0:00

It's that time of the year. Your

0:02

vacation is coming up. You

0:05

can already hear the beach waves, feel

0:07

the warm breeze, relax,

0:10

and think about work.

0:13

You really, really want it all to

0:15

work out while you're away. monday.com gives

0:17

you and the team that peace of

0:19

mind. When all work is on one

0:21

platform and everyone's in sync, things just

0:23

flow. Wherever you are, tap the banner

0:25

to go to monday.com. Britain

0:32

feels broken, but how do we fix it?

0:35

Westminster just doesn't seem to have the answers, but

0:37

we have found some people who do. Join

0:40

me, journalist Becca Hudson. And me,

0:42

the former MP Ed Vasey, for How

0:44

I'd Fix. From the price of a

0:46

pint to the housing crisis, this is the show where

0:48

we take an alternative look at the problems plaguing the

0:50

nation. And hear practical solutions from those in

0:52

the know. Catch new episodes

0:55

of How I'd Fix, wherever you get

0:57

your podcasts. Rebuilding Britain starts here. Build

1:26

up some kind of narrative of a stalker.

1:28

You would not need 41,000 emails to do

1:30

that. By Netflix

1:32

going all in at the start saying,

1:34

this is a true story. We did

1:36

everything we could to protect identity. No,

1:38

you didn't. People found her in 10

1:40

seconds. Yes. That's not a duty of

1:42

care. I just cannot believe that everybody

1:44

dropped the ball on this person. We're

1:46

yet to hear from his Richard.

1:49

God himself is a self-confessed, every damaged

1:51

guy, you know, maybe as she said,

1:53

maybe he's concocted some of this himself.

1:56

I don't know how reliable a witness

1:58

is. drug use

2:00

that is enough to lay down complete

2:02

distortions. I do have a problem if

2:04

he has invented a conviction

2:06

for smoking in. We'll tell you

2:09

this, it's about as close

2:11

to a slam dunk if that's

2:13

true. I've

2:16

interviewed many dangerous people in my career

2:18

including convicted serial killers and medically diagnosed

2:20

psychopaths. The common denominator of all these

2:23

people tends to be that they're very

2:25

skilled liars. I think

2:27

they often truly believe what they're telling

2:29

me. Well Fiona Harvey hasn't killed

2:31

anybody but if she did everything she's accused of

2:33

doing as Martha in Baby Reindeer, then she

2:36

would be an unstable obsessive and

2:39

threatening and sinister stalker who

2:41

made Richard Gann's life utter hell and

2:43

indeed other people's lives utter hell.

2:46

But is it all true? Netflix

2:49

says explicitly at the beginning of the series

2:51

that this is a true story, not based

2:53

on a true story or inspired by real

2:55

events. A true story.

2:58

Unless there be any doubt about what

3:00

streamer company thinks about this, and Netflix

3:03

policy chief said this to a parliamentary

3:05

committee in the UK this week. Baby

3:09

Reindeer is an extraordinary story and

3:11

it is obviously a true story of the

3:13

horrific abuse that

3:16

the writer and protagonist Richard Gadd suffered at

3:19

the hands of a convicted stalker. We

3:21

did take every reasonable precaution in

3:25

disguising the real life identities of

3:28

the people involved in

3:30

that story. Well

3:33

the series ends with Martha, already a

3:35

convicted stalker in the series, sent to

3:37

jail for her harassment of the comedian

3:39

and his family. In fact it shows

3:42

her admitting that she had done all this before

3:44

she is sentenced. But

3:46

no journalist or internet sleuths have

3:49

found any evidence so far of

3:51

Fiona Harvey being convicted for anything,

3:53

let alone harassing or stalking Richard

3:56

Gadd. It's not a difficult thing to check.

4:00

That alone if it turns out the

4:02

she hasn't actually been convicted of any

4:04

crime in relation to reach you guys

4:06

are the anybody else would so uncool

4:09

into massive question the credibility of a

4:11

lot of the rest of the drama

4:13

and indeed what he claims. About

4:16

Martha. Fiona. Hobby.

4:19

Because. If a fundamental fire is

4:21

not true. What? Else.

4:23

Is. Not true. A one

4:26

point despite become fiction. Netflix.

4:29

And gad of also claimed me to

4:31

serve one of the Netflix officials claim

4:33

in parliament the the did everything they

4:35

could possibly do to hide her identity

4:37

and that that save other people depicted

4:40

in the in the series. but the

4:42

reality is that she was traced within

4:44

hours by internet sleuths simply by cross

4:46

referencing a real life social media posts

4:48

with the ones that we used. In.

4:51

The show. And. Having interviewed

4:53

Vienna four billion our Us it's also

4:55

clear to me they deliberately chosen actress

4:57

who bears a striking resemblance to us

4:59

by physically and in the way that

5:01

she speaks in the series. Now all

5:04

of his points to what I would

5:06

say is a massive duty of care

5:08

failure on Netflix or rich Dad and

5:10

my thoughts a mofo was that produce

5:12

the series but us be clear, none

5:14

of that means that I think beyond

5:16

hobby tell me the whole truth. I

5:19

found to be intelligent coherence.

5:22

Combative and quick thinking and on

5:24

a human level I felt sorry

5:26

for the he'd become the object

5:29

of global ridicule and as he

5:31

says, the recipient of serious death

5:33

threats. But. No funnier moments

5:35

of interview that rang alarm bells to me.

5:38

Moments where I think she was

5:40

frankly line robot to discuss. But

5:43

it richard Garfield in title to

5:45

make millions airing his side of

5:48

the story and in the process

5:50

make very serious allegations against Fiona

5:52

Harvey on him mouth was clearly

5:54

based in the process than see

5:56

so entitled to respond and defend

5:58

herself as she chose to then.

6:01

As the who is exploiting whom. But.

