Piers Morgan Uncensored - Baby Reindeer Update: Fiona Harvey To Sue Netflix

Episode Date: May 22, 2024

Piers Morgan’s now infamous interview with Fiona Harvey, the woman internet sleuths quickly identified as the ‘real’ Martha Scott from the Netflix hit Baby Reindeer, continues to rack up views and divide opinion. Since the interview, Fiona has issued a statement confirming that she is planning to take legal action against ‘all of those who have lied about me’. Piers Morgan Uncensored invites commentator Ava Santina, media lawyer Jessica Welch, criminal defense lawyer Mark Geragos, Deadline Editor Jake Kanter and Popcorned Planet's Andy Signor to discuss the ongoing fallout; with Mark calling what has happened defamation and Ava raising issues of trans fetishization from the show’s creator Richard Gadd. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is a media release on behalf of Fiona Harvey, the media firestorm around baby reindeer, and my rapid identification as the real Martha have caused untold damage to my health. I think this raises some really serious questions for Netflix. They have willfully ignored questions from journalists. The accusation that somebody is a convicted felon, that is defamation. Her entire agency was completely taken away from her, and I think she was propelled into a situation. It's not a clear-cut case. as some of these stalker cases tend to be,

it's all a bit messy. Just because somebody is troubled, does that mean you get to accuse them of being a criminal? The burden is on the person who's made the allegation to prove the substantial truth in it. I'll say it if you're all afraid to.

Martha's crazy. But if we're going to believe what Richard said about himself, you've got to believe what he's saying about Martha. The fallout from my bombshell interview with Fiona Harvey, the so-called Real Martha from baby reindeer, shows no sign of abating.

In fact, it's only gathering pace. A sudden newspaper today reporter that Fiona Harvey sent 276 emails, many of them pretty abusive, to secure Stama, quite likely the next British Prime Minister back in 2020. Meanwhile, Richard Gad, who wrote the show and played the lead role, said he no longer wants to comment on it. But wanted the real-life people to be found, I'd have made it a documentary, he told Hollywood Reporter.

I've spoken publicly about how I don't want people to do it, and if I start playing a game of whack-a-mole, then I'm almost adding to it. I don't think I'll ever comment on it ever again. Well, you might have no choice. Fiona Harvey is now planning to sue Netflix, aided by Chris Dawl, KC, as he revealed on this show. And the British MP has written to Netflix demanding evidence for their policy chiefs claim to a parliamentary committee that the drama was based on a convicted stalker. And on that final point, which seems pivotal to the legal case, there still is no evidence of a criminal record for Fiona, even as demands grow ever louder for proof. Well, we'll be discussed latest developments in its extraordinary story, including a.

A new statement from Fiona Harvey released in the last few minutes, international investigation editor-editor, Jake Cantor, entertainment lawyer Mark Garagos, and host and creator of Popcorn to Planet on YouTube, where he fights for pop culture justice. Andy Signal, by the word, and here in the studio, media lawyer Jessica Welch, alongside regular uncensored contributor Ava Santina.

Okay, this is the statement, because you think he's rather relevant to our debate. My name is Fiona Harvey. Early in 2024, Netflix released a program called Baby Ross, reindeer, which they build and marketed as a true story. One of the two main characters, Martha, was clearly intended to be based on me. The problem for Richard Gader now for Netflix is that baby reindeer is not a true story. I'm not a convicted stalker. I've never been charged with any crime, let alone being convicted, still less pretty guilty, and of course I've never been to prison

for anything. This is how Gadden Netflix chose to portray me in a TV show for their own financial game. Nobody ever approached me for any comment on the accuracy of baby reindeer or the very serious and damaging allegation that I'm a convicted criminal with a serious criminal record who spent time in prison. Nobody ever asked for my permission to present me in this way or to use my image at all. The media firestorm around baby reindeer and my rapid identification as the real Martha have caused untold damage to my health, my reputation, my job prospects and my ability to make sensible decisions about my welfare and best interest. With assistance of a senior English lawyer, Chris Dorr, KC, I'm putting together a legal team in the UK and in the US to take forward legal action against all of those

who've lied about me and use my image to make large sums of money for themselves, which such damaging consequences for me and my family. In the meantime, for the good of my health, please respect my privacy and please stop the endless calls and messages, asking for interviews, comments, and so many other things. I've made it clear I'm not physically able to cope with relentless harassment from journalists. If it continues, I will make a report to the police. So, quite a bombshell statement there that's been released, I think, to the Press Association, literally as we were about to start this debate. Let me start with you, Jessica Welch, from a legal perspective.

