Piers Morgan Uncensored - Baby Reindeer Update: Top Lawyer To Take on Fiona Harvey Case

Episode Date: May 14, 2024

Piers Morgan’s interview with Fiona Harvey, the woman identified as the inspiration for stalker Martha Scott in the hit Netflix drama Baby Reindeer, was published to YouTube. In just five days, the video gained an eye-watering 10 million views from around the world and left viewers with more questions than answers. In this debate Imarn Ayton, Chris Daw, Officer Tatum and Andy Signore wonder aloud whether Netflix could face legal trouble as well as whether Piers should’ve given Fiona a platform at all. Significantly, lawyer Chris Daw explains that he’s considering taking Fiona Harvey’s case! Piers Morgan Uncensored is the global arena for fearless debate, bold opinions and major interviews. Subscribe for all-new and exclusive daily 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

Well, there's been an extraordinary global reaction to my interview with Fiona Harvey, the real Martha from Baby Reindeer. More than 10 million people have so far watched the full interview on our YouTube channel. More than 30 million more have seen it on our other social media platforms. Many seem to have enjoyed it, and inevitably many did not. The backlash has centred on whether I was right to give Fiona Harvey her right of reply at all. And to the assertions made in our panel that Netflix could have a serious legal challenge on its hands for making us so easily identifiable

and claiming emphatically it was a true story. So you've seen the interview, you've seen my verdict, we've heard one debater about it, and now we debate the fallout to discuss. I'm joined by the social commentator, Imman Aiton, Defence Barrister Chris Dorr, KC, and State's side, Officer Tatum, YouTube channel, and Popcorn's Planet's Andy Signore.

Well, welcome to all four of you. All right, Imam, I saw you on another show I used to Grace, Good morning, Britt. All right. And here's what I thought. I thought you raised a good point. Okay? And that's why I wanted to get you on today.

Get you back on unsensitive because the point you made was you felt that there were ethical concerns about having her at all on a platform as big as this one globally. So explain to me why. Okay, so I think you went wrong in regards to a moral perspective.

And this is where I think the conundrum lies and this kind of issue in terms of understanding what is actually happening with this dynamic. So we've got two things. I basically think at the heart of this conversation, thank you, at the heart of this conversation is a moral perspective versus a capitalistic perspective. So I'll just break it down.

Just so you know, those two things can be true, work together at the same time, but they often clash. So for you, in regards to a moral perspective, you were completely and utterly wrong peers. The reason why is because you just, decided to exploit a situation in a way that is deemed to be unfair and underhand. Why? Because with all of your expertise, with all of your intelligence, you decided you was

going to, I'm talking to you right now, but I'll let everyone know he decided he was going to capitalize off of a situation in a way that isn't okay. The reason why is because he knew with his expertise that he was, I don't know, or she was, rather, potentially a compulsive liar, that's the truth, potentially mentally unstable and unwell. And in spite knowing that, with all of your expertise, you decided to continue with the interview. And this is why you morally went wrong, but I will be fair, because I'm a centrist. I'm not left, nor am I right, I am a centrist. From a capitalistic perspective, because that's what we're talking about, morals versus capitalistic perspective.

From a capitalistic perspective, peers, I believe you were excellent. Fantastic. This is why it's annoying because he does really well. He saw an opportunity, he utilised it and he decided to lead the way and blew every single person out of the water. So in terms of a capitalistic perspective, he was right. He was accurate. Okay, okay.

So you are right, you are wrong, both things can be true at the same time and therein lies the conundrum and this is the conversation we are here to have. Well, that's exactly the conversation we're going to have. So here's my response. Before I go to Chris Dorr next, my response would be this. Obviously, we gave it a lot of thought before we interviewed Fiona Harvey because I, like, many millions of people around the world, I'd watch the Netflix series. And it was a very harrowing series.

