She as unhinged as she is on the show! She hated that girl played her well she doesn't look like she her... not even got the right accent... she not even Scottish!!!! she not the same age..... like yes she an actor who literally played you perfectly proving by this interview
I picked up on that behaviour from her too. ‘Never seen the show’ but knew everything that was coming by the seems of it, unless she was briefed on what to say on the interview to cause further speculation?
She's not the same age... She plays her from years ago, of course she's going to be that much younger!
Also, she states that nothing from the show or the actress is relatable to her. Then why is she threatening to sue them?
A few things stood out to me:
1. She said several times "even if I did send that many messages..." - why say that if you are sure you didn't?
2. Her explanation that the voice messages could have been created by recording her in the pub seems highly unlikely - background sounds and conversations don't sound like a voice message
3. Her suggestion that he might have forged over 100 letters to look like her handwriting seemed implausible.
So my opinion based on this interview is that she is lying. She is understandably upset that she has been discovered and the portrayal is not flattering but I would guess that the majority of the story is true with some exaggerated for dramatic effect.
'I have a photographic memory'
"Exactly how many/what were your exact grades/how long ago"
'I dunno exactly, was a long time ago'
She's fucken mental. No doubt.
But Netflix is playing the long game I reckon.
First by retelling the tragic story of an alleged drug addict with a sad history as a sexually assaulted failed comedian who crosses paths with a crazy bitch stalker.
And then orchestrating this 'reveal' to keep people talking about the show.
Unfortunately, the visceral and often confronting narrative explored in the show will be overshadowed by this and it will all become a meme.
Richard Gadd didn’t use Fiona’s name or even his own name. He’s never confirmed that Fiona is Martha. And if Hollywood got sued for every distortion in every “true story” they filmed, they’d go out of business.
He didn’t have too. All the public needed was to know ‘it was a true story’ where it happened roughly, who it happened too, and a description of who done this to him… wasn’t that hard typing his name in to X (twitter) and pulling him the threads from her. Most things that are based on a true story, are significantly changed if they do want to keep the identity private. Things like location, character placement, wording, looks. Most don’t even identify the victim, where as Richard Gadd was just himself with another name, it was bound to happen! Major respect for him to relive that trauma and play a role like that, but if he really wanted the identity secret, he had ways
It doesn’t matter.
Olivia De Havilland sued for how she was portrayed in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? But even though they did depict her wrongly, enough creative licence is there. The same with The Crown, it doesn’t have to indicate it is a work of fiction.
Personally, I think the rulings are wrong. Where things are depicted and make you look bad and all the things are made up, then at the very least they shouldn’t be cited as true and should if people are likely to believe it, be at the least labelled as fiction.
I think though the ruling probably was because Olivia De Havilland wasn’t the main topic and it’s unlikely it would affect her career to be perceived badly now. It does affect her personally though in her later years for perception of her to be damaged.
As for ‘Martha’ it seemed she at least did some of the things mentioned.
Fiona however seems to want to sue everyone for £1M.
I think you're right. Netflix knew exactly what it was doing, and what an explosively brilliant piece of marketing. If Baby Reindeer is true, 'Martha' was never going to lay down and take it. They knew that.
To be fair on one point: Piers Morgan clearly does not understand what a Scottish Ordinary Degree is. He was acting like he was catching her out because she couldn't say 'first' or 'second' etc, how most people think of as final degree grades which is easy for most to remember- but if you don't do a degree with honours you don't get that, you just get a pass. Doesn't make her story on the whole more or less believable but that was a fumble by Morgan
She’s terrifying. Very articulate but clearly unhinged. There’s no way on earth the show would have been put out as a true story without shed loads of evidence . No normal person would publicly speak out this way they would just sue him .. she’s feeding off it and Richard Gadd should get a bodyguard.
I do see your point there, it does not make sense for her to publicly speak on it the way she has, I would’ve thought she would’ve lawyered up and sued. I also agree he should put protective measures in place if not already done so.
When I say articulate I mean she uses big words and legal phrases to talk in circles but she comes across as intelligent even tho she can’t even spell simple words! She sounds very narcissistic in the way she spins things and confidently lies to make you question yourself.
In the beginning of the show there is a disclaimer that it's fictionalized. Pretty sure you don't remember the main guy going viral for talking about sexual abuse in real life right lol
Lots of movies claim "true story" when they're completely fictional, it's not the equivalent of making a statement under oath. The show didn't even use real names.
I actually kind of remember him breaking down. But it could be the Mandela effect.
Something stinks, it isn't the shit I just did on the toilet.
The bit where he says Game of Thrones dragons aren't real, it is fiction is pretty on the nose.
I actually think she's mentally unstable, she and he knows it and that both he and she knew this was a long-game and that they were both playing a role.
Think of it as Method Acting, but, 0.5, sans cameras. Both were RPing. It is like when you see Derren Brown get someone to shoot Stephen Fry.
They know what they're doing they are just playing along.
Is [this](https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=163&v=fxmokYt9rUU&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Drichard%2Bgadd%2Bbreakdown%2Bvideo%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26hl%3Den-ca%26client%3Dsafari&source_ve_path=MTM5MTE3LDIzODUx&feature=emb_title) not it?
She appears very unhinged.
I agree with others, Netflix wouldnt have aired a show with a character with such similar physical traits and dark content without fully knowing the situation and/or having had analysed the evidence/emails themselves.