How strong a case does she have? So this is a really interesting one. I mean, you've got everything that Netflix or Gad said in the program as being a true story and the depiction of Martha as being this stalker, a sexual assaughter, potentially an unhinged individual. And then you've got her coming out once these online sleuths have identified her, confirming that she thinks it's her and saying that none of that is true. I mean, one of the most damaging things,

I think, is this allegation that she was arrested and convicted of stalking, and indeed that she admitted that. So if she can show that all of these things that she says are damaging allegations that have caused third parties to think worse of her are false, then, yeah, she is likely to have a claim against Netflix and Gad.

That's not to say that she's going to be successful in that claim because as you've mentioned on both this show and previously, it's all going to come down to the evidence. Does it matter for the purposes of what she is taking legal action about, this idea that she was a convicted, self-confessed criminal, does it matter that she has been apparently trolling people like Gia Stama and others with pretty unpleasant emails? Does any of that actually have any bearing on any litigation she's talking about here? Well, the two things are separate, right? She's saying, I have been defamed in the show by Netflix and Gad. Those allegations that they are saying about her,

i.e. that she's a stalker, that she was convicted, etc., are separate from what is now being alleged that she's done towards Kirstama and others. You can't, under UK law, rely on, as a publisher, rely on the harm that someone else has caused you in order to get out of any liability on your own part. But it all builds a pitch, doesn't it? And I suppose undermines, and I have no idea. I have to preface all of this.

I don't know what has happened. We haven't seen behind those doors. No, and that's why we're all so interested in it because it's just running and running and running. But, you know, the fact that, you know, Netflix felt confident in broadcasting this show and Gad wanted to tell it in this way and they prefaced it with a true story,

you have to think that, you know, enough of it is true. But, you know, and these other allegations that are now coming to, like, certainly nod towards undermining her credibility, but who knows? You know, she might go to her firm of lawyers and say, look, I've got all this evidence that shows that this is all a load of rubbish. And that would... Well, I mean, all we know is that today, no journalist in the world, there's been a global phenomenon,

no journalists in the four weeks since Netflix put this out, has been able to find any evidence of a criminal conviction. Yeah. We bring in Jake here on this. I mean, it's an extraordinary. media story, never mind anything else, isn't it? At the center of this, you have a guy who was doing a successful show

on stage up in Scotland, slightly under the radar, really. Then Netflix, this global powerhouse streamer, get hold of it. They blast it to the world as a true story. And now it would appear that some of the central tenets of the story may not be true at all.

Where does this leave Netflix, do you think? Hi there. Well, I think it's quite remarkable story. I've never really seen anything like it. I've covered the industry for well over a decade now. And I think this raises some really serious questions for Netflix. Piz, you've spoken about

this on a number of platforms recently. I think there is clear evidence that there has been potentially a failure of duty of care to Fiona Harvey. Putting the legal questions to one side, we know now that she was not contacted

prior to the show being streamed on Netflix. And I think that and itself, it raises enormous concern, I think. And we also now know that she's not been contacted following the show being broadcast, despite claiming that she has had death threats and that she's had unwanted attention from the media and from elsewhere. And it's clear, I think, that there are serious questions for Netflix, but I also think that we're not going to get any potential answers. At Netflix, as far as I'm concerned, I've been contacting them regularly throughout the past

couple of weeks, seeking comment on all of this. They have willfully ignored questions from journalists. And the only response we have from them is because, coincidentally, one of their policy directors was in front of a parliamentary committee and was asked about it. And that's the only way we know about their position. But that could be quite interesting, couldn't it? Because John Nicholson MP has now written to Benjamin King, the Senior Director of Public Policy,

who appeared in Parliament, and he said that, you told me the following, he says to it. Baby Reader is obviously a true story of the horrific abuse of the writer, which we know that Richard Gallows, he suffered at the hands of a convicted stalker. We did take every reasonable precaution

and disguised in the real-life identity of people while striking a balance with the veracity and authenticity of the story. Journalists have thus far been unable to find a record of the conviction to which you referred. Can you provide me with the evidence for this serious claim which you made to meet the Select Committee? This may be the way that Netflix actually is compelled to provide any evidence that it has, isn't it, Jake?