It's very funny in part. It's shocking. It's moving. It's all of those things. It's very honest. If you believe that Netflix, when they say this is a true story, story are telling the truth. But the real issue came that once Fiona Harvey's identity became known very, very quickly, thanks to internet sleuth. And it wasn't difficult. They chose an actress who

looked like her and they made her sound like her. They revealed it was a North London pub whether she'd been in. And then they revealed all the choice of messages, which could be easily tracked back to her own social media. So this took about 10 seconds for the sleuth to work it out. Once her identity was out and she was being written about in the papers. She was furious of what she saw as an unwarranted invasion of her privacy because no one on Netflix or Richard Gad, of course, the writer and the star of the series

had bothered to run this past her or check if it was okay that they did this to her. No duty of care, she felt, by Netflix or Richard Gad or Clark and Well Films because she was so easily identified so they claim to be protecting identities of those in the show they depicted clearly wasn't true and clearly was useless

ineffective. But thirdly, that she felt very seriously that she was being exploited for massive financial gain. That people were making a lot of money out of this story, and the story was not as they claimed the true story, but was a false

and irresponsible mischaracterization of the truth. Now, I don't know where the truth lies. No, you do know. You do know. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Amman, I don't ever say that. I don't ever say that again in life. Amman, I don't know. You do know. You do know. Don't interrupt. I will.

Okay, but you haven't let me finish. We don't know because absolutely no journalist in the world has yet been able to establish that this lady, Fiona Harvey... Right, so you're not good enough. Has a criminal record... I'm not good enough journalist. Can you stop interrupting? I'm going to interrupt.

You're used to it. It's a bit pointless because... No, it is. Continue. You got this. Nobody, including you, has produced any evidence that she's even been in a courtroom or charged with any offence or been convicted, let alone as the Netflix shows shows, her confessing to a crime which led to an eight-month prison sentence.

And that, if it's not true, to me, massively discredits the Netflix series and massively contradicts their claim it's a true story. So let me bring in Chris Dorr, Casey, a King's Council. So a top lawyer. Chris, I know that you've spoken today to Fiona Harvey. Having spoken to her, having watched my interview with her, having been aware of the global noise around the series, obviously. What is your view about the legal issues involved here?

Well, I think I agree with your analysis a few moments ago. If this show had been presented as a work of fiction or semi-fiction, and if that had been made crystal clear as a disclaimer at the beginning of the show and at the end credits, I think people would kind of understand that there is artistic license in that process. But I look myself today at the... Netflix press release for the show. And I think it describes it as a true story at least five times.

And in fact, at one point, it describes the predictable, sorry, the source material for the show as being, quote, real life. So throughout Netflix's marketing of this show and in the presentation of the show online on the Netflix platform, it's presented as being true. There's no caveat to that. And the problem with presenting something as truth when it is untrue and would be knowingly untrue to Mr. Gad, the creator of the program and of the script, the problem with that is that if the person involved is readily identifiable as here, as Fiona Harvey clearly is, then that person has a legitimate grievance. And I've spoken to her today, as you say, and she rightly feels extremely aggrieved at what's happening. happened to her and her reputation.

And to be clear, you know, I think there were a number of times personally in my interview with her where I didn't think she was telling me the truth and where what she was saying stretched the boundaries of credibility. However, I do think it's really significant that Netflix had this big denouement scene in the final episode. And I can show a little bit of this. We actually show Fiona the real Fiona watching Martha, who is based on her, and this scene from the final. Let's take a look. There's one key point in the drama that has Martha's character pleading guilty to intimidating Richard Gadd in court and sentenced to nine months prison time.

Let's watch. You are charged with the stalking of Mr. Donald Dunn between the dates of the 14th of August 2015 and the 22nd of March 2017. Are you guilty or not guilty? Guilty. You were charged with the harassment of Gerald Dunn and Eleanor Dunn between the dates of the 6th of June 2016 and the 22nd of March 2017. Are you guilty or not guilty? Guilty? Now again, there is obviously a resemblance between...

Do you think so? That's fairly flattery. Well, I don't mean to value you or not value you. I just think there is a resemblance, you know, having met... you and you both speak Scottish people. But the fundamental point of this is, did you take part of that? Did you go to jail?

