Frightening thought isn’t it. She want’s Netflix to stand accountable for their actions but she hasn’t for hers. Therefore being awarded for them is unthinkable.
Hold up. So one random person can send her one threatening message and she is using it in her complaint. But when she sent Laura and Richard thousands of threatening messages, not just by email but also verbally, the police can't do anything about that as "it's not that serious". The flippin irony.
You have to differentiate between civil law and criminal law. She is suing them in a civil court for damages. If she was pressing charges, then they'd be in criminal court and it'd be about jail sentences. The police are only in charge of getting people for criminal charges, not civil ones.
If she gets something, the guy who was stalked should flip out and sue her to get that money back from her harassing him. Same from the other victims. They couldn't sue her because she had nothing, but if she wins they can now get something.
I don’t think she deserves any type of compensation. She has stalked several ppl and she should be in jail, not getting compensation. Personally, I don’t care at all that in the show she was convicted, that part wasn’t the most shocking part of the show . However , if she does make some money from all this, maybe she’ll finally get an iPhone and won’t have to keep typing “sent from iPone”
😆 lol to the iPhone thing. Yeah I’m very curious to see how this case will go. I think maybe Netflix will just settle out of court, they probably don’t want this circus to go on much longer
@@TheBehavioralArts I’d love to hear your thoughts and opinions about this whole thing now that things have settled down a little. What did you think about the other people (some more public than others) who have now come forward with their own experiences with this particular person? I had kept an open mind about it, but since having watched the PM interviews with this person and one of the ACTUAL victims of theirs, plus previous firsthand knowledge of both being stalked and by my own child being currently stalked (over 3 years now); and I came to the conclusion that the Police and the Judiciary in the UK (in over 30 years since I was stalked) that absolutely nothing whatsoever has changed in our Laws or how people who are responsible for this type of behaviour are managed. The Police still do nothing about this, they expect the victims to go out and obtain all of their evidence at their own expense, and then they don’t do anything about it! We aren’t in a position to be able to take this person to court privately so that’s that really. I am also horrified at the thought that the person responsible for this behaviour would ever be allowed to financially be rewarded for their crimes, let alone for such a vast amount of money. So I hope that in the end of this, she will not win in any capacity and then something is done to protect the public from someone like that. She needs help (even if it’s through an enforced Psychiatric Hospital Intervention) but she certainly doesn’t deserve to be rewarded for the torment she has caused to others. If she does win, then I hope it will only be $1. If it turns out to be such a huge amount of money, then I sincerely hope that the other people who have been the actual victims will then get together to sue her in a class action lawsuit and that they are all rewarded accordingly for their trauma.
So I am a bit confused. If the show never said her name, and she was not convicted…even if people figured out who they thought it was, how would it be 100% confirmed? Until she herself went on tv and said it was? So didn’t she basically confirm it for the world herself? Where it would’ve just been speculation otherwise? How can she sue for $170 MILLION…..🤷♀️that seems an outrageous amount
Defamation doesn’t have to directly name the victim, the only requirement is for them to be easily identified. The show displayed exact copies of her posts on X/Twitter that made her easily found.
The series hired an actress that resembled the real life stalker and they put tweets made by the real person and put in the show. The lawyers also sent Netflix a letter asking for evidence that the real life stalker had ever been convicted or went to jail and so far they haven’t responded. The Netflix director of public policy said under oath that they did everything they could to hide her identity. Which they didn’t and people were able to identify her just days after the premiere.
It doesn't bother me that Netflix lied about the "convicted" part, I walked away more impacted by 41,000 emails, 305 hours of voicemails, 106 letters all over 1 cup of tea. Pierce asked Fiona "do you want him to release the emails?" and she jumped to respond "NOOOOOO" because THAT'S what the truth is and that's enough for her to not deserve anything from Netflix. IMO
@@ligairi he told what Netflix said was a true story which is a lie they made it very obvious if your from there area who this woman was the actress is literally her twin
I saw the squinty eyes and 'thinking' about when the release date was as a way to... act cool. Kind of like when we were in high school, and you wanted that person you liked to call you, and you were waiting by the phone. "Hey Jesse, it's Beth." And then when they call, you might have said something like, "Beth? Oh... hey. How's it going?" Inside, you're saying, "Oh my god!!!"
Gadd had been performing this on stage for a long while before Netflix. So Fiona had plenty opportunity to confront him before the audience grew to Netflix proportions.
@@windywednesday4166 same here homie but there were definitely people who discovered her via Facebook before I came across her interview. Maybe not as many, but more than were bothering her when it was just a stage performance
Lots of others had though. They looked at Richard's social media and found her correspondence to him. She said that is why she went on Piers Morgan show to put her side forward.
It’s a catch 22 for Netflix and Gadd, because if they had told the story accurately then ‘Martha’ would’ve been completely identifiable….they seem to have exaggerated in a vague attempt to deflect viewers from identifying Fiona….however, it was journalists who found her first and identified her publicly. Fiona, herself was the one who went public, first to deny it was her and then to claim it is her, presumably because she’s enjoying the attention and sees the potential of a lucrative settlement. The obsession with her not having been convicted is a massive distraction from the fact that she is clearly a stalker, and a dangerous one at that.
Netflix could have said closely based on a true story. They wanted that extra emotional kick of saying just plain true. They'll have to deal with the fallout.
I pray that Fiona doesn’t get a dime for the fact that she truly affected people’s lives negatively. Technically she’s in the right considering she is not a convicted stalker yet in my opinion on a moral basis not a legal basis she should get absolutely nothing nothing.
My thoughts exactly. Personally I don’t care about the conviction I don’t think that would negatively affect her more than her behaviour already has. She’s clearly not well and needs help and is despicable for what she did to Laura and her disabled child. I mean if she hasn’t been convicted maybe she should have. It’s clear that her behaviours and the things she’s done are mostly true. IMO she’s a dangerous stalker and has gotten off lightly for what she’s done.
On a moral basis, you don’t make up lies about someone for profit. You can’t cherry pick morals. Legally, both Gadd and Laura Wray had the options to make at least a police report. Wray especially as a lawyer who owns a law firm had the means and connects to build case to present to the police, especially since her staff were terrified and had panic alarms. The police are useless (I have first hand experience), but at the very least you make a police report when you are scared for your life. I don’t doubt that Fiona has a tendency to harass people, but something about the whole case doesn’t make sense.
@@Nat_Ash_Aexcept he didn’t say that it was Fiona, and still hasn’t confirmed that. Couldn’t Netflix just say that Fiona is making it up that it’s about her? (Even though it’s clearly about her)
I don't understand how her being convicted is more damaging than NOT being convicted. In my opinion, it makes me have a worse opinion of her knowing she manipulated a lack of laws and protections. She seems a lot more vile and predatory knowing there'd be no consequences for her actions. And isn't damage to your reputation part of what validates a defamation claim? Not just the incorrect information? Either way, if she does win I hope she wins big and then the lady she stalked in Scotland sues her for all of it.
I agree with this. It's also often how it happens for a lot of people. The stalker gets away with everything and if the victim stands up for themselves at all in any way, even not to this extreme, they get in trouble while the stalker benefits. It makes me a little disgusted with society as a whole.
It's really about the fact that she now has a window to get some fame and a LOAD of money. I think her first employer should sue her for all the laws she broke against their family. That poor woman!
Y'know what, I think defamation is a bogus claim. Baby Reindeer isn't a documentary. It's a drama based on real events. But that doesn't mean they can't take artistic license with it. Orange is the New Black was based on a true story, but I am sure that a lot of that series was made up for dramatization. Do all the people with whom Piper was incarcerated have any basis to say, "that's me" and I'm going to sue because that never happened! The Crown is based on England's royal family, but many of the things that happened in that series were imagined and dramatized, ie., private conversations or private situations to which the screenwriters and the public had no access nor knowledge of. Yet it's presented as true. It's drama, people. Fiona Harvey shot herself in the foot by coming forward and admitting she was the person the character was based on. Gadd has never said it was her. I don't think her lawsuit has a leg to stand on as long as Netflix cites all the many times a drama based on a true story took artistic license and added fictitious elements to enhance the conflicts and drama of the story!
My understanding is that that there is a difference between "this is a true story" and this is "based on a true story". Saying it is "based" on a true story allows for some discrepancies/interpretations, while this is a true story leads a viewer to believe everything is true.
@@Swoop01 Johnny Depp didn’t win his deformation case in the UK and he had lost work and credibility based on the reporting of the daily mail. Do we really think that Fiona Harvey is going to be able to prove that she’s lost credibility and loss of earnings? To the sum of £170m?? I understand people’s point of view that maybe Netflix shouldn’t have taken so many liberties with the dramatisation but Fiona had already had her name splashed on the tabloids for stalking. Netflix isn’t doing any new reporting. If she had any credibility to begin with she would have taken to tabloids to court, not Netflix. The only reason she didn’t is because what they printed was true, that’s going to be hard to defend in court.
It could be, in the first interview, not so much confirmation glances but maybe trying to not turn his back to his co-actress, when I find myself seated like that I usually try to look at everyone and show respect, if I only speak to the interviewers I feel like I exclude the person sitting on my other side and I try to turn towards them from time to time so that they feel part of the conversation and I'm not the only center of attention. In the second one he's sitting on the side so he feels free to lean towards everyone else
Yeah that’s great. More like inclusion glances. But here’s a note on those. People who do those, often do them regardless of position, whether the person is behind them or In front of them they include people into conversations even if it’s just with the eyes or a simple pointing gesture. On the Fallon interview there was much less checking in altogether, it’s like they found a rhythm to tell the story like “this part is mine, this part is yours” which happens very often with duos who work together.
Also, I don’t know the order of these appearances, but if they were within the same day and one was morning and one was evening, you may be more comfortable and don’t feel the need to have a confirmation glance. You don’t feel the need to include your partner in the conversation because you’ve alreadyacknowledged them and they know that you appreciate them so you’re not insecure about having to give a glance perhaps
@@TheBehavioralArts Regarding your points about how Gadd seemed more comfortable and even humorous, it makes me think about peopl with strong personalities that bring out certain traits out of people. For example, Fallon has a very funny, easy-going and joyous personality (at least on camera), and his guests will most likely join him on his energetic level. I've never seen a guest on his show who aren't perked up by Fallon's demeanor. I have a friend who reminds me of Fallon, and whenever I see her, my demeanor changes, and all of a sudden, I'm an entertainer! lol Personalities can be contagious!
