Fiona on Piers

[LovelyIssues]

Am I completely in the minority thinking FH came across quite intelligent & truthful on Piers Morgan uncensored? She wasn't what I was expecting at all...

I feel sorry for her but she's hasn't done herself any favours
She was quite rude about certain things: people and was so vague about her degree grade?

was so vague about her degree grade?

She did an ordinary degree which is pass or fail. An honours degree has a classification. There was no degree "grade" to disclose.

She was clearly lying on a lot of things. I think she gave more credibility to the programme and I think she could be a quite a dangerous individual if you get on the wrong side of her.

I don't know what to think about the full thing!

I am.sure netflix must have looked into hair story before producing the show ?

I'd have thought so... but she seemed so sure she could prove it wasn't true. The whole thing is baffling!

I looked at her FB profile - the real one that has been shared far and wide.
I admit to scrolling through and read post after post of deeply unpleasant, bigoted and racist views.

I do think her appearing on PM was unwise and it certainly was exploitative in the sense that this decision wasn't made with her well-being in mind.

However, based on her posting history, she isn't a nice person, and not someone I would want to find myself on the wrong side of.

Thank you explaining this.
So why couldn't she just say that?
All very odd.

I think she expected him to know what an ordinary degree was.

I think it's a hoax story to get people to talk about and understand the complexity of stalking and harassment. Who is really at fault.

I think all the characters are in on it!

Not a one has provided a single shred of evidence, which if I was Fiona or Gadd would surely be the first thing to pull out.

It was way to easy to identify the real Fiona online.

Netflix is known for doing new formats black mirror, the one where viewers got to choose the story during the film.

At the end of the PM interview Gadd said it's about the story not the people.

The interview seemed rehearsed especially the bit about Lorraine Kelly I thought she stumbled & pulled it back together. It was very black and white in the telling. I'd be taking it very personally and upset but there was none of that from her.

I honestly think that this is a whole massive social experiment. To show how we can be manipulated into vilifying an innocent individual by the media etc.

Agree it is all staged - literally. If not then there would be evidence either his 41k email count or her conviction.

Posting on a local Facebook - no one, so far, the same age (58 she claims to be) remembers her from the village she claims to have lived in, or from the High School - she claims to have attended.

I’m sure I heard her correctly, when piers asked her about the letter she was meant to have sent she replied ‘oh I probably sent it to say sorry you were raped’.

How would she have known that? That itself (if I did hear / understand her correctly) threw everything she said into doubt for me. I think she’s deluded and an accomplished liar.

I haven't seen the program and was sort of on her side until she said how many phones and email accounts she had.

I'm starting to think the same!

Who has 6 emails and 4 phones. Her Facebook was crazy too. People have found her old tweets too. I’ve also just read she’s appearing at a nightclub of some sort.

I was thinking this as well, my only doubt though was that aren't there tweets going back quite a few years on her twitter account directed at him? Not sure if that could be fabricated - unless twitter/X is also in on it!

Darcy86

I do think there's more than a few grains of truth to the story. I think it's been cleverly developed and embellished just enough to provoke, the questions it raises.

Real Fiona, was the coolest of cucumbers. Not enough emotion or body language, not a single tell or fluster for someone who was supposedly so involved. Not a flicker it just doesn't add up to me and felt it was more a closely stuck to script. The nuances of any natural story or even a hint just weren't there.

Even PM, didn't go full roast on Fiona. Which we all know when PM bites a bone, he's not letting go! However he didn't look flustered, baffled or even perturbed. Rather blase, he didn't even bother to stick a few of his classic fish wife digs in 🤔

I agree. Piers came across as quite dense repeating questions he couldn't provide or prove the answers too

i thought there were many tells and flusters in that interview. Her eyes were darting all over the place, an indication that she was trying to remember what she had said before and not contradict herself. There were also instances when she either verbally agreed with something whilst shaking her head or disagreed whilst nodding. If you try and do that whilst answering a question honestly it's very hard to do and it suggests that her unconscious body language was at odds with what her mouth was saying.

I also agree that PM went very easy on her. I think his team were fully aware that she is a vulnerable and volatile person and there was very little point in pushing for the truth because they weren't going to get it. They just allowed her to waffle on and incriminate herself further in her own way. She is so confused and deluded I doubt even she knows what the truth is anymore.

And as for evidence - if this ever gets to a court the evidence will be produced (or not) there.

it also made me laugh when she said she couldn't check something because first one phone and then another broke. She should have fallen back on 'it accidentally fell into the North Sea'.

I thought she came across as more neurodiverse than the batshit maniac she's been painted as.

Oh, and I have like, 20 emails and 3 phones, so I didn't find that odd. Emails are split between two separate careers, then personal, spam, etc.

Plus, during covid I got really into doing beer money-type offers to make extra cash. You needed different sims/emails to do the offers multiple times. It's not as lucrative anymore but I made thousands.

The tweets go back years - to be a hoax it would have been the longest con in history.
The original allegations go back two decades - to be a hoax the original newspaper articles would have to be fake.

Ergo - it is not a hoax but nor is she a convicted stalker.

1. An interim interdict

It did not end up in court as Laura either did not do the paperwork properly or did not end up pursuing it

1. A First Instance Harassment Warning

It did not end up in court as Richard either did not choose to pursue or the CPS did not see the volume of emails as fitting stalking because of very stringent definitions between what constitutes harassment as opposed to stalking.

Receipts

1. No evidence of a court case
2. Evidence of some tweets from her to him and one letter/parcel
3. No evidence provided of letters, voice mails or emails received but this would be provable in a libel action unless subsequently deleted by him.

She came across as reasonably intelligent but not at all truthful. Nodding her head when saying no and vice versa, poor eye contact, fidgeting a lot when answering direct questions. Everything in her body language screams dishonesty. It's entirely plausible that she is both very mentally ill yet also articulate and intelligent,

You think it's a hoax story, with social media profiles being set up a decade ago using phrases that were then used in the script? You think this Fiona Harvey types out dozens of Facebook posts each and every day to stay in character? Because even a cursory look at her social media profiles would tell you that's untenable