Piers Morgan Uncensored - Baby Reindeer Mailbag: “I’ve Personally Emailed Richard Gadd”

Episode Date: May 18, 2024

Piers Morgan dedicates this week’s mailbag entirely to the comments on his explosive Baby Reindeer interview with Fiona Harvey, the woman identified as the ‘real’ Martha from the Netflix hit show. Many people praised the actress, Jessica Gunning, for her performance as Martha. Others questioned whether Fiona should’ve even been invited on the show due to concerns about her mental health. Piers also agrees with viewers calling for Richard Gadd to be interviewed on Piers Morgan Uncensored, and confirmed that he’s personally emailed the Baby Reindeer creator himself. Subscribe to stay up-to-date on all Uncensored content. YouTube: @PiersMorganUncensored X: @PiersUncensored TikTok: @piersmorganuncensored Insta: @piersmorganuncensored Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to a special edition of Morgan's Mailback, which today is all about just one interview. This show is incredible. Baby reindeer. We got absolutely obsessed. My beef curtains. I did not move. Everybody is talking about baby reindeer. Now fans are trying to find the real people behind the story.

Because it does depict real life events. Blown up so quickly and so fast all around the world that I... I didn't expect it. Look down the barrel of that camera. To people who still doubt you, what do you say to them? Yes, my one-on-one with Fiona Harvey, aka the Real Martha from Baby Rain Deer, has been watched more than 12 million times on our uncensored YouTube channel and literally tens of millions more across other social platforms.

It's also provoked hundreds of thousands of comments, reactions, questions, and hot takes on the media world, which tend to be often pretty cold. I'll be reacting to a selection of those, but before we get started, a quick reminder of the interview that got the whole world talking. What do you hope to achieve in this interview? I came on your show because you're a veteran broadcaster. I think you'll give me a fair hearing. I find it quite obscene.

I find it horrifying, misogynistic. Some of the death threats have been really terrible online. I don't think I've said them anything. You're basically accusing both him, but also Netflix, of lying about it. I am. Did you go to jail? Did you have a trial? No, of course not.

Of course not. Did Netflix ever contact you? No, no one's contacted me. Never? Never. What do you feel about Richard Gat? I think he's a child. I think he's psychotic.

You ever in love with him? Yes. That's a serious question. Okay, here's just a snapshot of your instant reactions. At Brit Neer said, this is the most fascinating interview I've ever watched. The Lies Are Crazy. At Eric Johnson, 9663, wrote,

along with this interview went on, the more she confirmed to everyone. She's exactly like the character in the show. This interview was a disaster for her. And having watched my interview, at John O'Gib, gave a shout out to actress Jessica Gunning, who played Martha in Baby Rainier, saying the actor who played Martha deserves an Emmy.

She nailed that role. Ha, ha, ha, ha. Oh, my God. So several things to one pick there. One is that, yeah, the actress did play the role very well of the real-life Fiona Harvey. Very well, too well, you might think. If the whole desire of Richard Gad,

the author, of course, about whose story this is, and Netflix was to hide the identity of the real-life people behind these characters, then why would you choose an actress who looks quite similar to her and who you make speak exactly like her? And why would you then use extracts from posts and messages in the series which could be immediately traced back to Fiona Harvey? So I think there was a real duty of care failing, I think, by everyone involved in this,

which meant that she was identified. That, of course, is why she decided to come on my show because she wanted to have her say, as everyone was having their say about her. It's fair to say, the vast majority of you agree that the seminality between Vienna and Martha were striking. Alice Moore, however, things are still room for doubt. Wow, this is really fascinating.

I don't know what to believe now. I think she's quirky. I don't think she's mad as the character. The character seemed a lot more vulnerable in a way that she couldn't hide it, whereas this lady doesn't come across as a stalker to me. Well, look, I don't know if she is a stalker in the way that Richard Gad has categorized her to be.

I do think she sent a lot of messages to him. I do think she probably had an unhealthy obsession with him. But was she a convicted criminal for the stalking? Did she ever get found guilty of stalking him? Netflix and Richard Gads say yes. She did, but no one can produce a shred of evidence that that ever happened. And so the whole credibility, frankly, of their position, this is a true story, is in a perilous place.

And as we see that evidence of a court case and a conviction. A lot of the initial commentary around the interview focused of whether we were right to give Fiona a platform at all at Amy Bulldog 9-689 said, this woman is clearly mentally unwell. I think it's unethical to put her on TV to satisfy his audience his morbid curiosity. Well, how do you know she's mentally unwell?