6:03

I'll leave that to the court of public opinion.

6:06

To the size. Or. Indeed, an actual

6:08

court if it comes to it. Would

6:10

your meds Discussed that and the bombshell

6:12

interviews made ways across the world. Somebody

6:14

Criminal Defense Lawyer Marc Gehrig us from

6:16

Los Angeles Addiction specialist Doctor Drew of

6:19

Exile so in L A I'm from

6:21

Scotland you choose Premier popped out to

6:23

predict the critical drink s and hear

6:25

the studio make a sense of contributors

6:27

as to crack a lot less whole

6:29

at run age of a welcome to

6:31

all of the it's and we start

6:33

with with poor and as to who

6:35

with me here a Polis Evil What

6:37

a chance to watch the interview here.

6:39

I'm. What? Did you make of it?

6:42

Utterly fascinating And actually what you have

6:44

done is he provided a window into

6:47

the world of what happens in. A

6:49

court rave. You asked a lot of

6:51

questions. And pays that I would

6:53

piss somebody and who I was

6:55

cross examine in terms of this

6:57

type of acts as. You believe her?

7:00

It doesn't matter whether I believe like us

7:03

and let's let me explain, see why? Because

7:05

you know I have this discussion a lot.

7:08

About. The truth. A.

7:10

Mile City always says.

7:12

Stream is only one truth know

7:14

that isn't a similar you are

7:17

wrong, I mean effect and this

7:19

whole my sorry think really home

7:21

I said his whole maestro he

7:23

boasts it is bullshit is there

7:25

is the truth which is based

7:27

on actual facts, evidential facts, and

7:29

my problem with this whole baby

7:31

reindeer saga is I don't really

7:33

believe a lot of what either

7:35

side is saying. You think a

7:37

lot of Richard Gods stuff for

7:39

just out with. is not

7:41

borne out by facts and if

7:44

it turns out that the martha

7:46

with her confession as in the

7:48

new most of the series confessing

7:50

to harassing us tokyo and guessing

7:52

a prison sentence is that sounds

7:54

out to not be true then

7:57

the slapdash way they have allowed

7:59

fiona hobby be identified immediately as the

8:01

person depicted in what they claim is a

8:03

true story is going to have very good

8:05

cause, and I'll come to Mark Garagas from

8:08

a legal perspective at the moment, very good

8:10

cause, certainly under UK law, I would think,

8:13

to sue for defamation. So

8:15

it does matter for us. Well, Piers, no.

8:17

What you asked me was, or what you said

8:19

was, there is only one truth, and I

8:22

disagreed with you on that. And let me

8:24

explain to you why, because in this country,

8:26

we have beyond reasonable doubt, and we have

8:29

on the balance of probabilities, we do not

8:31

have a 100% safe

8:33

proof in terms of how we can

8:35

find the truth. We do our best

8:37

to find the truth. And we do

8:39

that on the basis of the evidence

8:41

that is put before the court. Now,

8:43

your viewers are going to see some

8:45

of that evidence in relation to whether

8:47

they've watched the Netflix series, they're going

8:49

to be see some of that evidence

8:51

in relation to the expert way, quite

8:53

frankly, that you put questions to Fiona,

8:55

but that still isn't all the evidence.

8:58

And so we have to be careful.

9:00

No, and to be clear, before I come

9:02

to you, Esther, I do not know exactly

9:04

where the truth lies. It may be

9:06

that after this interview has aired, and

9:09

everyone's now dissecting it and talking about

9:11

it and examining it, and journalists will

9:13

be testing it, that they, you know,

9:15

other stuff may emerge. Nothing would surprise

9:17

me. I think this is a crazy

9:19

story from start to finish. But Esther,

9:21

so nothing was surprising me. But as

9:23

things sit, there does seem

9:26

to be a massive disparity between

9:28

what has appeared in the Netflix

9:30

series, and everything that

9:33

Fiona Harvey told me. Now, I don't believe

9:35

everything she told me, but on certain key

9:37

points, which can be verified, yes

9:40

or no, there's going to be a

9:42

lot of rescuing on this because the credibility

9:44

of the whole show will rest on whether

9:46

those key things like was she convicted or

9:48

not? But what happens? Is that true or

9:50

not? Yeah, well, this is a bit where you have to use

9:52

a bit of common sense. If they if it's

9:54

found that she has not been convicted of anything,

9:56

and she didn't spend nine months in prison like

9:58

this series is alleging. There is no assumption

10:01

of probability or anything like that. It's either true

10:03

or it's not true. And you can look up

10:05

someone's records and find if they've spent nine months

10:08

in prison like this series is alleging. I actually

10:10

happen to think that Martha's story or version of

10:12

the truth is probably closer to the actual truth.