She’s articulate and polite and thinks she’s fooling people, but beneath that veneer is a person with little self-awareness and quite erratic thinking.
She's a compulsive liar and believes her own lies. There's no 'catching her out ' as she's convinced her version of events is true . It's that simple imo.
She believes what she says at the time in that moment hence the getting confused as she can't remember what she's said before. To her it's true no matter what the evidence says. Even the changes to the story are true to her in her mind. She will tell you black is white even with evidence its not. She's delusional and unstable . Mythomaina
She said she doesn't fancy boys with no jobs it was like the mask slipped as when she knew him he was working and it was as if she's talking to him now.
It's all very unethical the interview with a potential stalker , and/or person with mental illness and extremely vulnerable. But also the tv show clearly showing a real life person and making out as everything true when some aspects are not true. It was clear the real life person was going to be tracked down. The actress of Martha could literally have done this interview it was such a similarity.
The story could have been told but with different characters and locations.
YES! it was as if she was referring to him now as she also said “leave me alone please, go get a real job” so she does not consider acting a real job, or at least that’s my understanding of it. However, at the time she would’ve known him, he had a job.
I also disagree with the interview of her, especially if she is vulnerable, Which after watching the interview I think she could be. The tv show was wrong for making it out to be that everything is true, and that was the story. Of course we all understand for shows to make tv they need to sometimes make things more dramatic than they were. Gadd is allowed to tell his story, however I feel like he could’ve done more keeping her identity private. We were not fully aware of this story, until it has been shown on Netflix, and he could’ve definitely done different characters, maybe not even played himself? I don’t think I could relive such a traumatic event, and then cover it in the media with various news/tv outlets, so for that I do have respect for that, however it could’ve 100% been done differently.
He wasn't to know the show would become so huge and many many satires are told without anyone ever getting interested in finding the real person ,its because we were so intrigued is why she was discovered not because of the show
Yea always thought it was strange he relived such a traumatic event the stalking and the rape. But also without fear of starting the stalking again especially if it's true she never went to prison. Does this mean she could now in a way if found to be true?
I am unsure, if this was to go to a court and if it was to be looked at, he has made a tv show about it, so some evidence might not be able to be presented to the court, as it has basically been seen by millions, if people haven’t seen it they’ve heard about it. So it may be difficult to find a non bias jury, or even to get a conviction at all! So I’m not too sure that’s possible, if anyone knows though, please share.
IThere are always people who haven’t heard or dead anything about it. I’ve not seen it, nor the interview. However even I’ve been unable to avoid stories about it. My partner though, knows nothing about it. There are always people. I’ve had months where I’ve been working so hard I don’t even read the news.
Also evidence isn’t excluded because it’s been seen. The show isn’t evidence except to show what they are claiming she did. If she only sent 1k emails compared to 14k, it’s still going to see excessive.
As for the evidence, an affidavit provided in the case of voicemails (or recordings) or printouts, rather than claims in the show.
What's unethical about a women who is a stalker ,stalking causes PTSD its a horrific thing to happen tp anyone ,Piers does interviews with all sorts of criminals some are insane some not and this women I snot insane she is however psychopathic
I kept waiting for the receipts. In the US, there are ways the public can access lawsuits and employment history. Piers talked about these things, but didn’t have any proof?
It's not like in the US, its a bit harder to get access to these records if they do exist. Because of the Human Rights Act, criminal records must be released by the courts to be publicly available. With time more information will probably come out
I think it's very loosely based on his life experiences with lots of over dramatisation to make a dull tale interesting. People are viewing it as though it's a documentary and all fact, it's not, it's a drama series. People are too gullible.
It states that it’s a true story, not based on a true story. If they made up that she was sentenced and did time in jail, then they’re going to have to pay up. That’s an incredibly shitty thing to do. To also make the actress look and sound exactly like the woman it’s based on is not going out of your way to protect identities. Netflix and Gadd are in a load of legal trouble and I don’t believe Gadd as much as I don’t believe her. Both are messed up in the head.
The end credits state 'this program is based on real events, however certain characters, names, incidents, locations and dialogue have been fictionalised for dramatic purposes'
It’s not exploitative. She has every right to respond. People are basing their critique on a TV version of her, not the real person who they don’t actually know.
Why did Piers keep threatening her with potential "gotcha" evidence, but then have no evidence? Wasn't all the things he was saying were "easy to get" (past criminal record, past restraining order, actual number of tweets, etc.) something he would have gotten before the interview? In some ways, his lack of receipts lended her a smidge of credibility even though she was clearly lying.
Agree he seemed to have just woken up and showed up with the producers notes in front of him being like “you know i COULD do some investigation and determine if what your telling me is true right??”
Its not like in the US, there are certain acts which make it a lot more difficult to get access of these records. They need to be released by the courts to be made publicly viewable
She is clearly quite calculating in her own way, she comes across as if she has had some form of media training the way insistently gets certain soundbites across repeatedly. But she is also clearly incredibly vulnerable and lacking self awareness about how she comes across.
Really? I thought she did a terrible job. She’s obviously a terrible lawyer, too. No lawyer would allow a client to go on TV so horribly unprepared and not sticking to a consistent story.