Spidey you are one of my favorite if not my favorite content creator and educator. Find myself eagerly waiting for your next post. Your videos get better and better every week. Aside from your academics i feel as tho you are naturally intuitive. Growing up i thought it was part of being human. But its actually a real gift. Thank you for creating a wonderful community 🥰
I agree! I study Human Design and I would love to know Spidey’s birth info (date, time, location (time zone)) so I can analyze his HD chart and see where he’s a born intuitive vs an educated analyst; and find out what makes him so brilliantly attuned to body language! I’m so so curious!
Same here! I was worried this week & thinking I missed something when Spidey didn't post for awhile. Thank goodness i finally got my notification that he posted!! 😁😁❤️❤️
When you talked about the question regarding worry if the real stalker would see the show, and you talked about guilt, it reminded me of a situation where I personally reported something to a school counselor, and the response was "If I take this to the police, that person will be arrested, and it'll be because of you. Can you handle that?" In that era, victims of certain things bore part of the blame for what happened to them. And even if we're "supposed" to be living in a more enlightened time, severe traumas reflect in people's baselines. Might Gad have shown signs of guilt? Sure, but not (or hopefully not) because he thinks he simply should've let things go. He did a very brave and heroic thing to come forward and say to other people, you aren't alone in your experiences. This is what I did; maybe you can learn from my mistakes, or at least know you aren't alone. It's unfortunate that there still seems to be a mindset that places blame with the person who is the victim of an experience over the person who created that experience for that victim.
Maybe every character they claimed committed a crime actually did. In this case, they refer to her as a convicted stalker who plead guilty in a court of law. That's not an exaggeration, that's a lie.
Wasn't the stalking the crime? She practically confesses to her guilt with each interview. BR did not say that she's Martha. Martha was an unhinged stalker. Fiona says she's not that so how can Fiona claim that Netflix got things wrong? h@@barbarabuttler7647
I suspect that's where he got the idea from. The problem is that those stories are fictional. Baby Reindeer is not, it's based on real (and identifiable) people.
Jessica seems like such a sweetheart it’s hard to watch her in the series portray someone so toxic… I bet Richard benefited on a psychological level from acting out what had happened with Fiona with someone that appears to be so secure and safe.
@@vanessacollins9434 I will admit I am kinda jealous in that regard, I have not been blessed with someone so wholesome in my life … I think that’s why seeing her portray the opposite makes me want to scream … despite knowing otherwise, it’s almost as if she makes some internal fear that the nice people are just as evil true by doing so, again despite knowing otherwise it’s a gut wrenching sensation
Your analysis is so fluent whilst being jam-packed with observations. A pleasure to witness and hugely insightful and educational. As an educational source on YT, and as one man, you're untouchable, Spidey. 👍🕊️❤️
@@TheBehavioralArts Thank you! I forgot to say it. Blown away by this video when I was writing that! I joined TBP a few years ago and found you after. I find you very concise and have possibly learnt more from you in a shorter time. Don't tell the guys! But they gave me the basis, it has to be said. Your presentations work very well for me, anyway! 🕊️❤️
Netflix did put a disclaimer at the end of the episodes. The fact that people read it or not is not in their hands (from my perspective, it's like terms and agreements you just click agree without reading). AND! I don't know how if they can claim that "this is a true story" is part of the script, an integral part of the fiction. At the end of the day, did Netflix not investigate to confirm if she was convicted? That seems so strange to me.
To me it seems like Fiona Harvey is lucky it was Richard Gadd who wrote the show and not the lawyer in Scotland. She sounds completely unhinged and dangerous in that account.
20:30 I think he is actually answering the question here. Not the whole question because the host asked two questions in one “did knowing she would see it give you pause” but also “do you still feel good about putting it out there”. He’s answering the second part of the question.
Based on what I see, it seems that her identity was not properly secured on a purpose. Now she receives tons of terrible messages - in other words, gets back what she was serving... To be clear, I do not support any threats ☮️
Is it possible that Laura immediately knew it was Fiona because she had direct past experiences with her instead of Netflix just not protecting who Fiona actually is ? Edit: typo
She was allegedly obsessed with Richard Gadd, it’s likely she followed his career. The show then allegedly directly quoted from her posts on X/Twitter.
@@fredbloggs5902 oh, that's a really mature response. My point is rather to leave alone the "allegedly"s and limit our discussion to the facts. But unfortunately you seem incapable of doing that
I still think that it’s the character Donny typing “This is a true story” at the start of episode one. I think it’s Donny the character’s true story with Martha the character. Just my opinion. However, I do hear you as far as the things Netflix said under oath. If they have no proof of conviction, they should not have said that. Maybe they will be more careful in the future.
@@truthseeker1867 I never even made it to the end of the episode. So all i saw was it was a true story. It didn't really capture me. But the true story part did.
The part where he's talking about the dates and he would know the dates- I feel I do this my self where as I know the answer to things but I act as though I don't, and I do this i think, because i want to appear humble and not come across as a show off. And I also don't know why I do that.
Yeah I’ve definitely seen that before in people telling a story, don’t worry 😆. And I think you’re right it has an element of that. I think people do it to connect with the audience a little more to make it seem like they’re telling a story not spitting out a script.
I think it would be interesting if the Facebook posts FH made were verified and analyzed. I've seen a video where she's (allegedly) posting what a great singer she is and then a small video of herself singing... it would be good to figure out what's real in this case.
I dont think they went to great lengths to conceal her identity, but I wonder if this is because they didnt expect the series to do as well as it did. Gadd himself talks about how unbelievable it was seeing how well it was doing in other countries. He may have only expected it to reach his usual audience.
I take exception to Piers not giving Laura the weight of what she experienced. He did an interview after this and practice wrote her fear off. yet he gave Fiona an entire show and rebuttle
One thing that you've taught me SO well is that two things can be true at once: Harvey can be a complete pathological liar and still be capable of telling the truth. When she said she was never convicted, I 100% believed it and then seeing you say you believed it as well made me feel great. Now, seeing we were right is an amazing feeling, I'm especially happy for you since you're the one with the platform and some of these muppets love to hate on anyone who disagrees with them. 😂 Honestly, I have no clue how the court thing is gonna go, but I look forward to seeing it. I truly do believe that Gadd was a victim and I firmly believe that victims deserve a place to tell their stories, even if it's in an artistic way. Super random but I started taking the Body Language Tactics courses and I'm super excited so I wanted to share it with you. 😊 Thanks for the video 🥰
I can't tell you how much I agree with your first statement. I've been talking alot about people who keep saying "she's clearly a stalker, how can she sue for defamation." People are so used to being polarized that they feel they either have to think someone is wrong about everything or right about everything. Yes Fiona is a stalker, yes she's unpleasant but that has nothing to do with defamation. Both things can coexist. Stalkers can be defamed. WOOHOO!!!! Glad you took the plunge for the course! You're gonna love it!
Fiona is obviously unhinged and dangerously deluded. Add is an artist and has used his artistic license to fill in on some of the stuff he doesn't remember. Laura Wray was my great uncles wife who appeared in the interview. Jimmy , her husband was an MP. She's the only completely plausible person here.
Anyone who watches any programme and doesn't realise that a dramatic reenactment is not the exact truth needs a reality check. Unless you are watching actual footage and listening to actual speeches (without voice overs) it is only one interpretation of the truth.
Wild Ride! I swear that I have watched children’s film in the past that says “ this is a true story…. I may be completely wrong. However, what the F Netflix! I would assume they have crazy good lawyers who know how to nail down every sentence! I am off to go a Google-y rabbit hole to find out.
Haha yeah. I can’t imagine how annoying it must be as a professional to try to make a point based on intelligence and have a bunch of people ignore the intelligence part and just spew nonesense without thinking. It must be gratifying when it comes out that he was right from the get go
It’s super impressive that he caught that in the way she answered these questions at a time where dozens of other RUclipsrs were scrambling to figure out what really happened.
As always, your videos are very educational but also very inspiring. What I really like is the way how you cary yourself, the language you use, trying in non judgemental and not patronising way you always try to encourage your viewers to stay objective, unbiased and respectful approaching any topic. Keep doing great work. This is a quality channel. I really appreciate your work.
I don't think they concealed her identity very well, however she also did not need to come forward and say anything. She could have denied it or just ignored it and eventually it probably would have blown over. Something else would have come up in the media to take the spotlight off her and move on as it does. She is an attorney, I think she saw this a way to obtain a payday. He has been doing the play for years (and she confirmed in the Piers Morgan interview, she knew about that) and she never said anything and her identity was never found out. He probably wasn't making much money doing that. Having a billion dollar company behind the production of the series, she now has a way to cash out. I noticed Richard Gadd wasn't named in the defamation suit, only NetFlix and I think that is pretty telling as to the motives behind it. He was the writer, he was the one who created the "story". Why wouldn't he also be involved in the lawsuit? Edited to add: I think Netflix will settle the lawsuit, but I don't think she will get $170 million dollars.
I think Netflix is gonna be in a little trouble. Nobody stays till the past the end of the credits. I think Fiona will get at least a million out of this. Does she deserve it? No, I don’t think so. I hope this can be a lesson to stalkers to not stalk! They should be exposed. That is awful what she did.
The "based on a true story" bit was before the actual credits, though. I saw the caveat at the end of each one before it auto-played to into the next episodes, skipping the credits.
SHE was the one who made all her messages and comment public! If they’d been private and he showed them in the series … Id believe that would be defamation She had awful comments about lots of people including him public Her fb page was public a few weeks ago She was critical of Laura Wray, the way she dresses and looks! Of Mr Starmer And of Gadd She did this to herself
Stalking is a disorder that scares me to the bone. But Netflix angle with true story with convinted stalker... That turns out to be fake... What??? How did they overlook the potential issue here? Something dors not add up.