I mean, if a UK Parliament believes that you may have misled them, that's a pretty serious offence for a company like Netflix, which operates in the UK. Yep, there are clear questions as to whether Parliament was misled, whether that was done willfully, we're not clear on at the moment. But it's that juxtaposition of Benjamin King, who works of Netflix, saying this is a true story, and that Martha, this individual who's depicted within the show, was convicted.

And that could be the hook with which Netflix has to answer some questions. And they will have to respond to John Nicholson, I'm sure, whether they will address the matter directly remains to be seen. But yeah, it could be a potential way in. into getting Netflix's views. And look, I'm sure they'll be looking at this from California and thinking this is not great for us PR-wise. We perhaps need to come up with a strategy to address it.

Well, let me go to Mark Garagos, who is I think in California and a top lawyer there. I mean, Mark, we've talked about this before. It's interesting in the statement, Fiona Harvey's put out through Chris Dorr, KC, that they're also getting a team together, legal team in the US. So clearly, they are planning to launch

multi-geographic lawsuits here. Where does the position stand, do you think, in America with this? Well, I will tell you that a couple of the things that both of your guests have talked about are going to become very important in California. Number one, the accusation that somebody is a convicted felon, that is defamation under California law, especially when there is no evidence of it. The doubling down in testimony in front of Parliament is about as good at ratification. You know, Netflix has this litigation strategy where they always like to point at the production company or the production company points at them. Here you've got a situation where we know that they've represented that she is a convicted felon. We now know that based on the testimony of a Netflix executive that he has doubled.

down on that. And by the way, that ratification, that kind of saying, yes, she was convicted, somebody, I guarantee you, I've been doing this long enough to know, somebody prepared him before he went in front of that testimony. He either had a crisis manager, a PR person, a communications person who told him that this was done, it was vetted. They've got, I'm going to say again, if it is true she has not been convicted, she has a wail of a case. There isn't a lawyer I know that does this kind of law in California that would not take this on a contingency. I completely agree.

Ava, let's talk about another part of this, which is, you know, I've been accused by some journalists of exploiting Fiona Harvey by giving her a platform to give her response, to which my response has been, but the whole point of her doing the interview with me was because she believes she is the one who's been exploited? Why should it be that Richard Gad, who has had, by his own admission, serious mental health issues? Why should he be allowed to have a platform on the magnitude of the one Netflix gave him? And yet the person that is flushed out of this, Fiona Harvey, has been the real-life Martha and is depicted apparently egregiously wrongly as a convicted stalker that she should somehow not be allowed to have her say?

No, I agree with you. her entire agency was completely taken away from her. And I think she was propelled into a situation of which she had no control over and also had no means to deal with it properly. And actually, I'm going to say, I think that you were right to interview her because it was the first time that she actually had a moment

to actually, you know, speak for herself. And look, you know, I think as this unravels, I think, you know, when the show first came out, I think it sort of was presented in a way that Richard Gadd was someone who had been attacked by a villain and there seemed to be the sort of like very clear, good, bad lines.

But actually, as this story on Revels, those lines seem to blur. And I know that this is a conversation that has been happening in the trans community now for some weeks since the Netflix show first came out. I mean, I do know someone personally, and I've seen messages that Richard has sent to her. And, you know, there's been a conversation

actually even publicly by one trans woman actress where she's been talking about. She felt, you know, that he'd been using his position in a way that was not particularly palatable. You know, the messages that I'd seen from a different person, it actually seemed to, it seems as if he was fetishising her, which is totally unacceptable. Yeah, and I've seen one...

