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?

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

Absolutely.

That's exactly what i thought

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

Is Clerkenwell Films still John Hannah’s production company?

He resigned as a director in 2017.

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

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.

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

Agree with this .

Because she’s supremely confident in her delusions. She’s like anyone who is an expert in their field and who can talk eloquently and knowledgeably on their chosen subject.

Her chosen subject is herself and she knows she’s right 🤷‍♀️

Thanks. Bit behind the times there!

Janey Godley is no stranger to Twitter stooshies, usually creating them.

that will be interesting to watch, I don’t think Janey has ever backed down from any bandwagon since she started on Twitter.

Apparently Richard Gadd said he used and incorporated stories from other people so, although a true story, many scenes were embellished and fabricated. He admitted some things didn't happen, they were added for effect.

There is nothing wrong with him adding stuff for effect, but it's being presented as true, so after watching Martha smashing furniture, sexually assaulting Gadd, attacking his girlfriend and acting completely mad, people are going to project all of that behaviour onto Harvey, whether she did any of it or not. I think it's shocking actually and netflix and Gadd are massively at fault.

Where are you seeing this? I've had a look and can't find them