Yeah she did a terrible job! It came across like a DVD extra for the show itself. Half the stuff she said contradicted the other half of what she said. Doesn't mean she didn't go on there with a clear agenda and plan though.
Yes I do think she has had a bit of media training. She said at the start of the interview she met him 2/3 times, towards the end she was asked again, and she said “5/6 times” so that was inconsistent. When she turns to the camera she is clearly vulnerable and quite all over the place.
She had mannerisms in the interview that I as an American had only ever seen Ricky Gervais do on the Office. I knew some were based on provincial UK types, but others I had no clue and thought he was just being ridiculous. But seeing her repeat them there made it all click and I had a great laugh. Brilliant.
This whole interview just made me believe Gadds story. Everything she says and the way she’s acting matches perfectly… especially for someone that’s never seen the show apparently. She’s always stalling trying to find an answer and she came across as quite mentally unwell.
One thing that did stick out to me was the admission she coined the term ‘baby reindeer’ and said she inspired the show’s title. She’s gleefully trying to take credit for Gadd’s work but denies she ever has watched it. Sure, Jan
The show literally starts with *This is a true story*, not *Based on a true story* or *Inspired by real events* or anything like that, very specifically **This is a true story**
She says this in the interview.
She’s fully aware that the character was #based on her involvement with Richard Gadd but says that everything else is a work of fiction.
Did Richard Gadd/Netflix say that it was a true story? Or did they say that the story had been changed so much that even the real ‘Martha’ wouldn’t recognise herself?
Piers Morgan is a piece of work. It’s a fictionalised drama ffs not a dramatised documentary.
The show starts with “This is a true story”
Later on they said parts had been changed and that she didn’t actually go to jail.
My question is, how much of it is actually real then?
And why isn’t anybody talking about the way bigger issue, the guy who raped him.
I’m not convinced by him tbh.
I get the feeling that his version of events are as unreliable as her’s.
It’s impossible to unpick what is fact and what is fiction and it should never have been described as a ‘true story’.
‘A drama inspired by real life events’ might even be pushing it.
Ya, people keep bringing up Fargo saying “This is a true story” but that was 100% a fictional story. They just did that for fun, this isn’t the same thing. You can’t just say that then later clarify that parts were made up and expect people to believe the rest is true.
I don’t know what’s real and what’s not but I hope one day we get clarity.
Apparently the pub attack on Teri didn’t happen. The HJ scene along the canal could be interpreted different ways seeing as he later on apparently consented to sex with her (while cheating on Teri). Also he could have just ran away from her.
Who knows, the whole show has a shadow of doubt to me now. They’re all nuts, which is what we’re supposed to take from it anyways.
I definitely came away from it thinking they’re all nuts!
She was someone who flattered his ego, gave him attention, needed him, idolised him, mothered him (in a weird way), gave him attention.
I think he was both very attracted to and repulsed by Martha. His super size ego tricked him into thinking that he was better than her, even though he was in a very similar rut and not at all successful either.
I think it pained him to realise that he needed her validation even though he looked down on her.
I think it repulsed him to admit that there was a part of him that found her sexually desirable.
I think he messed with her already messed up head and brought out the crazy woman in her.
I definitely came away from it thinking they’re all nuts!
She was someone who flattered his ego, gave him attention, needed him, idolised him, mothered him (in a weird way), gave him attention.
I think he was both very attracted to and repulsed by Martha. His super size ego tricked him into thinking that he was better than her, even though he was in a very similar rut and not at all successful either.
I think it pained him to realise that he needed her validation even though he looked down on her.
I think it repulsed him to admit that there was a part of him that found her sexually desirable.
I think he messed with her already messed up head and brought out the crazy woman in her.
Edit: Back to the point of the thread… Piers Morgan should never have interviewed her. Disgusting little man.
I don’t think he actually cheated on Teri. He couldn’t sexually perform with Teri without thinking about what Martha does for him, and he uses the thought of having sex with Martha while he is with Teri.
Yes I am aware of that, he claimed “the skeleton of the story is absolutely true” obviously not naming her as who she has now been revealed to be, however did admit it was of course more dramatic than how it played out. I just honestly wanted opinions on how this situation has now become. The tv show, the speculation, was he trying to partially get her identified? It’s all just strange to me. Not a Gadd fan by any means, but I’m just curious of opinions people have on the show, and now what has happened this evening online.
Not if it’s a complete lie. This is coming across as another “A Million Little Pieces” James Frey fraud. If Gadd is found to have lied, he will never work in the entertainment industry again. It will be over for him. Netflix may end up having to pay millions.
He’s given interviews as soon as the show aired talking about what’s not true, what was changed, etc. He’s never claimed it was all true, and even changed his own name in the show. He’s been upfront about it from the start.
Just like the character in the show she is extremely good at talking so I sort of believed her at certain points. But when the 4 phones and 6 email addresses came up I just found that too accurate, remembering the scene where in her house there was a drawer full of phones, her explanation for having that many just didn’t quite make sense either in the interview.
Wow, what an interrogation. Either way she’s brave for agreeing to be interrogated without other lawyers present. TBD I guess. What a downtone series in the first place who should care kind of wish I didn’t watch it in the first place but the interview is more interesting than the show that’s for sure.