10:14

Yes, there is a spectrum here and none of

10:17

us were there, none of us were direct witnesses

10:19

and we can't talk about Richard Gadd's feelings or

10:21

his truth. Fine. But there are some things that

10:23

are not based on feelings and our fact, like

10:26

if she was convicted, like if she assaulted the

10:28

girlfriend, like if she sent 41,000 emails, which

10:30

is ludicrous. I mean, I do think she sends

10:32

some emails, not like what she sends. I

10:34

think she's, I think on the emails. I do

10:36

think she sent emails. Well, let's play that, let's

10:38

play that bit actually from the interview. This is

10:40

Fiona Harvey talking to me about the emails. So

10:44

all of this would come out in

10:46

a court case. In disclosure, yes. And you're prepared

10:48

to do that? Yes. Because

10:51

I didn't write in the emails. Who

10:53

do you think did? I have no idea. I think you probably made them up

10:55

in sales. I have no idea. 41,000

10:57

emails. Yeah. I

11:01

mean, would you accept that someone who

11:03

did that would be very obsessive about

11:05

someone? Yes. I

11:08

mean, that's a lot of emails. Now,

11:12

what was interesting was when I kept pushing on this,

11:14

because I thought it was a very important part of

11:16

the interview, she did then

11:18

say, Esther, even if I

11:20

did, even if I

11:22

had sent those emails, it still doesn't mean the

11:25

rest is true. It was one of the few

11:27

moments I felt she slipped up, where if I'm

11:29

a criminal lawyer, again, we'll

11:31

come to Mark in a moment, who's more

11:33

expert in these matters. But that seemed to

11:36

me a very important moment where she was

11:38

raising the specter that she may have done,

11:40

but it still didn't mean the rest is

11:42

true, which by the way, if that's the

11:44

case, she was right to say that. Yeah. But

11:46

she didn't actually admit I sent them. For what

11:48

is worth, I think she probably did. I

11:51

think that Netflix and Richard Gabb must

11:53

have actual evidence. Or they wouldn't

11:55

have been so precise about the number

11:57

of emails, text messages, and so on.

11:59

It's kind of absurd to imply that Richard

12:01

Gadd might have sent them himself. If he was

12:03

trying to build up some kind of narrative of

12:06

a stalker, you would not need 41,000 emails to

12:08

do that. No,

12:10

I agree. If he doesn't, it would have been enough.

12:12

Yeah, I agree. It wasn't completely enough to be said.

12:14

I agree, and critical drinker, I want to come to

12:16

you actually just on a wider point about baby ranger

12:19

and his site. Let me just go to Mark Garagaso,

12:21

because, Mark, from a legal perspective, it's probably a different

12:23

set of rules here. If

12:26

this was judged on airing in

12:28

America to the UK. We have

12:30

tougher defamation laws here, for example.

12:32

But from what you've gleaned about

12:34

this, and given her emphatic denial

12:36

that she was ever even charged,

12:38

let alone convicted and confessed to

12:41

the crime, where would she

12:43

sit legally? Well,

12:45

you're right. England has, to

12:48

my mind, much better rules when

12:50

it comes to defamation. But having

12:53

said that, there's somebody who is

12:55

currently adverse to Netflix. I will

12:57

tell you, in

13:00

my experience at least, they do

13:02

tend to take great liberties when

13:04

they represent what the

13:07

particular facts are. And

13:10

specifically in America, you have

13:13

a doctrine, both defamation

13:15

by implication, defamation per

13:18

se, accusing her of being

13:20

a criminal, and doubling

13:22

down on it by saying she

13:25

served time. If that is

13:27

not true, she's got a whale of a case.

13:29

I think so. Yeah, I

13:31

think so. Hang on one second. I

13:33

just want to bring in Esther first, just

13:35

because I was going to come to

13:38

you. Did you believe a lot of what

13:40

she was saying? Because she was

13:42

so emphatic with a number of her denials,

13:44

how credible did you find her in that

13:47

interview with me? I found about 75% of

13:49

what she was saying to be true, particularly on the

13:51

conviction point, because I don't think that you can lie

13:53

about that. And so far, all the evidence from what

13:55

we've seen is bearing out. We can't find any convictions

13:57

of her spending nine months in prison. think

14:00

that she did probably make some inappropriate advances

14:02

towards him but this is also I mean

14:04

he admits he admits leading her on well

14:06

yes but also this multiple times and I don't

14:08

want to be lewd this is someone who admitted

14:10

to masturbating to pictures of Martha so clearly he

14:13

was not someone of sound mind or the most

14:15

credible person he had his own issues and the

14:17

way he interpreted any kind of interaction with them

14:19

I also think it's also do like it's well

14:22

it'd be valid to scrutinize it as well because

14:24

this is not someone that I thought was all

14:26

there quite frankly I think the bigger issue here

14:28

is the fact that the length that Netflix has

14:30

gone to to create this fiction because they

14:33

can't actually create a story like this because they'll be liable

14:35

to all the kind of social commentary of them glamorizing

14:37

stalking and all of that they decided to

14:39

put the based on a true story label

14:41

to protect themselves because they don't actually want

14:43

to put original content out there that they

14:45

think what people would find interesting they wanted

14:47

to make this look like it's exactly what

14:49

you well let me okay no on that on that

14:51

point let me bring in critical drinker because

14:54

actually I don't think Netflix could have had a clue

14:56

how big this was gonna blow I was

14:59

no I was absolutely stunned how big

15:01

my interview with Fiona Harvey went from

15:03

the moment we announced it to put

15:05

it in context I think that I

15:08

did one post on X just announcing

15:10

I'd done the interview and

15:12

it's had I think 10 million views

15:14

just one post on X I mean

15:17

crazy numbers we were getting for all

15:19

of this and crazy numbers

15:21

of people I'm sure will

15:23

watch it over the next week or so

15:25

but put into context for

15:28

those who are not familiar with the whole

15:30

baby reindeer phenomenon how big is this being

15:32

worldwide I mean

15:34

it's something that a lot of people are

15:37

talking about and I think it's just the

15:39

nature of the medium like sometimes certain things

15:41

just go viral and absolutely take off way

15:43

beyond what anyone expected it was the same

15:45

deal with something like Tiger King back during

15:48

lockdown an obscure documentary but for

15:50

some reason it just captured the the public

15:52

consciousness and suddenly everyone was talking about it

15:54

and it just every once in a while

15:56

it happens and it's definitely been one of

15:58

those shows I mean, it definitely

16:00

helps that it's a very well-acted show,

16:03

it's well-written, it's well-produced, it's

16:05

genuinely a good piece of drama, and it

16:07

deals with a lot of interesting issues that

16:09

are definitely worth talking about. So all of

16:11

those things were working in its favour, and

16:14

as a result, yeah, it's become probably way

16:16

bigger than Netflix ever predicted that it would.