Did you have a trial? Of course, no. Have you ever been to prison? No. Have you ever been charged in a criminal offence? No. Never? No.

Nothing. Nothing. So that scene is completely invented. That's completely false. Chris, from a legal perspective, I would have thought it's not difficult to establish whether she has a criminal record. There are ways of doing this, aren't there?

Yeah, there's the disclosure and barring service, which issues certificates, criminal records, checks as they're more commonly known. And anyone can apply for their own disclosure and barring service certificate. And that will reflect whether someone's been convicted in court. And of course, there are

court records. If it's suggested that this is a true element of the story and that she was in, did appear in a criminal court, was convicted and was sentenced, that's a matter of public record. and whichever court that happened at, would be able to release that information to the press. So it's either true or it's untrue.

And therein, I think, lies the problem for Netflix and the creators of this programme. Because I have yet to hear, by way of defence, that there is a court record showing that Fiona Harvey pleaded guilty to a crime and was sent to prison. And you would have thought they'd be shouting from the rooftops, if any such record existed. Yeah, I mean, I think, but we would have it by now.

No question. 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? It's a KC, is a King's Council. Okay, perfect. Right. So you should know better. Extremely senior lawyer. Right, if you did your homework, you would have realised that Richard Gadd made it very clear that Netflix

fictionalised 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. No, the Netflix series says this is a true story. And in fact, further than that, hang on. Hang on.

Let me finish. Further to that, last week a senior Netflix executive appeared in Parliament and under oath stated the following. Okay, go ahead. It's an extraordinary story and it is obviously a true story of the horrific abuse that the writer and protagonist Richard Gadd suffered at the hands of a convicted stalker. We did take every reasonable precaution in disguising the real-life identities of the people, you know, involved in that story. So, just to repeat, there is no evidence she's a convicted stalker. May interrupt.

Which means it's not a true story if that is the case. And they clearly did not do their duty of care to protect her identity. No, lie. Because she was identified within second. Lie. May interrupt. It's your show. May interrupt.

I'll just say it really quickly. Richard Gad and Netflix made it very clear that this is a fictionalised story. They literally just said it's true. Don't interrupt. You see, you want to get Aggie. You're going to, you're interrupting me. You haven't listened to what I'm just playing. No, so stop and listen to what I'm saying. Richard Gad and Netflix made it very clear that this is a fictionalised story.

Richard Gadd also made it clear on this morning and many other. No, in fact, it was just this morning and a few articles that I read, that he was trying to make it clear that he wanted to express a story that was based off of nuance in regards to the human experience, and it was fictionalised, fictionalised, for Netflix, as in they made it a bit more entertaining and salacious. Your styley, your thing. I'm, with respect, that is simply not true.

I've literally just played you a clip of a Netflix executive. And I'm giving you the nuance and giving you both ends of this. There's no nuance. It's either fictionalised or it's not. No, there's always nuance. Don't ever play that game. There's always nuance. And you know this, Piers.

You're an intelligent man. You know there is always nuance in life. Don't ever say that again in your life. Let me go. Let me go to Chris Law again. I mean, you can be into nuance as much as you like. but when you have an executive saying, can you let Chris respond, please? When you have somebody under oath in Parliament saying what he just said,

I mean, that seems to me, prime of face-said, they are saying it is a true story, and she was a convicted stalker, and they protect their identity. None of that seems at the moment to be true. If I can come in, Pierce, it's not true. I'm looking at the press release. I told you, this is the press release from the 15th of April when the show was first launched. and this is Netflix's own press release. And what it says is, while this type of storyline might seem familiar,

it's important to remember that this isn't just a story, it's true. And they say it's true without any caveat, without any reference to it being in some way partly true or nuanced. Sorry, Chris, sorry, Chris. No, no, it says that repeatedly. I'm going to show up now. It repeats itself. It says here, can I just quote this for a moment?