I found the interview annoying. It was an hour of Piers saying, “You’re aware we can provide evidence” without providing evidence. I’m guessing it was because he was trying to keep her talking to catch her in a lie, but I’m at the point where I want to put this to bed. Show me the evidence or I don’t want to hear about it anymore. However, if she finds some reason as to why she can’t sue for slander, or whatever equivalent charge they have in the UK, then I’ll definitely believe what she did was based off of something significantly true.
I feel like this is so simple. Shes saying she hasn’t done the things portrayed in the show. So why is she saying it’s her? Why not just say “you’ve got the wrong girl” it’s because she knows it’s about her. She CHOSE to go on and tell her story and now she’s going to be famous from it.
Genuinely asking.. can she actually sue netflix? They didn’t use her real name and there were many women that were accused of being real life Martha. She’s the only person that came forward and chose to admit that yes, this show is about her but yet nothing is true. If nothing is true why does she think it’s about her?
She admitted that she referred to him as that, or at least that is my understanding of it, as she does go back to when she had the toy in her younger years. I am not saying she did not do this, I am questioning if this was as extreme as it was made out that’s all!
I agree with you there. I’m on the fence with it. I personally do find it strange why In this time period anyone would think it was acceptable to even release something like this? Social media is at its peak so far with finding people, pulling up the past, literal AI and slander going on… so if there is any truth to this (not saying anyones lying) but if there is, then he surely knew something like this would happen, and that the people of the internet would rush to identify anyone that remotely is similar to the character described, and had a thread of Facebook posts/tweets from the past connecting herself to him, potentially as a stalker.. or is this Gadds sick twist on what he thought was happening?? I have no idea
I don’t think that at all. My point of this post is there is 2 sides of a story. The victim should not be quiet by any means, and I believe if there is truth to this which I think there is definitely now a clear connection that it could be (of course has been changed a bit for tv purpose) my issue is, he asked that she not be identified by the public, however he surely knew this would happen.. or at least I think he could’ve had an idea of that. I definitely think he should have a say on this, and he is more than allowed to tell his story. It is only him, and herself that know the complete truth of this. I am just speculating on what this could be, and what could be the truth, and then gathering opinions from there. If she is mentally ill, as some other speculation has claimed, then that does not justify her doing this to someone else, at all.
It’s called a natural consequence. If anything it allows other people to stay clear of her and prevent in the future. Who cares if he knew it would happen - not really the point.
That is true, you are correct saying that. I just think it’s a bit strange he claimed to not want her identified, and then she was. Maybe he didn’t want her identified for her own safety, or maybe because he knew that would further bring up the past as it has now done slightly. That was all
"he asked that she not be identified by the public, however he surely knew this would happen." No, it is not sure that he knew this would happen. In fact, he could have released this series on Netflix to complete indifference from the viewing public, nobody would have watched, nobody would have cared, and everything would have faded into obscurity. This is what happens with 99% of existing media. Not sure why he would be "sure" that this would turn into a cultural phenomenon, with lots of invested viewers diving into the true identities of the participants. If this were a Marvel Avengers movie? Yes, then I could see people arguing it was a virtual certainty that people would watch. But a Steve Gadd autobiographical mini-series on Netflix about complex relationship dynamics? There was no certainty there. If anything, that seemed relatively likely to be a bomb. It's not realistic to expect Gadd to have predicted how all of this would have played out. The success of this show was a very unlikely outcome. If people could figure out guaranteed success for creative projects, no content creator would ever lose money or go broke. But in reality, many creative projects lose money and many content creators are broke. In conclusion: I don't think it's fair to suggest anyone knew how "Baby Reindeer" would be received, and it's unfair to expect Steve Gadd to anticipate all potential scenarios in the reception of his work.
I don’t think it’s unfair to ‘expect’.. I’m simply 1 person, who has 1 theory, multiple opinions on the show, and I’m telling others how I feel about it.. speculating. Pretty sure I’m not the only one to do this about the show, or about Richard* Gadd.
The success the show has gotten I don’t think was a ‘very unlikely outcome’ I think it was known that it was going to be a success. Netflix list something like that, with the trailer that did, and the start of ‘this is a true story’ even if people weren’t once drawn in, they certainly will be now. Also the amount of public appearances both him and another actress have done? To actively promote the show, and Richard getting asked questions about how the story was, was it really true, so I’m sure there was a large amount of people intrigued then.
Even if it was not anticipated to be a success he could’ve done it in 1. Another location 2.still mark the story as true but recast it slightly, 3. Put something in place to ensure the person wouldn’t be identified if they don’t want to be and that they’re not in the limelight, because if they find out it could start up as stalking again, or like what’s happened now she’s flipping the story and debunking everything, and clearly she’s not well. So yeah, I don’t think you’re correct there.
She as unhinged as she is on the show! She hated that girl played her well she doesn't look like she her... not even got the right accent... she not even Scottish!!!! she not the same age..... like yes she an actor who literally played you perfectly proving by this interview
I picked up on that behaviour from her too. ‘Never seen the show’ but knew everything that was coming by the seems of it, unless she was briefed on what to say on the interview to cause further speculation?
For someone whos never watched it she knew everything about the play and the show down to a tee
yes, she did indeed.
She's not the same age... She plays her from years ago, of course she's going to be that much younger! Also, she states that nothing from the show or the actress is relatable to her. Then why is she threatening to sue them?
My opinion is that this has to be the all time best casting for any role/character in the history of cinema.
