Epiphany!!! Hey everyone I hope you’re enjoying the analysis 😊. I have a bunch of extra thoughts some of which are a result of your brilliant comments and I might add to this post later but I just had an epiphany that I wanted to share! I realized another big big reason I believe the court scene is potentially fabricated. I can’t believe it didn’t hit me earlier but… Martha pleads guilty! Listen to Fiona talk, nothing is ever her fault. This is not a woman who would have plead guilty. So maybe there are some elements of truth to the court scene but between her unwavering denials, her constantly bringing that specific subject up and the fact that she just doesn’t seem the “plead guilty” type I think a lot of that is made up for dramatic effect. Also, a few commenters have said that Richard has confirmed in an interview that the jail thing was made up. Can anyone drop any links of that interview in the replies here or tell me what interview that was in? I would love to see that.
Omg!!!!😳 wow! Just when I thought your analysis was perfect you drop this little gem. Of course she wouldn’t plead guilty. Even the way she was denying everything about Laura Wray, such a great epiphany. Can’t wait to hear more 😆
She also says she changed her surname after her parents were divorced - likely in anticipation of Piers asking if she changed because of the media attention caused by her previous stalking - then later says her parents divorced when she was 9. So clearly she changed it at least 15-20 years after their divorce. Just another clear deception.
I absolutely agree with you about that scene and how Fiona wouldn't have pleaded guilty. I wondered when I saw it, whether it was something he was daydreaming about happening. I didn't expect her to do it in the programme. So I agree. That part was made up.
I was thinking that scene is very common in trauma therapy. The person plays out what they wish could have been the outcome. We don't know how much involvement he had in suggesting or including that but it would make sense. He wants to maintain the nice guy, cares about her, would never do that side but must have a lot of anger and shame and would have preferred to feel safe. I wonder if he's been to actual therapy about all of this trauma.
So she wants to sue Netflix over a show she's never seen, for defamatory reasons because the Antagonist, who she isn't, is doing things she didn't do. Make it make sense. 😂
Waittt, did I miss that?? Seriously asking, because I don't remember her saying this story isn't about her. In this interview, she acknowledges that she noticed it was about her after seeing his Baby Reindeer play years ago. Unless she also says it isn't about her somewhere else in the interview lmao..
that’s probably why she’s lying about it but tbh i think it’s a silly move. who wouldn’t watch a show that’s aimed at them , esp if it’s all lies as she claims
Oh the ways she'll be getting a kick out of the fact he made it about her and that he wanted to re-enact it by playing himself in the story...She'll be desperate to sue to keep the "relational drama" between them alive.
Watching the interview, you can almost pick out every detail that Netflix may have fudged for dramatic effect. Ive never even seen the show, but I could probably pick out the ones she wants scrubbed from existence.
Yes, Martha is based off of her. And a lot of what the show depicts is clearly correct; but equally, a lot has been added/changed. They should have said it was “based on a true story.” That way they had wiggle room for the storyline to not perfectly mimic the truth. For example, the back “half” of the show, episodes 5-7, seemed to blur the line of truth and had quite a bit of noticeable exaggeration. Like, he didn’t have a melt down on stage at a comedy gig, he wrote a play about what happened to him and the sexual confusion he felt afterwards (called “monkey see, monkey do”) that won a comedy festival award back in 2014ish. So based on truth, but not 100% true. In another example, they turned his sudden attraction for trans people (a trauma reaction from what happened to him) into a “love” story, because talking about the real reason why he had this sexual confusion and sudden desires isnt palatable for the “preferred narrative”; especially as “artsy” as the theatre industry is, he had to say it was all okay because he’s okay with the confusion now that he never felt before the grape. So with this all being said, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if they tweaked some parts of Fiona’s stalking storyline in order to make the story more dramatic, complete, and marketable for the network execs. She may actually have a decent case in a court of law. Again, this is why they either should has stuck to 100% the truth and not changed one tiny iota, or they should have said it was *based* on a true story; because the introduction definitely leaves the audience with the impression that every single bit of it is true and accurate. 🤷🏽♀️ (And never watch/support another show Sam Bain writes on or produces again. He’s the real villain of this story!)
@@chilltarts Damn, you put into words the disconnect I felt about the "message" being pushed. The Teri relationship felt very forced and unrealistic, even for what I imagine a relationship like that would be with real people
Anyway the guy used her emotionally as well and she was very unwell. He could have stopped it from week one but it was feeding his ego. He endet up famous and rich while her life was damaged and her reputation currently does not even exist. We heard only one side of the Story. People would have been less crirical if she was physically attractive...
@@sabrinehajri3796while I agree that it’s a bit crazy for him to end up rich and famous, let’s not forget what she has done. The constant barrage of communication plus showing up to his work many times? And probably more things but can’t say for sure. I can only imagine what kind of nightmare that must’ve been for him to go through. Just cuz she’s “unwell” doesn’t give her a pass. It’s perhaps an explanation? The whole show though about him being a victim is kinda icky. I know he takes responsibility in some parts where he’s aware of what he’s doing, but he always qualifies his actions. Doesn’t sit comfortably with me. So what I’m trying to say is that I don’t like either of them! 😅
I don't think "photographic" memory for things like studying information etc (semantic memory) is the same as remembering life events (episodic memory), there are different kinds of memory and being good at one doesn't mean you can't be bad at another. Not to say that she's not full of it, just that it's possible a person can have the ability to remember information remarkably well but not be able to recall details of other things in their life
Don't forget the part where she "sent no voice messages" but she DOESN'T WANT Gadd to show HIS PROOF of the voice messages. I wonder how could someone record me for 350 timed during 2-3 random encounters 😂😂😂😂
@@kg6801 Meh, who has time for fine distinctions like episodic versus semantic memory when there's a pile-on and everyone's invited? Thanks for the sanity. PS photographic, or eidetic, memory is usually, as the name implies, visual, which means it confers no special ability to retain conversations and events. As a successful Law graduate, this is likely exactly the condition Harvey was referring to. There are of course mnemonists like "S" (the subject of Luria's famous monograph) who remembered every word spoken to them, but interestingly, even he claimed to encode the transcripts of conversations in a visual mode, imagining them written on scraps of paper.
She also said at the begining "I never knew this guy" but when asked about the tweets she is saying "it was banter, we were all friends". How can you be friends with a guy you don't know?
Yup, they weren't friends and only met a few times. Then later also says she went to his stand up, sent handful of emails, had many "inside jokes" etc, etc.
And why email a guy you don’t know to congratulate him? What was she congratulating him for? How did she know he achieved something? Assume it’s when he made it to the stand up comedy finals. How did happen to have the email address of a guy she only met 2 or 3 times?
@@LeeleeDotComit was a letter handwritten when she read about his rape allegations in the newspaper, she goes on to say how she was sorry to hear that this had happened and that it was not his fault. She must have had his home address.
For me, the acress playing her was more likable and she was so beautiful too. She also made me feel for her. This woman, I feel nothing but irritation. I must add, I don't believe the entire show was true.
@@keris81 Gadd has said as much in some interviews. He's said the story is true. I think that means the emotions and basics. I know many people don't watch the end credits, but I do. "This program is based on real events; however certain characters, names, incidents, locations and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes.”
@@shethingsd most companies have to put something along those lines in the end credits in case the real person involved in a “true story” takes legal action
She also said earlier in the interview that she thought he was homosexual. Then she claims that he was trying to sleep with her. I think she’s being more untruthful than truthful.
Talking about her latest boyfriend of 5 years and that she has professional friends and colleagues are easily debunked. She has never worked apart from a few occasions where she had internships which she was quickly .sacked from and once had to be picked up and carried. In no universe is her having a boyfriend for 5 years viable
Devil's advocate: what if she was just embarrassed by the content of the emails, considering them private? It doesn't necessarily follow that their quantity and nature would vindicate Gadd's narrative about her. The experience could be humiliating to her without proving the show truthful. Not to single you out (in fact yours is one of the most reasonable comments here), but in general this topic is drawing out of people a certain carelessness when it comes to reasoning. Most people's instinct is to dislike Harvey, justifiably or otherwise, and then to rationalize this with fallacious and overly-confident leaps of logic.
@@bradkeyes7184 your point makes no sense. She’s already being humiliated by the public bc of the show. If she claims to only have sent him innocent emails then she has no reason to be embarassed by them, given the accusations that are already on her. Unless she knows she’s lying.
@@nai110 Yeah, I totally agree that there's almost certainly something in those communications that would look bad for her, or that she fears would look bad for her (bearing in mind that she might not even remember everything in them). All I'm pointing out is the false dichotomy of assuming that they either: 1. are innocent or 2. prove the Netflix narrative was correct. And the grey area in between is where I expect the action will be, because Harvey would NOT need to be blameless in order to have a strong case for defamation against Gadd and Netflix. The show makes specific, testable imputations that are very injurious to her name, and for which Gadd and Netflix are likely the only parties capable of producing the proof, if any proof exists. Which is still an open question, however much the court of RUclips may have decided otherwise.
@@bradkeyes7184 I agree, but I believe it was more due to the fact that she didn't want to be proven wrong by lying that she didn't send voicemails. So it's prob both
Richard Gadd said from the very start publicly that the real Martha never went to prison and that he never pressed charges because he felt she was suffering from mental health issues beyond her control.
Richard Gadd "has said from the start very publicly" that the opening gambit of every episode of the TV show he himself wrote-'this is a true story'-is false, and he knows it? You might intuitively think such candid admissions go some way towards letting him off the hook legally. A lawyer will tell you the opposite.
Then he should not have put a false scene in a video condemning her to prison. He was smarmy, Netflix was presenting lies as truth. No one comes out of this well.
@@theresamc4578He wasn't smarmy 😂 Maybe he realised down the line that's what his stalker deserved. Lots of men feel shame when they're abused and will often excuse women who hurt them to compensate for this but perhaps now he's realised she deserved jail time and this was an artistic, cathartic representation of how he feels, which he has every right to do as a *victim* ...
As a Scot myself “writing the whole show in my sleep” is basically her saying that this whole show, its narrative, plot and story is about her and her life yet she had absolutely no input in it at all 😊
As an American, I thought it was really weird that he didn't understand what she meant by this, especially since he's someone who is clearly able to read between the lines. Even though we have a similar figure of speech that means something different, the way she meant it couldn't have been more obvious, IMO.
Also wanted to add to your point toward the end. The whole time I was watching this, I kept thinking back on this moment in the show where Richard says something like, "No matter what I say, you're just going to pick and choose what you want to hear and twist it." That's basically what she did the entire interview and I can absolutely see a person like her bullying their way through conversations
I had a stalker 23 years ago and it still affects me now. The mental stress is hard to get over . He attacked me with a knife but the mental trauma was the hardest to deal with. I've not slept properly since. Stalkers need jail time. My stalker got a 2 year sentence suspended for 2 years. The day the suspended sentence ran out he started again! People don't realise how stalking is a serious crime!
She should watch it. I binged it yesterday, and even though she’s an “antagonist” of sorts, she’s not THE antagonist. I thought Gadd really kept the spotlight on himself and his own demons and treated her with compassion throughout. I sobbed through the end of it. Brilliant from start to finish
Great analysis! Absolutely!! It was very captivating to watch the Protagonist feel so much compassion, and deep relatability and how that grew from his pity for her character...
I watched it with my British husband and realised that some of the choices Donny made were so typically indecisive introvert that my husband would have done the same in those situations... My husband doesn't know how to say no in many cases, because he doesn't want to offend others, and would rather swallow unpleasant situations himself. Which makes me somehow relate to Teri from time to time. But luckily he's not met a Darrien nor a Martha in his life... The show made him reflect his past decisions and what it felt like to me when he left me to deal with conflicts.
@@treasuresofearth3014I hope that your husband is actively getting help because that’s not normal. It may be normal to agree to small things like giving someone a ride or agreeing to an event you don’t want to go to. It’s NOT normal to be raped as an adult and not say no. It’s not normal to play into a stalker…
In my own experience, people who are this disordered can’t really see the nuanced complexities of themselves or other people - I think she absolutely did watch it & likely missed the point entirely, solely focused on how she was slighted & “misunderstood” … that being said, I totally agree with you & also was moved to tears quite a few times! 😭
@@whiskeytangofoxtrot1986 He's never been raped/sexually harassed and never been bothered by a stalker. I hope you have understood when I said "luckily he's never met a Darrien or Martha". But he's been in situations where someone was bothering him with aggression, for example, he decided to not stand up against it firmly. Not everyone live around dangerous people, many of us live in very safe bubbles of the local community. When we say we can firmly reject a rapist or a stalker, can we really do that given the situation? How? It's easier said than done.