Well, it's no point. Contributors just going to interrupt. We're not going to get anyone. Sorry, you're right. You're right. I'm going to stop now. You're right. You're right. You're right. You're right. You're right. There is a massive headline in the press relief. Is baby reindeer a true story? And the quote is, it's true, says Richard Gad. Yes. Without any, it's true on an emotional, nuanced level and maybe not entirely accurately true. I can tell you now, the only reason why Richard Gad and Netflix have been coming out with all this

rubbish in the last few days is because they are defending themselves against an almost inevitable libel claim. That's what I feel. Let's bring in the two other guests. We've been watching and listening patiently. Officer Tatum, you've been all over this baby reindeer. What do you make if? I mean, it's an extraordinary story. It's gripping the world. I mean, the numbers we've been getting for the interview, for the debates, everything about it are almost unprecedented. What do you make of this? What does it say about us? And do you believe, do you believe Fiona Harvey? Well, I'll say this. You know, the reason why the story is so compelling is because it's supposed to be a true story.

I mean, maybe my wife watched the docket series, and we were blown away that this really happened. I mean, it was, you know, implemented or at least stated that this woman was absolutely insane and out of her mind. How could you send thousands of emails and messages she couldn't spell? She was kind of dumb. She lied about her story. You know, she was an incredible stalker. I mean, I felt, you know, some type of way, and I didn't even even. experience it. And the only reason that anyone could feel that way is because it said at the very

beginning of the documentary that this is a true story. And so I watch your, I watch your interview, and it had millions of views. And the reason why it had millions of views is because the implication of this young lady. And she actually comes on and does an interview with you. And my basic point is this when it comes to her interview. She made a lot of claims in your interview that if any of those claims are true that this is a huge problem for Netflix because she said things that can be readily provable

and if Netflix did not approve any of these things they're in a huge amount of trouble she says she's never been to jail she said she had never bashed anything at the parlor there at the bar she claimed that she had never assaulted him

raped him or whatever they want to call it she claimed that she had never done any of those things and if she's done none of those things And if she's done none of those things, this documentary should have never been made or they should have clarified. One extreme to the next, with all your respect,

and I know I keep interrupting, but I'm going to do it anyway. With one extreme to the next, I already said this, and I hear you, and I appreciate you, because I've seen you, and you talk a lot of sense.

I'm going to be respectful, okay? And a lot of nonsense. And a lot of nonsense, right, balance. So, they already made it clear that it was fictionalized, which I said earlier. But you know what? What you're all saying, wait, wait, wait.

It's not true. Wait, wait, wait, can I finish me? You can keep saying. You're the only person that's saying this. You're the only person on planet Earth They're saying that it's fictionalized. Gentlemen, gentlemen allow me to finish. If you can't just keep saying the same.

So, fictionalize. What you want, what you want, gentlemen, is the caption at the beginning. A true story. But was fictionalized. So you want a true. You want the full sentence. You want the full sentence. This is true story.

But fictional lies. The docuze is pointless if it's not true. You don't want to hear that. And class it's as untrue. That's a lie because you are extremists. You are all extremists. I'm a centrist. All right.

Let me. All right. Let me. Let me. Let me. Let me bring in Andy here. Andy here. Andy, look, it's not true that they said it was fiction.

Lies. You can call it lies. It's actually a lie to say that they said it was fictional. No, you're actually being inaccurate and you know this. And you know this. It's a point to argue because you clearly... Right, and then don't say that because you know I'm going to argue with you. So don't say that.

Let me bring in Andy. Andy, from a pop culture point of view, your area of global expertise, how big a phenomenon is baby reindeer now, do you think? Oh, it's massive. And I hear the argument she's making about you of, oh, should you've had her on? Of course you should. Don't let me down, sir. I bet she watched the interview too.

We all watched the interview because we wanted to see if this person was real and if she had a case, and I think all this just comes down to the fact of, are those emails real? Did she really stock and send these things? As Officer Tatum just said, she made a lot of claims on your show of things that aren't real. If those aren't real, she has an absolute case. I think Netflix made a real error when they didn't clean up some of the lines from the show. I mean, she was easy to find because you could look up, I need you to hang my curtains badly on Twitter, and it was literally to Richard Gad. This is a massive error on Netflix side. So you could keep interrupting us and saying whatever you want,

but there absolutely are fair legal debates here. I agree. I agree. No, I'm going to say I agree. It's a compliment. I agree. I agree. I don't care.