16:18

If it was an act, a work of

16:20

drama, and they said it's a fictional account,

16:23

but maybe loosely based on something that

16:25

may have happened, that's one thing. By

16:29

Netflix going all in at the

16:31

start saying, this is a true

16:33

story, and by their executives going

16:36

into Parliament and speaking under oath

16:38

and saying, this is a true

16:41

story, and saying she was

16:43

convicted, with, I don't

16:45

think they've got the evidence to support that statement,

16:47

and then saying, you know, we did everything we

16:49

could to protect her, don't they? No, you didn't.

16:51

You chose an actress who looks very like

16:53

her, physically, and you made her speak very

16:56

like her, and you made her behave

16:58

and talk very like her. I know, because

17:00

I've now sat down and interviewed the real

17:02

Martha. I'll be bringing Dr. Drew. Dr. Drew, you're

17:04

one of the great psychologists I've ever

17:07

met in my life. So give me

17:09

a bit of psychoanalysts about all this. Well,

17:13

there's a lot going on here, Pearson. Thank you for having me. By

17:15

the way, your job in the interview was

17:18

absolutely masterful, because people get very frustrated that

17:20

somehow you're supposed to go at people when

17:22

you question their veracity of what they're saying,

17:26

when in fact the reality is what you want

17:28

to do is exactly what you did, present the

17:30

facts, and then ask questions. We express wonderment of

17:32

what might be going on here. And she did

17:34

flip up on the email. She did say, well,

17:36

if I sent the email, so somebody sending 41,000

17:39

emails has got a problem. And

17:42

there's sort of three possibilities. She's lying,

17:45

she's truthful, or she

17:47

has something called anisognosia, which is a

17:49

block in the ability to see reality.

17:52

Serious mental illness, serious personality

17:55

disorders, Literally distort reality

17:57

and cannot assess it accurately.

18:00

An image that she was obviously very

18:02

intelligent. A question of thought. We knew

18:04

what to I misspoke. Boom, He didn't

18:06

it into a forty five minutes. I

18:08

wouldn't say i'm easiest interview. You're

18:11

ever going to conduct and how kind of

18:13

position by the which he conducted itself? Pretty

18:15

for me to be. well I say. All

18:17

things considered, I think he's ever done a

18:19

television interview before I should be held to

18:21

account and and I had a dozen guy

18:23

held back with her albeit I don't actually

18:25

know with the truth lies I don't want

18:28

to go to Odd. I'm throw too soft

18:30

bed beside you. What was your assessment of

18:32

her as an individual? Again,

18:36

you can't know whether I live didn't

18:38

are not assessor so I have no

18:40

direct knowledge. And they're really, as I

18:42

said, three possibilities: truthful, Lying.

18:44

Which is a volitional things or a

18:46

severe a personality disorder. Consider things like

18:48

dissociative identity disorder where people really don't

18:51

even remember what they've been doing. so

18:53

years talking to somebody who's in a

18:55

different reality. It's those kinds of personality

18:58

disorders can literally distort everything. And by

19:00

the way, he has some evidence yet

19:02

of the stuff as he is portrayed

19:04

in the series. He has some significant

19:07

stuff as well. So what he is

19:09

for trying as reality may also be

19:11

distorted. Anomaly Question A Drew of. Stalkers

19:14

generally let's assume for a moment yep

19:16

know she's guilty as they were protecting

19:18

the picture in the in. The thanks

19:20

and most public figures have had experience

19:23

with stalkers and some I know that

19:25

you have I know the I have

19:27

I know that are friends of mine

19:30

who had terrible experience is really terrible.

19:32

I'm in other day be to see

19:34

stars now I'm doing a podcast. Emily

19:36

Minuses had done nearly thirty years of

19:39

hell was been documented two court and

19:41

very very hard to deal with. These.

19:43

Times of people when they do get

19:46

fixated on how much of this kind

19:48

of stalking goes on for doesn't involve

19:50

a sort of explicable attachment to somebody

19:53

in the public eye When maybe people

19:55

watch people on television or entertainers? whatever.

19:57

and they get obsessed with the i.

20:00

Sort of understand that dynamic.

20:02

It's harder to understand. On

20:05

us at a local pub level was some will

20:07

make someone a cup of tea and oh hell

20:09

Iraq from that moment the is it more common

20:11

than we think? Oh.

20:14

Absolutely is as simple stalking which is

20:16

really what this is a case of.

20:18

It's people with personality disorders which is

20:20

something have a lot of these days

20:22

who become obsessed. years he with a

20:25

romantic attachment that his brief and then

20:27

off it goes any can go for

20:29

decades and the the object of the

20:31

stock he needs to and all contact.

20:33

Any negative contact even of law enforcement

20:36

tends to actually exacerbate things to Suez

20:38

of the starting spectrum when it's called

20:40

simple stock and which is not so

20:42

simple and a the. Other. End is

20:44

psychotic stocking. And psychotic

20:46

starting is what I had. Somebody was actually

20:49

a meth addict, had a delusion about a

20:51

relationship with mates and those guys you actually

20:53

can grab. Law enforcement's very good at getting

20:56

those and bringing them into treatment and they

20:58

get better. But the ones with the personality

21:00

disorders. He'd

21:03

turn is a year, use

21:06

a cheese and is getting

21:08

it. Didn't only humid as

21:10

each nice boobs mean. Think

21:14

about work. You really really wanted

21:16

all the work out while you're

21:19

only monday.com to you in a

21:21

team. When homework

21:23

is on one platform and every once

21:25

in a scene things well wherever you

21:27

are south a banner. Didn't in London

21:29

know. When.