My question is whether a reasonable person is going to say "well she was a creepy stalker but she wasn't _convicted_ because they didn't report it" and determine that she was damaged $170 MILLION. She's not WORTH $170 million. She's not worth $17 million, hell, she's probably not worth $1.7 million. What's the average person earn in their lifetime?
@@lisabrightly Absolutely false. She didn't do that, someone else did. She's not suing for commercial profit from the use of her image, she's suing for defamation. She's claimed that she was worth $170 million before the Netflix show even existed, and that's absolutely ridiculous. If she was worth millions before the Netflix show made her infamous, she should've cashed in on it herself. She didn't because she couldn't because she wasn't.
Here’s my take on this show and the aftermath: Richard loved the attention and drama he got from Fiona during their stalker/stalkey relationship. This show is an extension of that and it’s like the cat and mouse game continued, on a global level for us to watch play out
After seeing her interview and her Facebook posts, I'm 100% sure that she stalked him and others. Also, she outed herself. She didn't have to come forward.
“Based on a true story” is him starting to write the show. At the end of each episode there’s a disclaimer at the end of each episode some things have changed. Gadd is a victim. He’s not blameless but he IS a victim. FH has a history of stalking n being abusive. Wray is also a victim as well as her husband n family. Wray said FH also targeted more people at the firm. A large number of emails were then leaked FH sent to Sir KS, leader of the Labour Party. Hope she doesn’t get a penny. She’s very lucky she’s not a convicted criminal. Luckily now there are more laws to protect victims of stalking. BR is an excellent show n has done a great job of showing stalking n how horrific it can be. Besides FH needs professional, psychological help n shouldn’t be allowed to bring a case. FH’s mentality ill. FH’s lawyers are exploiting her.
Totally agree. Her fb posts over the weeks after the shows release were awful and defamatory to Gadd. She has sent abusive messages to multiple political figures too, including poor Derek Draper’s wife.
Gadd isn't a victim. He exploited her and made up a story around his knowledge of her past. It's why he won't confirm a timeline and he's now being forced to court to testify with all the zero evidence he has.
Possible but he’s not talking about when it was released in the states, he’s talking about when it was released in the UK. It looks more like recall than calculations to me. Also, if he did the conversion earlier that morning he wouldn’t need to do it again a few hours later on Fallon. One way or the other, at the very least on Fallon, the info would be much more readily available.
As someone with ADHD I got the feeling that gadd might also as many of his behaviours are relatable. So with his uncertainty about the date wonder if it's more a reflection of his lacking confidence in his ability to recall info? I forget important dates very often!
Anyone who is being interviewed on national television that will be seen by millions (especially those who have not had mainstream success for many years) will be awkward, fidgety, nervous, and so on. Anyone.
I don't even always remember the year of my wedding day. My husband remembers...and it's seemingly not because he's thinking, "Crap! It's been that long!?".😢😂❤
Excellent presentation! Your analysis digs right into the controversy surrounding “Baby Reindeer”. The accuracy of the receipts you bring to us, expertly guides us to the truth. I saw the series. Netflix clearly states this is a true story. What a way to attract an audience. I can still picture the font, and how the statement appeared on the screen. Furthermore, Richard’s obvious sidestepping from the deceptive marketing to attract viewers, is disappointing. He tries to insinuate that the internet is responsible for the hysteria surrounding the show. When in fact he and Netflix need to accept accountability. I have compassion for this man’s past. However, my empathy is somewhat diminished by his aversion to speak about the actual facts. Of course, Fiona still makes me cringe. I believe she is guilty of inflicting devastating harm. The court system should investigate, reveal and decide her fate. Though pursuing a lawsuit, where she could possibly receive millions of dollars, doesn’t feel like justice. Clearly, she has a propensity to act with criminal intent…for years. What a dichotomy, if she receives financial compensation. Would this outcome truly reflect justice? Both parties are negligent. But a financial settlement doesn’t feel ethical. This is my humble opinion. Thank you. 🥺❤
very well expressed and I appreciate the nuance of trying to seperate feeling and reason. I totally agree that there were mistakes on both sides and that it doesn't feel right for Fiona to come out the winner. I think Netflix should pay her and then she should pay Richard and Laura lol. Glad you enjoyed the analysis :)
All the first grade boys at my kids school have very cool haircuts. It’s really cute. This haircut is very “on trend” for adults and kids. It was good enough for Julius Caesar and a lot of Brit pop guys in the 90’s and fashion always recycles
Behaviour-wise, there were flashes of fear when he was asked the question about Harvey watching the show, and then gasps to take in air when he does his sort of ranting response. He was rattled by that question.
Very interesting catch on the fear. I look for fear in exactly two places, the widening of the eyes and the slowing down of movement overall. You’re right, both things happened. But that widening of the eyes happens with him often. This is exactly where in an interview or interrogation we would move away from the topic then come back to it to see if it happens again. Very interesting
@@TheBehavioralArts There was a brilliant example of a fear micro-expression in the Piers Morgan interview with Harvey too. It’s right after he asks her if she’d be happy for Gadd to release the emails she wrote. The expression is so obvious and sustained, it doesn’t even feel accurate to call it a micro-expression. That suggested to me there is some substantial truth in his claims that she harassed him via social media. However, I’m also noticing that in Gadd’s public interviews he is making claims about that aspect of the stalking only. He will only refer to the dramatised scenes of her SA, physical attack and coming to his home by referring to the characters in the show, and how it happens to them, their feelings etc. He has never once, to my knowledge, commented on those events as happening to HIMSELF. Reading between the lines, I think it’s because the majority of what’s depicted in the show didn’t actually happen. Which presumably puts Netflix in significant legal difficulties now she has been connected to the character depicted. I wonder if Gadd told Netflix compliance that she was a “convicted stalker” because he misunderstood old newspaper articles about Laura Wray’s legal response to harassment by Harvey. And no one at Netflix checked that claim was accurate…
I've had a weird feeling there's more to this since watching it & I still don't think we're getting the full story. I think Terri foreshadowed (or post? shadowed lol) when she accused Gadd/Dunn of courting drama for new material. Someone commenting on another BR analysis said that Gadd didn't give Fiona that drink to be kind but to lead her on & exploit her in some way (either for comedy material or just to mock with his colleagues, as they apparently had a habit of that). I don't think he could have known Fiona was a stalker & I'm not saying he isn't a victim but I do think this whole saga began with him targeting her for unkind reasons. Like Gadd said, BR explores the grey areas of stalking & I think the victim/perp lines are even more blurred than he lets on. Even then, I STILL feel like I'm missing something... Anyway, I'll wait for the mob to pounce on me lol
@@hannahmitchell87watch multiple interviews with Gadd and look for where there are sudden bursts of pleasure and animation in his expression/behaviour. How is he framing himself when that happens? I think I can see a pattern which might tell us about his motivations, but I’m not an expert and I could be wrong. I’m intrigued whether others are seeing what I’m seeing…
I don't know if you can do this in the UK, but if she wins any money in this suit, I hope the court will rule that she must turn all of it over to organizations that provide support to stalking victims.
What I’m curious about is what are the normal pacifiers and adapters a person will display if they are just nervous about being on a popular talk show for the first time? Is the conversation topic always the focus of physical behaviors or could it also be part of their fear or anxiety about public speaking, if you will?
The only issue I have with Richard is that he claims he took every precaution to make sure Fiona wasn't found, it's pretty obvious he wanted her to be found. And honestly I can understand why, but him pretending to be a saint, saying how much good the show is doing and that he tried to protect Foinas identity is in my opinion bullshit. He knew that she would be a sacrifice he was willing to make, to make the show as popular as it, as real as it is, and he wanted his 15 min of fame. I loved the show and think he's very talented and deserving of his success, I just can't handle that he pretends he cares about Foinas privacy, he obviously doesn't, and he wanted revenge.
@@rsmith2555 Wow, you and me have the -EXACT- same feeling about Gadd. I didn't think anyone else picked up the feeling that he is vindictive and attention seeking, and he made sure Fiona would be found. I think it's long overdue that he publicly states what parts of the show is made up, so people don't attack and harass Fiona for things she didn't do. I think she probably has some issues and I believe parts of this story is true, I'm not sure how much Gadd encouraged her behavior though, for narcissistic reasons
Jessica Gunning is an innocent actress. Gadd knows he altered the truth and should not have labeled it a true story. Netflix was negligent in checking facts and should never put true story but based on or dramatization of his life events and the characters and events are dramatized 😢
I think the disclosure she provided for her criminal background was a basic one which doesn’t go back more than a few years and doesn’t show much information. An enhanced disclosure should show all convictions etc
I couldn’t even see the date of the certificate and I agree with you that they should have had the enhanced certificate but also asked for discovery purposes, her whole medical and psychiatric history records, not just because many people want to know what, if anything was actually diagnosed over the course of her life and if she was ever admitted to a secure facility and why that was the case. Having said that, I should add that her medical and psychiatric health records should only pertain to the actual lawsuit and not divulged to everyone who feels that they have an interest in the case and its outcome. The rest of her records we are not entitled to know about, despite her treatment of others.
So…isn’t it good Ms. Harvey was discovered so quickly and the conviction myth was dispelled? Also, the real Teri was found shortly after the real Martha. The scrutiny is so annoying. Leave this man alone please. Leave them all alone.
This was a great analysis. I’m absolutely flabbergasted that Fiona wasn’t charged and tossed in jail. If a man sent 41,000 emails, showed up at a woman’s work or home he would be in jail and charged. I hope her lawsuit doesn’t have merit in the courts, but it could! She definitely was very inappropriate in her behaviour and she should have been stopped. I watched it and felt sick at the level of stalking and what he endured at the hands of that man. I bet he feels a level of freedom getting his story out. Fiona on the other hand had her behaviour exposed and hopefully if her behaviour was true she seeks help!
NONE of Netflix’s “documentaries “ are 100%. I’m not defending Harvey because she clearly is a dangerous woman,but it won’t surprise me if Netflix loses this lawsuit.
This is completely unrelated to the video but do you know what the book is called that is about micro expressions and it has a skeleton on half the book
The stalker will win the first case But, The stalker will essentially end up getting counter sued for emotional harm so that she will not gain financially.