I want to talk. I agree. Let him speak, please. Thank you. Please be quiet, Ma'am. Let him speak. Shut up, Pierce. Go, go, go.

I've got you, sir. Let's go. Oh, my God. How do you do this, Pierce? I was trying to say, I think Netflix isn't a problem. But if Fiona's, I don't think she was. telling the truth. And if she is, and Netflix was hiding some of this, it's bad. But I wanted to add, sorry, I got distracted by interruption. I think it's important to say, look, morally should

you have had her on, I've wrestled with that myself. She chose to come on. She chose, but wait, ma'am, she chose to put herself out there. She chose to keep her Facebook public. She chose to talk and do interviews. No, she's entitled to. I had a psychologist. She's entitled to tell her story. Yeah, of course she is. I had a psychologist, tip, say. I had a psychologist, Is this, does a, does a, you know, someone, it seems like it's narcissistic personality disorder, potentially. I'm not a doctor. But as experts I've spoken to, that's where it is. And that doesn't mean you have a lack of awareness or that you're unable to know right from wrong.

Right. So the question for me is that she is so mentally ill that we shouldn't be talking to her. If she's done the thing she's done, yeah, we should be calling her out. Yes, we should demand accountability. And I think the funniest thing about all of this, the one part apparently that's not true about Netflix is her not taking accountability in court, which is not a good look for her. So I think if the emails and all of that

are inaccurate, she absolutely has a case in my opinion because she was so easy to find. And I hope a judge, I would love to see that case. And I encourage it. I want to jump in real quick. Can I say something, please? I just want to say, Pierce, I thought it was an incredible opportunity. If the woman

did not do any of the things that are in this viral documentary, she deserves a platform. And I think it was incredible. Let me finish. I think it was incredible because the people who have watched it have built an opinion

and she's either going to confirm that opinion or she's going to expose it as a lie. She deserves to have a platform in reach. I needed to watch that. Everybody who watched this docuseries needed to see is this woman really crazy? And if she's not, if Pierce had not brought her own,

she would not have a voice whatsoever. She cannot clear up any of these lies because this docu-series is so viral. There's so many people talking about it. It was number one on Netflix. There has to be tens of millions of people who are watching this. And her character, her whole existence

will be destroyed forever if all of these things that were put in this documentary were untrue. Can I bring Chris back in? Can I just say one sentence? One sentence. Please indulge me.

You can tell I'm ready to go. Yes, every single person on this planet has the right to reply, but not every single person is afforded the opportunity. And this is why, in regards to morality, Piers went wrong, because he decided to platform someone. Just so you know, there are only 5% of stalkers in this country. I lied. It was more than one sentence. There's only 5% of stalkers in this country that are actually convicted. So Pierce decided, with his expertise, intelligence, platform and provenance, he decided he was going to platform an accused stalker.

5% of stalkers are convicted. And there are 700,000 victims of stalkers in this country. Baby Rainier. And here's decided to delve into Fiona. And this is why I'm Aggie. This is why I'm animated. And this is why I keep interrupting with my black style. Okay.

Let me bring Chris Gordon. The docu series, the docu series exposed her. It wasn't hard to see. I mean, the actors should win an award. She exposed herself. The actress should win an award. Let's be clear. How closely related she was to the actual personal key.

Netflix put Fiona Harvey out onto the global platform by putting a character in their series, which could only have been her, which is why she got recognised within 10 seconds when people referenced the messages that were put in the show. Can you please let me finish? But you knew what you were doing then. No, I knew I was platforming a woman who wanted to have her say.

And also is potentially a compulsive liar and potentially unstable and unwell. And you knew that with all of your television and your journalistic... The good thing is you are proving right now that I do platform people who might be unstable. Yes. So let's just be clear about that. And also conscious. So, yes, you're right, you're right. Let me bring.