21:33

You're ready to pop the question the

21:35

last thing you want a deal as

21:37

second guess the room at Blue. Know

21:39

that com. You can design a one

21:41

of the kind ring with the ease

21:43

inconvenience. If shopping online choose your down

21:45

and and sending. when you send the

21:47

one you'll get it delivered right to

21:50

your door to the Blue nile.com and

21:52

use promo code Listen to get fifty

21:54

dollars off your purchase. A Five hundred

21:56

dollars or more. That's code Listen. Had

21:58

Blue nile.com for fifty dollars on. Your

22:00

purchase blue. nile.com code Listen,

22:03

Planning for your next trip? elevate your

22:05

travel style with Quince! Quince has all

22:07

the jet setting essentials you'll want for

22:09

your next getaway like European linen, premium

22:11

luggage options but a soft to tell

22:13

your mother bags and so much more

22:16

and is all priced at fifty to

22:18

eighty percent less than similar brands. Plus

22:20

Quince only works with the victory that

22:22

you save an ethical manufacturing practices. Pack

22:24

your bags with high quality essentials you'll

22:26

be wearing for vacations to come with

22:29

glance to do quince.com/trip for free shipping

22:31

a three hundred sixty by day returns.

22:35

Can just go on almost

22:37

interminably, right Mcgarrigle, I'm gonna

22:40

play a clip from Fiona

22:42

Harvey watching the court scene

22:44

from the Netflix drama. There's.

22:47

One key points and the drama. Has

22:51

Mosses character. Pleading. Guilty.

22:54

To. Intimidating which a getting caught and

22:56

sentenced to nine months. Prison.

22:58

Time Alice watch. The

23:02

charged with still in that Mr.

23:04

Donald dance between the dates, the

23:06

forties of August twenty fifteen and

23:08

the twenty second. As much Twenty

23:10

Seven T V is he. In

23:13

it is t. V

23:17

You. To just with the Suez and.

23:20

And in. Between the

23:23

dates of the sixth of June,

23:25

twenty sixteen and the Twenty six,

23:27

Twenty seven. Or

23:29

you can see or not guilty. Now

23:40

again, there is an overseer resemblance between.

23:42

To think so. How about it Really fly?

23:45

Say. When so sorry

23:47

you're not sorry. I just think there

23:49

is a resemblance in are having met

23:51

you and you both speak in Scottish

23:53

people are but the fundamental point of

23:55

this is did you did you'd. Take.

23:58

Part him as he did. You go to jail to. Note

24:00

the truth though, it's have you ever been to prison? No.

24:03

I've never been charged with

24:05

yes, no, never nothing, nothing.

24:09

So. That scene is completely completely

24:11

false. Self

24:14

Maga is. What's interesting is the

24:16

the other charge there was where

24:18

she's supposedly missing. The that is

24:20

Wells involves a woman and her

24:22

Mp husband who she would prefer

24:24

that the legal firm and then

24:27

apparently harass them for long time

24:29

off to the sea bass and

24:31

he denies that but it's it

24:33

appears at worst there. she may

24:35

have been serve some kind of

24:38

interim. Legal. Same

24:40

the certainly never got as far as

24:43

anything to do as a courtroom or

24:45

any charging have any criminal offense or

24:47

let alone a conviction so dense that

24:49

there are two separate. Things.

24:51

Here both of which he passive demise

24:54

of both of which so father is.

24:56

Zero evidence that she ever went into

24:58

caught a source told us about the

25:00

for like it's of, that's. The

25:03

Duty of Terror aspect for company on

25:05

Netflix. One of the most successful media

25:07

companies in the world in fact, in

25:09

history raking in billions of dollars a

25:11

year. What kind of zeus you care

25:13

to they have if a slap this

25:16

is a true story. Over something

25:18

like this and it turns out it

25:20

may not be true. Well.

25:23

It's almost in explicable that

25:25

they would allow and executive

25:27

to go with testified that

25:29

they would then have this

25:31

is a central features of

25:33

the series in then that

25:35

would just concoct this. I

25:37

mean he looked he dealing

25:39

with now an I within

25:41

the illegals the book again

25:43

it's about as robust as

25:45

you to so and both

25:48

are innocent in the house

25:50

counsel and they're outside concerned.

25:52

So yeah. a lot of this

25:54

does not make or sense to me

25:56

or it's as some kind of their

25:58

something peculiar going i'm even hurry The

26:00

reaction, though, to watching that seemed

26:02

just a wee bit peculiar to

26:04

me as well. So,

26:07

to echo some of your

26:09

other guests here, there

26:11

seems to be something

26:13

that is there that we haven't

26:15

discovered yet, and that the truth

26:18

has not come out here in

26:20

terms of what actually happened. Because

26:22

I cannot believe Netflix and their

26:24

legal team has let this go

26:27

this far. We did ask Netflix

26:29

for a response. They decided not

26:31

to comment. I mean, Paula, there was

26:33

also, there's a graphic male

26:36

rape scene in there, but it involves

26:38

a lot of heavy duty drug taking

26:40

leading up to it, which Richard Gadd

26:42

is very honest about. He had a

26:44

lot of problems. He had a lot

26:46

of sexual experimentation, a lot of drug taking and so on.

26:49

That's not to say the rape didn't happen,

26:51

but what did happen as a consequence of

26:53

this, in pertaining to the duty

26:55

of care aspect, is that rather

26:58

than the actual person who is

27:01

believed to have committed the rape

27:03

being identified, somebody else in the

27:05

television industry was wrongly identified, smeared

27:07

all over social media. He also

27:09

got threats and unwanted

27:11

attention. The

27:14

real person has not yet been identified. So,

27:16

the whole thing is a complete mess. But

27:18

this idea that Netflix went out of their

27:20

way to protect people who they

27:22

were depicting, I think is for the birds, frankly.