About the doubting about the date, I think I have an idea of what is happening. Wall of text incoming: I have really bad memory and a lot of things that I SHOULD remember because of how important are for me or how passionate I'm about them, yet when I don't double check the facts, I often get something wrong or I mess something at some point. Now, given what has happened after the release of his series (so it already has a lot to think about) and how important that specific date is for him, he might be doing that just in case he messes something up, to be covered and prevent some of the shame. Just my 2 cents...
Spidey, I think there's a video you really should watch. A youtuber called muncat claims she "debunks" behavioral analysis. Among others, she speaks about you, Chase and Ekman, calls it all literally a BS and even I can easily see some fallacies and manipulations she uses in that material and I am quite irritated, especially when it comes to you who always puts so much emphasis on being objective and science-based. I believe that video is harmful. Please if you have a moment some day, I WOULD LOVE to see how you debunk or at least comment on that "debunker"! The video title is: I debunked every "Body Language Expert"...
Please forgive that my comment doesn't relate to your new video directly, but seeing that material is actually popular makes me crazy so I really wanted you to see that
I remember seeing it before. The lady has a very condescending vibe and at one point waves a beer glass in her hand when she feels like she made her case. She seems to have a beef against behavior analysis. I wouldn’t pay too much attention to it.
I havent watched it yet....but you have peaked my interest. It would be pretty hard to debunk Spidey since he explicitly states over and over, "There isn't a single gesture that allows you to know someone is lying"
@cheyennesmith3365 I would normally ignore it, but unfortunately, that video has millions of views. I found it by reading one psychologist's posts - he mentioned it as a good material. And when I opened it, to my surprise I've seen Spidey in there... I really used to respect and trust that psychologist, but I am really disappointed now and the impact of that video worried me.
@@SunGX123 that's right, but she even goes further and shows an out-of-context clip where Spidey says something like "some research says this, some other don't" and she uses it as one of elements confirming her theory that whole behavioral analysis is only based on manipulated science and all thise experts are just basically saying BS. And her condescending tone is really triggering there
I think one thing about the release date is he might have had a UK release date, a US release date, and a worldwide release date and possibly just making sure he's not mixing them up. T
@@barbarabuttler7647who said that Fiona Harvey is a convicted stalker? In BR, Martha Scott is a convicted stalker. So if FH is not a convicted stalker then maybe she's not MS.
@@dianasayson2846 The production knows that internet sleuths have identified Fiona as the person on whom the character is based. They have not categorically denied this deduction, therefore, they will need to provide an alternate criminal to convince me that Fiona wasn't slandered.
Recently came across your videos in my Baby Reindeer rabbit hole 🙂 Solid and compelling analyses! I find them interesting and even educational. I like how this one is consistent with the one about Piers' Fiona interview, and you're right to 'toot your own horn' about that a bit 🙂 Keep up the good work!
@@judithmorganjudyteen but at the beginning they contradict that by saying this IS a true story. Disclaimers shouldn't be hidden & should give additional info, not conflicting, surely?
I read the Wikipedia article for some context because I really hadn’t heard much except that recommended videos kept popping up in my RUclips feed. According to the Wikipedia article it was Fiona who “outed” herself as the inspiration for Martha. THEN she claims having her life ruined and is seeking to sue??? Is the Wikipedia article true? Did she publicly claim herself to be the inspiration for the character, or was she interviewed BECAUSE people had identified her?
A couple of points for thought here... Fiona seems to hold on to specifics to dispute, often small things and will insert them into conversation when not entirely relevant or even put a side tangent to add these disputed facts like diet coke and that the first instance wasn't a cup of tea. Like, oh okay, you might have harassed him, definitely have seenhim more than a handful of times but it WASN'T A CUP OF TEA!!! This makes me think that there's less credibility in her denial of sexual assault IN A CANAL because "in a canal" could be enough for her to give a confident denial because she can hold on to that fact. While FH has been outed as Martha she disputes the accuracy of the accent, the looks of Jess when portraying her/Martha and things that are clearly connections for other people so I think FH zones in on details to be disputed that she feels confident she can dispute. Also the 4&1/2 years in prison might not have been totally plucked from the air. The lawyer Laura Wray mentions in the interview with PM that the harassment from FH went on for -can't remember exact quote but something like: nearly/almost 5 years. So it may be that this was mentioned in an article that this went on for 4&1/2 years, culminating in judicial action and this fact then morphed into the fictional sentence. Also with the name changes it's hard to believe it wasn't in order to hide something and I wonder what else there might be. FH is so persistent when obsessed with a person surely there are more reports as the lawyer Laura Wray mentions not only another case that Fiona similarly falsely accused/reported another person (lawyer too?) to child protection agencies. FH confidentiality disputes being a "convicted stalker" or going to gaol but that doesn't mean there's not other incidents involving law enforcement. Laura also mentions people who have been in contact with her personally but are afraid to come forward.... there's way more to this than just Gad's story. Having said all that Netflix dropped the ball. Simply saying based on, inspired by etc or even this is MY story would have covered them far better than an after scene disclaimer. If California lawyers are happy to sue you have to assume they could find no convictions but what if FH served time in a non conventional way? I'm interested to see if a non-criminal conviction but other dalliance with the law turns up. One final point, just because there's no conviction doesn't mean there wasn't violence. Not every punch up at the bar gets taken to the cops.
But how can you say this story isn't true when all the facts aren't yet known? We're still at the she said/they said stage. Even the police haven't released any information, as criminal records are never made public in the UK.
I mean. Richard flat out said she wasn’t convicted in a recent interview, so that part of the show is in fact, not true. that’s the main part she’s suing over.
About dates, in my case, I never only remember exact dates by "making calculations" based on another common event, like the beginning of winter or my birthday o that kind of things, so I always have to think before I say a date, even when it's something very important to me. But maybe I'm weird 😅
I think the fact that she was never convicted and none of her victims received any justice is actually worse.
well said
Imagine her waking out of with al that money….
Frightening thought isn’t it. She want’s Netflix to stand accountable for their actions but she hasn’t for hers. Therefore being awarded for them is unthinkable.
I agree! She's just lucky she got off with no criminal charges.
This. The show made her look BETTER.
Hold up. So one random person can send her one threatening message and she is using it in her complaint. But when she sent Laura and Richard thousands of threatening messages, not just by email but also verbally, the police can't do anything about that as "it's not that serious". The flippin irony.
And keir starmer
That’s only happened in Scotland. Useless.
You have to differentiate between civil law and criminal law. She is suing them in a civil court for damages. If she was pressing charges, then they'd be in criminal court and it'd be about jail sentences. The police are only in charge of getting people for criminal charges, not civil ones.
If she gets something, the guy who was stalked should flip out and sue her to get that money back from her harassing him. Same from the other victims. They couldn't sue her because she had nothing, but if she wins they can now get something.
I don’t think she deserves any type of compensation. She has stalked several ppl and she should be in jail, not getting compensation. Personally, I don’t care at all that in the show she was convicted, that part wasn’t the most shocking part of the show . However , if she does make some money from all this, maybe she’ll finally get an iPhone and won’t have to keep typing “sent from iPone”
😆 lol to the iPhone thing. Yeah I’m very curious to see how this case will go. I think maybe Netflix will just settle out of court, they probably don’t want this circus to go on much longer
Yes I agree
@@TheBehavioralArts I’d love to hear your thoughts and opinions about this whole thing now that things have settled down a little. What did you think about the other people (some more public than others) who have now come forward with their own experiences with this particular person? I had kept an open mind about it, but since having watched the PM interviews with this person and one of the ACTUAL victims of theirs, plus previous firsthand knowledge of both being stalked and by my own child being currently stalked (over 3 years now); and I came to the conclusion that the Police and the Judiciary in the UK (in over 30 years since I was stalked) that absolutely nothing whatsoever has changed in our Laws or how people who are responsible for this type of behaviour are managed. The Police still do nothing about this, they expect the victims to go out and obtain all of their evidence at their own expense, and then they don’t do anything about it! We aren’t in a position to be able to take this person to court privately so that’s that really.
I am also horrified at the thought that the person responsible for this behaviour would ever be allowed to financially be rewarded for their crimes, let alone for such a vast amount of money. So I hope that in the end of this, she will not win in any capacity and then something is done to protect the public from someone like that. She needs help (even if it’s through an enforced Psychiatric Hospital Intervention) but she certainly doesn’t deserve to be rewarded for the torment she has caused to others. If she does win, then I hope it will only be $1. If it turns out to be such a huge amount of money, then I sincerely hope that the other people who have been the actual victims will then get together to sue her in a class action lawsuit and that they are all rewarded accordingly for their trauma.
Well the legal system stands on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. You have condemned her with not a shred of evidence.
Imagine giving a suspected seriel stalker 170 million no one would be safe
Agreed.
It's tantamount to giving a terrorist money.
Agreed.
It's tantamount to giving a terrorist money.
Absolutely!!!
That's why she shouldn't receive a dime, but to charge her instead with a crime. Stalking is a crime.
Then they should have hidden her identity better. It's not like they couldn't foresee this.
Personally, I think they know what they're doing.
So I am a bit confused. If the show never said her name, and she was not convicted…even if people figured out who they thought it was, how would it be 100% confirmed? Until she herself went on tv and said it was? So didn’t she basically confirm it for the world herself? Where it would’ve just been speculation otherwise?
How can she sue for $170 MILLION…..🤷♀️that seems an outrageous amount
Defamation doesn’t have to directly name the victim, the only requirement is for them to be easily identified. The show displayed exact copies of her posts on X/Twitter that made her easily found.
And it is an outrageous amount, but you always ask for more than what they will wind up settling for. You don't open with your bottom line
Boom!
The series hired an actress that resembled the real life stalker and they put tweets made by the real person and put in the show. The lawyers also sent Netflix a letter asking for evidence that the real life stalker had ever been convicted or went to jail and so far they haven’t responded. The Netflix director of public policy said under oath that they did everything they could to hide her identity. Which they didn’t and people were able to identify her just days after the premiere.
She’s a greedy stalker 🤦♀️😡
It doesn't bother me that Netflix lied about the "convicted" part, I walked away more impacted by 41,000 emails, 305 hours of voicemails, 106 letters all over 1 cup of tea.