I did wonder if people had been telling her though. She is clearly an obsessive type of person and having also experienced something big like this, I doubt she has spoken about anything else.
@@Hippydays1959 She lived it but why would "people told me" ... that the actress wasn't very convincing or did a poor job? or all the other details people wouldn't actually talk about^^ she clearly has been binging it :D
There is an interview with Richard Gadd where he actually said that the jail scene has not happened in real life because he thought she didn’t deserve jail time as an unwell person. I’d say the true story is true in the sense of his emotional journey. It’s a show - not a documentary.
@@TheBehavioralArts My apologies if I have spammed you with comments. I have attached a link with the article in my answers but don't see it in the comment section. But maybe it is somewhere there after all.
I’m a somatic trauma therapist and I spend a great deal of time watching patients’ face and body movements. My gut feeling from her, particularly in relation to her eye movements, is that she has a personality disorder. I agreed with everything this presenter says. Her verbal responses seem unusually inappropriate and indeed, narcissistic.
Yes. One of the popular RUclips psychologists said a mix of them. I think because we pity her, and you know this is something very hard to treat, she gets away with terrorizing people. Looks like it is the personality disorders that infuriate and fascinate people.
We must be sensitive when diagnosing others. Because Npd, bpd, aspd are made by trauma. Its literally not her fault if she got this stuff. Only fault she has is being in therapy or not.. Friends just told her to get rich and sue and thats what shese doing. And what americans tend to do is follow theough and make a biggr show of it then saying like yeah ok im sorry i shouldnt have done this.
“I am so offended about the lies about me in a show that is definitely not about me!” This is a good example of why a personality disorder is an actual disorder and not a fantastic way to live a life.
@CarolinaSoulStar Well the name was different. Therefore it was not 100% true. If only we had a law that said "TV series that say that they are true must be 100% true" then they could be sued for that.
@@SamS-uv2ql we know the show is about her, she’s saying that herself. She is also saying parts are untrue, that may or may not be the case, but that is her complaint whether accurate or not.
She was almost panicked when he asked about producing the evidence. I have never even heard of the show, but I am impressed how she's so knowledgeable about details of a show she has never seen. 😂
Hold stalkers accountable. Stalking is a CRIME!!! Stalkers lie because they know full well what they are doing is WRONG!! They are hoping the public is both sympathetic and gullible.
Have you ever met a stalker? I’ve known one in real life and it was terrifying. She was not in her right mind and was eventually sent to a hospital when it became dangerous for those involved. Once she got on some meds she was able to function again and come back to reality
What I find crazy is the guy was raped by a high profile professional in the TV industry, repeatedly! And yet everyone is going after the stalker as if that's the most heinous crimes. Why hasn’t it come out who raped baby reindeer?
Great analysis! One other thing. She keeps using this catchphrase “BBC Breaking News.” BBC Breaking News covers urgent developing news stories, not the fact that Richard Gadd is doing a play at the Edinburgh Festival!
Yes. They look nothing alike. Yet the resemblance is uncanny. How Marta carries herself, mannerisms, speech patterns are all just like Fiona. She's an incredible actress.
UK here. Done it my sleep can mean 2 things 1. That you are so competent you can do it with your eyes closed as you referenced, but also, 2. That you have no recollection of doing it, so must have been done in your sleep
I’d be willing to bet he added the jail sentence scene as a closure in an effort to try to protect her identity - to try to convince the audience to not bother with trying to find out who she really is, because “she’s in jail already.”
Yes, he had so much compassion that he wrote and starred in a Netflix shoe in which he revealed everything she did (possibly some exaggeration and invention for drama), then had her sobbing and admitting to all of it, and going to prison. Lord save me from anyone with such compassion.
I'm rewatching these after now seeing the show. One thing stood out to me when you said "she came here with seemingly good intentions to give her side of the story." But I realized she never did give her side of the story. She only either confirmed or denied certain parts of his story. Why would she not tell us her side? What really happened if all these things are false with only few things that are true?
Great point. Truth tellers aren’t USUALLY so defensive but that’s a huge generalization and also keep in mind she would feel very attacked by the series so there’s a goal here to set the record straight. It seems like in clarifying which parts were fiction she only confirmed all the stuff that was true though.
Thank you Fiona for coming forward, if only to prove what an amazing actress Jessica Gunning is! She absolutely nailed this woman for never having met her!
@@markbisson6166 I agree, she very likely had been given quite a bit of material to base her performance on. Which means there is likely as much proof of Fiona's guilt as Gadd has claimed or close to it.
Hasn’t she defamed Gadd though? She called him a psychopath, severely mentally unwell, a forger and quite a few other nasty little barbs at him, on a platform that has had over 10 million views so far. Perhaps Gadd should sue her too!!
It's the same from gadd to her, it says that she's was convicted and sent to prison for 9 months and she wasn't. That's defamation also, and he has admitted that he didn't press charges apparently. They both clearly had issues and lied about each other.
@@i.m1981it's a show, not a documentary. Gadd said openly in an interview that the jail part was made up. I think it might have been there to give a sense of closure to the viewer as well as some hope for those being stalked, that this is a possible solution when they're being harassed.
Yes OP - if some fool lawyer wants to take Fiona on as a client pro bono, you bet Netflex will counter sue the heck out of them for damages & costs for their million dollar law team. Even if she manages not to abuse her lawyers & start stalking them, I don't believe her case will even make it to pre-trial. She cannot claim her privacy was compromised when she has open facebook pages, plus twitter accounts - making comments about Richard non stop... long before the Netflix show, & long before the Piers Morgan interview. She outed herself. She can't stand Richard is successful without her, so she inserts herself in his life again.
It's quite clear the actress had loads of material to practice with. MUCH more than 1-2 emails, 18 banter twitter msgs and absolutely no voice messages^^
Assume u are Martha or Fiona, everything is true, except one thing. You never went to jail. You would be angry, and in the eye of the law would be defamed and have a valid lawsuit against Netflix.
And the Piers interview doesn't, to me, make me feel any empathy for Fiona. She's highly unlikable. She's mean and scary. She's the kind of person I'd only have empathy for if I was being paid to treat her. I didn't get the personality disorder vibe from the Martha character, but very quickly into the Piers interview with Fiona, I recognized personality disorder behaviours.
If she said “I must have wrote it in my sleep” yeah that means she has no recollection of it. But she said wrote it in my sleep, that means it’s so easy you could do it in your sleep.
I agree, I've heard people use i must have been asleep when I did that when someone tells them they did something they don't remember. Like saying I've slept since then if you don't remember saying something
@@bradkeyes7184 RIchard Gadd was clearly traumatised by the years of stalking and abuse, as was the other lawyer woman. Whatever she was doing to them sounds scary enough
@@77NickDale Gadd is a storyteller. Whether he's telling true stories or not is far from something you know "clearly." He sounds like every other fake victim, and every other real victim, we've ever heard. See the problem? Anyway, the commenter didn't say Harvey scared Gadd, she said Harvey "is" scary.
I agree with Spidey's comment that it was unreasonable for Ms. Harvey to not verify the actual number of mails sent. As a fellow lawyer, it's almost second nature for us to seek out evidence to support our claims. Also, when we defend an innocent client, we always challenge the opposing party to disclose the evidence against our client. That's often the best way to get my client out of a mistaken or unjustly accused situation quickly. That fact that Ms. Harvey, as a lawyer herself, didn't adopt such a strategy to get herself out of this awful situation is unconvincing.
@lawgwen9287 Tell me more about this New Burden of Proof, "fellow lawyer." In particular, I'm dying to know why you have no problem with Netflix making the affirmative existential claim that there are thousands of emails, while perversely holding it against Harvey that she doesn't (somehow) prove there are only 12 or so. Do ordinary people have a duty to retain records of past correspondences just in case they're misrepresented in a Netflix series one day? As someone who claims to have made it through Law school, why do you even think it's logically *possible* to prove there are only twelve of something? Are you really telling us that in the role of opposing counsel, you would accept the production of 12 emails as evidence that no 13th, 14th, or 41,000th email exists? If so, then on the day I'm charged with a crime, I'm going to hope you're the prosecutor.
@@bradkeyes7184 What's the point of attacking me personally? I may disagree with Netflix and Piers Morgan's actions, but the focus of this video is whether Ms. Harvey was truthful or not. This isn't a trial - let's keep the discussion without resorting to personal attacks. We can have a constructive dialogue without descending into that. p.s. Sorry to disappoint you but I don't do criminal laws.
@@lawgwen9287 "This isn't a trial" Well you led with the fact that you're a lawyer, so I expected a certain argumentative rigor, but if I overestimated the seriousness with which you intended your own comments to be taken I apologize. In my defense, this entire thread is a personal attack on one stranger or another (who unlike you, aren't here to defend themselves), so I was just getting into the spirit of it. But I appreciate the reply and am happy to drop my adversarial stance. So out of constructive curiosity, am I missing something or have various commentators from Spidey onwards applied a remarkable and asymmetric standard of proof in expecting Harvey to produce a small number of emails, as though this would somehow disprove claims that there exist in fact a far higher number of emails? As a matter of Logic 101, how and why is it up to her to falsify an affirmative existential claim, in defiance of hundreds of years of jurisprudence (formal or colloquial) whereby the onus has always been on the only party who can possibly settle the question: the affirmative existential proponent?
@lawgwen9287 I also misread a phrase in your second paragraph, so I may have jumped the gun a bit. Thanking you in advance for being more polite than I was-Brad.
@@bradkeyes7184Just as a side note, I know you think you're being eloquent in the way you talk, but it is kind of just word salad. If you want to be an effective communicator, keep it simple.
As for the phrase “I must have done (such and such) in my sleep” - I’ve heard people say this in reference to something they’ve been relentlessly accused of doing and they’re so certain that they have *not* done the act that they’re sarcastically saying the only way they could’ve done it is if they’d been sleepwalking.
@@Leeloo219 Exactly, thank you for restoring my faith in humanity! Your abilities to sense irony and sarcasm are much better than those of most people here. I’m surprised that so few people have ever heard the expression, and I’m dismayed by how many can’t comprehend it. I’m also surprised by those who are confusing it with the phrase, “I’ve done it so much I could do it in my sleep.” 😳 Yikes, those idioms may sound similar but they sure mean extremely different things! 😂
@@Bethsabee_Sheba_NewroseNon native speaker here, I knew the phrase of doing something so many times you may as well be asleep, I hadn’t heard the other meaning.
Yes! This was exactly my thought when I heard her say that. It is an odd way to use the phrase, but her tone when she said it came off almost self-congratulatory (for lack of better terms).
OMG- Spidey (at 10:55) mimicking a conversation with a bartender about a baby reindeer then segwaying into not drinking alcohol was hilarious and cute as hell. 😂💜
Thanks so much. I think she uses “we” the same way she keeps saying “my friends” think this or “people have said” that. She’s adding more weight to her story by suggesting there were more people involved or witnesses
@@TheBehavioralArts 'people' meaning her and maybe one friend. She definitely has Borderline PD, they'll use the whole "everyone thinks/says..." line to justify any wild claim they make, when in reality it stems from them telling a story to someone and someone listening (not even necessarily believing). That morphs into "everyone says..../all my friends think...", because they can somehow 'justify' that in their brains, despite it making 0 sense to those without a personality disorder. BPD is some scary shit, and if not managed, the person *can* quickly turn heavily toxic and abusive.
I think it could potentially come under the banner of “triangulation” - a manipulation tactic to bring in a third party (real or imagined) to add weight to an argument, it’s to make the other person feel outnumbered
At his committal hearing, the man who attacked me (officially diagnosed with Cluster B which includes BPD) announced to the magistrate "We welcome a jury trial your Honour". Same as here, I wondered who the "we" was/were.