27:24

There are lots of concerns. It's

27:26

kind of interesting, sorry to jump in there,

27:28

that they were able to identify this

27:30

woman within a matter of hours, a

27:33

relatively obscure private citizen. And

27:35

yet this person who committed the rape against

27:37

Richard Gadd, who's presumably a public figure and

27:39

quite senior and well known, nobody seems to

27:41

have been able to track down the real

27:44

person. Well, Richard Osman has said on, I

27:46

think on his podcast, that everyone knows who

27:48

it is, including him. I mean,

27:50

I would have thought someone should say them. Who

27:52

is this person? Or at the very least go

27:55

to the authorities and have this properly investigated. So

27:57

again, Paula, it's all a

27:59

mess. I mean, I watched it and Richard Gaddy

28:01

is obviously quite a damaged guy. He's obviously talented,

28:05

he's obviously had a lot of success

28:07

with this, but it's an interesting journey.

28:09

He started off doing it on stage

28:11

in front of small audiences and

28:14

it could be that he just saw

28:16

an opportunity, which is what Fiona Harvey

28:18

told me, to make a lot of

28:20

money out of this and didn't ever

28:22

consider the potential consequences of not everything

28:25

being completely true. Digging Festival

28:27

was Netflix and their duty of care.

28:30

There are a lot of question marks, aren't there,

28:32

Piers? First of all, did

28:34

they consult with any stalking

28:36

organisations, for example, to understand

28:38

what the impact of this show was going

28:40

to have on the wider audience? Apparently they

28:42

did. So on that they did, but what

28:45

they cannot get away from is

28:47

that they have this actress

28:49

and they have Fiona Harvey and they

28:51

look like they could be pretty

28:54

similar people and they're both speaking Scottish.

28:56

The actress is not actually Scottish, but

28:58

she speaks in a Scottish accent, very

29:00

similar to Fiona Harvey and a

29:02

lot of the stuff that they put

29:04

on screen, which includes actual

29:07

phraseology, which came directly from tweets which

29:09

Fiona Harvey had posted. So that's how

29:11

the sleuths found it. They just put

29:14

in things like the curtains quote and

29:16

so on and up she came straight

29:18

away. It turned out she was retweeting

29:20

me quite a lot as well at

29:23

the time. So she was

29:25

quite an active social media user, but people

29:27

found her in 10 seconds. Yeah. That's not

29:29

a duty of care. Well then

29:31

the next question mark is in terms of

29:33

that duty of care when they were considering

29:35

this project as it would have been then,

29:38

why choose the entertainment route as opposed

29:40

to the documentary route? And what were

29:43

the questions that were being asked about

29:45

that? Because you have to

29:47

understand that as a viewer, what we are

29:49

being told is that we are sitting down

29:52

and watching crude entertainment. We

29:54

are being told that this is a

29:56

true story. It's a heroine story. And

29:58

I just wonder... If

30:00

this was really going to be

30:02

about showing evidence

30:05

in somebody who has been

30:07

severely harassed, suffered, you

30:09

know, countless criminal

30:11

actions against them and against others,

30:14

why they didn't choose to go

30:16

down? I mean, we spoke to her, our

30:18

team spoke to her today, and

30:20

Esther, she is still getting bombarded with

30:22

phone calls. People found a number very

30:24

easily. And she's getting

30:26

a lot of threats from people who

30:29

believe that she is this psycho stalker

30:31

who got convicted for the psycho stalking

30:33

without there actually being so far any

30:35

evidence. And you've got to think, if

30:37

Netflix had any evidence she had been

30:39

convicted, we just seen it by now.

30:42

It's a pretty serious thing to put

30:44

at the end of a true story

30:46

series if that turns out not to

30:48

have happened. Yeah. And you have

30:50

to wonder why Netflix decided to go down the route of

30:52

calling it a true story. I hate to draw parallels here

30:54

with the royal family, but I feel like this is kind

30:57

of like a Megan Harry royal family search because you have

30:59

one party speaking their truth and going to the media

31:01

and saying whatever they want. And you have the other

31:04

party that you know is probably not going to say

31:06

anything just because of protocol and what is expected of

31:08

them. I actually think Netflix banks on the fact that

31:10

Martha, real life Martha, would never actually speak out. I

31:12

think they banked on the fact that she would do

31:14

an interview and say her side of the story and

31:16

say, listen, none of this happened, at least not in

31:18

the world it's been depicted. There are no conditions. Let

31:21

me bring in Dr. Drew on this

31:23

point, which is Richard Gad himself is

31:25

a self-confessed every damaged guy. He admits

31:27

that very openly, honestly. He

31:30

took a lot of drugs. You see that depicted

31:32

in the series. He had, you know,

31:35

he had relationships with trans women, he

31:37

had relationships with gay men with straight

31:39

women and so on. He

31:41

admits to a lot of experimentation with that,

31:43

a lot of it fueled by drugs and

31:46

so on. How reliable a witness is he

31:48

to even his own life? No, absolutely.

31:52

That was a point I made a few

31:54

minutes ago, which is that he is also

31:56

distorted in his not just memory, but his

31:58

actual perception of reality. Take

32:00

the a reckless drug use. that is

32:02

enough to lay down complete distortions a

32:04

what was actually happening at the time.

32:06

plus the trauma, plus the recurrent traumas.

32:09

Plus he must have some character logical

32:11

things going on as well. From all

32:13

those traumas thing about being a trauma

32:15

survivor vertically childhood trauma, his father was

32:17

a promise survivors. These things have a

32:19

way of recurring themselves. And

32:21

the distortions of how they happen can be

32:23

profile so who knows where the truth actually

32:26

as can be very difficult to tell the

32:28

you are hearing on the one thing which

32:30

is what is the evidence with look at

32:32

the email them look at the letters let's

32:34

look the court document out and see what

32:36

actually there is hard evidence up and a

32:38

series that she ago and she does sue

32:40

them and he gets to discovery than all

32:42

this will come out because I can't believe

32:44

you know that if it is have a

32:46

central midst of a month or so I

32:48

see the crucial thing for me with a

32:50

less the handwritten letters. Because rich exact

32:53

same seven hundred and six I think

32:55

she admitted to sending him one. What

32:57

is very easy for experts to look

32:59

at a I'm sure Mcgarrigle some just

33:02

bring you in quickly on this point

33:04

is very easy as net for experts

33:06

to look at a hand written less

33:08

and compared to a hundred and five

33:10

others. And as an work out, whether

33:12

they're all the same person. You'll.