That's your assessment. We've seen no independent evidence that she has a mental illness. You've seen no evidence she ever got convicted of any crime. So who are you, frankly, to judge whether she's vulnerable or not? She volunteered to come on the show. She wanted to set the record straight.

Everyone was talking about her. And Richard Gadd, of course, let's remember, let's talk openly about his own mental health problems. He was given a platform despite that. So why shouldn't Fiona Harvey give him what happened to her? Well, interestingly, at Gemd 573 said, to balance things up, we need to now give the person behind the baby reindeer phenomenon an invitation.

Get Richard Gadd on your show now. It's only fair. I completely agree. I've personally emailed Richard Gadd, although of course, I accept his inbox may be a little full. And I'll that mean that glibly. I mean, it really might be. So I hope he reads it. I hope he does come on the show. I certainly wouldn't give him a hard time. He, I think, has gone into this with the best of intentions. But has he blurred the lines of his own story from nonfiction to fiction? Did he invent the fact that she got convicted or not? I'd love to know the arts to that

because that's the big part of the last episode. Speaking of Richard Gab, I've always had been going on. He's been on the red carpet in America and men at the Bafters, soaking up the plaudits for his acclaimed drama and quite rightly, it's a great piece of work. But in response to the controversy

surrounding the identity of the real Martha and other characters in the series, he's now drawing a line saying an interview with the holiday reporter, I don't think I'll ever comment on it ever again. That may be a little convenient, Richard. I've got to be honest with you. I hear you're a great guy from people I know who know you, who've worked with you, and you're a very talented writer, and you've had a massive success with this series.

But you can't just suddenly stop talking about it, given the repercussions that have spun off this series, in particular for people like Fiona Harvey. There was a duty of care failure, regardless of whether everything in that series was true. You allow people to find out who she was far too easily. and on these crucial questions about whether she was convicted and went to prison, you've got to produce some evidence or some answers or an apology and probably a large check to her. Equally, Netflix is also versed growing questions about their duty of care policy in the wake of the interview, such as when their policy achieve appeared in front of a British Parliamentary Select Committee and said this. Baby Ranger is an extraordinary story, and it is obviously a true story of the horrific abuse

that the writer and protagonist Richard Gad suffered. at the hands of a convicted stalker. We did take every reasonable precaution in disguising the real-life identities of the people involved in that story. All of us, of course, raises the question of whether Fiona Harvey might have a legal case against Netflix. In a follow-up debate, we discussed all these various legal questions. And Mark Geragos, a top Hollywood entertainment lawyer, had this to say.

There's somebody who is currently adverse to Netflix. I will tell you, In my experience, at least, they do tend to take great liberties when they represent what the particular facts are. And specifically in America, you have a doctrine, both defamation by implication, defamation per se, the accusing her of being a criminal and kind of doubling down on it by saying she's served time. If that is not true, she's got a whale of a case. A lot of reaction to this. At Safety Propaganda wrote Netflix absolutely bombed the marketing. All they had to say was based on a true story and they'd be surely covered legally.

At Corrie FPV, another hand, doesn't think there's a case to answer. Netflix can say based on a true story and then sensationalizer make it more dramatic. That's how TV works. Well, they didn't say based on a true story. They said, this is a true story. And then their executive said that again, under oath in Parliament. So that was their wording, not ours. If Lino FG feels any discussion of legal action is all a moot point.

She will never sue. She knows exactly that he has all the evidence. Well, he probably does have the evidence, Richard Gad, of her emails and texts and handwritten letters and voicemail. I'm sure he does, which is why Netflix have been so specific about the volume that he received. But we haven't seen, of course, the replies to any of that, although we do know by his own admission that he did leader on a few times, and he also did stuff to her pictures on his laptop, which was a little bit odd. So there are weird dynamics about this whole story,

which make it frankly a bit of a mess. And one of the country's top Kings councils, Chris Dorr, does it and there could be a case for Netflix to answer. It came on our censored to say this. Chris, like I said, you spoke to Fiona. As a result of that, will you be taking her case up? I'm in discussions now with a law firm in London with a view to taking the case forward.

At Heshington, Mugar B, wrote in response, nuance would be exaggeration for dramatic effect, making anything up to make the story more captivating without consent. It's why this isn't good for Netflix. Possibly, the receipts may still come out. They might. They might.