One thing I found interesting is the actress plays her so well including her mannerisms which makes me think the actress had to have heard her speak on voicemails etc to know her quirks
@@LindaC616 Absolutely there must be video that the actress studied, as a source, the way she speaks as well seems odd as a fellow scot. Which the actress also captured.
@@cyndeewenzel6439 If I was the victim and this was indeed true I would be getting the footage from the bar as most bars have security cameras these days
Read an article in The Times saying Stephen King said the show was "one of the best things he's seen" and that the characrer is very reminiscent of the character in Misery.
Hi - I’m from the UK.When she says she must have written it in her sleep, she is trying to say that she is unaware of any of it happening, so it must have happened in her sleep.
She means she’s unknowingly wrote the script. As in she must have wrote it in her sleep coz she can’t remember doing it but ur right in the correct format it is ment to be used.
She says she didn’t tweet him then Piers corrects her and says “you did tweet him numerous times” and she immediately says “no it wasn’t numerous it was 18 times”
I originally thought she accidentally admitted to writing the emails because the spelling was so bad she sleep typed half the show but as the interview progressed I definitely think you’re spot on haha
Her nephew has come out publicly, writing that she did go to jail for several months, can’t remember exactly. So she HAS gone to jail under her middle name. So she WAS convicted of something. I don’t think she has a case.
@@Wanakarite sorry my English is my main English even do I live in the uk for 25 LEGALLY IM PORTUGUESE sorry and I got PTSD and ADAHD but still like read and do my won envestigation abaut everything I just don't take heverything like is the truth!!!
One thing that keeps cropping up is that she watched BBC breaking news. Usually BBC breaking news cover things like war, a death of someone influential or a natural disaster, it would not focus on a play that is on the edinburgh fringe festival.
Maybe the BBC British version is sort of like the difference between CNN and CNN International. This woman is clearly lying, but national BBC is probably more gossipy. The Brits love their gossip and tabloids.
@@mygirldarby We do love our gossip and tabloids but the bbc is the british broadcasting company which runs the majority of media in the uk, they wouldn't be breaking news for a scottish play at the edinburgh festival, the last time they had breaking news on the bbc was when queen elizabeth died. I think she is sayin this to try and sound more imporant then she actually is.
I absolutely love it when Spidey does a cut away to act something out!! It's always the best! "Anyway, what kinda soft drink do you have, because you know me and alcohol" 😂😂
She reminds me so much of my sister, who lies through her teeth, thinks of no one but herself, would trample over anyone to get what she wants, would make fantastic stories up, frame others and thinks she is perfect and nothing wrong with her and everyone else is a liar or something wrong with them
I have one of those sibs, too. She decided to ruin me and my reputation in my family out of her own insecurities. My dad would get off the phone with her and say, "I'm confused." Of course, he was. Her stories changed from moment to moment, and he was trying to be kind and understanding to her. I saw through her ruses and became her mortal enemy. She made my life miserable for years until I cut her off completely. thought the show was very good, kept my attention.
Fiona's manner of responding to questions is quite puzzling. She artfully crafts her answers in a way that, while potentially truthful, often skirts around the specific questions posed by Piers. Remarkably, she delivers these responses promptly, even under pressure, which is why i think she is a seasoned compulsive or pathological liar.
I have a friend who does that. It's like I ask her a question, but her brain parses it as "please make noises along these lines". I don't think it's manipulation, just not very good social skills and bad theory of mind skills.
It is so interesting, and fairly typical of how someone with a personality disorder (like NPD) will lie. There is a saying that people with NPD are good at tactics but terrible at strategy. So, in the moment, they are very skilled at a tactic like lying or deflecting, but they are terrible at long-term strategy, so they totally screw themselves once you take the totality of what they say or do into account.
When I watched the interview, I (perhaps most of us) knew instinctively that she was lying. We just didn’t know why we knew. You have the training and experience to tell us why. Thanks for sharing.
You can't be "blatantly deceptive." That's like being patently obscure or profoundly shallow or unadulteratedly tainted. Unless there are people who would fall for it, it's not a deceptive act.
@@bradkeyes7184 The word "deception" here describes the behavior / attempt, not necessarily the result. So yes, I think she can be blatantly deceptive - or, in other words, her attempts to be deceptive are obvious.
Right! And, "I don't think I ever sent him anything", "I may have tweeted him once years ago", "maybe 18 tweets". Like just let her keep talking and eventually she'll be like "I mean only 500 tweets" in no time 🤣
Ty for the attempt to analyze this crazy relationship. Gadd nailed her habit of creating her own reality, as witness by this interview. The show highlighted her only weakness, legal repercussions.
Richard Gadd was open about her never going to jail. I read about that before all this hype. That was never a secret. He said that he felt sorry for her and never wanted her to be in that position.
Nope, she says "we were all friends." If you're unfamiliar with Scottish vowel sounds it could easily be confused with "ol' friends," so check the subtitles rather than trusting your ear. Meaning in other words: it was a group of mutual friends, not necessarily that every single person in the group was friends with every single other person.
@@bradkeyes7184 subtitles are AI generated and more prone to error - context is lost. Why would she discuss a group of friends when they are discussing just one person? I appreciate your comment but this seems unlikely
@@rodprod8522 Fair question. My two cents: She regularly changed the topic or answered questions she was never asked in order to tick off her talking points. Switching the subject from dual to several would make sense in light of her overall agenda of 1. diffusing the relationship with Gadd by de-emphasizing intimacy or exclusivity. 2. reminding the world how many friends she has because she's so socially well-adjusted. Elsewhere she says regarding her boyfriend, “I don’t want to drag him in. He thinks this is horrendous. All of my lawyer friends do. All of my professional friends do."
I read it as her trying to make out that she wasn’t the only one doing these things. She was just joining in with the others. It sounds weird regardless.
Oooh I’m so happy you covered this! Such a treat it came early. I think when she said she wrote most of the show in her sleep she just meant unintentionally, like it was so easy for her she didn’t even have to try. She seemed entertained by this so I think she likes the thought of taking credit for the show existing. Gives her the significance she seems to be craving from others.
Narcissistic people don't care if they receive positive or negative attention but only that they get attention. Fiona demonstrates this very well. Be interesting to see how all this plays out.
While it's obvious that Fiona's story is dodgy, I am pretty sure Gadd skipped describing some steps made by him and other "buddies" that escalated this situation. She was a regular in that bar, and I am sure that her mental state was obvious to the patrons and the staff. I presume they used her as a comic relief there, and that it got out of hand. There are some very thin parts in his story, and these always emerge when his situation jumps from bad to catastrophic. We can all imagine how crowd can get nasty when they meet a person like Fiona for their own amusement, just look what is happening now around her. I am very suspicious about how Gadd actually interacted with her while knowing she was unstable.
This is a very valid counter consideration to the main narrative that has villainized her. I think you’re right to assume that he entertained her advances quite a bit
I agree too, yes she stalked him in my opinion and she clearly has mental health issues but Gadd completely entertained her madness, even encouraged it at times which to be fair, he does admit to, it's a very sad situation, not just for Gadd but for Martha (Fiona) as well. One of the things that annoyed me the most was that he could have ended things a lot sooner with regards to going to the police, especially when the attack on Terry happened, (If it did happen of course) but for the sake of the series, lets say it did happen, there were witnesses and an assault.. what else would the police need to arrest her?? I think Gadd put up with a lot more than he should and maybe that's because he was also a victim before he met her. It's a very good lesson to learn on why we should NOT entertain other peoples delusions.. especially when it harms others.
I agree. Gadd shows us that he made the curtains joke only once.. I am sure they were regularly making sexual jokes around her that both flattered her and grew her delusions.
The way her head popped up when he asked if she was challenging him to produce the recordings screams "no please don't show them the voicemails!" to me 😂
Love your analysis! Also interesting that it had to be “BBC Breaking News” that the show was a big deal/big story. I saw someone else say that this is likely how someone would write how “Martha” would react to finding out there was a show about her.
@@sharfalor4244 IMO she was likely searching for his show, curious about what he was up to or had a Google alert on his name. Just my pure speculation.
@@DrPatriceBerry I think most of us have speculated the same. Loocal entertainment ads could come up when she was on the news/weather but she tries too hard to tell us there was no way she was actually looking him up.
The „Breaking News“ also tipped me off. She used it at least twice and I was confused. Why would a play be mentioned as „Breaking News“? Well, maybe it was to her …
You know she was probably abused. She needs help. I don't understand why adult social services weren't called. If i saw a woman sitting at a bus stop for 16 hours....i would have called them.
There is a caveat in the credits of Baby Reindeer that states that certain events, characters, names, incidents, locations and dialogue have been fictionalised for dramatic purposes.
But it doesn't contain specific references to specific people that the internet can track down. He used her tweets and posts word for word, and it took people a matter of days to figure out who she was. Whereas in the case of Fargo, a character was likely in amalgamation of several people
Laura Wray says she and her partner were also a victim of Fiona's stalking. She had an interim injunction UK (restraining order in the US) placed against her and that is why she can confidently say she has never been to jail.
I’m so happy this came up on my feed! I watched the interview and I actually said out loud to my husband. I wish a behavior analysis specialist would do a study of this interview! Well done! Subscribed!
Saying that you are playing the devil's advocate when you are supposed to be defending yourself is such a hilarious strategy, she must be a great lawyer.
The very frequent hmmmmm ummmmmmmm hmmmm she does the whole time he’s talking drove me NUTS and felt like she was making noise so she could drown him out and/or jump in verbally quickly. It’s controlling and grates on my nerves
I had a very similar story with a stalker. Same types of emails. One sentences with typographical errors. He used to do the same mmmmm mmmm while I was speaking! He was already on his next thought and not listening to me
I RAN to your channel since I JUST finished the show and began watching this interview. I was going to ask for you to do a video on this very interview 😅 I'm so excited to watch 🥳
Same here lol! I am so glad he did this one! Does help exist for stalkers? This woman's perception of reality is so distorted. Its a matter of time before she REALLY hurts someone or herself!
An amazing analysis it captures everything I was thinking when I watched the interview after watching the show. My question for you is what is her disorder? Is she a sociopath?
I really enjoyed your analysis! Thank you so much! I just had a couple of thoughts about this that I wanted to share. 1. Regarding the "must have written it in my sleep" comment: I think that was her clumsy attempt at sarcastic wit. She’s claiming that she didn’t do the events portrayed in the show. You can’t remember doing something that you never did; therefore, she must have done them in her sleep. I’m not sure if that makes sense to anyone else, but that's how I perceived it. 2. People criticizing the accuracy of the story, I think, should remember that this is a true story from Richard’s perspective. Ten people could witness the same event, but all perceive it slightly different. Since he was so open about his own responsibility in the various situations in the show, I feel like we should grant him some artistic license, especially when he outright says that some of the events were “tweaked” for dramatic effect. It’s not, after all, a documentary. 3. The inaccurate portrayal that Martha/Fiona went to prison. I agree with what most people have said about fictitious detail. Mostly that it was a way of giving the audience a feeling of satisfaction at the end and that it tied a nice little bow around the show for dramatic effect, etc. When I first discovered that this element of the show was not fully accurate, I wondered if it could possibly be a metaphor. The prison being representative of her mental illness, from which she can never escape. Well, those are just my thoughts. Let me know if anyone out there agrees with me, or thinks I'm bat crap crazy myself. 🤪😝😋😘😛
I think the "story" is true, the details are partly factual and partly dramatised, but that doesn't change the 'story' of how a man was stalked by a woman with issues.
I was listening to this and when Piers asked her if she was challenging him, that “No!” Was pretty quick and panicky. She definitely didn’t want it to BE a challenge. It was more like “Oh, hell no!”
Yes, I wondered about that too. Everyone is speculating as to why Richard Gadd or Netflix have not provided evidence of the emails or voice mails, for example. Maybe there is a legal reason, whereby they are waiting for her to make that challenge and then they can go hell for leather and publish all of it.
@@AndersGebaut No, no legal department would ever advise a client to flirt with being sued. Netflix would fire them for exposing the company to litigation before you can say 41,000 Hail Marys.
The ironic thing is, she doesn't recognise how beloved Martha was at the end of the show, she could easily have just admitted to it all, said she was obsessed and why, and become an amazing redemption story about mental health and obsession. I honestly don't think she recognises herself.
