It was inevitable. Tell a story true storyfrom the protagonist’s voice, in one series on Netflix enormously successful, it could not fail to have consequences.
In the Baby Reindeer review we were talking about reasons for successof why the series keeps you glued to the screen, of all the implications moral and social which he had brought to the attention of the entire world.
After the distribution, as expected the “real Martha”or the woman convicted of stalking against Richard Gaddcreator and star of Baby Reindeer, has been identified.
With some sentences it couldn’t have been difficult to trace the woman’s real name. Naturally, however, the consequences of tracking her down could be severe. But let’s go in order.
The true story behind Baby Reindeer
It opens like this, Baby Reindeer: with the writing “This is a true story” on the screen.
Richard Gadd had written a show in which he told his story on stage – just like his character does, Donnyin the series.
He had met a woman, called Martha in the series, who he had been nice to. She had begun to persecute him, with e-mails, threats, messages… Until the physical attacks, which led to the complaint by Gadd and the 9-month prison sentence for her stalker, a repeat offender as she had already been convicted of the same crime.
The idea was to say that it was a true story while maintaining the anonymity of the real people involved.
But with the arrival of the series, seen by millions of people around the world, the name of the woman reported by Gadd ended up online. Fiona Harveythat’s her name: the woman who immediately promised complaints and complaints to both Netflix and Richard Gadd.
This was in the weeks following Baby Reindeer’s distribution.
The anonymous interview in the Daily Mail
In an interview with the prestigious The Guardian a few days after the release of Baby Reindeer on Netflix, Richard Gadd said that so many details about the real Martha had been changed during the production that not even she would have recognized herself (although the messages and emails from the series corresponded exactly to those received from Gadd).
Clearly it was an illusion.
The real Martha promptly released an interview with the Daily Mail anonymously – his name did not appear – in which he said that, having exploited his person for a TV series, Richard Gadd automatically became the stalker of the situation. She doesn’t pay, she ended up again in the Daily Mail, again anonymously, in an article written by the journalist who had interviewed her and who claimed to be persecuted by her with non-stop phone calls, messages and constant insults.
Then, when people tried to find out who the man who raped Richard Gadd was in real life, things got worse. A West Midlands resident had to contact the police asking for protection due to the constant threats received – and it seems that it had nothing to do with the character in question.
At this point Gadd intervened and asked through all social media to stop trying to identify the real protagonists of Baby Reindeer.
But if they are the ones who come out into the open, the appeals are useless.
Plot twist: the video interview with Piers Morgan
Now, however, things are radically changed: The whole world knows that Fiona Harvey doesn’t even have a shred of chance that a judge will agree with her.
Because on the evening of May 9th she was a guest of Piers Morganthe British journalist of the famous programme Piers Morgan Uncensoredwho interviewed her for nearly an hour in front of millions of people tuned in on YouTube.
A few hours after the interview arrived, the dialogue between Piers Morgan and Fiona Harvey, the real Martha Scott from Baby Reindeer, already had 3 million views. The video – which you can see here – continues to rack up views.
And that’s not good for Fiona, because we witnessed a surreal dialogue. Despite Morgan’s skill, keeping up with the woman’s constant contradictions is practically impossible.
He denied knowing Richard Gadd. Then he said they were friends. He claimed he never sent him the thousands of emails he actually sent, first saying he never wrote to him and then talking about “a couple of emails.”
She insulted both Gadd and Netflix, and it’s easy to think that she might now be the one getting in trouble.
Fiona Harvey spoke out: why?
It escapes me, like many others, the reason which pushed Fiona Harvey to expose yourself Like this. It is obvious to anyone – you don’t need to be a doctor – that this woman is unwell and needs help.
It seemed to see Jessica Gunningthe extraordinary interpreter of Martha in Baby Reindeer.
In some parts of the interview it was impossible not to think that they were the same person. Just as it is very, very difficult to believe a single word of the many uttered by Harvey.
He denied having a Facebook account (but he does, Morgan showed it). He denied having ever attended stand-up comedy shows, much less those of Richard Gadd (but then a post appeared from 2014, one of the years in question, in which he invited everyone to go and see him).
He claimed to have one photographic memorybut then he says do not remember if you have 4 or 6 phones, because you like to keep your contacts on the various phones separate. Like many others, according to her.
In short: a series of meaningless statements, lies disproved by the images of the posts shown by Morgan, contradictions that are difficult to follow.
The interviewer was very good, after all he is a highly experienced journalist, but for anyone else this interview remains a jumble of contradicting statements.
The very reason why Fiona Harvey agreed to be interviewed is perhaps not so difficult to understand: she needs attention, when until the day before she stated that she wanted to be left alone and did not want to appear in the newspapers.
Fiona Harvey she is undeniably Martha Scott. Anyone who has seen Baby Reindeer before this interview can only draw this conclusion.
And the very fact that Fiona Harvey exposed herself in this way, showing the whole world that Not is able to tell a story coherent story and which is still full of hatred towards Gadd, can only be counterproductive to his legal intentions against the author and Netflix.
Maybe she thinks she can gain something by being indignant at having been associated with Martha.
It’s difficult to understand how his mind works. Maybe he wants compensation. Assuming that today, after what happened with Piers Morgan, you still intend to sue someone…