Pierce asked Fiona "do you want him to release the emails?" and she jumped to respond "NOOOOOO" because THAT'S what the truth is and that's enough for her to not deserve anything from Netflix. IMO
Yeah it doesn’t bother you because the “story” wasn’t about you they didn’t lie about you they lied on this woman
@@RochellB46 He never mentioned this woman. He told a dramatized version of his own life story. The internet just found her. Thats not his fault.
@@ligairi he told what Netflix said was a true story which is a lie they made it very obvious if your from there area who this woman was the actress is literally her twin
It doesn't matter if you were bothered.
I’m more concerned that she WASN’T convicted IRL TBH.
There is no way Gadd and Wray are her only victims. I'm hoping the other folks in her life who have been victimized come forward during this process.
Heather Burns
Kier Starmer
...
we already found 12 victims
There's the daily mail journalist aswell as kiers an mp & a female comedian
What makes you think that?
George Galloway
He is so so smart. That is how you battle Fiona. You do not address her. You ignore her.
Lol. You make a show about her, in which you write a part that you fantasized about her, then you ignore her!
Lol and you know that Fionas blood is boiling!!!
I saw the squinty eyes and 'thinking' about when the release date was as a way to... act cool. Kind of like when we were in high school, and you wanted that person you liked to call you, and you were waiting by the phone.
"Hey Jesse, it's Beth."
And then when they call, you might have said something like, "Beth? Oh... hey. How's it going?"
Inside, you're saying, "Oh my god!!!"
😂😂😂
So perceptive, I love it💖
You know who else didn’t conceal her identity well? Ms. Harvey.
Why should she have to?
Spot on!
@@Abi_81she doesn’t. But there are consequences for our actions
💯💯💯
Exactly.
Stalker doesn’t like receiving threats. Aaawwww.
Yes!!!
Privacy only matters when it’s her
IF she actually received any.
Gadd had been performing this on stage for a long while before Netflix. So Fiona had plenty opportunity to confront him before the audience grew to Netflix proportions.
Yes, I also don't believe for a minute that she hasn't seen the show and didn't know about it.
Tbf, I don’t think random internet users were harassing her before it became mainstream on Netflix
@@BBee13 TBF, this 'random internet user' had never heard of Baby Raindeer, Martha or Fiona Harvey before she outed herself on the Piers Morgan show.
@@windywednesday4166 same here homie but there were definitely people who discovered her via Facebook before I came across her interview. Maybe not as many, but more than were bothering her when it was just a stage performance
Lots of others had though. They looked at Richard's social media and found her correspondence to him. She said that is why she went on Piers Morgan show to put her side forward.
It’s a catch 22 for Netflix and Gadd, because if they had told the story accurately then ‘Martha’ would’ve been completely identifiable….they seem to have exaggerated in a vague attempt to deflect viewers from identifying Fiona….however, it was journalists who found her first and identified her publicly. Fiona, herself was the one who went public, first to deny it was her and then to claim it is her, presumably because she’s enjoying the attention and sees the potential of a lucrative settlement. The obsession with her not having been convicted is a massive distraction from the fact that she is clearly a stalker, and a dangerous one at that.
Hmm, here's an interesting legal theory; they could say that the conviction part was made up to protect her identity 😅.
@@phizc that’s exactly what I think
Everyday people found her first, then the journalists found her.
Unfortunately you said it was a true story and then lied. It puts you in a precarious position.
Netflix could have said closely based on a true story. They wanted that extra emotional kick of saying just plain true. They'll have to deal with the fallout.
Why isn’t she suing the writer and just Netflix? Looking for a payout.
It's two separate laws and she is. Netflix first for damages and then she will be free to challenge Gadd in a civil case.
I pray that Fiona doesn’t get a dime for the fact that she truly affected people’s lives negatively. Technically she’s in the right considering she is not a convicted stalker yet in my opinion on a moral basis not a legal basis she should get absolutely nothing nothing.
My thoughts exactly. Personally I don’t care about the conviction I don’t think that would negatively affect her more than her behaviour already has. She’s clearly not well and needs help and is despicable for what she did to Laura and her disabled child. I mean if she hasn’t been convicted maybe she should have. It’s clear that her behaviours and the things she’s done are mostly true. IMO she’s a dangerous stalker and has gotten off lightly for what she’s done.
She will get something. Netflix screwed up.
On a moral basis, you don’t make up lies about someone for profit. You can’t cherry pick morals.
Legally, both Gadd and Laura Wray had the options to make at least a police report. Wray especially as a lawyer who owns a law firm had the means and connects to build case to present to the police, especially since her staff were terrified and had panic alarms. The police are useless (I have first hand experience), but at the very least you make a police report when you are scared for your life.
I don’t doubt that Fiona has a tendency to harass people, but something about the whole case doesn’t make sense.
@@Nat_Ash_Aexcept he didn’t say that it was Fiona, and still hasn’t confirmed that. Couldn’t Netflix just say that Fiona is making it up that it’s about her? (Even though it’s clearly about her)
She is a convicted stalker in Scotland 🏴
I don't understand how her being convicted is more damaging than NOT being convicted. In my opinion, it makes me have a worse opinion of her knowing she manipulated a lack of laws and protections. She seems a lot more vile and predatory knowing there'd be no consequences for her actions. And isn't damage to your reputation part of what validates a defamation claim? Not just the incorrect information? Either way, if she does win I hope she wins big and then the lady she stalked in Scotland sues her for all of it.
Saaaame.
💯 Martha admitted to what she did. She owned up, and paid the price. Martha is a more sympathetic person than Fiona.
@@nineteenfortyeight exactly! Well said
I agree with this. It's also often how it happens for a lot of people. The stalker gets away with everything and if the victim stands up for themselves at all in any way, even not to this extreme, they get in trouble while the stalker benefits. It makes me a little disgusted with society as a whole.
It's really about the fact that she now has a window to get some fame and a LOAD of money. I think her first employer should sue her for all the laws she broke against their family. That poor woman!
Y'know what, I think defamation is a bogus claim. Baby Reindeer isn't a documentary. It's a drama based on real events. But that doesn't mean they can't take artistic license with it. Orange is the New Black was based on a true story, but I am sure that a lot of that series was made up for dramatization. Do all the people with whom Piper was incarcerated have any basis to say, "that's me" and I'm going to sue because that never happened! The Crown is based on England's royal family, but many of the things that happened in that series were imagined and dramatized, ie., private conversations or private situations to which the screenwriters and the public had no access nor knowledge of. Yet it's presented as true. It's drama, people. Fiona Harvey shot herself in the foot by coming forward and admitting she was the person the character was based on. Gadd has never said it was her. I don't think her lawsuit has a leg to stand on as long as Netflix cites all the many times a drama based on a true story took artistic license and added fictitious elements to enhance the conflicts and drama of the story!
She probably wanted the attention, and it’s another way to gain access to Gadd
My understanding is that that there is a difference between "this is a true story" and this is "based on a true story". Saying it is "based" on a true story allows for some discrepancies/interpretations, while this is a true story leads a viewer to believe everything is true.
100% agree, Fiona is such small fry compared to these other series as well. Just shows you what an inflated sense of ego she has
@@Swoop01 Johnny Depp didn’t win his deformation case in the UK and he had lost work and credibility based on the reporting of the daily mail.
Do we really think that Fiona Harvey is going to be able to prove that she’s lost credibility and loss of earnings? To the sum of £170m??
I understand people’s point of view that maybe Netflix shouldn’t have taken so many liberties with the dramatisation but Fiona had already had her name splashed on the tabloids for stalking. Netflix isn’t doing any new reporting.
If she had any credibility to begin with she would have taken to tabloids to court, not Netflix. The only reason she didn’t is because what they printed was true, that’s going to be hard to defend in court.
Excellent point of view!!!
She proclaimed herself as the woman in baby reindeer they have not said its her.
they used her real tweets and she was barraged before she had to chance to conform or deny as the public already made up their mind.
It could be, in the first interview, not so much confirmation glances but maybe trying to not turn his back to his co-actress, when I find myself seated like that I usually try to look at everyone and show respect, if I only speak to the interviewers I feel like I exclude the person sitting on my other side and I try to turn towards them from time to time so that they feel part of the conversation and I'm not the only center of attention. In the second one he's sitting on the side so he feels free to lean towards everyone else
I noticed that too
Yeah that’s great. More like inclusion glances. But here’s a note on those. People who do those, often do them regardless of position, whether the person is behind them or In front of them they include people into conversations even if it’s just with the eyes or a simple pointing gesture. On the Fallon interview there was much less checking in altogether, it’s like they found a rhythm to tell the story like “this part is mine, this part is yours” which happens very often with duos who work together.
Also, I don’t know the order of these appearances, but if they were within the same day and one was morning and one was evening, you may be more comfortable and don’t feel the need to have a confirmation glance. You don’t feel the need to include your partner in the conversation because you’ve alreadyacknowledged them and they know that you appreciate them so you’re not insecure about having to give a glance perhaps
@@brigettekorenek8135 I think this is dead on and you nailed it. Odds are the Fallon one was filmed the same night of the Today one
@@TheBehavioralArts Regarding your points about how Gadd seemed more comfortable and even humorous, it makes me think about peopl with strong personalities that bring out certain traits out of people. For example, Fallon has a very funny, easy-going and joyous personality (at least on camera), and his guests will most likely join him on his energetic level. I've never seen a guest on his show who aren't perked up by Fallon's demeanor. I have a friend who reminds me of Fallon, and whenever I see her, my demeanor changes, and all of a sudden, I'm an entertainer! lol Personalities can be contagious!
Spidey you are one of my favorite if not my favorite content creator and educator. Find myself eagerly waiting for your next post. Your videos get better and better every week. Aside from your academics i feel as tho you are naturally intuitive.
Growing up i thought it was part of being human. But its actually a real gift.
Thank you for creating a wonderful community 🥰
I agree! I study Human Design and I would love to know Spidey’s birth info (date, time, location (time zone)) so I can analyze his HD chart and see where he’s a born intuitive vs an educated analyst; and find out what makes him so brilliantly attuned to body language! I’m so so curious!
💯 Agree.