Welp if I was Martha the last thing I'd do is go on TV to deny everything…i’d get my ducks in a row then go after Netflix and if it became public whilst going through the process you'd be more straight with any questions put to you instead of tripping yourself up! I think she had a major crush on him and went a bit deliulu…at that time but not as bad as Netflix depicts as in the court case?!? I'm bloody glad I'm not Martha 😂
You're to gullible. There is no way she would admit to anything that portrays her negatively. In her mind she has never ever done anything wrong^ EVEN as the Daily Mail reporter also said she called them 50x within a few hours Haha
Thanks for another amazing analysis, Spidey! I totally enjoyed your insights. I had a few thoughts: I think the reason that she stated that she had only watched Piers’ prison show maybe one time was that she was trying to send a message of “I’m not stalking you, Piers”. I also thought she looked QUITE disconcerted about the idea of Richard Gadd’s releasing the evidence. Like momentarily fearful. ❤
Both amazing points. I can totally see her being casual about his show, I still think there an element of condescension to it but yeah. And absolutely for the evidence thing. Very defensive.
Robert Durst used to squint blink when he was lying. Great video. I was waiting for this to come out. I have several email addresses but 4 phones? She was caught lying so many times in this interview.
I think putting "This is a true story" without any caveat is a bait for Fiona to sue, so everything can be poured out in court. Oh imagine the dirty laundry and the drama. Maybe they REALLY want it to happen so Season 2 can have something to be based on.
What is a couple of million of compensation for Netflix even if they lose the case in court? That's like the cost of a single episode of a show for them. In exchange, they get Depp vs Herd kind of global drama, buzz, talks and free exposure. That is textbook guerilla marketing right there for Netflix!
There is a caveat in the credits that states that certain events, characters, names, incidents, locations and dialogue have been fictionalised for dramatic purposes.
"This is a true story" in the first episode is part of the fictitious story imo. It's being told from Donny's point of view. Not necessarily richards. But then at the end of every single episode it mentions that this is based on true events and that certain details have been changed for dramatic effect. The disclaimer also says that Netflix is within legal authority to be doing this under the united states law as well as other countries. Something like that. Idk the exact wording. But she cannot sue them. They didn't out her. She outed herself.
Maybe the Netflix marketing professionals HOPED that Fiona stepped forward. Banked on it, in fact. If that is the case, it's an example of baiting Fiona. You CAN prevent trouble with people like Fiona. Just go DEEP: Dont Defend, Engage, Explain, Personalize.
I took her to mean that she's being credited for the title of the show even though (according to her) she's had nothing to do with any of it. So she's saying that she must have contributed "in her sleep" as she has no conscious knowledge of being involved. Then she says she must have written the whole show in her sleep ans I think that's her saying that she's being accused of doing everything written into the show even though (according to her) she wasn't involved.
Yea exact same thing in the US. You know I see this ALL THE TIME….and it’s almost always from the UK. The person from the UK will give the explanation for a slang word or older saying…or some such cultural thing that’s usually older….too not current or anything…..but it’s ALWAYS the exact same explanation in the US…..not sure why those in the UK think that so much older slang or old sayings aren’t used in the US at all and that they somehow don’t have the same meaning/explanation 🤷🏼♀️😂
Yep. Without a doubt. I have very rarely been able to guess what he personally thinks of someone or a situation even when he shows any emotion it’s towards then behaviors not the people and he never makes anyone feel bad for having their opinion. I love it
The biggest red flag for me is that everyone remarks on how well the actress who portrayed her nailed her… what was her frame of reference? There has to have been some material to pull from. Where did she pick up “Martha’s” cadence and intonation from if there was no evidence of how she spoke? Twitter posts and emails and Facebook messages and snail mail letters aside, all of that good evidence aside, if there was not an extensive inventory of spoken evidence how did the actress form her character?
I said this to my husband ! This convinced me there was lots of voicemails to tap into if it's true to the screen he'd even categorised them into emotions and themes
Just curious, how familiar are you with the gamut of Scottish accents? The actress certainly got the country right, but I'm not sure she got all the nuances right, or that a Scottish person would even find them similar. But I'm not Scottish, hence my genuine question.
Yeah that’s it Richard Gadd wore a hidden microphone to work, tending bar. Whenever he waited on YOU, just YOU he recorded your conversations. Then went home and edited them into stalker voicemails. What??!! I know someone that part of his job is to take a celebrities audiobook clips and edits them to make them say things that they didn’t really say. He explained that it takes weeks of editing to make a 2 minute bit. This being said, I highly doubt he recorded her.
@bradkeyes7184 I don't think its about the accent but more so the personality, intonation, habits of speech etc that really match between the actress and Miss Harvey
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Epiphany!!!
Hey everyone I hope you’re enjoying the analysis 😊. I have a bunch of extra thoughts some of which are a result of your brilliant comments and I might add to this post later but I just had an epiphany that I wanted to share!
I realized another big big reason I believe the court scene is potentially fabricated. I can’t believe it didn’t hit me earlier but… Martha pleads guilty!
Listen to Fiona talk, nothing is ever her fault. This is not a woman who would have plead guilty.
So maybe there are some elements of truth to the court scene but between her unwavering denials, her constantly bringing that specific subject up and the fact that she just doesn’t seem the “plead guilty” type I think a lot of that is made up for dramatic effect.
Also, a few commenters have said that Richard has confirmed in an interview that the jail thing was made up. Can anyone drop any links of that interview in the replies here or tell me what interview that was in? I would love to see that.
Omg!!!!😳 wow! Just when I thought your analysis was perfect you drop this little gem. Of course she wouldn’t plead guilty. Even the way she was denying everything about Laura Wray, such a great epiphany. Can’t wait to hear more 😆
She also says she changed her surname after her parents were divorced - likely in anticipation of Piers asking if she changed because of the media attention caused by her previous stalking - then later says her parents divorced when she was 9. So clearly she changed it at least 15-20 years after their divorce.
Just another clear deception.
I absolutely agree with you about that scene and how Fiona wouldn't have pleaded guilty. I wondered when I saw it, whether it was something he was daydreaming about happening. I didn't expect her to do it in the programme. So I agree. That part was made up.
I was thinking that scene is very common in trauma therapy. The person plays out what they wish could have been the outcome. We don't know how much involvement he had in suggesting or including that but it would make sense. He wants to maintain the nice guy, cares about her, would never do that side but must have a lot of anger and shame and would have preferred to feel safe. I wonder if he's been to actual therapy about all of this trauma.
Oh yes, of course, it makes sense now
So she wants to sue Netflix over a show she's never seen, for defamatory reasons because the Antagonist, who she isn't, is doing things she didn't do. Make it make sense. 😂
THIS this describes this perfectly.
Insane. The lawyer who is representing her better watch his back
Her lawyer boyfriend maybe 🤔
Waittt, did I miss that?? Seriously asking, because I don't remember her saying this story isn't about her. In this interview, she acknowledges that she noticed it was about her after seeing his Baby Reindeer play years ago. Unless she also says it isn't about her somewhere else in the interview lmao..
@@michie219 she said it won't be him.
There's no way a crazy stalker did NOT watch a show about herself
Agree 100%
She prob watches the whole thing everyday
that’s probably why she’s lying about it but tbh i think it’s a silly move. who wouldn’t watch a show that’s aimed at them , esp if it’s all lies as she claims
There's no way anybody who had a show based on them wouldnt watch it, let alone a crazy stalker.
Oh the ways she'll be getting a kick out of the fact he made it about her and that he wanted to re-enact it by playing himself in the story...She'll be desperate to sue to keep the "relational drama" between them alive.
I 100% believe she did everything he said. The actress listened to her voicemails to get her personality spot on.
I agree 100%
Watching the interview, you can almost pick out every detail that Netflix may have fudged for dramatic effect. Ive never even seen the show, but I could probably pick out the ones she wants scrubbed from existence.
Yep
Yes, Martha is based off of her. And a lot of what the show depicts is clearly correct; but equally, a lot has been added/changed. They should have said it was “based on a true story.” That way they had wiggle room for the storyline to not perfectly mimic the truth.
For example, the back “half” of the show, episodes 5-7, seemed to blur the line of truth and had quite a bit of noticeable exaggeration. Like, he didn’t have a melt down on stage at a comedy gig, he wrote a play about what happened to him and the sexual confusion he felt afterwards (called “monkey see, monkey do”) that won a comedy festival award back in 2014ish. So based on truth, but not 100% true.
In another example, they turned his sudden attraction for trans people (a trauma reaction from what happened to him) into a “love” story, because talking about the real reason why he had this sexual confusion and sudden desires isnt palatable for the “preferred narrative”; especially as “artsy” as the theatre industry is, he had to say it was all okay because he’s okay with the confusion now that he never felt before the grape.
So with this all being said, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if they tweaked some parts of Fiona’s stalking storyline in order to make the story more dramatic, complete, and marketable for the network execs.
She may actually have a decent case in a court of law. Again, this is why they either should has stuck to 100% the truth and not changed one tiny iota, or they should have said it was *based* on a true story; because the introduction definitely leaves the audience with the impression that every single bit of it is true and accurate. 🤷🏽♀️
(And never watch/support another show Sam Bain writes on or produces again. He’s the real villain of this story!)
@@chilltarts
Damn, you put into words the disconnect I felt about the "message" being pushed. The Teri relationship felt very forced and unrealistic, even for what I imagine a relationship like that would be with real people
It's wild that she doesn't get that sending 18 tweets, 10 emails and a _letter_ to a bartender you met twice isnt _normal._
It increased to 5 or 6 times by the end.
That's all? Not thousands?
@ree3197 I think they meant that she first said she’d only met him a couple times but at the end she increased it to 5-6.
Anyway the guy used her emotionally as well and she was very unwell. He could have stopped it from week one but it was feeding his ego. He endet up famous and rich while her life was damaged and her reputation currently does not even exist. We heard only one side of the Story. People would have been less crirical if she was physically attractive...
@@sabrinehajri3796while I agree that it’s a bit crazy for him to end up rich and famous, let’s not forget what she has done. The constant barrage of communication plus showing up to his work many times? And probably more things but can’t say for sure. I can only imagine what kind of nightmare that must’ve been for him to go through. Just cuz she’s “unwell” doesn’t give her a pass. It’s perhaps an explanation? The whole show though about him being a victim is kinda icky. I know he takes responsibility in some parts where he’s aware of what he’s doing, but he always qualifies his actions. Doesn’t sit comfortably with me. So what I’m trying to say is that I don’t like either of them! 😅
My favorite part is her saying she has a photographic memory and then says she can’t remember. 😂😂😂
I don't think "photographic" memory for things like studying information etc (semantic memory) is the same as remembering life events (episodic memory), there are different kinds of memory and being good at one doesn't mean you can't be bad at another. Not to say that she's not full of it, just that it's possible a person can have the ability to remember information remarkably well but not be able to recall details of other things in their life
@@kg6801 I meant that it was funny she said it practically in the same breath 🫠
Don't forget the part where she "sent no voice messages" but she DOESN'T WANT Gadd to show HIS PROOF of the voice messages. I wonder how could someone record me for 350 timed during 2-3 random encounters 😂😂😂😂
LMMFAO RIGHT?? She says she has a PM but can’t remember if it’s 4 or 6 e-mail addresses she had 😂😂😂 psy-Cho 😂😂😂
@@kg6801 Meh, who has time for fine distinctions like episodic versus semantic memory when there's a pile-on and everyone's invited? Thanks for the sanity. PS photographic, or eidetic, memory is usually, as the name implies, visual, which means it confers no special ability to retain conversations and events. As a successful Law graduate, this is likely exactly the condition Harvey was referring to. There are of course mnemonists like "S" (the subject of Luria's famous monograph) who remembered every word spoken to them, but interestingly, even he claimed to encode the transcripts of conversations in a visual mode, imagining them written on scraps of paper.
She also said at the begining "I never knew this guy" but when asked about the tweets she is saying "it was banter, we were all friends". How can you be friends with a guy you don't know?
She literally says that they weren’t friends in the beginning of the interview. He must have missed that.
Yup, they weren't friends and only met a few times. Then later also says she went to his stand up, sent handful of emails, had many "inside jokes" etc, etc.