Let me bring. I could be unstable, but I can also be very conscious, pragmatic, logical. And you can also let other people talk. You're really rude. Let me bring Chris back in. 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. And would that be a pro bono situation? I'm not going to discuss the terms of engagement. All I can tell you is this, Pearce. I think that there's a degree to which the main point is being missed here. Netflix have chosen to make vast money, huge amounts of money, from promoting this programme as being a true story. And they have done so without telling the public whether, in fact,

now that Fiona Harvey has challenged them on that key detail of her being a quote-unquote, quote, convicted stalker who would sent to prison repeatedly and multiple times sent to prison is the allegation made within the program. Before and after Richard Gad, she was supposedly previously convicted and imprisoned and then pleaded guilty and imprisoned again according to the program. Netflix have not come out and said one way or the other, whether they are standing by the allegation that she is a convicted stalker with a criminal record who's been to prison or not.

if it turns out as a result of our inquiries into her criminal record background that she has no criminal record Netflix will have a legal case to watch. No, they said it was fictionalised. Chris, you do better, you're a lawyer. Chris actually knows. It's not good enough to just say fictionalized.

Emma, show some respect to a King's Denzel, please. But when you come with lies, I'm going to correct you. Yeah, you're the one lying. You are the one lying. It's very uncomfortable and annoying, but you know what? I don't find you uncomfortable or annoying. I just think you're lying. I said that to your guests because I've interrupted three of your lovely guests

and came on today and I just want to apologize. Can you let it have to apologize? And you should actually be ashamed of your behavior. Okay, Officer Tatum, let me come to you. You end up having to correct. Please stop talking and let Officer Tatum talk. You're going to get what you wish for. Officer Tatum.

I'm surprised that she wasn't in that movie, their docket series, because she's absolutely out of control. But let me just say it like this. You know, I think it's, you know, incredible. and because you cannot say that it's fictionalized. You have to also act in good faith. You cannot say, well, I don't want to name anybody, but you have a character that probably did the best acting

I'd ever seen in my life because as soon as you brought on the show, I thought that was the person who was acting. This was the real woman who was being accused. That's how closely related the actor was to the actually accused. And so you can't just say in an interview one day, it was fictionalized. No, every sign of symptom, every creation of this documentary made it seem like it was real all the way down to the characters.

And they portrayed a lot of other people who could easily be exposed. There was tons of people that worked with him, many people that knew him, many people would have known of her. It's not reasonable to think that they could not be discovered. I think it was incredibly sloppy for them to then throw out all of this information that can expose every single person that he was really referring to and then say, well, I hope nobody's search. This is the top

docu-series on Netflix. This is huge. People are going to search. Why would anybody not? Everybody's curious. Did this woman really do this? She is one of the craziest women on planet Earth if this, in fact, is true.

And people are enthralled with the docu-series, which is close to them. I totally agree. Let me bring it, let me bring it, Andy. Andy, I mean, where do we go from here? Do you think with this? Well, I have a question for you. All the Internet wants to know.

and I'm sorry if I missed if you're answered. Has she stalked your producers who reached out? I feel like it's relevant. To be honest, she's had a couple of slightly intemperate messages, but nothing particularly out of the ordinary. But she's also today had a very good conversation with two of my producers and was in a pretty good place about it all. Look, I think anyone like Fiona Harvey

who is suddenly propelled into the global public spotlight, albeit willingly when she came on this show, But anyone who does that, you know, you lose your anonymity in a flash. But, of course, the reason she came on was that her anonymity had been shattered by what Netflix did. And as Chris Doyle rightly says, the key question, outside from the abject failure of duty of care, the key question is, if you say somebody is a self-confessed, by the way, because she was seen pleading guilty, if you're a self-confessed convicted multiple stalker, And it turns out none of that is actually true.

I think it's a prima facie open and shut legal case, whatever Netflix say. I do know, by the way, that Netflix, in their private briefings to journalists so far, have produced zero evidence of any conviction. And yet Richard Gad has been going around. And listen, I don't think he's a very talented guy. He's had a massive success. He was a BAFTA awards last night. And good luck to him. I think he's a very talented guy.