Same here! I was worried this week & thinking I missed something when Spidey didn't post for awhile. Thank goodness i finally got my notification that he posted!! 😁😁❤️❤️
Well said!!! 🥰🥰
When you talked about the question regarding worry if the real stalker would see the show, and you talked about guilt, it reminded me of a situation where I personally reported something to a school counselor, and the response was "If I take this to the police, that person will be arrested, and it'll be because of you. Can you handle that?" In that era, victims of certain things bore part of the blame for what happened to them. And even if we're "supposed" to be living in a more enlightened time, severe traumas reflect in people's baselines. Might Gad have shown signs of guilt? Sure, but not (or hopefully not) because he thinks he simply should've let things go. He did a very brave and heroic thing to come forward and say to other people, you aren't alone in your experiences. This is what I did; maybe you can learn from my mistakes, or at least know you aren't alone. It's unfortunate that there still seems to be a mindset that places blame with the person who is the victim of an experience over the person who created that experience for that victim.
💯 agree. I can’t heal because of being told that. I can’t move on
Spidey, your analysis is always spot on and what I look for in any public drama, ever since the Depp-Heard trial.
The show Fargo also stated explicitly at the start of each episode that *”This is a True Story.”* I don’t see anyone suing them.
Maybe every character they claimed committed a crime actually did. In this case, they refer to her as a convicted stalker who plead guilty in a court of law. That's not an exaggeration, that's a lie.
@@barbarabuttler7647exactly
Wasn't the stalking the crime? She practically confesses to her guilt with each interview. BR did not say that she's Martha. Martha was an unhinged stalker. Fiona says she's not that so how can Fiona claim that Netflix got things wrong? h@@barbarabuttler7647
I suspect that's where he got the idea from. The problem is that those stories are fictional. Baby Reindeer is not, it's based on real (and identifiable) people.
@@barbarabuttler7647 Bingo.
Jessica seems like such a sweetheart it’s hard to watch her in the series portray someone so toxic… I bet Richard benefited on a psychological level from acting out what had happened with Fiona with someone that appears to be so secure and safe.
Yes I agree!
@@vanessacollins9434 I will admit I am kinda jealous in that regard, I have not been blessed with someone so wholesome in my life … I think that’s why seeing her portray the opposite makes me want to scream … despite knowing otherwise, it’s almost as if she makes some internal fear that the nice people are just as evil true by doing so, again despite knowing otherwise it’s a gut wrenching sensation
Your analysis is so fluent whilst being jam-packed with observations. A pleasure to witness and hugely insightful and educational. As an educational source on YT, and as one man, you're untouchable, Spidey. 👍🕊️❤️
Thanks so much 🤗 ❤️
@@TheBehavioralArts Thank you! I forgot to say it. Blown away by this video when I was writing that! I joined TBP a few years ago and found you after. I find you very concise and have possibly learnt more from you in a shorter time. Don't tell the guys! But they gave me the basis, it has to be said. Your presentations work very well for me, anyway! 🕊️❤️
@@thekeysman6760 haha thanks. Nothing wrong with enjoying different sources of information 🤗. Glad you’re enjoying both channels
Netflix did put a disclaimer at the end of the episodes. The fact that people read it or not is not in their hands (from my perspective, it's like terms and agreements you just click agree without reading).
AND! I don't know how if they can claim that "this is a true story" is part of the script, an integral part of the fiction.
At the end of the day, did Netflix not investigate to confirm if she was convicted? That seems so strange to me.
To me it seems like Fiona Harvey is lucky it was Richard Gadd who wrote the show and not the lawyer in Scotland. She sounds completely unhinged and dangerous in that account.
Fiona Harvey or the lawyer? 😅
20:30 I think he is actually answering the question here. Not the whole question because the host asked two questions in one “did knowing she would see it give you pause” but also “do you still feel good about putting it out there”. He’s answering the second part of the question.
Based on what I see, it seems that her identity was not properly secured on a purpose. Now she receives tons of terrible messages - in other words, gets back what she was serving...
To be clear, I do not support any threats ☮️
I think our Netflix rates are gonna go up yet again to pay for this lawsuit and that will make me cancel them
This is the moment evil gets to cash out. She bullied people her whole life I’m sure she didn’t just pick up this personality trait over night
I’d love to hear from her sister!!
I agree with you
She gates being harassed
SHE is the harasser
Is it possible that Laura immediately knew it was Fiona because she had direct past experiences with her instead of Netflix just not protecting who Fiona actually is ?
Edit: typo
She said it looked and sounded like her.
She was allegedly obsessed with Richard Gadd, it’s likely she followed his career. The show then allegedly directly quoted from her posts on X/Twitter.
@@fredbloggs5902 here we go again with the "allegedly"s. Let's just take the facts and focus on that
@@LindaC616 I don’t want to be sued either, unlike you I’m not stupid.
@@fredbloggs5902 oh, that's a really mature response.
My point is rather to leave alone the "allegedly"s and limit our discussion to the facts. But unfortunately you seem incapable of doing that
I still think that it’s the character Donny typing “This is a true story” at the start of episode one. I think it’s Donny the character’s true story with Martha the character. Just my opinion. However, I do hear you as far as the things Netflix said under oath. If they have no proof of conviction, they should not have said that. Maybe they will be more careful in the future.
Most people interpreted it as Netflix confirming it was a true story, that’s the main reason it was so popular.
Everyone seems to forget that at the end of every episode it states that it is based on a true story and a play.
Everyone seems to forget that at the end of every episode it states that it is based on a true story and a play.
@@truthseeker1867 That doesn’t stop it being defamatory.
@@truthseeker1867 I never even made it to the end of the episode. So all i saw was it was a true story. It didn't really capture me. But the true story part did.
Pulling up that Gadd couldn’t remember the date of the premier two months ago when I forget how old I am on a regular basis.
The part where he's talking about the dates and he would know the dates- I feel I do this my self where as I know the answer to things but I act as though I don't, and I do this i think, because i want to appear humble and not come across as a show off. And I also don't know why I do that.
Yeah I’ve definitely seen that before in people telling a story, don’t worry 😆. And I think you’re right it has an element of that. I think people do it to connect with the audience a little more to make it seem like they’re telling a story not spitting out a script.
I've been waiting for your analysis of Laura Wray, I'm excited to watch this!
Same here.
I think it would be interesting if the Facebook posts FH made were verified and analyzed. I've seen a video where she's (allegedly) posting what a great singer she is and then a small video of herself singing... it would be good to figure out what's real in this case.
@@treesoul00what do you mean??
I dont think they went to great lengths to conceal her identity, but I wonder if this is because they didnt expect the series to do as well as it did.
Gadd himself talks about how unbelievable it was seeing how well it was doing in other countries.
He may have only expected it to reach his usual audience.
Lol shaking his head probably means he cannot believe it made number one
Yep. That would be my best guess
Fiona Harvey is very creepy when she talks . She’s like my older sister who is fuckin evil
She's exactly like my evil auntie. I hope your sister never harms you💖🌱💖
I take exception to Piers not giving Laura the weight of what she experienced. He did an interview after this and practice wrote her fear off. yet he gave Fiona an entire show and rebuttle
One thing that you've taught me SO well is that two things can be true at once: Harvey can be a complete pathological liar and still be capable of telling the truth. When she said she was never convicted, I 100% believed it and then seeing you say you believed it as well made me feel great. Now, seeing we were right is an amazing feeling, I'm especially happy for you since you're the one with the platform and some of these muppets love to hate on anyone who disagrees with them. 😂
Honestly, I have no clue how the court thing is gonna go, but I look forward to seeing it. I truly do believe that Gadd was a victim and I firmly believe that victims deserve a place to tell their stories, even if it's in an artistic way.
Super random but I started taking the Body Language Tactics courses and I'm super excited so I wanted to share it with you. 😊
Thanks for the video 🥰
Good luck with the course❤
@@FttyhxJhghjgjhfdsreokkm
Aww thank you so much!! 🥰
I can't tell you how much I agree with your first statement. I've been talking alot about people who keep saying "she's clearly a stalker, how can she sue for defamation." People are so used to being polarized that they feel they either have to think someone is wrong about everything or right about everything. Yes Fiona is a stalker, yes she's unpleasant but that has nothing to do with defamation. Both things can coexist. Stalkers can be defamed.
WOOHOO!!!! Glad you took the plunge for the course! You're gonna love it!
Fiona is obviously unhinged and dangerously deluded. Add is an artist and has used his artistic license to fill in on some of the stuff he doesn't remember. Laura Wray was my great uncles wife who appeared in the interview. Jimmy , her husband was an MP. She's the only completely plausible person here.
Anyone who watches any programme and doesn't realise that a dramatic reenactment is not the exact truth needs a reality check. Unless you are watching actual footage and listening to actual speeches (without voice overs) it is only one interpretation of the truth.
Netflix will not take this to trial, they will settle for an undisclosed amount and move on
Your attention to detail is phenomenal.
Thanks 😊
Wild Ride! I swear that I have watched children’s film in the past that says “ this is a true story…. I may be completely wrong. However, what the F Netflix! I would assume they have crazy good lawyers who know how to nail down every sentence! I am off to go a Google-y rabbit hole to find out.
Spidey saying I told you so in a polite way about her conviction. He knows his stuff.
Haha yeah. I can’t imagine how annoying it must be as a professional to try to make a point based on intelligence and have a bunch of people ignore the intelligence part and just spew nonesense without thinking. It must be gratifying when it comes out that he was right from the get go
It’s super impressive that he caught that in the way she answered these questions at a time where dozens of other RUclipsrs were scrambling to figure out what really happened.
As always, your videos are very educational but also very inspiring. What I really like is the way how you cary yourself, the language you use, trying in non judgemental and not patronising way you always try to encourage your viewers to stay objective, unbiased and respectful approaching any topic. Keep doing great work. This is a quality channel. I really appreciate your work.