And why email a guy you don’t know to congratulate him?
What was she congratulating him for?
How did she know he achieved something?
Assume it’s when he made it to the stand up comedy finals.
How did happen to have the email address of a guy she only met 2 or 3 times?
Precisely it's all lies, like when she says she doesn't know the woman who plays her ,yet she knows her name and her age everything about her strange
@@LeeleeDotComit was a letter handwritten when she read about his rape allegations in the newspaper, she goes on to say how she was sorry to hear that this had happened and that it was not his fault. She must have had his home address.
The actress who played her absolutely nailed it. I got the same creepy vibes watching the show as I do watching this interview.
The Actress had life in her beautiful eyes - Fiona has lifeless cold shark-like eyes.
@@christinebuckingham8369 she was a bit sympathetic. Fiona is scary and mean.
For me, the acress playing her was more likable and she was so beautiful too. She also made me feel for her. This woman, I feel nothing but irritation. I must add, I don't believe the entire show was true.
@@keris81 Gadd has said as much in some interviews. He's said the story is true. I think that means the emotions and basics. I know many people don't watch the end credits, but I do. "This program is based on real events; however certain characters, names, incidents, locations and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes.”
@@shethingsd most companies have to put something along those lines in the end credits in case the real person involved in a “true story” takes legal action
She also said earlier in the interview that she thought he was homosexual. Then she claims that he was trying to sleep with her. I think she’s being more untruthful than truthful.
Talking about her latest boyfriend of 5 years and that she has professional friends and colleagues are easily debunked. She has never worked apart from a few occasions where she had internships which she was quickly .sacked from and once had to be picked up and carried. In no universe is her having a boyfriend for 5 years viable
The emphatic "No" and terror in her face after he asked if she would like him to reveal the voice mails, was all I needed to see.
Devil's advocate: what if she was just embarrassed by the content of the emails, considering them private? It doesn't necessarily follow that their quantity and nature would vindicate Gadd's narrative about her. The experience could be humiliating to her without proving the show truthful.
Not to single you out (in fact yours is one of the most reasonable comments here), but in general this topic is drawing out of people a certain carelessness when it comes to reasoning. Most people's instinct is to dislike Harvey, justifiably or otherwise, and then to rationalize this with fallacious and overly-confident leaps of logic.
@@bradkeyes7184 your point makes no sense. She’s already being humiliated by the public bc of the show. If she claims to only have sent him innocent emails then she has no reason to be embarassed by them, given the accusations that are already on her. Unless she knows she’s lying.
@@nai110 Yeah, I totally agree that there's almost certainly something in those communications that would look bad for her, or that she fears would look bad for her (bearing in mind that she might not even remember everything in them).
All I'm pointing out is the false dichotomy of assuming that they either:
1. are innocent
or
2. prove the Netflix narrative was correct.
And the grey area in between is where I expect the action will be, because Harvey would NOT need to be blameless in order to have a strong case for defamation against Gadd and Netflix. The show makes specific, testable imputations that are very injurious to her name, and for which Gadd and Netflix are likely the only parties capable of producing the proof, if any proof exists. Which is still an open question, however much the court of RUclips may have decided otherwise.
@@bradkeyes7184 I agree, but I believe it was more due to the fact that she didn't want to be proven wrong by lying that she didn't send voicemails. So it's prob both
@@Nyxeline You could easily be right. But either way I like your epistemic humility. Everyone could take a leaf from your book.
Richard Gadd said from the very start publicly that the real Martha never went to prison and that he never pressed charges because he felt she was suffering from mental health issues beyond her control.
Richard Gadd "has said from the start very publicly" that the opening gambit of every episode of the TV show he himself wrote-'this is a true story'-is false, and he knows it?
You might intuitively think such candid admissions go some way towards letting him off the hook legally. A lawyer will tell you the opposite.
Then he should not have put a false scene in a video condemning her to prison. He was smarmy, Netflix was presenting lies as truth. No one comes out of this well.
@@theresamc4578 Netflix? Lies? Really? Next you'll be telling us you don't think Harry and Meghan's miniseries was completely accurate!
He did say some scenes were added for dramatic effect…something along those lines anyway.
@@theresamc4578He wasn't smarmy 😂 Maybe he realised down the line that's what his stalker deserved. Lots of men feel shame when they're abused and will often excuse women who hurt them to compensate for this but perhaps now he's realised she deserved jail time and this was an artistic, cathartic representation of how he feels, which he has every right to do as a *victim* ...
Actress absolutely NAILED this performance. Wow, just wow
She deserves ALL the awards!!!
@@mycatsnameiskaren8253for sure. I really hope this potential lawsuit doesn’t affect their chances of winning awards
She is taking credit for naming the show. She is showing that she feels that the writer owes her.
💰
That's what I think. I reckon she will go down the plagiarism route
As a Scot myself “writing the whole show in my sleep” is basically her saying that this whole show, its narrative, plot and story is about her and her life yet she had absolutely no input in it at all 😊
oh makes sense, thank you!
As an American, I thought it was really weird that he didn't understand what she meant by this, especially since he's someone who is clearly able to read between the lines. Even though we have a similar figure of speech that means something different, the way she meant it couldn't have been more obvious, IMO.
As another Scot I can confirm this is what I took from it too, she was asleep so she couldn't have been involved!
Ohh okay! I thought it was that it was all dreamt up, like this could have only happened in a dream! Thanks for the clarification!
Thankyou for this! I’m English and I didn’t really understand what she meant, I know the phrase to mean doing something with ease too.
Also wanted to add to your point toward the end. The whole time I was watching this, I kept thinking back on this moment in the show where Richard says something like, "No matter what I say, you're just going to pick and choose what you want to hear and twist it." That's basically what she did the entire interview and I can absolutely see a person like her bullying their way through conversations
My ex does this all the time.😢
I don't know him, and I didn't stalk him, but it's definitely about me.
Lol 😆
😂😂
This exactly!
Top Comment !
@@robotmad 🥳
I had a stalker 23 years ago and it still affects me now. The mental stress is hard to get over . He attacked me with a knife but the mental trauma was the hardest to deal with. I've not slept properly since. Stalkers need jail time. My stalker got a 2 year sentence suspended for 2 years. The day the suspended sentence ran out he started again! People don't realise how stalking is a serious crime!
She should watch it. I binged it yesterday, and even though she’s an “antagonist” of sorts, she’s not THE antagonist. I thought Gadd really kept the spotlight on himself and his own demons and treated her with compassion throughout. I sobbed through the end of it. Brilliant from start to finish
Great analysis! Absolutely!! It was very captivating to watch the Protagonist feel so much compassion, and deep relatability and how that grew from his pity for her character...
I watched it with my British husband and realised that some of the choices Donny made were so typically indecisive introvert that my husband would have done the same in those situations... My husband doesn't know how to say no in many cases, because he doesn't want to offend others, and would rather swallow unpleasant situations himself. Which makes me somehow relate to Teri from time to time. But luckily he's not met a Darrien nor a Martha in his life... The show made him reflect his past decisions and what it felt like to me when he left me to deal with conflicts.
@@treasuresofearth3014I hope that your husband is actively getting help because that’s not normal. It may be normal to agree to small things like giving someone a ride or agreeing to an event you don’t want to go to. It’s NOT normal to be raped as an adult and not say no. It’s not normal to play into a stalker…
In my own experience, people who are this disordered can’t really see the nuanced complexities of themselves or other people - I think she absolutely did watch it & likely missed the point entirely, solely focused on how she was slighted & “misunderstood” … that being said, I totally agree with you & also was moved to tears quite a few times! 😭
@@whiskeytangofoxtrot1986 He's never been raped/sexually harassed and never been bothered by a stalker. I hope you have understood when I said "luckily he's never met a Darrien or Martha". But he's been in situations where someone was bothering him with aggression, for example, he decided to not stand up against it firmly. Not everyone live around dangerous people, many of us live in very safe bubbles of the local community. When we say we can firmly reject a rapist or a stalker, can we really do that given the situation? How? It's easier said than done.
She sure knows a lot about specific details of the show, considering she said she's never seen it.
I did wonder if people had been telling her though. She is clearly an obsessive type of person and having also experienced something big like this, I doubt she has spoken about anything else.
that’s because she lived it
@@Hippydays1959 She lived it but why would "people told me" ... that the actress wasn't very convincing or did a poor job? or all the other details people wouldn't actually talk about^^ she clearly has been binging it :D
She’s one of those train wrecks you just can’t stop watching. 😩
She’s a big liar! I picked it up immediately- you know she’s probably watched it multiple times over !! 😂
There is an interview with Richard Gadd where he actually said that the jail scene has not happened in real life because he thought she didn’t deserve jail time as an unwell person.
I’d say the true story is true in the sense of his emotional journey.
It’s a show - not a documentary.
Thanks for this! Do you have a link to that interview? Idd love to see it
@@TheBehavioralArts My apologies if I have spammed you with comments. I have attached a link with the article in my answers but don't see it in the comment section. But maybe it is somewhere there after all.
In an online article he says it. That he only got a restraining order.@@TheBehavioralArts
@@kat2089 RUclips won't allow links to be posted in comments anymore due to spam/bots.
@@TheBehavioralArtsthere is articles from Laura Wray about how Fiona stalked her and late husband.
I’m a somatic trauma therapist and I spend a great deal of time watching patients’ face and body movements. My gut feeling from her, particularly in relation to her eye movements, is that she has a personality disorder. I agreed with everything this presenter says. Her verbal responses seem unusually inappropriate and indeed, narcissistic.
Definitely! I’d say BPD is a possibility
Yes, me too - i am thinking histrionic or npd.
Yes. One of the popular RUclips psychologists said a mix of them. I think because we pity her, and you know this is something very hard to treat, she gets away with terrorizing people. Looks like it is the personality disorders that infuriate and fascinate people.
We must be sensitive when diagnosing others. Because Npd, bpd, aspd are made by trauma.
Its literally not her fault if she got this stuff. Only fault she has is being in therapy or not..
Friends just told her to get rich and sue and thats what shese doing.
And what americans tend to do is follow theough and make a biggr show of it then saying like yeah ok im sorry i shouldnt have done this.
@@dudeorduuude5211 which channel did you see this? I'm intrigued as well, as a newbie clinical counselor.
“I am so offended about the lies about me in a show that is definitely not about me!” This is a good example of why a personality disorder is an actual disorder and not a fantastic way to live a life.
But people identified it as being her because there were almost indisputable clues it was her? She is saying there are lies in it.
The show is about her. I think the whole thing has gone above your head
@CarolinaSoulStar Well the name was different. Therefore it was not 100% true. If only we had a law that said "TV series that say that they are true must be 100% true" then they could be sued for that.
@@SamS-uv2ql we know the show is about her, she’s saying that herself. She is also saying parts are untrue, that may or may not be the case, but that is her complaint whether accurate or not.
@@CarolinaSoulStar I know. I said the show is about her.
She was almost panicked when he asked about producing the evidence. I have never even heard of the show, but I am impressed how she's so knowledgeable about details of a show she has never seen. 😂
It's a sick and twisted story. I was disgusted by it, but fascinated at the same time.
Hold stalkers accountable. Stalking is a CRIME!!! Stalkers lie because they know full well what they are doing is WRONG!! They are hoping the public is both sympathetic and gullible.
Have you ever met a stalker? I’ve known one in real life and it was terrifying. She was not in her right mind and was eventually sent to a hospital when it became dangerous for those involved. Once she got on some meds she was able to function again and come back to reality
@@Tshinpu you're acting exactly how a stalker would want u to, lmao
There should be a stalker registry. Stalkers always have multiple victims
@@taviabente3918 very very good idea!! Good deterrent too!
What I find crazy is the guy was raped by a high profile professional in the TV industry, repeatedly! And yet everyone is going after the stalker as if that's the most heinous crimes.
Why hasn’t it come out who raped baby reindeer?
Great analysis! One other thing. She keeps using this catchphrase “BBC Breaking News.” BBC Breaking News covers urgent developing news stories, not the fact that Richard Gadd is doing a play at the Edinburgh Festival!
Delusions of grandeur
Wow Netflix did a great job with casting, Jessica did a great job playing her
Definitely. Especially as she never saw her mannerisms, it’s wild.
