails, I thought, was that from a litigious point of view, they said it's a true story but the fact she wasn't charged, nor sentenced already means the other side fucked up, so even if she had sent a volume of emails then it doesn't make any difference as they already included fake information in a "true story"

It is and of course Gadd can write about his experiences but it's entirely wrong to be so obviously exploitative of her. Not disguising her sex, career, where's she's from etc is just very stupid. Netflix must have known this too which makes it worse. If Richard Osman is right the RL 'Derrien' is a mixed raxe balding guy with glasses. Very powerful men in the media don't get comeuppance though. Mentally unstable women however don't matter and can be exposed. Nobody has to like her but surely it's all just so wrong. The actress and backstory were basically the same.

He did say that she wasn't charged in the series. Some of the series was based on fantasy which isn't ideal as blurs the line of true story/what he wished had happened. I think the difficulty is a lot of the people watching it took it as reality. I think without full disclosure, witnesses etc we won't know the truth. Nor I guess are we entitled to know the truth.

I appreciate this ladies life has been turned upside down. I don't think she is being completely truthful and imagine caught on the spot by piers it was hard to be so. I'm sure more will come out in time. It has certainly been difficult to not follow.

They normally say "based on a true story" I'm unsure why they did this so I imagine this is where the issue lies 😬

@EthnoBotanist it wasn’t me who said this! I was just amazed someone would suggest it was up to him to pay for private health care. I’m not suggesting that would fix it!

To all the Scottish people…if she had done a normal degree like she said would she have got awarded a grade like first, 2.1, 2.2 etc or not? Because I think Piers was under the impression it’s like the English system and I don’t believe it is, so technically she wasn’t dodging the question?

@Luxell934 I have a Honours degree in Scots Law. That's a 4 year degree and you get a first, 2:1 or whatever.

If you just do 3 years (extremely unusual these days but common decades past), you get an "ordinary" degree. That is unclassified. You COULD still become a solicitor with an ordinary degree if you do the post-graduate stuff. (At least you could in the past, not sure about now, as I say, doing an ordinary degree now is vanishingly rare)

She said she did the Diploma in Legal Practice but quit her job during her traineeships so sounds like she never became fully qualified as a practising solicitor. She's certainly not on the Law Society of Scotland's database as a practising solicitor now.

She was saying she couldn't remember her grades of individual exams/coursework etc. That's legit. (Except of course, where was her photographic memory?!)

So when she says she's a lawyer that's not correct?