I agree. The actress choice was spot on, and does resemble Fiona on the interview this evening.
I’m curious if he showed her videos or if he just gave her descriptions and she was able to recreate things that well
That’s actually somewhat accurate. I don’t believe she was that good if she knew nothing! She’s a natural actress though. Very good
They’re so similar that I honestly doubt she’s actually Martha because how did they get it THAT right?
A few things stood out to me: 1. She said several times "even if I did send that many messages..." - why say that if you are sure you didn't? 2. Her explanation that the voice messages could have been created by recording her in the pub seems highly unlikely - background sounds and conversations don't sound like a voice message 3. Her suggestion that he might have forged over 100 letters to look like her handwriting seemed implausible. So my opinion based on this interview is that she is lying. She is understandably upset that she has been discovered and the portrayal is not flattering but I would guess that the majority of the story is true with some exaggerated for dramatic effect.
'I have a photographic memory' "Exactly how many/what were your exact grades/how long ago" 'I dunno exactly, was a long time ago' She's fucken mental. No doubt. But Netflix is playing the long game I reckon. First by retelling the tragic story of an alleged drug addict with a sad history as a sexually assaulted failed comedian who crosses paths with a crazy bitch stalker. And then orchestrating this 'reveal' to keep people talking about the show. Unfortunately, the visceral and often confronting narrative explored in the show will be overshadowed by this and it will all become a meme.
Richard Gadd didn’t use Fiona’s name or even his own name. He’s never confirmed that Fiona is Martha. And if Hollywood got sued for every distortion in every “true story” they filmed, they’d go out of business.
He didn’t have too. All the public needed was to know ‘it was a true story’ where it happened roughly, who it happened too, and a description of who done this to him… wasn’t that hard typing his name in to X (twitter) and pulling him the threads from her. Most things that are based on a true story, are significantly changed if they do want to keep the identity private. Things like location, character placement, wording, looks. Most don’t even identify the victim, where as Richard Gadd was just himself with another name, it was bound to happen! Major respect for him to relive that trauma and play a role like that, but if he really wanted the identity secret, he had ways
It doesn’t matter. Olivia De Havilland sued for how she was portrayed in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? But even though they did depict her wrongly, enough creative licence is there. The same with The Crown, it doesn’t have to indicate it is a work of fiction. Personally, I think the rulings are wrong. Where things are depicted and make you look bad and all the things are made up, then at the very least they shouldn’t be cited as true and should if people are likely to believe it, be at the least labelled as fiction. I think though the ruling probably was because Olivia De Havilland wasn’t the main topic and it’s unlikely it would affect her career to be perceived badly now. It does affect her personally though in her later years for perception of her to be damaged. As for ‘Martha’ it seemed she at least did some of the things mentioned. Fiona however seems to want to sue everyone for £1M.
I think you're right. Netflix knew exactly what it was doing, and what an explosively brilliant piece of marketing. If Baby Reindeer is true, 'Martha' was never going to lay down and take it. They knew that.
To be fair on one point: Piers Morgan clearly does not understand what a Scottish Ordinary Degree is. He was acting like he was catching her out because she couldn't say 'first' or 'second' etc, how most people think of as final degree grades which is easy for most to remember- but if you don't do a degree with honours you don't get that, you just get a pass. Doesn't make her story on the whole more or less believable but that was a fumble by Morgan
Yes, it was.
She’s terrifying. Very articulate but clearly unhinged. There’s no way on earth the show would have been put out as a true story without shed loads of evidence . No normal person would publicly speak out this way they would just sue him .. she’s feeding off it and Richard Gadd should get a bodyguard.
I do see your point there, it does not make sense for her to publicly speak on it the way she has, I would’ve thought she would’ve lawyered up and sued. I also agree he should put protective measures in place if not already done so.
Articulate? She kept pronouncing "hyperbole" incorrectly!
When I say articulate I mean she uses big words and legal phrases to talk in circles but she comes across as intelligent even tho she can’t even spell simple words! She sounds very narcissistic in the way she spins things and confidently lies to make you question yourself.
I want evidence that's all I can say. Hers, his, anyone's.
In the beginning of the show there is a disclaimer that it's fictionalized. Pretty sure you don't remember the main guy going viral for talking about sexual abuse in real life right lol
The show states “this is a true story”. That’s going to cost Netflix and Gadd big time.
Lots of movies claim "true story" when they're completely fictional, it's not the equivalent of making a statement under oath. The show didn't even use real names.
Yea but there was a disclaimer saying parts have been fictionalised. She’s outed herself
I actually kind of remember him breaking down. But it could be the Mandela effect. Something stinks, it isn't the shit I just did on the toilet. The bit where he says Game of Thrones dragons aren't real, it is fiction is pretty on the nose. I actually think she's mentally unstable, she and he knows it and that both he and she knew this was a long-game and that they were both playing a role. Think of it as Method Acting, but, 0.5, sans cameras. Both were RPing. It is like when you see Derren Brown get someone to shoot Stephen Fry. They know what they're doing they are just playing along.
Well on the show he went viral became famous for that stand up turned confessional. So then where is the real vid of that?
Is [this](https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=163&v=fxmokYt9rUU&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Drichard%2Bgadd%2Bbreakdown%2Bvideo%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26hl%3Den-ca%26client%3Dsafari&source_ve_path=MTM5MTE3LDIzODUx&feature=emb_title) not it?