Yes. They look nothing alike. Yet the resemblance is uncanny. How Marta carries herself, mannerisms, speech patterns are all just like Fiona. She's an incredible actress.
Richard wanted the lead actress and apparently his script including lots of notes on her mannerisms.
Yes, it was all a lie.
They did a great job defaming Fiona’s character. Nothing more
UK here. Done it my sleep can mean 2 things 1. That you are so competent you can do it with your eyes closed as you referenced, but also, 2. That you have no recollection of doing it, so must have been done in your sleep
I’d be willing to bet he added the jail sentence scene as a closure in an effort to try to protect her identity - to try to convince the audience to not bother with trying to find out who she really is, because “she’s in jail already.”
"I’d be willing to bet...."
Great. Shall we say 300 USD?
@@bradkeyes7184 sure, Jan.
Yes, he had so much compassion that he wrote and starred in a Netflix shoe in which he revealed everything she did (possibly some exaggeration and invention for drama), then had her sobbing and admitting to all of it, and going to prison. Lord save me from anyone with such compassion.
@@jeikobu_jeikobu Feb would work better for me.
@@theresamc4578 did you even watch the show?
I'm rewatching these after now seeing the show. One thing stood out to me when you said "she came here with seemingly good intentions to give her side of the story." But I realized she never did give her side of the story. She only either confirmed or denied certain parts of his story. Why would she not tell us her side? What really happened if all these things are false with only few things that are true?
Great point. Truth tellers aren’t USUALLY so defensive but that’s a huge generalization and also keep in mind she would feel very attacked by the series so there’s a goal here to set the record straight. It seems like in clarifying which parts were fiction she only confirmed all the stuff that was true though.
Thank you Fiona for coming forward, if only to prove what an amazing actress Jessica Gunning is! She absolutely nailed this woman for never having met her!
Exhibiting a lot of narcissistic traits....cluster B at least.
That actress 100% had access to those voicemails, because that performance was spot on. She deserves awards and big acting gigs.
@@markbisson6166 I agree, she very likely had been given quite a bit of material to base her performance on. Which means there is likely as much proof of Fiona's guilt as Gadd has claimed or close to it.
Hasn’t she defamed Gadd though? She called him a psychopath, severely mentally unwell, a forger and quite a few other nasty little barbs at him, on a platform that has had over 10 million views so far. Perhaps Gadd should sue her too!!
But is it really damaging, though? This interview is by far the best ad for the show.
It's the same from gadd to her, it says that she's was convicted and sent to prison for 9 months and she wasn't. That's defamation also, and he has admitted that he didn't press charges apparently. They both clearly had issues and lied about each other.
@@i.m1981it's a show, not a documentary. Gadd said openly in an interview that the jail part was made up. I think it might have been there to give a sense of closure to the viewer as well as some hope for those being stalked, that this is a possible solution when they're being harassed.
Yes OP - if some fool lawyer wants to take Fiona on as a client pro bono, you bet Netflex will counter sue the heck out of them for damages & costs for their million dollar law team.
Even if she manages not to abuse her lawyers & start stalking them, I don't believe her case will even make it to pre-trial.
She cannot claim her privacy was compromised when she has open facebook pages, plus twitter accounts - making comments about Richard non stop... long before the Netflix show, & long before the Piers Morgan interview.
She outed herself.
She can't stand Richard is successful without her, so she inserts herself in his life again.
@@i.m1981 Yes, but was that Netflix making stuff up to make the show more spicy? He never said that.
The series actually portrayed her with compassion... 😳
And very accurately. 😳
It's quite clear the actress had loads of material to practice with. MUCH more than 1-2 emails, 18 banter twitter msgs and absolutely no voice messages^^
Assume u are Martha or Fiona, everything is true, except one thing. You never went to jail. You would be angry, and in the eye of the law would be defamed and have a valid lawsuit against Netflix.
@@GrgAProduction Exactly.
And the Piers interview doesn't, to me, make me feel any empathy for Fiona. She's highly unlikable. She's mean and scary. She's the kind of person I'd only have empathy for if I was being paid to treat her. I didn't get the personality disorder vibe from the Martha character, but very quickly into the Piers interview with Fiona, I recognized personality disorder behaviours.
Only because you know. If you didn't know, you would have met her as a co worker, it would take a while to know what you're dealing with.
How can she not know where he lives but then sends him a letter?
She said she didn't really know him and had only met him a couple of times but later called him an old friend.
"We were ALL friends."
UK here: wrote it in my sleep means I apparently did something I have no memory of doing. Love your content!
💜💜💜
Thanks for that bit of info.
I’m British and that’s not what I’ve always thought it to mean. I think it means something is so easy, you could have done it in your sleep.
If she said “I must have wrote it in my sleep” yeah that means she has no recollection of it. But she said wrote it in my sleep, that means it’s so easy you could do it in your sleep.
I agree, I've heard people use i must have been asleep when I did that when someone tells them they did something they don't remember. Like saying I've slept since then if you don't remember saying something
From the US, that’s what I took it to mean as well. I’m not sure why Spidey wouldn’t parse it this way. “Apparently I wrote it in my sleep.”
In simple layman's parlance this lady gives every impression of loving the attention and being as mad as a box of frogs. She is actually quite scary.
Ha I say mad as a bag of cats but frogs works! This womans bag is full to bursting with cats frogs dogs horses goats etc etc
Bat. Shit.
She's scary? Please. Try rock climbing.
@@bradkeyes7184 RIchard Gadd was clearly traumatised by the years of stalking and abuse, as was the other lawyer woman. Whatever she was doing to them sounds scary enough
@@77NickDale Gadd is a storyteller. Whether he's telling true stories or not is far from something you know "clearly." He sounds like every other fake victim, and every other real victim, we've ever heard. See the problem? Anyway, the commenter didn't say Harvey scared Gadd, she said Harvey "is" scary.
@@77NickDale The report about how Keir Starmer was also stalked was very alarming.
I agree with Spidey's comment that it was unreasonable for Ms. Harvey to not verify the actual number of mails sent. As a fellow lawyer, it's almost second nature for us to seek out evidence to support our claims.
Also, when we defend an innocent client, we always challenge the opposing party to disclose the evidence against our client. That's often the best way to get my client out of a mistaken or unjustly accused situation quickly. That fact that Ms. Harvey, as a lawyer herself, didn't adopt such a strategy to get herself out of this awful situation is unconvincing.
@lawgwen9287 Tell me more about this New Burden of Proof, "fellow lawyer." In particular, I'm dying to know why you have no problem with Netflix making the affirmative existential claim that there are thousands of emails, while perversely holding it against Harvey that she doesn't (somehow) prove there are only 12 or so. Do ordinary people have a duty to retain records of past correspondences just in case they're misrepresented in a Netflix series one day?
As someone who claims to have made it through Law school, why do you even think it's logically *possible* to prove there are only twelve of something? Are you really telling us that in the role of opposing counsel, you would accept the production of 12 emails as evidence that no 13th, 14th, or 41,000th email exists? If so, then on the day I'm charged with a crime, I'm going to hope you're the prosecutor.
@@bradkeyes7184 What's the point of attacking me personally? I may disagree with Netflix and Piers Morgan's actions, but the focus of this video is whether Ms. Harvey was truthful or not. This isn't a trial - let's keep the discussion without resorting to personal attacks. We can have a constructive dialogue without descending into that.
p.s. Sorry to disappoint you but I don't do criminal laws.
@@lawgwen9287 "This isn't a trial" Well you led with the fact that you're a lawyer, so I expected a certain argumentative rigor, but if I overestimated the seriousness with which you intended your own comments to be taken I apologize. In my defense, this entire thread is a personal attack on one stranger or another (who unlike you, aren't here to defend themselves), so I was just getting into the spirit of it. But I appreciate the reply and am happy to drop my adversarial stance. So out of constructive curiosity, am I missing something or have various commentators from Spidey onwards applied a remarkable and asymmetric standard of proof in expecting Harvey to produce a small number of emails, as though this would somehow disprove claims that there exist in fact a far higher number of emails? As a matter of Logic 101, how and why is it up to her to falsify an affirmative existential claim, in defiance of hundreds of years of jurisprudence (formal or colloquial) whereby the onus has always been on the only party who can possibly settle the question: the affirmative existential proponent?
@lawgwen9287 I also misread a phrase in your second paragraph, so I may have jumped the gun a bit. Thanking you in advance for being more polite than I was-Brad.
@@bradkeyes7184Just as a side note, I know you think you're being eloquent in the way you talk, but it is kind of just word salad.
If you want to be an effective communicator, keep it simple.
As for the phrase “I must have done (such and such) in my sleep” - I’ve heard people say this in reference to something they’ve been relentlessly accused of doing and they’re so certain that they have *not* done the act that they’re sarcastically saying the only way they could’ve done it is if they’d been sleepwalking.
I was thinking, isn’t she being ironic? Like yeah right I wrote it in my sleep, since you are assuming everything is coming from me
@@Leeloo219 Exactly, thank you for restoring my faith in humanity! Your abilities to sense irony and sarcasm are much better than those of most people here. I’m surprised that so few people have ever heard the expression, and I’m dismayed by how many can’t comprehend it. I’m also surprised by those who are confusing it with the phrase, “I’ve done it so much I could do it in my sleep.” 😳 Yikes, those idioms may sound similar but they sure mean extremely different things! 😂
@@Bethsabee_Sheba_Newrosetrue 😂
@@Bethsabee_Sheba_NewroseNon native speaker here, I knew the phrase of doing something so many times you may as well be asleep, I hadn’t heard the other meaning.
She meant she was unwittingly responsible for writing a lot of the show. Accidentally revealing its accuracy!
Great insight
Not only did she watch the show 10 seconds after it premiered on Netflix, she's watched it 41,000 times since.
Yes! This was exactly my thought when I heard her say that. It is an odd way to use the phrase, but her tone when she said it came off almost self-congratulatory (for lack of better terms).
Yep, that's why she "seems to have written the show in her sleep."
That does raise an interesting question. He used her actual emails. Does she get a writing credit? 😂
OMG- Spidey (at 10:55) mimicking a conversation with a bartender about a baby reindeer then segwaying into not drinking alcohol was hilarious and cute as hell. 😂💜
Came here to see if anyone else noticed that!!! It was fantastic!! 😂
I agree!! 😂
YESSSSS! 😂 I love fiesty Spidey❣️
Absolutely!! Also, at the end, when he says "photographic memory"😂
Agree 😂, "you know me"
I’m confused, she said she challenges Richard to leave her alone, but isn’t she the one that came forward and named herself as the real Martha?
When asked about HER actions: "WE were trying to support him." Who the heck is "WE"? Great analysis yet again Spidey!
Thanks so much. I think she uses “we” the same way she keeps saying “my friends” think this or “people have said” that. She’s adding more weight to her story by suggesting there were more people involved or witnesses
I thought that was kind of a Scottish, or British, affectation... the way people use the "royal we"
@@TheBehavioralArts 'people' meaning her and maybe one friend. She definitely has Borderline PD, they'll use the whole "everyone thinks/says..." line to justify any wild claim they make, when in reality it stems from them telling a story to someone and someone listening (not even necessarily believing). That morphs into "everyone says..../all my friends think...", because they can somehow 'justify' that in their brains, despite it making 0 sense to those without a personality disorder. BPD is some scary shit, and if not managed, the person *can* quickly turn heavily toxic and abusive.
I think it could potentially come under the banner of “triangulation” - a manipulation tactic to bring in a third party (real or imagined) to add weight to an argument, it’s to make the other person feel outnumbered
At his committal hearing, the man who attacked me (officially diagnosed with Cluster B which includes BPD) announced to the magistrate "We welcome a jury trial your Honour". Same as here, I wondered who the "we" was/were.
One thing I found interesting is the actress plays her so well including her mannerisms which makes me think the actress had to have heard her speak on voicemails etc to know her quirks
But her mannerisms are her gestures and facial expressions. How is a person listening to voicemails going to capture that?
I'm also wondering if he had videos of Fiona too?
Exactly … the actress had some exposure to her .. impossible without hearing her voice on voicemail etc
@@LindaC616 Absolutely there must be video that the actress studied, as a source, the way she speaks as well seems odd as a fellow scot. Which the actress also captured.