I don't think they concealed her identity very well, however she also did not need to come forward and say anything. She could have denied it or just ignored it and eventually it probably would have blown over. Something else would have come up in the media to take the spotlight off her and move on as it does. She is an attorney, I think she saw this a way to obtain a payday. He has been doing the play for years (and she confirmed in the Piers Morgan interview, she knew about that) and she never said anything and her identity was never found out. He probably wasn't making much money doing that. Having a billion dollar company behind the production of the series, she now has a way to cash out. I noticed Richard Gadd wasn't named in the defamation suit, only NetFlix and I think that is pretty telling as to the motives behind it. He was the writer, he was the one who created the "story". Why wouldn't he also be involved in the lawsuit? Edited to add: I think Netflix will settle the lawsuit, but I don't think she will get $170 million dollars.
Exactly.
I think the only way Netflix can come up smelling of roses is by settling out of court
I think Netflix is gonna be in a little trouble. Nobody stays till the past the end of the credits. I think Fiona will get at least a million out of this. Does she deserve it? No, I don’t think so. I hope this can be a lesson to stalkers to not stalk! They should be exposed. That is awful what she did.
The "based on a true story" bit was before the actual credits, though. I saw the caveat at the end of each one before it auto-played to into the next episodes, skipping the credits.
SHE was the one who made all her messages and comment public!
If they’d been private and he showed them in the series …
Id believe that would be defamation
She had awful comments about lots of people including him public
Her fb page was public a few weeks ago
She was critical of Laura Wray, the way she dresses and looks!
Of Mr Starmer
And of Gadd
She did this to herself
Great analysis. This was really informative about the confluence of speech & motivation in general.
Stalking is a disorder that scares me to the bone. But Netflix angle with true story with convinted stalker... That turns out to be fake... What??? How did they overlook the potential issue here?
Something dors not add up.
My question is whether a reasonable person is going to say "well she was a creepy stalker but she wasn't _convicted_ because they didn't report it" and determine that she was damaged $170 MILLION.
She's not WORTH $170 million. She's not worth $17 million, hell, she's probably not worth $1.7 million. What's the average person earn in their lifetime?
She's worth as much as Netflix has made from this show. The show is streaming as far away as Saudi Arabia, correct? I say she's worth millions.
@@lisabrightly Absolutely false. She didn't do that, someone else did.
She's not suing for commercial profit from the use of her image, she's suing for defamation. She's claimed that she was worth $170 million before the Netflix show even existed, and that's absolutely ridiculous.
If she was worth millions before the Netflix show made her infamous, she should've cashed in on it herself. She didn't because she couldn't because she wasn't.
@@FirstLast-gw5mgBrilliant.
She's never had a job, yet she's claiming damage to her career 🙄
Defamation is lying about someone and it having negative consequences to her, monetary or physically. She has a case.
Here’s my take on this show and the aftermath: Richard loved the attention and drama he got from Fiona during their stalker/stalkey relationship. This show is an extension of that and it’s like the cat and mouse game continued, on a global level for us to watch play out
After seeing her interview and her Facebook posts, I'm 100% sure that she stalked him and others. Also, she outed herself. She didn't have to come forward.
“Based on a true story” is him starting to write the show. At the end of each episode there’s a disclaimer at the end of each episode some things have changed. Gadd is a victim. He’s not blameless but he IS a victim. FH has a history of stalking n being abusive. Wray is also a victim as well as her husband n family. Wray said FH also targeted more people at the firm. A large number of emails were then leaked FH sent to Sir KS, leader of the Labour Party. Hope she doesn’t get a penny. She’s very lucky she’s not a convicted criminal. Luckily now there are more laws to protect victims of stalking. BR is an excellent show n has done a great job of showing stalking n how horrific it can be. Besides FH needs professional, psychological help n shouldn’t be allowed to bring a case. FH’s mentality ill. FH’s lawyers are exploiting her.
Totally agree. Her fb posts over the weeks after the shows release were awful and defamatory to Gadd. She has sent abusive messages to multiple political figures too, including poor Derek Draper’s wife.
Gadd isn't a victim. He exploited her and made up a story around his knowledge of her past. It's why he won't confirm a timeline and he's now being forced to court to testify with all the zero evidence he has.
So how can you claim “this is not you” but then say I’m being defamed when she outed herself or was outed by sources that weren’t Netflix?
What we’re watching is a combination of recall and calculation as he considers the release of the show while in a different time zone.
Mate, the time difference isn't that big 😅
Possible but he’s not talking about when it was released in the states, he’s talking about when it was released in the UK. It looks more like recall than calculations to me. Also, if he did the conversion earlier that morning he wouldn’t need to do it again a few hours later on Fallon. One way or the other, at the very least on Fallon, the info would be much more readily available.
This is about the best "I told you so" ive ever seen! Great job!!
Great analysis and breakdown!
Thanks Chase 🤗 ❤️
As someone with ADHD I got the feeling that gadd might also as many of his behaviours are relatable. So with his uncertainty about the date wonder if it's more a reflection of his lacking confidence in his ability to recall info? I forget important dates very often!
Same here. Also have ADHD and not confident in my recall of dates either
Anyone who is being interviewed on national television that will be seen by millions (especially those who have not had mainstream success for many years) will be awkward, fidgety, nervous, and so on. Anyone.
Agree!
I don't even always remember the year of my wedding day. My husband remembers...and it's seemingly not because he's thinking, "Crap! It's been that long!?".😢😂❤
Excellent presentation! Your analysis digs right into the controversy surrounding “Baby Reindeer”. The accuracy of the receipts you bring to us, expertly guides us to the truth.
I saw the series. Netflix clearly states this is a true story. What a way to attract an audience. I can still picture the font, and how the statement appeared on the screen.
Furthermore, Richard’s obvious sidestepping from the deceptive marketing to attract viewers, is disappointing. He tries to insinuate that the internet is responsible for the hysteria surrounding the show. When in fact he and Netflix need to accept accountability.
I have compassion for this man’s past. However, my empathy is somewhat diminished by his aversion to speak about the actual facts.
Of course, Fiona still makes me cringe. I believe she is guilty of inflicting devastating harm. The court system should investigate, reveal and decide her fate. Though pursuing a lawsuit, where she could possibly receive millions of dollars, doesn’t feel like justice. Clearly, she has a propensity to act with criminal intent…for years. What a dichotomy, if she receives financial compensation. Would this outcome truly reflect justice?
Both parties are negligent. But a financial settlement doesn’t feel ethical. This is my humble opinion.
Thank you. 🥺❤
Well said!
@@pamelaconstantine170
Thank you so much for your kind words!🥰
very well expressed and I appreciate the nuance of trying to seperate feeling and reason. I totally agree that there were mistakes on both sides and that it doesn't feel right for Fiona to come out the winner. I think Netflix should pay her and then she should pay Richard and Laura lol. Glad you enjoyed the analysis :)
I can't get past looking at his (Richard Gadd) haircut. I'm 68 years old and it's the same cut as every little boy in my 1st grade class.
It’s a very popular British style. I agree it looks very juvenile 😅
All the first grade boys at my kids school have very cool haircuts. It’s really cute.
This haircut is very “on trend” for adults and kids. It was good enough for Julius Caesar and a lot of Brit pop guys in the 90’s and fashion always recycles
@@vanessacollins9434 It was very on trend 62 years ago, too. LOL
I would never take anyone seriously with hair like that. He obviously has no true friends.
Behaviour-wise, there were flashes of fear when he was asked the question about Harvey watching the show, and then gasps to take in air when he does his sort of ranting response. He was rattled by that question.
Very interesting catch on the fear. I look for fear in exactly two places, the widening of the eyes and the slowing down of movement overall. You’re right, both things happened. But that widening of the eyes happens with him often. This is exactly where in an interview or interrogation we would move away from the topic then come back to it to see if it happens again. Very interesting
@@TheBehavioralArts There was a brilliant example of a fear micro-expression in the Piers Morgan interview with Harvey too. It’s right after he asks her if she’d be happy for Gadd to release the emails she wrote. The expression is so obvious and sustained, it doesn’t even feel accurate to call it a micro-expression. That suggested to me there is some substantial truth in his claims that she harassed him via social media. However, I’m also noticing that in Gadd’s public interviews he is making claims about that aspect of the stalking only. He will only refer to the dramatised scenes of her SA, physical attack and coming to his home by referring to the characters in the show, and how it happens to them, their feelings etc. He has never once, to my knowledge, commented on those events as happening to HIMSELF. Reading between the lines, I think it’s because the majority of what’s depicted in the show didn’t actually happen. Which presumably puts Netflix in significant legal difficulties now she has been connected to the character depicted.
I wonder if Gadd told Netflix compliance that she was a “convicted stalker” because he misunderstood old newspaper articles about Laura Wray’s legal response to harassment by Harvey. And no one at Netflix checked that claim was accurate…
@@Tess78uk yeah great catch on the response to Piers’ question. I think he really got her in that moment and all her truth slipped in a second.
I've had a weird feeling there's more to this since watching it & I still don't think we're getting the full story.
I think Terri foreshadowed (or post? shadowed lol) when she accused Gadd/Dunn of courting drama for new material.
Someone commenting on another BR analysis said that Gadd didn't give Fiona that drink to be kind but to lead her on & exploit her in some way (either for comedy material or just to mock with his colleagues, as they apparently had a habit of that).
I don't think he could have known Fiona was a stalker & I'm not saying he isn't a victim but I do think this whole saga began with him targeting her for unkind reasons.
Like Gadd said, BR explores the grey areas of stalking & I think the victim/perp lines are even more blurred than he lets on.
Even then, I STILL feel like I'm missing something...
Anyway, I'll wait for the mob to pounce on me lol
@@hannahmitchell87watch multiple interviews with Gadd and look for where there are sudden bursts of pleasure and animation in his expression/behaviour. How is he framing himself when that happens? I think I can see a pattern which might tell us about his motivations, but I’m not an expert and I could be wrong. I’m intrigued whether others are seeing what I’m seeing…
I don't know if you can do this in the UK, but if she wins any money in this suit, I hope the court will rule that she must turn all of it over to organizations that provide support to stalking victims.
I think..... you made a very compelling case for the validity of the FH vs Netflix lawsuit. ❤
So Fiona can cause all kinds of heartache for people, stalking them……yet she can sue for defamation? I hope she loses.
I wonder how the actress got so spot on without being able to see her. Like study how she behaves . Interesting
He has the voicemails and emails. Studying those, and a great director. She nailed it! She is an incredibly gifted actress.