33:15

Know somebody been beaten. Experts are that

33:17

ensues. That's so A And there's you

33:19

can do requests for admissions, you can

33:21

do a document the production and if

33:24

they don't have it, that's A. That's

33:26

a real problem. Some.

33:28

Critical think it adds critical thinker your

33:30

you know you are a critical thank

33:32

you but crucially I will shrink. Guess

33:35

I'm I'm not here in Scotland. What

33:37

is it was a vibe in Scotland

33:39

The Daily Record to they splashed on

33:41

an interview with her about my interview

33:44

with her oversee A lot of interest

33:46

the was the general feeling about this.

33:49

I. Mean, I've I don't claim to speak for all the

33:51

people of Scotland on this interview, but so you know

33:53

both of the people that were involved in this. Bird.

33:56

Were Scottish anyway, so I think there's

33:58

just general interest in the key. It's

34:00

a start up a lot of from interesting

34:02

discussions about you know the whole nature of

34:05

start getting to fight that a yes a

34:07

can happen to men as well as women

34:09

are going I think. I. Guess

34:11

that's a useful conversations harvest are useful

34:13

realization to have one amount on. What

34:15

about the people He say immediately to

34:18

me the moment I announced on Thursday

34:20

the interview, How dare you exploit a

34:22

mentally ill woman. But. Mortgage

34:24

you. Have. A lot of

34:26

he needs to do. You think? that's the way? cameras. I.

34:29

Read: It's not my place to make a ruling

34:31

on her mental state, but it comes to this

34:33

stuff if she came forward as a functioning adult

34:35

and be was able to make your own decisions

34:37

and so just want to do the interview. That's.

34:40

Their decision as not at night as to whether

34:42

she should have are no other thing that's quite

34:44

upset because. The Making a judgment of

34:46

her mental health and Santa Ana and basically what's

34:48

looking more like a fictional i see. I'd also

34:50

her whole point of Damien's visit. She believes

34:52

she has been exploited by Richard God by

34:55

Netflix and by top top of my films.

34:57

That's why she did the interview. she thinks

34:59

she's been deliberately point is a secular going

35:01

on. The clip misses her talking about the

35:04

money being made in. Place

35:07

since the happens now much is made out

35:09

of this Netflix from. I

35:11

would imagine. Several. Million power

35:13

loss. I I would say three to

35:15

four million a lawyer on a well

35:17

thought through to somebody know the day

35:19

and he suggested said not incest a

35:22

two hundred pounds method know I think

35:24

you're looking for that c four million

35:26

as the more he publicizes and it

35:28

this up on my you know as

35:30

according to how how much steamed I

35:32

don't know I don't know with the

35:34

clinch like they science consistent like email

35:36

as does. The same as you reason? that's.

35:38

All, I don't resent any school getting

35:40

all one that this is not what

35:42

this is about. It's already. Happened to be

35:45

making money out of what he's making money

35:47

at it. when I say yes talking him.

35:49

Yeah. He's making money as if

35:51

I'm She cites. Fuller.

35:54

I mean what's interesting is that a Daily

35:56

Mail journalist interviewed her and then she did

35:58

start to bombard the him have with holes

36:00

in a he says he got of a

36:02

fifty goals in a few hours and so

36:05

on. So. Dot. Is indicative

36:07

of somebody who may have done

36:09

this before. It doesn't mean necessarily

36:11

did everything she is accused of

36:13

doing, but it's interesting. It

36:16

is interesting. What else is interesting

36:18

that I found from your into

36:20

the A is that she was

36:23

able to recognize herself. She says

36:25

from when the baby. Main day

36:27

was ss show. Up

36:29

and I found that point three him

36:32

because I didn't understand why somebody who

36:34

considered themselves said not have anything to

36:36

do with a gentleman to have perhaps

36:38

met them five or six times. this

36:40

as a sent one less as have

36:43

perhaps seven, five or six emails with

36:45

then suddenly be. Able to

36:47

recognize themselves. From. A say

36:49

to say yeah, I wasn't clear about

36:51

how she made that link off the

36:53

cuff Comments about the baby reindeer is

36:56

why they use a C May Innocently

36:58

She did. Yeah, Interestingly, she has gone

37:00

on to identify herself and what is

37:02

our I accept been identified? By by

37:05

by these see she's also.

37:07

She has also competed against

37:09

the the herself as. Been

37:11

that character. The only person we

37:13

get to hear from identify her

37:16

as that character is when she

37:18

does. Now when we talk about

37:20

which is making money Aussies base

37:23

do I have a problem with

37:25

with that? Not. Particularly if

37:27

lots of criminals, even who

37:29

are seventh sensitive. I am Ohio

37:32

who will may I had a

37:34

i do have a problem if

37:36

he has invented her conviction. For.

37:38

Stalking him. I think if he's making

37:40

a lot of money out of a

37:42

source. Yes, narrative, Yes. a Mcgarrigle forgetting

37:44

them about similar. Gotta see, this is

37:46

watching She may have if what she's

37:48

saying is correct about last, I think

37:50

that you may you may conclude what's

37:52

in the interview Lukas Only She said

37:54

of the truth here here here and

37:56

here. I don't that central point if

37:58

she is able to stop these. Beyond

38:00

any doubt the she was not convicted

38:02

of any offense Atlanta Mrs. I just

38:04

never been to court in relation to

38:06

any of the stuff. I think she

38:08

has a pretty open and shut case.