@@cyndeewenzel6439 If I was the victim and this was indeed true I would be getting the footage from the bar as most bars have security cameras these days
She kinda reminds me of that woman from the Stephen King movie Misery.
Yes
That’s what I was thinking 😂
that's funny because it's so true. The lady being interviewed is so facially expressive, like a professional actress.
Read an article in The Times saying Stephen King said the show was "one of the best things he's seen" and that the characrer is very reminiscent of the character in Misery.
Yes - that's what I thought too!
What I love most is that you’re not bias and always fair with all your analysis
Hi - I’m from the UK.When she says she must have written it in her sleep, she is trying to say that she is unaware of any of it happening, so it must have happened in her sleep.
After watching the interview when it was released, my first thought was "can't wait for spidey's analysis".
She means she’s unknowingly wrote the script. As in she must have wrote it in her sleep coz she can’t remember doing it but ur right in the correct format it is ment to be used.
Bro!!! 🤜🤛
Me too! And I was a little, just very slightly disappointed, that the body language guy got his video out before Spidey.
Spidey’ and also the Behavior Panel
10000000% same!!!
She says she didn’t tweet him then Piers corrects her and says “you did tweet him numerous times” and she immediately says “no it wasn’t numerous it was 18 times”
That cracked me up. 18 is pretty numerous to me.
I know. I was like, that number escalated quickly. 18 is not a few.
I pray that the actress portraying her is getting her well deserved award for her outstanding performance 🙌 Absolutely impressive how she nailed it.
I think the 'in my sleep' comment was meant as in shes provided all the story line content for the show without being aware of it.
this, she wrote it without realising
exactly what I assumed with that statement - unintentional
Perfect 👌🏻👌🏻
I originally thought she accidentally admitted to writing the emails because the spelling was so bad she sleep typed half the show but as the interview progressed I definitely think you’re spot on haha
Yes that’s exactly what I took from that
She knows criminal records aren’t public in the UK. That’s why she confidently denies.
Her nephew has come out publicly, writing that she did go to jail for several months, can’t remember exactly. So she HAS gone to jail under her middle name. So she WAS convicted of something. I don’t think she has a case.
@@karenbarker3470Apparently the man claiming to be her nephew has been proved not to be. It was a hoax.
@@quizasusa3578 NO BEEN PROVEN THA ACTUALLY IS TRUE SOME PODCAST ACTUALLY GOT THE PROVE THAT SHES LIEING
@@ricardovasques293 mate... you're not very convincing with those spelling errors and capitals... source or it doesn't exist
@@Wanakarite sorry my English is my main English even do I live in the uk for 25 LEGALLY IM PORTUGUESE sorry and I got PTSD and ADAHD but still like read and do my won envestigation abaut everything I just don't take heverything like is the truth!!!
41K emails is about 29/day over 4 years. Totally possible. Gadd said the jail scene did not happen in real life.
@@skelly0000depending of the content 😅
Exactly. As shown in the series, some were incredibly short.
Gadd never said "the jail scene did not happen in real life"
@@aussiejubes So show one..
If you're not working or doing anything else, I think it could well be possible if that's all you do all day ?
"You're both Scottish speaking people" ... Piers was avoiding saying fat in anyway possible 😂🤣
"The Baby Reindeer part is true, but not the part in the show of me doing this, or that, or even that...I've never seen the show." lol...
One thing that keeps cropping up is that she watched BBC breaking news. Usually BBC breaking news cover things like war, a death of someone influential or a natural disaster, it would not focus on a play that is on the edinburgh fringe festival.
I was wondering about that. The CBC in Canada wouldn't even bother with it and is a fraction of the size of viewers.
Maybe the BBC British version is sort of like the difference between CNN and CNN International. This woman is clearly lying, but national BBC is probably more gossipy. The Brits love their gossip and tabloids.
@@mygirldarby We do love our gossip and tabloids but the bbc is the british broadcasting company which runs the majority of media in the uk, they wouldn't be breaking news for a scottish play at the edinburgh festival, the last time they had breaking news on the bbc was when queen elizabeth died. I think she is sayin this to try and sound more imporant then she actually is.
@@jms7300 totally agree, breaking news is something really important. Not a play in a festival lol
Richard Gadd won the Fringe Comedy Award for “Monkey see, monkey do” and an Olivier Award for “Baby Reindeer” both would have been covered by BBC News
I absolutely love it when Spidey does a cut away to act something out!! It's always the best! "Anyway, what kinda soft drink do you have, because you know me and alcohol" 😂😂
I almost had a spit take at how well he acted that part out.
We learn so much here that we sometimes forget he is first and foremost an accomplished entertainer. These little moments are a strong reminder 😆
Got the giggles with that one!
She reminds me so much of my sister, who lies through her teeth, thinks of no one but herself, would trample over anyone to get what she wants, would make fantastic stories up, frame others and thinks she is perfect and nothing wrong with her and everyone else is a liar or something wrong with them
Classic narcissist
I have one of those sibs, too. She decided to ruin me and my reputation in my family out of her own insecurities. My dad would get off the phone with her and say, "I'm confused." Of course, he was. Her stories changed from moment to moment, and he was trying to be kind and understanding to her. I saw through her ruses and became her mortal enemy. She made my life miserable for years until I cut her off completely. thought the show was very good, kept my attention.
Fiona's manner of responding to questions is quite puzzling. She artfully crafts her answers in a way that, while potentially truthful, often skirts around the specific questions posed by Piers. Remarkably, she delivers these responses promptly, even under pressure, which is why i think she is a seasoned compulsive or pathological liar.
I agree.
I have a friend who does that. It's like I ask her a question, but her brain parses it as "please make noises along these lines". I don't think it's manipulation, just not very good social skills and bad theory of mind skills.
It is so interesting, and fairly typical of how someone with a personality disorder (like NPD) will
lie. There is a saying that people with NPD are good at tactics but terrible at strategy. So, in the moment, they are very skilled at a tactic like lying or deflecting, but they are terrible at long-term strategy, so they totally screw themselves once you take the totality of what they say or do into account.
@gcooper642 Almost sounds like how chat AI like chat gpt form responses.
Law degree and a personality disorder will do that
When I watched the interview, I (perhaps most of us) knew instinctively that she was lying. We just didn’t know why we knew. You have the training and experience to tell us why. Thanks for sharing.
The constant drinking of water was the biggest giveaway to me.
She is so blatantly deceptive that you don’t even need to understand body language to know that she is not truthful.
You can't be "blatantly deceptive." That's like being patently obscure or profoundly shallow or unadulteratedly tainted. Unless there are people who would fall for it, it's not a deceptive act.
@@bradkeyes7184 The word "deception" here describes the behavior / attempt, not necessarily the result. So yes, I think she can be blatantly deceptive - or, in other words, her attempts to be deceptive are obvious.
What a great analysis!! Thought so many things didn’t make sense when watching the interview but this deep analysis is to the point. Thank you🙏🏻🙌🏼
She said at the beginning she only met him 2-3 times then when the tweets/emails come up she said “we were all friends” 😂
Have you never been friends with someone you've only met two or three times? That's sad.
Good catch. She did say she didn't know him, now they were all friends
Thought the same thing
Right! And, "I don't think I ever sent him anything", "I may have tweeted him once years ago", "maybe 18 tweets". Like just let her keep talking and eventually she'll be like "I mean only 500 tweets" in no time 🤣
That part
Ty for the attempt to analyze this crazy relationship. Gadd nailed her habit of creating her own reality, as witness by this interview. The show highlighted her only weakness, legal repercussions.
Boy oh boy, Jessica Gunning really NAILED this lady's look and demeanor! 👏👏👏
And erratic behaviour lol
Richard Gadd was open about her never going to jail. I read about that before all this hype. That was never a secret. He said that he felt sorry for her and never wanted her to be in that position.
@@amremorse there's a disclaimer on every episode saying that certain things were dramatised on purpose. it's a fictional series not a documentary.
@@amremorse
They didn’t identify her. She outed herself.
2:27 "I don't know him"
15:44 "we were old friends"
😆
Nope, she says "we were all friends."
If you're unfamiliar with Scottish vowel sounds it could easily be confused with "ol' friends," so check the subtitles rather than trusting your ear.
Meaning in other words: it was a group of mutual friends, not necessarily that every single person in the group was friends with every single other person.
@@bradkeyes7184why would she switch to a plural when discussing an individual- there’s no group here, just him
@@bradkeyes7184 subtitles are AI generated and more prone to error - context is lost. Why would she discuss a group of friends when they are discussing just one person? I appreciate your comment but this seems unlikely
@@rodprod8522 Fair question. My two cents:
She regularly changed the topic or answered questions she was never asked in order to tick off her talking points. Switching the subject from dual to several would make sense in light of her overall agenda of
1. diffusing the relationship with Gadd by de-emphasizing intimacy or exclusivity.
2. reminding the world how many friends she has because she's so socially well-adjusted. Elsewhere she says regarding her boyfriend, “I don’t want to drag him in. He thinks this is horrendous. All of my lawyer friends do. All of my professional friends do."
No internet drama is complete without Spidey's analysis. Big thanks, Spidey!
Anybody else notice she uses 'We' instead of 'I' when she describes things she's done to him.
I think it’s a way of minimizing her involvement. If it’s a “we” committing a crime it disperses the blame.
I read it as her trying to make out that she wasn’t the only one doing these things. She was just joining in with the others. It sounds weird regardless.
I thought it was a British upper class thing, "the royal we"
I’ve only ever heard the Queen and 1 PM talk like that
It’s Definitely not the Norm
@@archerandthemouse are u actually being serious?
"because, you know me and alcohol!" Had me absolutely cackling 😆😆
"Shortly after the release of this series, the Internet *internetted* ..." -- LMFAOOO!!! 😂🤣🤣 I'm borrowing THAT one!! ;)
That was my favorite line from the whole video! 😂
Me too 😂 I’ve already used it today. Great line Spidey!
It's a common term
@@nicole5436 -- I'm sure it is, but I don't come out from under my rock very often. ;) I know I'm missing some other really great terms, as well.
Oooh I’m so happy you covered this! Such a treat it came early. I think when she said she wrote most of the show in her sleep she just meant unintentionally, like it was so easy for her she didn’t even have to try. She seemed entertained by this so I think she likes the thought of taking credit for the show existing. Gives her the significance she seems to be craving from others.
Narcissistic people don't care if they receive positive or negative attention but only that they get attention. Fiona demonstrates this very well. Be interesting to see how all this plays out.
While it's obvious that Fiona's story is dodgy, I am pretty sure Gadd skipped describing some steps made by him and other "buddies" that escalated this situation. She was a regular in that bar, and I am sure that her mental state was obvious to the patrons and the staff. I presume they used her as a comic relief there, and that it got out of hand. There are some very thin parts in his story, and these always emerge when his situation jumps from bad to catastrophic. We can all imagine how crowd can get nasty when they meet a person like Fiona for their own amusement, just look what is happening now around her. I am very suspicious about how Gadd actually interacted with her while knowing she was unstable.
This is a very valid counter consideration to the main narrative that has villainized her. I think you’re right to assume that he entertained her advances quite a bit
I agree too, yes she stalked him in my opinion and she clearly has mental health issues but Gadd completely entertained her madness, even encouraged it at times which to be fair, he does admit to, it's a very sad situation, not just for Gadd but for Martha (Fiona) as well. One of the things that annoyed me the most was that he could have ended things a lot sooner with regards to going to the police, especially when the attack on Terry happened, (If it did happen of course) but for the sake of the series, lets say it did happen, there were witnesses and an assault.. what else would the police need to arrest her?? I think Gadd put up with a lot more than he should and maybe that's because he was also a victim before he met her. It's a very good lesson to learn on why we should NOT entertain other peoples delusions.. especially when it harms others.
I agree. Gadd shows us that he made the curtains joke only once.. I am sure they were regularly making sexual jokes around her that both flattered her and grew her delusions.
@TheBehavioralArts Spidey, please do an analysis of a Gadd interview about this.
