Baby Reindeer turns nasty: The extremely graphic messages, explicit gifts, ‘handsy’ behaviour and terrifying threats Richard Gadd claims real-life ‘Martha’ sent him – as $120m court case takes a very surprising twist

As a seasoned observer of the dramatic world we live in, it seems to me that this ongoing saga between Martha Harvey and Netflix is nothing short of a gripping soap opera. The intricacies of truth, art, and personal rights are being unraveled in the courtroom, much like the plotlines of many a popular television show.

Just 84 individuals managed to fit into the compact venue each evening to catch Richard Gadd’s Edinburgh Fringe production of Baby Reindeer, a show that ran for almost four weeks in 2019.

However, the seemingly modest production – the foundation of the hugely popular TV series Baby Reindeer – might potentially result in Netflix having to pay as much as $120 million (approximately £92 million), along with additional legal expenses.

In June, attorneys representing Fiona Harvey, the actual person behind the character Martha (the stalker), initiated a bold, unyielding legal action against Netflix. They demanded a compensation of approximately $170 million (£130 million), alleging defamation on an unprecedented level. Additionally, they were seeking damages for emotional distress caused intentionally, as well as negligence and gross negligence.

Despite Netflix’s efforts to dismiss the case prior to its trial scheduled for next May, Ms. Harvey appears unwilling to concede. This week, her legal team submitted another revised lawsuit, highlighting several substantial discrepancies between the play and the TV series that won multiple Emmy awards last month.

Based on legal documents, Richard Gadd’s play, in which he portrays his alter ego stand-up comedian Donny Dunn, was not marketed as a true account like the TV show, but rather as one “inspired by” real events. Furthermore, it has been argued that the play does not mention any arrest, conviction, plea bargain, or imprisonment concerning Martha.

According to Harvey’s argument, this point is crucial as the Netflix series concludes with Martha admitting guilt for stalking Donny. Given her past conviction for stalking a lawyer, this latest offense results in her being sentenced to serve 4 and a half years in prison.

In the play “Baby Reindeer,” Martha isn’t arrested or convicted. On the contrary, Donny is informed by the police that they don’t suspect Martha of committing a crime. Instead, he’s asked to apologize to her, cease troubling the police, and learn that while it’s understandable to be frustrated, harassment isn’t considered a criminal act.

In the play, Gadd’s character shares with the audience: ‘My previous encounter with the police was so distressingly humiliating, I prefer to steer clear of them in the future.’

It ends with him obtaining a restraining order against her.

According to Harvey’s team, inconsistencies such as these suggest that Netflix was aware from the start that she had not been convicted of stalking, let alone twice.

According to documents submitted by her legal team on Wednesday: ‘Leaving out the entire plotline of the series, where a convicted stalker (Harvey) returns to prison after admitting to stalking Gadd, may lead Netflix to believe that any portrayal of Harvey’s criminal background in the show is highly likely to be inaccurate.’

It’s important to note that Harvey isn’t the only one who seems to be causing trouble. In fact, I can share some shocking accounts attributed to Richard Gadd concerning Fiona Harvey, which have been detailed in sworn declarations submitted to court in Los Angeles. These accounts are quite astonishing to read.

Accusations claim that Harvey supposedly told Gadd her clitoris was removed due to excessive self-stimulation, that she mailed him her “lucky underwear” after he blocked her emails, plus requests and pressures for intimate interactions.

She also allegedly complained about her itchy pubic hair.

Additionally, there were reportedly hateful comments concerning immigrants and a remark about visiting a firearms store, along with the suggestion that if London Mayor Sadiq Khan were removed from office, everyone would feel secure sleeping.

Additionally, Gadd mentioned that Harvey pushed him from behind the neck following an encounter where he confronted her for reportedly harassing a lawyer and warned him about his outspokenness potentially leading to trouble. In his account, he expressed discomfort over her persistent inappropriate actions, including instances where she would touch his backside while he worked as a comedian at a pub in Camden, North London.

