Baby Reindeer creator is provoking his stalker

[jengachampion]

SPOILERS AHEAD
I’ll preface this by saying I had a male stalker for 7 years. I moved, changed jobs, and deleted all social media in that time. I’m also a survivor of SA, as well as assault after being spiked, similar to RG in the show.

It completely baffles me that he would completely replicate his stalker down to physical likeness, occupation, accent, exact correspondences and references like hanging curtains.

He is clearly not too worried about people finding the real person, as well as her potentially contacting him again.

If it were me telling my story, I would change all identifying details of both of us, because I would NEVER want to go through it again. RG telling his story this way is hugely weird to me and really speaks to the theme of mutual obsession he hints at in the show.

It was all over 10 years ago wasn't it?

The woman purported to be Martha has spoken to the press www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/baby-reindeer-stalker-scots-woman-32673360

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2024/apr/23/richard-gadd-baby-reindeer-netflix-fallout quite an interesting read

So much victim blaming.

People asking why he went back to his abuser, would you ask a woman suffering DV why she went back to her abuser? it's well know that they very often do as a trauma response.

Calling out a possibly wealthy and well connected man (If the SF rumors are true) with only your word as proof is a lot different from calling out someone without those connections and with physical proof.

Also re. the comments saying this is male privilege and that a woman would not have made these disclosures in this way: women do this all the time! Have you never read Liz Jones or half the other masochistic 'confessional' contributors to the DM? They are no different!

only on MN would a rape victim and stalking victim be criticised for how they choose to heal from their trauma and pain

because he's a man

I don't see anyone criticising. However 'most' victims wouldn't make it a stage show then willingly put their ordeal on the worlds stage selling it to Netflix. If if helps him, great. But with that comes opinion on what he's proactively put out to the public.

I came here to say the same. It is a total joke.

Some people on here should be ashamed.

That's because 'most victims' are not screenwriters or stand-up comedians. It's his job (and his talent) to turn his experiences into content.

(Also 'most victims' is a terrible expression and I'm sorry for repeating it here.)

Hannah Gadsby had a huge hit on Netflix of her one-woman show Nanette, about her rape. I didn't see anyone talking about her 'profiteering' off it, or God forbid saying the perpetrator deserved some of the money!

I agree with Terri that part of Gadd was enjoying the attention from Martha. I also noticed that his first ex made a comment about drama following him, so I suspect he has a long history of making poor decisions that get him into sticky situations.
I know situations are often complex and you do not get perfect victims though.

I’m confused as to FHs link to being a lawyer. Her spelling and grammar are awful.

The interview she gave with the daily record confirms she has a law degree from Aberdeen.

I find the whole thing confusing and quite distressing and I feel like I can't separate right from wrong. The views on this thread make it even more difficult to process. And perhaps that's the point. Things like how a rape victim and a victim of stalking react and behave are not logical, straightforward or advisable. It's a complex twisting of emotions.

I enjoyed it when I watched it thinking it was fiction but as a real life story it's shocking.

I must admit I'm not keen on the demanding to know the real name of the stalker and people guessing who the rapist was. It reminds me a bit of the Nicola Bulley case where some people seemed to forget there were real people involved.

The only people who need to know the names are Richard Gadd and anyone he chooses to tell. Us if he wants to. If he doesn't that's his call. And the police if there is action to be taken. I hope there is.

The person being named is a real person with real criminal convictions for stalking people in the past. And her Twitter account from the time she was stalking Gadd is still live and still has hundreds and hundreds of tweets directed at him during that period where she uses lots of the exact same phrases and speech patterns that Martha uses in the show.

Personally, I think she is extremely unwell and vulnerable, but I also think she is - additionally to that - also an unpleasant and probably dangerous person who had made a lot of people's lives a misery. So I'm very much not buying into the 'Aw, poor Martha, being bullied by the nasty man' narrative.

However, she has a right to privacy, and is also clearly delusional and very unstable, and for that reason I'm absolutely disgusted and horrified that the people who have worked out who she is are a) sharing that information and b) contacting her. I have more respect for Richard Gadd than I do for them.

While I think Gadd is utterly messed-up (and he is well aware of that himself) I also think he does have every right to tell his story and I don't think he has a duty of care to someone who made his life hell and threatened and harassed his family and friends for years and had done the same to others in the past. I think he was very stupid to kick the hornet's nest in the way he has, but I think does have the right to do it, if that makes sense.

Gleeful members of the public sharing her details online and goading her on Facebook, however, do not have any justification whatsoever for their behaviour. None.

I just finished watching. Can't say I'm with all the rave reviews everywhere it's getting.

Yes, it's awful this happened.

For me, It was one of those dramas where you keep watching and get to the end and think, I just wasted a few hours.

Episode 4 was just too graphic, I understand that he wanted to tell that part as it was important but to see him being raped was just too much.

What I don't get is that he has now put out there after its release, that he doesn't want any of the people involved especially 'Martha' to be harassed, why then do this drama about your life, play the part yourself and ensure that it is known it's a true story. He like everyone else knows what armchair detectives are like, some freaking nutters out there and reading some of the death threats that woman they are naming is awful, very scary reading what people are threatening to do to her on her social media account and on the many public platforms. Some of that stuff is really messed up.

He was a struggling comedian. Now he’s rich. Nuff said.

The whole thing was extremely weird, I've never seen anything like it, but then I've thankfully never had any encounters with a stalker! Did he really sleep with her though or was that some kind of dream sequence the lady they're mentioning on Twitter is absolutely her...there's a screenshot of a Tweet she sends to Gaad saying 'my curtains need hung badly'

I'm inclined to think why shouldn't he tell his story, although I can see this ending badly. This woman is now going to end up being stalked herself.

jesus fucking christ.

The daily mail have written an article saying Sean Foley has been wrongly identified as Richard gadds abuser

If she hasn't been convicted of stalking Gadd then could Netflix be in trouble for this?
Gadd said she'd been disguised but clearly she hasn't. She had a different name and obviously was played by an actress but she was found very easily and now millions of people will believe she sexually assaulted him etc?

People would not say this if a woman was telling her story. They’d be completely supportive of her outright naming her abuser. Particularly if he had been convicted and served jail time.

Personally I thought that baby reindeer was a really novel depiction of this sort of abuse. I enjoyed the series though agree it got a bit graphic for me.

Re provoking his stalker- Netflix would not have made this series if they thought it would lead to his physical or mental harm. Their insurance companies would not have allowed this to happen.

Plus, if there is a risk, then it’s his personal choice as to whether he takes that or not. I don’t think victims of crime should be silenced.

She was convicted and went to prison for 3 years. This has been widely reported.

But that's not what happened here. She never went to prison and we don't know if she even was convincted. They 'came to an agreement and it was resolved' is all that was said