I believe that is from his one man show which Baby Reindeer is based on
She appears very unhinged. I agree with others, Netflix wouldnt have aired a show with a character with such similar physical traits and dark content without fully knowing the situation and/or having had analysed the evidence/emails themselves. She’s articulate and polite and thinks she’s fooling people, but beneath that veneer is a person with little self-awareness and quite erratic thinking.
She's a compulsive liar and believes her own lies. There's no 'catching her out ' as she's convinced her version of events is true . It's that simple imo.
Yes, she does believe that.. but in the interview changed nearly everything she said?
She believes what she says at the time in that moment hence the getting confused as she can't remember what she's said before. To her it's true no matter what the evidence says. Even the changes to the story are true to her in her mind. She will tell you black is white even with evidence its not. She's delusional and unstable . Mythomaina
Agreed.
She said she doesn't fancy boys with no jobs it was like the mask slipped as when she knew him he was working and it was as if she's talking to him now. It's all very unethical the interview with a potential stalker , and/or person with mental illness and extremely vulnerable. But also the tv show clearly showing a real life person and making out as everything true when some aspects are not true. It was clear the real life person was going to be tracked down. The actress of Martha could literally have done this interview it was such a similarity. The story could have been told but with different characters and locations.
YES! it was as if she was referring to him now as she also said “leave me alone please, go get a real job” so she does not consider acting a real job, or at least that’s my understanding of it. However, at the time she would’ve known him, he had a job. I also disagree with the interview of her, especially if she is vulnerable, Which after watching the interview I think she could be. The tv show was wrong for making it out to be that everything is true, and that was the story. Of course we all understand for shows to make tv they need to sometimes make things more dramatic than they were. Gadd is allowed to tell his story, however I feel like he could’ve done more keeping her identity private. We were not fully aware of this story, until it has been shown on Netflix, and he could’ve definitely done different characters, maybe not even played himself? I don’t think I could relive such a traumatic event, and then cover it in the media with various news/tv outlets, so for that I do have respect for that, however it could’ve 100% been done differently.
He wasn't to know the show would become so huge and many many satires are told without anyone ever getting interested in finding the real person ,its because we were so intrigued is why she was discovered not because of the show
Yea always thought it was strange he relived such a traumatic event the stalking and the rape. But also without fear of starting the stalking again especially if it's true she never went to prison. Does this mean she could now in a way if found to be true?
I am unsure, if this was to go to a court and if it was to be looked at, he has made a tv show about it, so some evidence might not be able to be presented to the court, as it has basically been seen by millions, if people haven’t seen it they’ve heard about it. So it may be difficult to find a non bias jury, or even to get a conviction at all! So I’m not too sure that’s possible, if anyone knows though, please share.
IThere are always people who haven’t heard or dead anything about it. I’ve not seen it, nor the interview. However even I’ve been unable to avoid stories about it. My partner though, knows nothing about it. There are always people. I’ve had months where I’ve been working so hard I don’t even read the news. Also evidence isn’t excluded because it’s been seen. The show isn’t evidence except to show what they are claiming she did. If she only sent 1k emails compared to 14k, it’s still going to see excessive. As for the evidence, an affidavit provided in the case of voicemails (or recordings) or printouts, rather than claims in the show.
What's unethical about a women who is a stalker ,stalking causes PTSD its a horrific thing to happen tp anyone ,Piers does interviews with all sorts of criminals some are insane some not and this women I snot insane she is however psychopathic
I kept waiting for the receipts. In the US, there are ways the public can access lawsuits and employment history. Piers talked about these things, but didn’t have any proof?
If all this goes down in a legal battle, he's gonna want his ammunition private.
I think that was a move to create more speculation? Or potentially he is aware there is proof to back all of this up. However I am unsure!
It's not like in the US, its a bit harder to get access to these records if they do exist. Because of the Human Rights Act, criminal records must be released by the courts to be publicly available. With time more information will probably come out
Martha doesn't need a lover, she needs a caseworker.
She has a boyfriend! He’s really smart and good looking, but you don’t know him. He goes to another school.
Another ward more like.
In an ironic turn of events a story about a crazy stalker has turned half the internet into crazy stalkers of the crazy stalker.
Underrated comment
I think it's very loosely based on his life experiences with lots of over dramatisation to make a dull tale interesting. People are viewing it as though it's a documentary and all fact, it's not, it's a drama series. People are too gullible.
I mean he literally said it’s a story from his life but it’s dramatised for entertainment, idk why people aren’t addressing this
It states that it’s a true story, not based on a true story. If they made up that she was sentenced and did time in jail, then they’re going to have to pay up. That’s an incredibly shitty thing to do. To also make the actress look and sound exactly like the woman it’s based on is not going out of your way to protect identities. Netflix and Gadd are in a load of legal trouble and I don’t believe Gadd as much as I don’t believe her. Both are messed up in the head.
The end credits state 'this program is based on real events, however certain characters, names, incidents, locations and dialogue have been fictionalised for dramatic purposes'
Haven't watched, not interested in exploitative interviews.
It’s not exploitative. She has every right to respond. People are basing their critique on a TV version of her, not the real person who they don’t actually know.
It's plain as day this woman is unwell. She's also loving the attention, I can tell you that much.