It was investigated. Sorry, Jake, yeah. Yeah, sorry, I'm aware of that case that is being referred to, and that was investigated by Clark &well Films, the producer behind Baby Rindier, and they cleared Richard of all wrongdoing, despite serious questions about his professional conduct. Yeah, I mean, it's all looked.

I think it's all a mess. And the interesting thing about Richard Gad, Ava, is that he actually's gone out of his way not to call the stalker a villain. It's interesting. He's used that. And when you watch the series, he's so messed up himself. He's having all these issues with heavy drug abuse, wild sexual promiscuity. He's all over the place. You know, and I've said this from the start of this. It's a messy all over picture here. This is a guy who admits he led her on quite a lot who performed sex. sex acts watching her on his laptop. All this is stuff he's putting in his own series about himself, right? So it's not a clear-cut case, as some of these stalker cases tend to be. It's all a bit messy. And I wonder whether Richard Gadd has been completely truthful or was able to be completely truthful, given potential memory issues, with Netflix. Well, I think that's the question that's come up during the Select Committee, isn't it?

Because, you know, this person during the Select Committee seemed to be so confident that actually she was a convicted stalker. And, you know, that is now, well, turning out possibly not to be true. So it does seem that perhaps you're dealing with someone who hasn't told the utmost truth. And actually, that's a question for Netflix. Have you been, you know, administering the correct duty of care? And it doesn't seem like they have.

Well, look, I think on that, they've spectacularly failed. They choose an actress who looks physically very like Fiona Harvey. They make a speak very like Fiona Harvey. The actress is not Scottish. And they use phraseology, which was immediately, when they put it on the series, immediately internet sluice as they do, took the phrases, put them into X, formerly Twitter,

and found the exact same phrases that Fiona Harvey had been used and therefore found her Twitter account and identity. I mean, it took about three seconds. We're bringing Andy here. Andy, as a pop culture phenomenon, I've not seen anything like this for a very long time, and I've been at the forefront of pop culture, from tabloid newspapers to, you know,

doing big talent shows, all this kind of thing. This has been quite extraordinary. We've had nearly 13 million people and watched this interview that I did on our YouTube channel. Obviously, 25 to 30 million people around the world have watched the series itself. We have one clip from our interview on TikTok,

on our TikTok channel, which has had 27 million people watch it. And I've been struck just by the volume of people, some very famous people, some of the most famous people in Hollywood have been messaging. me about this, wanting to know the truth. What do you make of it as a pop culture phenomenon? Look, it's undeniably huge. I mean, but in listening to everybody, I'm a little just shock.

I guess I'll be the different voice here because I'll say it if you're all afraid to. Martha's crazy. Martha's legitimately crazy, I think. And look, and I'm more comfortable to say it now, Pierce, because since our last appearance, thank you for having me back. She called me a total moron on her Facebook posts. We can go after Richard Gad all day long. and there's valid reasons. He was very honest, I think. But if we're going to believe what Richard said about himself, we've got to believe what he's saying about Martha.

Look, I think Martha is a mess. And I also think Martha put herself out in the situation to say, oh, poor Martha, I don't, I'm not feeling it as more and more comes out. But crazy, okay, but Andy, I think it's a perfectly valid point to make. And certainly if you read the emails, she's sent to people like Keir Stama and others, that is not the work of somebody you would think

is completely a rational thought. being a bit crazy or even being a troll doesn't make you a criminal. And from a legal perspective, it's that point. I was just going to say, if I could jump in for one second, in California we have what they call the eggshell theory. You do not get to just because somebody is damaged goods. And I will echo the idea that, look, I thought you had a rather soft touch with her,

and she still did not seem to be telling you the whole truth. But the fact remains. Just because somebody is troubled does not mean you get to accuse them of being a criminal under the law. That is, you don't get a free pass just to pile on somebody and accuse them of false things because they have their own issues to begin. Right. And, Andy, I mean, I think that's the point is that, you know, you might be right. Maybe she is a bit crazy. But that doesn't give anyone the right to make her out to be a convicted, self-admitted, as it turns out in the series.

They have a breaking down. saying, I did this. This is such a clear-cut case. Why isn't she already doing it? Like, I just, I don't, I'm starting to not believe her case, but of course, if she wasn't arrested, which out in the UK is harder to prove, let's also be honest about that.