But something has gone wrong here, both in the duty of care process and in the legal process, because a company is big and powerful and richest Netflix, with all the infrastructure they have to avoid this kind of thing, for them to stamp on every episode at the start, this is a true story. When the culmination of that story may apparently be completely untrue and incredibly damaging to the person they make it about, then I think this becomes a big problem for Ms. Chris has rightly said. So it'll be interesting to see how we go.

It's incredibly frustrating. I was just going to say, it's incredibly frustrating as she keeps talking about. Well, no, they said it's fictionalized. Not everyone saw the follow-ups. Like we can't have every audience member, all the 100 million people that watch on Netflix watch everything they produce. They're watching the show, and the show says it's a true story.

That's what legally matters. And that's why I was asking you, because I'm curious. I think it was the Daily Mailer. Someone said that she was being very aggressive and verbally mean and calling him names after the interview. You have an experience. We have not had that really at all. I mean, I think, look, I think she's a volatile person. I personally believe she did send all those messages

because I do believe that Netflix and Richard Gabb must have evidential stuff about those. I also think she wrote him 106 handwritten letters and she admitted sending one. You just compare the handwriting and it's probably proof there. But that's to be decided, frankly, by a lawsuit. And actually, even if she did send all those messages, that might indicate an unhealthy obsession with this guy,

although he, by his own admission, both in interviews and in the series, has said that he was very screwed up at the time. He was taking a lot of drugs, had a very wild sex life, and so on. He may not be deemed to be the most reliable account of his own story, from his own memory. So all these things are to be established,

I think, in a proper manner. But it just seems to me, Chris, I mean, there are two things here, Ultimately, one is the duty of care issue, which I don't think should be ignored at all, because I don't think a company like the BBC, for example, would have ever let this go through in the way that Netflix has allowed it to for legal reasons. But secondly, ultimately, if you call someone a convicted stalker and they're not, that is a serious, serious defamation.

No, it's not when they say it's fictionalised. Sorry, please be quiet in mind. Even if it turns out you did send the messages. Am I right in thinking that really would be almost irrelevant to the central point? Yeah, it's not necessarily irrelevant. Obviously, if you're looking at a libel action, there will be examination of what the person has and has not done. But I think here, I agree with you.

The real surprise to me is a lawyer who often is involved in media projects of one kind or another and advising on whether something is potentially defamatory or not, is that no one ever appears to have reached out to her for any form of comment of any kind. And most importantly of all, nobody put at the very beginning of the show, this is based on a true story, but significant elements of it have been fictionalised

and shouldn't be taken literally. And if that had been put at the beginning of the program, as a health warning, as it were, I think people, but many fewer people would have watched it. And Netflix can't have its cake and eat it. They can't be a network or a network, or a platform which bases its marketing on true crime and true docu crime and it all being true to life, which is spread across Netflix on almost every...

I mean, half the programmes claim to be true stories, either documentaries or dramas based on true stories. I've had some of my own crime documentaries on Netflix. But you can't have your cake and eat it. You cannot run documentaries which you claim or dramas, which you claim are true stories when you know full well they are not true. If you do that as a broadcaster or as a streaming service, you very much risk legal action

and you risk being the subject of very, very serious damages payments. And by the way, by the way, I'm just going to say one more time before we finish this, that it could, of course, be the case that she does have a criminal record. And we just, no one's uncovered it yet. I think that possibility is there. I didn't believe a lot of what she was telling me, and it may include that, but I find it extraordinary.

Well, you would rather have expected Netflix. I agree. You would rather have expected Netflix to release that information. with that with if you were under the pressure networks would be under, you would make damn sure somebody saw it if you had that evidence. And they haven't done so far, which in itself may be very telling. I've got to leave you there. Thank you all to my panel very much indeed.

Well, almost all of my panel. I appreciate the way that you can do it. Yeah, that's a yes to all of us. Thank you very much indeed. That's a yes to all of us. Thank you. You're welcome.