38:11

Why? You know there's nothing that

38:14

tighter than I've ever seen that's open

38:16

and shut. But I will tell you

38:18

this. It's about as close to a

38:20

slam dunk if that's true. Now tell

38:22

you there. Is there

38:24

some just peculiar reactions? There's some

38:26

peculiar things and like I said

38:29

before, the robust in the house

38:31

and outside counsel that they have

38:33

I just cannot believe that everybody

38:35

dropped the ball on this. That

38:37

just seems best unbelievable to me.

38:40

I mean are. Several Family or

38:42

Netflix that's I mean. Well as I

38:44

said you know I. I've also alison of a

38:46

big fan of Netflix. I watch it all the

38:48

time. I think it's run by it's very small.

38:50

Guys are know some of them personally as they

38:52

want to come on. And. Talk about this.

38:55

Absolutely. We have an open platform to hear

38:57

that side of events are not to them

38:59

over to god told them or was they

39:01

relied on everything he said a more evidence

39:04

he gave them and in a maybe she

39:06

says it maybe he's concocted some of this

39:08

himself. I don't know I'm other the any

39:10

of us can say with any real certainty

39:13

in the moments exactly what we think has

39:15

happened there or how much of either account

39:17

is true of us. What makes you goals

39:19

as a as critical to you want you

39:22

sense it makes us to talked about saying.

39:24

Because there's so many unanswered questions and in

39:26

a huge i was combat safe which he

39:29

got. admits that he did lead around quite

39:31

a law the he did a phone sex

39:33

acts to have picture on his. Laptop.

39:36

That's weird. I somehow I guess what your

39:38

view of the whole thing is, but that

39:40

doesn't say to me that you'll necessarily. Good

39:42

enough, I feel like he's his dressing and are

39:44

just because you admit, oh I may have done

39:46

something wrong, I may not been the best mental

39:48

say to them and you get to basically nice

39:50

about how criminal convictions. That's what I had this

39:53

issue with. Whereas my big issues I'm in listening

39:55

say some and I'm a little bit uncomfortable with

39:57

some of the things I've. Heard you Say Pays

39:59

My voice on. that oh he

40:01

was using drugs oh yes but

40:03

why is that in the series

40:05

yes I know that I've watched

40:08

it but what I'm concerned about is the

40:10

vulnerable people who may be watching this who

40:12

are thinking okay my skirt was a little

40:14

bit too short okay maybe I had too

40:17

much to drink I was going to his credibility

40:30

and whether if you take a lot of

40:33

hard drugs for a sustained period of time

40:35

if he openly shows us he did then

40:37

that can affect just dr. Drew Wright you

40:39

said and Mark Garagas I'm sure would say

40:41

the same in a court of law it

40:43

obviously impacts on your credibility reference why

40:46

he thought that he had

40:48

been abused and why he thought he

40:50

had been raped and when you watch a big

40:52

show I think I think the

40:54

baby reindeer is an unbelievably compelling watch

41:01

no one I think think doubts that he

41:03

sat and watched it as I did at

41:05

the weekend it is completely compelling brilliantly acted

41:07

very well written very powerful but is it

41:10

drama or is it reality and that's the

41:12

reality of the debate let me just go

41:14

to critical drinker about the

41:16

possibility of course when when a stream has

41:18

a massive hit like this the natural inclination

41:21

normally is to order the sequel are

41:23

we going to see the sequel and if

41:25

so am I going to be in it and if

41:27

so what are the chances of getting Brad Pitt who

41:30

is gonna play you indeed yeah I mean we

41:32

could have now Martha's revenge where she goes on

41:35

this trip to clear her name you just you

41:37

don't know where they can potentially take it but

41:39

yeah when you get something of this level of

41:41

success they're either going to try and continue the

41:43

story or they're going to try and do things

41:46

in a similar vein it'll become a series of

41:49

true life stories of

41:51

revenge or stalking or whatever you

41:53

want to call it so yeah

41:55

there's a lot of potential there and if they can make money

41:57

out of it I'm sure they will listen thank you in all

41:59

of your a brilliant panel, I have to

42:01

say, I thought you all were great on this.

42:03

It is a fantastically fascinating story and

42:06

I do not know how this will

42:08

play out. Other than that, I fundamentally

42:10

believe that Fiona Harvey had every right

42:12

to have her say and what

42:14

she said to me will now be properly

42:16

examined, I'm sure, by the world's media and

42:19

maybe, maybe we will get to the real truth

42:21

about all this but I suspect we'll end up

42:23

where we are at the moment which is the

42:25

truth is it was a hell of a mess

42:28

and that's where we are with this. Anyway,

42:30

thank you to my panel, much appreciated. Thank

42:33

you. Hey,

42:37

it's Danny Pellegrino from Everything Iconic.

42:39

Ready to upgrade your style game

42:41

without blowing your budget? Check out

42:43

Quince. They've got all the good

42:45

stuff, shirts and polos, active wear

42:47

and fine leather goods, all

42:49

at 50 to 80 percent less

42:52

than other high-end brands. And the

42:54

best part? They're all about safe,

42:56

ethical and responsible manufacturing. Get that

42:58

luxury vibe without the luxury price

43:00

tag. Hit up quince.com/upgrade for free

43:02

shipping and 365 day

43:04

returns on your next order. That's quince.com/upgrade.

43:10

When you make decisions for your

43:12

company, you look for the no-brainers.

43:14

If you have a lot of

43:16

mailing to do, stamps.com is the

43:18

ultimate no-brainer. Use the stamps.com mobile

43:20

app to mail everything you need

43:22

to keep your business running with

43:25

up to 89 percent off USPS

43:27

and UPS. Make the same no-brainer

43:29

decision as over one million other

43:31

businesses with stamps.com. Use

43:33

code PROGRAM for a special

43:35

offer. That's stamps.com code PROGRAM.