Unlike the US, some of that stuff gets put away, correct? Like, it's not as public facing out by you guys as it is here in America. So there is, it's a little bit harder to pull those documents out. I find it hard pressed to believe Netflix would put all this in there and do it. Look, let's be honest,

Netflix is making so much money. So did you, Pierce. People are making money off of this because people are fascinated. Right. I don't think Netflix is worrying. I think Netflix is enjoying the fact that we're still talking about it

because it means more subscriptions. And look, if Fiona's telling the truth, then by all means, prove it. Like, to me, it's the burden is now on her to prove this isn't a true story. And by all means, if she does that and says, look, I didn't send these emails, I didn't harass, I didn't assault this woman.

I didn't do this to prime minister. That's interesting. All that comes forward, then I will eat my tail. but I'm kind of waiting for her to prove it at this point. Well, that's interesting. Let me bring back Jessica, because I'm not sure the burden of proof should be on her

or is on her in UK law, is it? I mean, she doesn't have to prove this isn't true. No. Netflix and Clark &well films and Richard Gad are going to have to prove it is true. They made the allegation. Yeah, so under English law, the position is that if you say that someone else has defamed you and that allegation is false, the burden is on the person who has made the allegation

to prove the substantial truth in it if they're relying on a defence of truth. Of course, there are other defences on his opinion, public interest, which will weigh into the balance. But for truth specifically, Netflix and GAD will have to prove the substantial truth in that allegation. So how you prove that an allegation

that she has been imprisoned is substantially true, I'm not sure. Surely it either is or it's not. But, you know, that's a slight nuance under the UK law here, that the burden rests on them. But as we've all talked about, I think the really interesting point is what's to come. You know, Netflix has almost shut their doors,

and it doesn't mean to say that they're not doing anything behind the scenes, I'm sure they are. I do think that they probably are worried about this. I understand your point about, you know, enhanced subscriptions and, you know, greater viewer figures, et cetera. But I think, you know, from a legal and regulatory perspective and from a duty of care perspective, they will be worried about it,

as will all other streamers and broadcasters because it has caused such an enormous tidal wave of interest. Yeah, and Ava, let me ask you about the bigger picture here is that should all this kind of stuff be the subject of public delictation in the way that it's played out? I mean, you know, there is an argument. You've got two very damaged people here.

I think that's pretty indisputable, whichever way you look at this. They're damaged in the depiction in the Netflix series. They seem quite damaged. in real life, albeit maybe they're not either of them suffering from any actual mental illness. They just seem like damaged people. There are people who said to me yesterday, something got to me, I think it was a fascinating interview you did and the series of fascinating, but I feel really uncomfortable about all of this,

actually. Yeah, I mean, journalistically, it would be a very interesting story if, you know, she had been a convicted stalker and, I say, the Metropolitan Police were ignoring Richard Gads' cry for help, but actually it doesn't seem to be that way at all. and actually it seems to be rather exploitative. Yeah, I mean, Jake, what's the view do you think in the industry about this? Do people, are they looking at their own standards and practices and thinking we better be damn careful?

Because it seems if all Netflix had done at the start of the series, if they just had a thing at the start saying, based on a true story, but actually it has a lot of stuff which isn't true, wouldn't that have been the traditional way to just get out of all this problem? Yeah, I mean, I went to the BAFTA's last weekend and let me tell you, they were, you know, the brightest minds in the TV industry in that room and the main topic of conversation was baby reindeer. And that shows you the impact it's had, I think. People are aghast and gobsmacked at the fact that Netflix has allowed this to broadcast in this way. I think if it was on the BBC or even ITV, there would be an enormous ruckus around this show.

it would be a huge scandal. I mean, I appreciate it. It's already quite a big scandal, but I think it would be an even bigger one if it was at the BBC. I think, yeah, I've spoken to some very senior former BBC executives who've got experience of working on factual dramas like this, and they can't believe that more was not done to protect identities. And that could mean, you know, changing names, changing identities, changing the way the character looks, the way they sound, where they come from. And, you know, clearly Netflix did some of those things, but it did not do enough. Yeah, I think on that indisputable failure of duty of care.