In the TV show, there’s a scene where Martha, who also works at a pub like Donny, is portrayed as sexually assaulting him in an alleyway. This incident, according to her team, never occurred in reality. The series depicts Martha attacking Donny with a glass and scratching his eyes, which Ms. Harvey alleges is false and damaging to her reputation.

According to Gadd, he received a Harassment Warning letter in 2016, following an incident at the Hawley Arms pub where ‘the victim’ was employed. After more months of abuse, including Harvey reportedly saying to Gadd, “If I want you dead, you are ****ing dead,” Gadd claims he received another Harassment Warning letter in 2017. He provides his police correspondence as evidence. This is the first time Netflix has disclosed the exact details of her interactions with the police.

Earlier, Netflix executive Benjamin King informed the Commons select committee that the series is based on real events and that Gadd was harassed by an individual who had previously been convicted of stalking.

Later, he made clear in an email to the previous committee chairwoman, Dame Caroline Dinenage (sent in July), that the character the show was based on was not convicted but instead was subject to a court order.

In her revised lawsuit against Netflix, Harvey provides her DBS (Disclosure and Barring Service) certificate as evidence that she has no criminal record. The television show’s portrayal omits some details about Martha, such as her waiting outside Donny’s apartment for 16 hours a day, even during the night.

In the play, there’s no scene where Martha breaks a glass over someone’s head, unlike what happens in the television series.

The criticism points out that during his interviews for promoting the TV show, Gadd shifted away from stating it as a factual account, which is how Netflix portrayed it in their promotional materials and during airing. Instead, he described it as “pretty truthful,” “100% emotionally true,” and “very emotionally true.” In a recent ruling in California, Judge R. Gary Klausner acknowledged significant discrepancies between the actual events and what was depicted on screen.

In my commitment to clarity, allow me to clarify some important distinctions. While I may follow someone out of interest, it’s a far cry from being labeled a stalker, a term that can only be legally confirmed in a court of law. Similarly, unwanted touching might seem invasive, but it pales in comparison to the gravity of sexual assault. Lastly, a forceful shove and intentionally gouging someone’s eyes are two distinct acts, with the latter being a far more severe form of violence.

In simpler terms, Judge Klausner didn’t side with Netflix’s stance that the events depicted were ‘substantially true’, as she felt that what was portrayed wasn’t accurately reflective of her real-life actions.

Netflix contended that since the show was presented in a dramatic style, most viewers would perceive its claims as non-factual. However, the judge countered this by stating that although the series predominantly resembles a dark comedy-drama, the opening episode clearly declares it to be a true story, leading the audience to accept the statements as factual.

Netflix argues that the resemblance between the genuine individual, Martha Harvey, and her fictional counterpart was so extensive that most viewers wouldn’t recognize the difference. However, the judge did not concur. Now, Netflix plans to challenge this decision in an appeal.

In some aspects of the case involving Ms. Harvey, the judge sided with Netflix, ruling against her allegations of ordinary negligence and gross negligence, as well as her petition for punitive damages.

With top-tier legal groups gearing up for more intense conflicts, certain analysts believe that it’s likely time for Netflix to negotiate a settlement with Harvey.

This month, a mediator named Gail Title has been appointed to handle this case. Netflix is required to complete and submit a mediation questionnaire to her by the following Tuesday. Could we possibly be on the verge of resolving this behind-the-scenes conflict?

Read More

• TOMI PREDICTION. TOMI cryptocurrency
• Gold Rate Forecast
• CRV PREDICTION. CRV cryptocurrency
• COTI PREDICTION. COTI cryptocurrency
• OCT PREDICTION. OCT cryptocurrency
• WINS PREDICTION. WINS cryptocurrency
• CELL PREDICTION. CELL cryptocurrency
• Melissa McBride makes her mark in soaring premiere of The Walking Dead: Daryl Dixon — Book of Carol
• Disney’s possible return to this Star Wars small screen timeline has fans drooling
• Brent Oil Forecast

2024-10-12 04:54