If it turns out, she did go to court and did confess to the crime and was convicted of stalking Richard Gad. That is game over for this debate, as far as Richard Gad and Netflix and Clarkwell films are concerned. It would be a validation of their claim. it's a true story.

But if you know Harvey's telling the truth and there was no conviction, no court case or anything else like it, then that's going to be a big problem for them legally. Unfortunately, this fascinating discussion was somewhat overshadowed by the contribution of one of the other panel members. We invited Iman Aiton on

because she had called me out from my interview on other platforms like Good Morning Britain. And I wanted to hear what she had to say to my face. I don't know where the truth lies. No, you do know. You do know. Don't ever say that. Hang on, Mark.

I've never said it again in life. I don't know. You do know. You do know. Don't interrupt. Sorry, can I interrupt? I'm sorry. I'm really annoyed.

Chris, you know better. You're a lawyer. Oh, sorry. Am I correct in saying you're a lawyer? Is it KC? It's a king's counsel. Okay, perfect. Right.

Extremely senior lawyer. Right. If you did your homework, you would have realized that Richard Gadd made it very clear that Netflix fictionalized the story. Let me repeat. Yes, they did. They said it.

They made it very clear. And yet you're saying you're not. No, no, you're wrong. It's what you're talking about. She's done none of those things. This documentary should have never been made or they should have clarified. One extreme to an ex, sir, with all due respect,

and I know I keep interrupting, but I'm going to do it anyway. Louise Etchel on X said, four out of five panelists treated each other with respect and had a very intelligent and enlightening conversation. Well done, gentlemen. This seemed challenging under the circumstances. At Harlequin, 55, compared Imman, on favorably to the real Martha.

Oh dear, Fiona was a lot easier to watch than Imman. That says a lot because that interview had me squirming. embarrassing is she. I would have muted it. Iman did post a message on her own social media about the incident and said that don't want to invite me back. You're a coward. What you should have said was, Imman, you were a disgrace and you embarrass yourself, and I'll do what I do best, grill your mindsize channel again and hold you to account. But instead you took the cowardly approach. Actually, you know what? I'm under no obligation to do any of that. I invite guests on in good intentions. You'd had a bit of a lengthy suspended sentence for calling me a racist ridiculously before.

I graciously decided to put that behind us and invite you back. And you blew it. Sorry, Ma'am, but you blew it. You were unbelievably rude and aggressively rude to all the other panelists. And you ruined the debate, which was actually a very good debate. So no, I'm afraid that's it. You will not be back on this show. Thankfully, at SoCal G310, thought the contribution from our US panelists made up for things.

Peers, thank you for eventually allowing Tatum and the guy from Popcorn Planet to Talk. They should sit on a bus bench outside all night until you put them on again. Yeah, they were great, actually. Very, very entertaining, very insightful, just the kind of guess that I like to discuss these kind of things. Well, almost time to wrap this special edition of Morgan's Mailbag, but before we do, I thought this comment from at Kiefer Fleming 6345 is worth reflecting on. Whatever is true or lies from both sides is an awful sad situation. Stalking is absolutely horrendous.

I hope anyone who's gone through it is healing. Yeah, I completely agree. I've had a bit of it myself, been on receiving end of a few stalkers, not as bad as this. It's a very uncomfortable and difficult thing to experience. I know other people who've had a horrendous time. So I don't trivialise it at all. But this is a messy story. And anyone who thinks there's a clean version of this hasn't really been following it.

Richard Gab, by his own admission, is a very damaged man who went through a lot of drug abuse, some promiscuous sex, and clearly had a strange relationship with... the person he calls his stalker, where he led her on by his own admission. How much we don't know. How much of what he wrote and what he put on the Netflix show is actually true? We still don't really know. So I wait to see that. But yeah, ultimately, it's a sad story with no real winners here.

And to his credit, he's never called Fiona Harvey a villain. And I think we wish them all, I certainly do, to come through this better than they went into it. And finally, after the huge reaction to our baby reindeer coverage, at the single mum entrepreneur, has this suggestion. Lots of material over baby reindeer too. Come on Netflix, let's do this. Well, you know what? If I know my streamers, they're probably already planning it now.

The question is, who plays me? Will it be Brad or Leo? Yeah. That's it for this week's mailback. Remember, if you want to watch the whole interview, as well as the debates have followed, all available now on our YouTube channel. Like and subscribe while you're there with the fast.

Fastest growing YouTube channel of its kind anywhere in the world. We're approaching 3 million subscribers, great content, and it will keep coming. Until next time, keep it unscensored.