What I’m curious about is what are the normal pacifiers and adapters a person will display if they are just nervous about being on a popular talk show for the first time? Is the conversation topic always the focus of physical behaviors or could it also be part of their fear or anxiety about public speaking, if you will?
The only issue I have with Richard is that he claims he took every precaution to make sure Fiona wasn't found, it's pretty obvious he wanted her to be found. And honestly I can understand why, but him pretending to be a saint, saying how much good the show is doing and that he tried to protect Foinas identity is in my opinion bullshit.
He knew that she would be a sacrifice he was willing to make, to make the show as popular as it, as real as it is, and he wanted his 15 min of fame.
I loved the show and think he's very talented and deserving of his success, I just can't handle that he pretends he cares about Foinas privacy, he obviously doesn't, and he wanted revenge.
@@rsmith2555 Wow, you and me have the -EXACT- same feeling about Gadd.
I didn't think anyone else picked up the feeling that he is vindictive and attention seeking, and he made sure Fiona would be found.
I think it's long overdue that he publicly states what parts of the show is made up, so people don't attack and harass Fiona for things she didn't do.
I think she probably has some issues and I believe parts of this story is true, I'm not sure how much Gadd encouraged her behavior though, for narcissistic reasons
I believe the first victim of FH speaks in just facts with no embellishments because shes a lawyer, and thats how they're trained to think and speak.
Jessica Gunning is an innocent actress. Gadd knows he altered the truth and should not have labeled it a true story. Netflix was negligent in checking facts and should never put true story but based on or dramatization of his life events and the characters and events are dramatized 😢
Netflix effed up. She’s gonna get money.
I think the disclosure she provided for her criminal background was a basic one which doesn’t go back more than a few years and doesn’t show much information. An enhanced disclosure should show all convictions etc
I couldn’t even see the date of the certificate and I agree with you that they should have had the enhanced certificate but also asked for discovery purposes, her whole medical and psychiatric history records, not just because many people want to know what, if anything was actually diagnosed over the course of her life and if she was ever admitted to a secure facility and why that was the case. Having said that, I should add that her medical and psychiatric health records should only pertain to the actual lawsuit and not divulged to everyone who feels that they have an interest in the case and its outcome. The rest of her records we are not entitled to know about, despite her treatment of others.
16:26 he is right... this show is doing massively good things. Men are reporting their stalking and domestics more, etc.
So…isn’t it good Ms. Harvey was discovered so quickly and the conviction myth was dispelled? Also, the real Teri was found shortly after the real Martha. The scrutiny is so annoying. Leave this man alone please. Leave them all alone.
This was a great analysis. I’m absolutely flabbergasted that Fiona wasn’t charged and tossed in jail. If a man sent 41,000 emails, showed up at a woman’s work or home he would be in jail and charged. I hope her lawsuit doesn’t have merit in the courts, but it could! She definitely was very inappropriate in her behaviour and she should have been stopped. I watched it and felt sick at the level of stalking and what he endured at the hands of that man. I bet he feels a level of freedom getting his story out. Fiona on the other hand had her behaviour exposed and hopefully if her behaviour was true she seeks help!
NONE of Netflix’s “documentaries “ are 100%. I’m not defending Harvey because she clearly is a dangerous woman,but it won’t surprise me if Netflix loses this lawsuit.
This is completely unrelated to the video but do you know what the book is called that is about micro expressions and it has a skeleton on half the book
Reminds me of the show bones
The stalker will win the first case
But,
The stalker will essentially end up getting counter sued for emotional harm so that she will not gain financially.
About the doubting about the date, I think I have an idea of what is happening.
Wall of text incoming:
I have really bad memory and a lot of things that I SHOULD remember because of how important are for me or how passionate I'm about them, yet when I don't double check the facts, I often get something wrong or I mess something at some point.
Now, given what has happened after the release of his series (so it already has a lot to think about) and how important that specific date is for him, he might be doing that just in case he messes something up, to be covered and prevent some of the shame.
Just my 2 cents...
Spidey, I think there's a video you really should watch. A youtuber called muncat claims she "debunks" behavioral analysis. Among others, she speaks about you, Chase and Ekman, calls it all literally a BS and even I can easily see some fallacies and manipulations she uses in that material and I am quite irritated, especially when it comes to you who always puts so much emphasis on being objective and science-based. I believe that video is harmful. Please if you have a moment some day, I WOULD LOVE to see how you debunk or at least comment on that "debunker"! The video title is: I debunked every "Body Language Expert"...
Please forgive that my comment doesn't relate to your new video directly, but seeing that material is actually popular makes me crazy so I really wanted you to see that
I remember seeing it before. The lady has a very condescending vibe and at one point waves a beer glass in her hand when she feels like she made her case. She seems to have a beef against behavior analysis. I wouldn’t pay too much attention to it.
I havent watched it yet....but you have peaked my interest. It would be pretty hard to debunk Spidey since he explicitly states over and over, "There isn't a single gesture that allows you to know someone is lying"
@cheyennesmith3365 I would normally ignore it, but unfortunately, that video has millions of views. I found it by reading one psychologist's posts - he mentioned it as a good material. And when I opened it, to my surprise I've seen Spidey in there... I really used to respect and trust that psychologist, but I am really disappointed now and the impact of that video worried me.
@@SunGX123 that's right, but she even goes further and shows an out-of-context clip where Spidey says something like "some research says this, some other don't" and she uses it as one of elements confirming her theory that whole behavioral analysis is only based on manipulated science and all thise experts are just basically saying BS. And her condescending tone is really triggering there
I think one thing about the release date is he might have had a UK release date, a US release date, and a worldwide release date and possibly just making sure he's not mixing them up. T
They never said it’s about her. So I don’t see how anyone slandered her. It will be interesting
She never plead guilty to a crime. They refer to her as a convicted stalker. There's a clear connection between the character and her.
@@barbarabuttler7647who said that Fiona Harvey is a convicted stalker? In BR, Martha Scott is a convicted stalker. So if FH is not a convicted stalker then maybe she's not MS.
@@dianasayson2846 The production knows that internet sleuths have identified Fiona as the person on whom the character is based. They have not categorically denied this deduction, therefore, they will need to provide an alternate criminal to convince me that Fiona wasn't slandered.
They found here by searching Twitter. She sounds and looks like her. It was easy. @dianasayson2846
They portrayed a character easily identifiable as a real person and stated that she was convicted of a crime.
Recently came across your videos in my Baby Reindeer rabbit hole 🙂 Solid and compelling analyses! I find them interesting and even educational. I like how this one is consistent with the one about Piers' Fiona interview, and you're right to 'toot your own horn' about that a bit 🙂 Keep up the good work!
it's still really so crazy to think that those things can happen to someone...😬
There’s our man!! Always count down the days for your vids xxx
They will have to settle out of court. It would have been so easy for them to have put at the the beginning based on a true story!
It's at the end. There must be a reason for disclaimers or else no one would use them.
@@judithmorganjudyteen but at the beginning they contradict that by saying this IS a true story. Disclaimers shouldn't be hidden & should give additional info, not conflicting, surely?
Everytime I go outside and especially when on my golfcart my previously abused horse stalks me. He watches my house too. Wonder where I report him.
Neighbourhood watch
Hello from Armenia 🇦🇲 Big fan of yours.
long live armenia 👍
I read the Wikipedia article for some context because I really hadn’t heard much except that recommended videos kept popping up in my RUclips feed.
According to the Wikipedia article it was Fiona who “outed” herself as the inspiration for Martha. THEN she claims having her life ruined and is seeking to sue???
Is the Wikipedia article true? Did she publicly claim herself to be the inspiration for the character, or was she interviewed BECAUSE people had identified her?
A couple of points for thought here...
Fiona seems to hold on to specifics to dispute, often small things and will insert them into conversation when not entirely relevant or even put a side tangent to add these disputed facts like diet coke and that the first instance wasn't a cup of tea. Like, oh okay, you might have harassed him, definitely have seenhim more than a handful of times but it WASN'T A CUP OF TEA!!!
This makes me think that there's less credibility in her denial of sexual assault IN A CANAL because "in a canal" could be enough for her to give a confident denial because she can hold on to that fact.
While FH has been outed as Martha she disputes the accuracy of the accent, the looks of Jess when portraying her/Martha and things that are clearly connections for other people so I think FH zones in on details to be disputed that she feels confident she can dispute.
Also the 4&1/2 years in prison might not have been totally plucked from the air. The lawyer Laura Wray mentions in the interview with PM that the harassment from FH went on for -can't remember exact quote but something like: nearly/almost 5 years. So it may be that this was mentioned in an article that this went on for 4&1/2 years, culminating in judicial action and this fact then morphed into the fictional sentence.
Also with the name changes it's hard to believe it wasn't in order to hide something and I wonder what else there might be. FH is so persistent when obsessed with a person surely there are more reports as the lawyer Laura Wray mentions not only another case that Fiona similarly falsely accused/reported another person (lawyer too?) to child protection agencies. FH confidentiality disputes being a "convicted stalker" or going to gaol but that doesn't mean there's not other incidents involving law enforcement. Laura also mentions people who have been in contact with her personally but are afraid to come forward.... there's way more to this than just Gad's story.
Having said all that Netflix dropped the ball. Simply saying based on, inspired by etc or even this is MY story would have covered them far better than an after scene disclaimer.
If California lawyers are happy to sue you have to assume they could find no convictions but what if FH served time in a non conventional way? I'm interested to see if a non-criminal conviction but other dalliance with the law turns up.
One final point, just because there's no conviction doesn't mean there wasn't violence. Not every punch up at the bar gets taken to the cops.
I wonder if the thinking harder on the dates is because he’s trying to give the correct date for the US premier?
But how can you say this story isn't true when all the facts aren't yet known? We're still at the she said/they said stage. Even the police haven't released any information, as criminal records are never made public in the UK.
I mean. Richard flat out said she wasn’t convicted in a recent interview, so that part of the show is in fact, not true. that’s the main part she’s suing over.
About dates, in my case, I never only remember exact dates by "making calculations" based on another common event, like the beginning of winter or my birthday o that kind of things, so I always have to think before I say a date, even when it's something very important to me. But maybe I'm weird 😅