@TheJovola I completely agree. Gadd is by no means entirely innocent in this story. He even encouraged some of his predicaments
The way her head popped up when he asked if she was challenging him to produce the recordings screams "no please don't show them the voicemails!" to me 😂
Yup. That's what I was thinking too.😅😂😂
Love your analysis! Also interesting that it had to be “BBC Breaking News” that the show was a big deal/big story. I saw someone else say that this is likely how someone would write how “Martha” would react to finding out there was a show about her.
Hahaha woooowwww. So so true
It's not even the kind of story that would make 'breaking news' on ANY UK channel. 🤦♀️
@@sharfalor4244 IMO she was likely searching for his show, curious about what he was up to or had a Google alert on his name. Just my pure speculation.
@@DrPatriceBerry I think most of us have speculated the same. Loocal entertainment ads could come up when she was on the news/weather but she tries too hard to tell us there was no way she was actually looking him up.
The „Breaking News“ also tipped me off. She used it at least twice and I was confused. Why would a play be mentioned as „Breaking News“? Well, maybe it was to her …
You know she was probably abused. She needs help.
I don't understand why adult social services weren't called. If i saw a woman sitting at a bus stop for 16 hours....i would have called them.
Yes.
HOWEVER; in the United States, Adult Protective Services IF that exists, over here, would NOT come!!! MAYBE, the police!!!! MAYBE!!!!
@@Hello.Meditate in my country, yes.
"Fargo" starts with "This is a true story," too. I don't see people picking that apart.
There is a caveat in the credits of Baby Reindeer that states that certain events, characters, names, incidents, locations and dialogue have been fictionalised for dramatic purposes.
Isn't it pretty accurate?
But it doesn't contain specific references to specific people that the internet can track down. He used her tweets and posts word for word, and it took people a matter of days to figure out who she was. Whereas in the case of Fargo, a character was likely in amalgamation of several people
@@LindaC616good luck getting that approved in court. Especially uk court.
@@kopykat6843 him using her tweets word for word? The internet has already proven it. How do you think they found her and harassed her?
Laura Wray says she and her partner were also a victim of Fiona's stalking. She had an interim injunction UK
(restraining order in the US) placed against her and that is why she can confidently say she has never been to jail.
I’m so happy this came up on my feed! I watched the interview and I actually said out loud to my husband. I wish a behavior analysis specialist would do a study of this interview! Well done! Subscribed!
Saying that you are playing the devil's advocate when you are supposed to be defending yourself is such a hilarious strategy, she must be a great lawyer.
The very frequent hmmmmm ummmmmmmm hmmmm she does the whole time he’s talking drove me NUTS and felt like she was making noise so she could drown him out and/or jump in verbally quickly. It’s controlling and grates on my nerves
That’s exactly what it is. Very consistent with people who try to shift narratives. Trying to mute the parts they don’t like.
@@TheBehavioralArts Well I guess watching a certain show has taught me a few things! 😉
Awesome analysis, thank you!
@@TheBehavioralArts Is THAT what it is?!
Now that makes sense as to why Fiona and my Mother are sooooooo alike 😮
I had a very similar story with a stalker. Same types of emails. One sentences with typographical errors. He used to do the same mmmmm mmmm while I was speaking! He was already on his next thought and not listening to me
I RAN to your channel since I JUST finished the show and began watching this interview. I was going to ask for you to do a video on this very interview 😅 I'm so excited to watch 🥳
I hope you enjoy it 😊
Iran is not even involved in this issue. That's another Piers interview......
Same here lol! I am so glad he did this one! Does help exist for stalkers? This woman's perception of reality is so distorted. Its a matter of time before she REALLY hurts someone or herself!
Same here hahaha
An amazing analysis it captures everything I was thinking when I watched the interview after watching the show. My question for you is what is her disorder? Is she a sociopath?
I stopped EVERYTHING when i got this notification.
SAME😮
SAME!!!!!!
@@liubovicosteva4186 Me too!
Hahaa, same!
I stopped sleeping and clicked straight away.
It's 3am where I am.🫥
I really enjoyed your analysis! Thank you so much! I just had a couple of thoughts about this that I wanted to share.
1. Regarding the "must have written it in my sleep" comment: I think that was her clumsy attempt at sarcastic wit. She’s claiming that she didn’t do the events portrayed in the show. You can’t remember doing something that you never did; therefore, she must have done them in her sleep. I’m not sure if that makes sense to anyone else, but that's how I perceived it.
2. People criticizing the accuracy of the story, I think, should remember that this is a true story from Richard’s perspective. Ten people could witness the same event, but all perceive it slightly different. Since he was so open about his own responsibility in the various situations in the show, I feel like we should grant him some artistic license, especially when he outright says that some of the events were “tweaked” for dramatic effect. It’s not, after all, a documentary.
3. The inaccurate portrayal that Martha/Fiona went to prison. I agree with what most people have said about fictitious detail. Mostly that it was a way of giving the audience a feeling of satisfaction at the end and that it tied a nice little bow around the show for dramatic effect, etc. When I first discovered that this element of the show was not fully accurate, I wondered if it could possibly be a metaphor. The prison being representative of her mental illness, from which she can never escape.
Well, those are just my thoughts. Let me know if anyone out there agrees with me, or thinks I'm bat crap crazy myself. 🤪😝😋😘😛
I think the "story" is true, the details are partly factual and partly dramatised, but that doesn't change the 'story' of how a man was stalked by a woman with issues.
Great 'defense' there. I'm sure a 'judge' would find it 'persuasive' in any civil 'courtroom.'
I was listening to this and when Piers asked her if she was challenging him, that “No!” Was pretty quick and panicky. She definitely didn’t want it to BE a challenge. It was more like “Oh, hell no!”
*Piers
@@XX-cj9nu Thank you. Autocorrect is a cruel mistress.
Yes, I wondered about that too. Everyone is speculating as to why Richard Gadd or Netflix have not provided evidence of the emails or voice mails, for example. Maybe there is a legal reason, whereby they are waiting for her to make that challenge and then they can go hell for leather and publish all of it.
@@AndersGebaut No, no legal department would ever advise a client to flirt with being sued. Netflix would fire them for exposing the company to litigation before you can say 41,000 Hail Marys.
The ironic thing is, she doesn't recognise how beloved Martha was at the end of the show, she could easily have just admitted to it all, said she was obsessed and why, and become an amazing redemption story about mental health and obsession. I honestly don't think she recognises herself.
@@Kaytemplerose did she actually though? And if so why are the police not involved ? It's all very strange 😕
@@Kaytemplerose I'm talking about the character being beloved, not the real one, but if you haven't seen it, you might not get that.
Welp if I was Martha the last thing I'd do is go on TV to deny everything…i’d get my ducks in a row then go after Netflix and if it became public whilst going through the process you'd be more straight with any questions put to you instead of tripping yourself up! I think she had a major crush on him and went a bit deliulu…at that time but not as bad as Netflix depicts as in the court case?!?
I'm bloody glad I'm not Martha 😂
You're to gullible. There is no way she would admit to anything that portrays her negatively.
In her mind she has never ever done anything wrong^
EVEN as the Daily Mail reporter also said she called them 50x within a few hours Haha
She must know she does wrong though if she's lying about it @@GrgAProduction
Almost every answer was “No! Not at ALL! Well, except for when I did…”
This is the first review of the Piers interview that I've seen that I think covers it the most comprehensively. Thanks!
Thanks for another amazing analysis, Spidey! I totally enjoyed your insights.
I had a few thoughts: I think the reason that she stated that she had only watched Piers’ prison show maybe one time was that she was trying to send a message of “I’m not stalking you, Piers”.
I also thought she looked QUITE disconcerted about the idea of Richard Gadd’s releasing the evidence. Like momentarily fearful.
❤
Both amazing points. I can totally see her being casual about his show, I still think there an element of condescension to it but yeah.
And absolutely for the evidence thing. Very defensive.
I agree because she was also tweeting and following piers
But how did she know pier’s age immediately if she doesn’t stalk him?
Robert Durst used to squint blink when he was lying. Great video. I was waiting for this to come out. I have several email addresses but 4 phones? She was caught lying so many times in this interview.
I like how you put into words all the things I noticed while watching that interview. Love your videos!
The sleep comment I took as it was something like sleepwalking, doing things she has no recollection of and didn't "consciously" do.
I think putting "This is a true story" without any caveat is a bait for Fiona to sue, so everything can be poured out in court. Oh imagine the dirty laundry and the drama. Maybe they REALLY want it to happen so Season 2 can have something to be based on.
What is a couple of million of compensation for Netflix even if they lose the case in court? That's like the cost of a single episode of a show for them. In exchange, they get Depp vs Herd kind of global drama, buzz, talks and free exposure. That is textbook guerilla marketing right there for Netflix!
There is a caveat in the credits that states that certain events, characters, names, incidents, locations and dialogue have been fictionalised for dramatic purposes.
"This is a true story" in the first episode is part of the fictitious story imo. It's being told from Donny's point of view. Not necessarily richards. But then at the end of every single episode it mentions that this is based on true events and that certain details have been changed for dramatic effect. The disclaimer also says that Netflix is within legal authority to be doing this under the united states law as well as other countries. Something like that. Idk the exact wording. But she cannot sue them. They didn't out her. She outed herself.
@@chrissyscholl816the internet outed her
Maybe the Netflix marketing professionals HOPED that Fiona stepped forward. Banked on it, in fact. If that is the case, it's an example of baiting Fiona.
You CAN prevent trouble with people like Fiona. Just go DEEP: Dont Defend, Engage, Explain, Personalize.
In the UK, doing something in your sleep is like saying it's easy and you can do it with your eyes closed.
Same in the states.
I took her to mean that she's being credited for the title of the show even though (according to her) she's had nothing to do with any of it. So she's saying that she must have contributed "in her sleep" as she has no conscious knowledge of being involved. Then she says she must have written the whole show in her sleep ans I think that's her saying that she's being accused of doing everything written into the show even though (according to her) she wasn't involved.
Thank u 🙏🏻
Yea exact same thing in the US. You know I see this ALL THE TIME….and it’s almost always from the UK. The person from the UK will give the explanation for a slang word or older saying…or some such cultural thing that’s usually older….too not current or anything…..but it’s ALWAYS the exact same explanation in the US…..not sure why those in the UK think that so much older slang or old sayings aren’t used in the US at all and that they somehow don’t have the same meaning/explanation 🤷🏼♀️😂
Depends on where u are from in uk. It's used as a cop out in my area...I didn't do it unless I did it in my sleep.
I've tried watching so many of these and got bored straight away. You're so engaging and fun! Really enjoyed this watch
She says she has a photographic memory but keeps changing her story 😬
A lot of behaviour analysts on youtube are good but you? You are THE BEST! 👏🏽
Yep. Without a doubt. I have very rarely been able to guess what he personally thinks of someone or a situation even when he shows any emotion it’s towards then behaviors not the people and he never makes anyone feel bad for having their opinion. I love it
The biggest red flag for me is that everyone remarks on how well the actress who portrayed her nailed her… what was her frame of reference? There has to have been some material to pull from. Where did she pick up “Martha’s” cadence and intonation from if there was no evidence of how she spoke? Twitter posts and emails and Facebook messages and snail mail letters aside, all of that good evidence aside, if there was not an extensive inventory of spoken evidence how did the actress form her character?
I said this to my husband ! This convinced me there was lots of voicemails to tap into if it's true to the screen he'd even categorised them into emotions and themes
Just curious, how familiar are you with the gamut of Scottish accents? The actress certainly got the country right, but I'm not sure she got all the nuances right, or that a Scottish person would even find them similar. But I'm not Scottish, hence my genuine question.
Didn't they say there was 350 hours of voicemails? I think that would be plenty
Yeah that’s it Richard Gadd wore a hidden microphone to work, tending bar. Whenever he waited on YOU, just YOU he recorded your conversations. Then went home and edited them into stalker voicemails. What??!!
I know someone that part of his job is to take a celebrities audiobook clips and edits them to make them say things that they didn’t really say. He explained that it takes weeks of editing to make a 2 minute bit. This being said, I highly doubt he recorded her.
@bradkeyes7184 I don't think its about the accent but more so the personality, intonation, habits of speech etc that really match between the actress and Miss Harvey
And HOW she says "noo" to the question of whether she's challenging him to reveal the evidence.