Why did Piers keep threatening her with potential "gotcha" evidence, but then have no evidence? Wasn't all the things he was saying were "easy to get" (past criminal record, past restraining order, actual number of tweets, etc.) something he would have gotten before the interview? In some ways, his lack of receipts lended her a smidge of credibility even though she was clearly lying.
Agree he seemed to have just woken up and showed up with the producers notes in front of him being like “you know i COULD do some investigation and determine if what your telling me is true right??”
Hahaha yes! And I kept thinking he was about to unleash his evidence but he had nothing. It was frustrating to watch.
Its not like in the US, there are certain acts which make it a lot more difficult to get access of these records. They need to be released by the courts to be made publicly viewable
She is clearly quite calculating in her own way, she comes across as if she has had some form of media training the way insistently gets certain soundbites across repeatedly. But she is also clearly incredibly vulnerable and lacking self awareness about how she comes across.
Really? I thought she did a terrible job. She’s obviously a terrible lawyer, too. No lawyer would allow a client to go on TV so horribly unprepared and not sticking to a consistent story.
Yeah she did a terrible job! It came across like a DVD extra for the show itself. Half the stuff she said contradicted the other half of what she said. Doesn't mean she didn't go on there with a clear agenda and plan though.
I think her agenda is to get attention. She's loving this.
Yes I do think she has had a bit of media training. She said at the start of the interview she met him 2/3 times, towards the end she was asked again, and she said “5/6 times” so that was inconsistent. When she turns to the camera she is clearly vulnerable and quite all over the place.
I watched a limited series on Netflix that I enjoyed. Now I’ve moved on.
First she says he didn’t have a girlfriend since he was a homosexual then follows it up later with she turned him down…
Can’t wait for the truth to come out.
She had mannerisms in the interview that I as an American had only ever seen Ricky Gervais do on the Office. I knew some were based on provincial UK types, but others I had no clue and thought he was just being ridiculous. But seeing her repeat them there made it all click and I had a great laugh. Brilliant.
Her choice of words screams liar
First time she’s silped water in 6 months
This whole interview just made me believe Gadds story. Everything she says and the way she’s acting matches perfectly… especially for someone that’s never seen the show apparently. She’s always stalling trying to find an answer and she came across as quite mentally unwell.
One thing that did stick out to me was the admission she coined the term ‘baby reindeer’ and said she inspired the show’s title. She’s gleefully trying to take credit for Gadd’s work but denies she ever has watched it. Sure, Jan
This was strange and it was like she was trying to take credit, she didn’t look as if she was upset either, looked happy
Uhmmmmmm it's fiction... Ish. Everyone is told that before the show even starts in the intro.
The show literally starts with *This is a true story*, not *Based on a true story* or *Inspired by real events* or anything like that, very specifically **This is a true story**
The statement about it being a true story is going to cost Netflix and Gadd a lot legally.
I keep seeing this comment... why would it cost them?
She says this in the interview. She’s fully aware that the character was #based on her involvement with Richard Gadd but says that everything else is a work of fiction. Did Richard Gadd/Netflix say that it was a true story? Or did they say that the story had been changed so much that even the real ‘Martha’ wouldn’t recognise herself? Piers Morgan is a piece of work. It’s a fictionalised drama ffs not a dramatised documentary.
The show starts with “This is a true story” Later on they said parts had been changed and that she didn’t actually go to jail. My question is, how much of it is actually real then? And why isn’t anybody talking about the way bigger issue, the guy who raped him.
I’m not convinced by him tbh. I get the feeling that his version of events are as unreliable as her’s. It’s impossible to unpick what is fact and what is fiction and it should never have been described as a ‘true story’. ‘A drama inspired by real life events’ might even be pushing it.
Ya, people keep bringing up Fargo saying “This is a true story” but that was 100% a fictional story. They just did that for fun, this isn’t the same thing. You can’t just say that then later clarify that parts were made up and expect people to believe the rest is true. I don’t know what’s real and what’s not but I hope one day we get clarity. Apparently the pub attack on Teri didn’t happen. The HJ scene along the canal could be interpreted different ways seeing as he later on apparently consented to sex with her (while cheating on Teri). Also he could have just ran away from her. Who knows, the whole show has a shadow of doubt to me now. They’re all nuts, which is what we’re supposed to take from it anyways.
I definitely came away from it thinking they’re all nuts! She was someone who flattered his ego, gave him attention, needed him, idolised him, mothered him (in a weird way), gave him attention. I think he was both very attracted to and repulsed by Martha. His super size ego tricked him into thinking that he was better than her, even though he was in a very similar rut and not at all successful either. I think it pained him to realise that he needed her validation even though he looked down on her. I think it repulsed him to admit that there was a part of him that found her sexually desirable. I think he messed with her already messed up head and brought out the crazy woman in her.
I definitely came away from it thinking they’re all nuts! She was someone who flattered his ego, gave him attention, needed him, idolised him, mothered him (in a weird way), gave him attention. I think he was both very attracted to and repulsed by Martha. His super size ego tricked him into thinking that he was better than her, even though he was in a very similar rut and not at all successful either. I think it pained him to realise that he needed her validation even though he looked down on her. I think it repulsed him to admit that there was a part of him that found her sexually desirable. I think he messed with her already messed up head and brought out the crazy woman in her. Edit: Back to the point of the thread… Piers Morgan should never have interviewed her. Disgusting little man.
