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

[Eshmee]

Having watched her interview this evening, everything about her screamed 'liar'. Her language, her demeanor, her body language. I just wonder what other think?

Just read your title - yea she's a lying manipulator 😂

In the 1980s, most law graduates at Aberdeen did a three year ordinary, followed by the one year post-grad Diploma in Legal Practice.

I’m still desperately hoping it’s an elaborate black mirror type thing. But if it isn’t, all we have is a dramatised version of events and only one side of it. We have no proof that any of it/or how much of it is real. I am really uncomfortable with trials by social media - but I do understand that the justice system lets many down and this is the reason why some need to expose via this route.

She is clearly unwell, but just for a moment consider…. what if most of it was made up? She does has a right to reply - but the problem is she’s not a reliable witness anymore because of what we’ve been told about her via the drama, and she probably doesn’t have the money or the wherewithal to challenge the depiction of her.

If she did send 41k emails and everything else, why was it not reported (which I believe it wasn’t - that bit was made up) but instead made into a television series? I’m very dubious about the motives of it all and it should concern all of us. What if someone from my past made a drama, that was 50% made up about me and was embellished, what if everyone’s mind was made up before any evidence was produced? What if I didn’t have the means and money to take on the giants of Netflix to challenge their depiction?

I’m not defending her at all by the way, but I am saying that this is a very dangerous president to set. Anyone could say anything about anyone or make a tv drama out of it without producing a shred of evidence and ruin someone’s life before they are even aware of it. And if they are deemed to be an unreliable witness or if they don’t have the money then they have no defence.

If she didn't do any of those things - what makes her think it's about her?

@Whatthechicken I agree. Gadd is a comedian. Comedians make up stories, exaggerate events, pretend events that happened to others actually happened to themselves. It’s part of creating comedy.

Some events may have been based on truth but Gadd was desperate to make a compelling story, he says himself that all he wants is to be famous.

we are all so quick to ridicule this woman, but what if he is the chief bullshitter?
Ultimately evidence verified by computer forensics will be able to prove either way.
But until we see that I think we should hold fire on the witch trial of Fiona Harvey.

Would people be so quick to doubt the story if it was a woman sharing her ordeal of stalking and rape?

If the woman sold the story to netflix. Insisted on acting the main character herself to make millions. Stating its 100% true to events when it's not. Making it obvious to the world who the stalker is but protecting the actual rapist. Then yes I would question it

I think the PM show was really inappropriate.If the dramatisation had been based on a male stalker and the victim female I wonder if he’d have been given the same airtime.

Ugh I wish people would stop saying "if it was a man.." as if there isn't a male perpetrator in this story.

There is a male perpetrator and what is happening to him is fuck all and safe anonymity.

I’m not saying it’s not true, but we already know that some events weren’t true. But it doesn’t matter now, she will never have the right to defend herself or get a fair trial. Some people won’t have seen the articles were he says she didn’t go to prison and she didn’t beat up the transwoman, so they believe she did those things. One of the underlying tenets of the justice system is a defence and a fair trial, it’s not perfect, but it’s all we’ve got.

He literally quoted a few of her tweets - word for word.

Whatever happened, Netflix have failed hugely in their duty of care.

I see the male rapist is full protected.

Duty of care for a stalker!

They do have a duty of care to anyone who could be identified. Especially if retaliatory harm comes to someone. We don’t live in the Wild West.

The fact this even needs explaining to people is mind blowing. Explains why TV is so dumbed down nowadays.

She admitted to PM that she did give Gadd the Baby Reindeer nickname so it was obvious it was about her.

I agree, she came across better than I expected tbh. I wouldn't believe Gadd if he said it was raining now ,so who knows?

While I agree he did say it was a true story, he did not say it was 100% true?

I find it interesting people are willing to give compassion to Fiona due to her mental illness but not afford the same to Richard. It seems like they’re both competent adults. They have both made decisions that have impacted on one another.

I have never seen a Tv series that starts with the phrase This Is A True Story.

I have seen loads of series that start with Based on a true story, or Some elements have been changed etc…

But regardless, the fictional bits were all hugely damaging: prior conviction and prison sentence, assaulting Teri, and most importantly the custodial sentence for stalking RD.

The title of the show - she said she did use the nickname

The pub - she said she met him in a pub

Scottish - the English actress used a Scottish accent

For a start.

We know some of the exaggerated lies about her. What we don’t know is what’s the truth.

Definitley a trial by social media happening.

Richard has made lots of money from this, Piers has made money from this, Netflix has made money from this.

There are so many men profiting from a ‘true’ story which has only been a hit because key parts of it aren’t true.

How much money will the men have made from it?

I thought Netflix would pay a fee, and then are there royalties per view?

morgan makes money from hits for advertising?

Fiona got £250?

I think she has an infatuation with him and probably did send emails, texts, calls, letters. The bit about the multiple phones was weird.

I think a lot of the rest is exaggerated. It's becoming increasingly clear that she wasn't in jail. That makes me wonder what else isn't real.

It's hardly fair to make a documentary about someone, where they are easily identified and then embellish what they have done - and then say it's a true story. That's not right.

Especially when it's becoming clear that person isn't of sound mind.

Well Richard dramatised the whole thing. Became the producer and starring actor. Made a fortune from Netflix and has outed her so that the internet ans tabloids can hound her. Had the role been reversed, I’m sure sympathies would be reversed.

I can think that stalking is abhorrent behaviour while still see that a perpetrator (stilll to be proven) can become a victim. He’s not squeaky clean in this and two wrongs don’t make a right.

Where’s your mention of the male rapist? He’s barely mentioned.

I imagine the reason three rapists is "safe" is that the stalking is easy to prove -he has 40,000 emails and voice mails and his friends /ex's mum would be able to confirm some events. His parents would too.
So the "sting in the tale" of the accusation is true. It may be 38,000 emails but it's generally true.
Then if that true, would this damage her reputation further amongst reasonable people if they thought she plead guilty to the crime -probably not -that part made her seem good -taken accountability for her actions.

There is unlikely to be any proof of the rape. The man may just say it's consensual if there is any evidence it was him. So identifying him is legally very different.

I wonder if Richard Gadd’s father really was sexually abused by members of the Catholic Church, or whether that was also invented as a neat plot twist.