I mean, Andy, would it have been the same way around if it had been a male stalker and a female victim? I think, I mean, it would have been different. I mean, but I think, look, and I agree with a lot of what you're saying, that I think Netflix did a huge disservice by saying this is a true story. It would have been so easy to say, this is based on true events. At the same time, they never said her name was Fiona. I agree.

I pointed out last time that there were some tweets that were easy to find, but I do think Fiona caused this on herself. She could have stepped away. She didn't have to be as vocal that I'm the real life, Martha. I mean, she came on your show. Well, she was to be fair to it. I don't believe she didn't know. Yeah, but she was identified by media before she went public herself.

But she accepted that, right? She had to respond to those journalists and accept those interviews. Well, she couldn't really not accept it given that literally Netflix repeated, Richard Gagg, repeated direct phrases from her posts. It was very clear. She could have deleted those accounts, Pierce. I mean, if she wanted to protect herself. Well, she could have done loads of things, but why should she feel obliged to? Well, why should, I mean, if he's telling the truth, why should they be obliged to censor the story?

Okay, Mark. Legally, yeah, legally, she does not have to. And by the way, that is a reaction that I've heard from a lot of people, that why did she come out? why did she affirm it? Why did she say that? All of those I get are a normal reaction to this. But legally, no, that doesn't make any difference whatsoever. And the head scratcher, to the point that people are talking about this, because they are clearly here in California talking about this nonstop, nobody can understand the testimony that was given where they doubled down on it. That just is incomprehensible. That to me is one of the,

more baffling parts of all this, because the furori have been building to send in one of your top executives to the UK Parliament under oath, I presume, because most of the statements in Parliament are under oath, and to double and triple down. You know, this is a true story about a convicted stalker, and we did all we could to protect identities. None of that seems to be true. I have to caveat that by saying, we just don't know yet. I mean, somebody may find out tomorrow that she has got a criminal record. I don't think so. Because when I ran a newspaper,

it didn't take a month for the world's journalists when I ran a newspaper. Either they've got very bad at their jobs or we would know by now. Well, you know, what I keep saying, and I said this last time we talked about this, they've got some of the most aggressive, in-house, outside counsel

and comms people I've ever seen. The idea that somebody has not pointed out to the conviction, which would be a court-referral record, it's not sealed, is just, it's inexplicable to me. I just do not understand it. Let me ask, Jessica, you do reputational stuff as well. If you're Richard Gell, I've emailed him, said that last week, to offer him a platform to come on and have his say. I've got friends of mine who've worked with him. He's speak very highly of him, in contrast to what Ava was saying. He's clearly a mixed

bag of response to what he's like. But would you recommend he do an interview now to try and clear this up? I think it's difficult. I think, you know, if threats, as it were, of legal action are being made now, I think he needs to be quite careful as to what he's saying publicly. You know, everything that he now says and has already said is going to be used either against him or to support him, whichever way it is. I mean, I saw an interview he gave to GQ a while, I think it was in April, and he said that parts of it were fictionalized, you know, is an emotional.

but perhaps factually not 100% true. And everyone keeps referring to that. So he needs to be quite careful now. And I think interviews are a fantastic way to give someone a platform who maybe hasn't had a voice before, but they can also cause slight problems. And we've seen that happen with public figures before who have gone onto shows to tell their side of the story

and they've fallen foul of what they were hoping came out. Are we talking Prince Andrew here, Money Charles? I might think so but you can possibly comment. Yeah, so I think, you know, I'm sure there are many discussions happening behind the scenes, both with Netflix, Clark and World Films. You know, I don't know if there's any inter-party stuff going on yet, but I think he now probably needs to be a bit careful about what he's saying publicly. Yeah, well, certainly, in light of this statement's come out tonight,

it's going to get a lot of global attention. It's a massive phenomenon in this thing. And the fact that she's come out so strongly, you know, it's going to really put the ball back into Netflix's court. I don't think any of them will better stay silent for a lot longer, but we shall see. Thank you to my panel. Excellent debate.

Thank you.