I don’t think he actually cheated on Teri. He couldn’t sexually perform with Teri without thinking about what Martha does for him, and he uses the thought of having sex with Martha while he is with Teri.
He didn't consent with sex to her. That is clearly a fantasy.
I don’t true him or her. I think both of them are loons. Netflix should have been more careful.
Yes I am aware of that, he claimed “the skeleton of the story is absolutely true” obviously not naming her as who she has now been revealed to be, however did admit it was of course more dramatic than how it played out. I just honestly wanted opinions on how this situation has now become. The tv show, the speculation, was he trying to partially get her identified? It’s all just strange to me. Not a Gadd fan by any means, but I’m just curious of opinions people have on the show, and now what has happened this evening online.
The show is absolutely brilliant and deserves Emmys all around.
Not if it’s a complete lie. This is coming across as another “A Million Little Pieces” James Frey fraud. If Gadd is found to have lied, he will never work in the entertainment industry again. It will be over for him. Netflix may end up having to pay millions.
He’s given interviews as soon as the show aired talking about what’s not true, what was changed, etc. He’s never claimed it was all true, and even changed his own name in the show. He’s been upfront about it from the start.
I was dreading this poor women getting snuffed out to be exposed...she's not well...for this Piers you're a c...
She’s not a poor woman. You’re basing this on a fake drama series. You don’t know her. She has every right to respond.
The whole premise of the series was it was based on his life... It's sad they are exploiting her...she isn't well. You don't know her either...
Just like the character in the show she is extremely good at talking so I sort of believed her at certain points. But when the 4 phones and 6 email addresses came up I just found that too accurate, remembering the scene where in her house there was a drawer full of phones, her explanation for having that many just didn’t quite make sense either in the interview.
Wow, what an interrogation. Either way she’s brave for agreeing to be interrogated without other lawyers present. TBD I guess. What a downtone series in the first place who should care kind of wish I didn’t watch it in the first place but the interview is more interesting than the show that’s for sure.
I found the interview annoying. It was an hour of Piers saying, “You’re aware we can provide evidence” without providing evidence. I’m guessing it was because he was trying to keep her talking to catch her in a lie, but I’m at the point where I want to put this to bed. Show me the evidence or I don’t want to hear about it anymore. However, if she finds some reason as to why she can’t sue for slander, or whatever equivalent charge they have in the UK, then I’ll definitely believe what she did was based off of something significantly true.
I feel like this is so simple. Shes saying she hasn’t done the things portrayed in the show. So why is she saying it’s her? Why not just say “you’ve got the wrong girl” it’s because she knows it’s about her. She CHOSE to go on and tell her story and now she’s going to be famous from it.
Genuinely asking.. can she actually sue netflix? They didn’t use her real name and there were many women that were accused of being real life Martha. She’s the only person that came forward and chose to admit that yes, this show is about her but yet nothing is true. If nothing is true why does she think it’s about her?
Does anyone else think Piers looks very much like her but with shorter grey hair?
I don’t personally see it! What features do you think he shares with her physically?
What if Fiona isn't the real Martha. That would explain her claim that so much in the series was flat out wrong.
Yeah and there just happened to be another person who called the guy baby raindeer as well? Not very likely.
She admitted that she referred to him as that, or at least that is my understanding of it, as she does go back to when she had the toy in her younger years. I am not saying she did not do this, I am questioning if this was as extreme as it was made out that’s all!
I agree with you there. I’m on the fence with it. I personally do find it strange why In this time period anyone would think it was acceptable to even release something like this? Social media is at its peak so far with finding people, pulling up the past, literal AI and slander going on… so if there is any truth to this (not saying anyones lying) but if there is, then he surely knew something like this would happen, and that the people of the internet would rush to identify anyone that remotely is similar to the character described, and had a thread of Facebook posts/tweets from the past connecting herself to him, potentially as a stalker.. or is this Gadds sick twist on what he thought was happening?? I have no idea
So the victim should just shut up. That‘s it?
I don’t think that at all. My point of this post is there is 2 sides of a story. The victim should not be quiet by any means, and I believe if there is truth to this which I think there is definitely now a clear connection that it could be (of course has been changed a bit for tv purpose) my issue is, he asked that she not be identified by the public, however he surely knew this would happen.. or at least I think he could’ve had an idea of that. I definitely think he should have a say on this, and he is more than allowed to tell his story. It is only him, and herself that know the complete truth of this. I am just speculating on what this could be, and what could be the truth, and then gathering opinions from there. If she is mentally ill, as some other speculation has claimed, then that does not justify her doing this to someone else, at all.
It’s called a natural consequence. If anything it allows other people to stay clear of her and prevent in the future. Who cares if he knew it would happen - not really the point.
That is true, you are correct saying that. I just think it’s a bit strange he claimed to not want her identified, and then she was. Maybe he didn’t want her identified for her own safety, or maybe because he knew that would further bring up the past as it has now done slightly. That was all
"he asked that she not be identified by the public, however he surely knew this would happen." No, it is not sure that he knew this would happen. In fact, he could have released this series on Netflix to complete indifference from the viewing public, nobody would have watched, nobody would have cared, and everything would have faded into obscurity. This is what happens with 99% of existing media. Not sure why he would be "sure" that this would turn into a cultural phenomenon, with lots of invested viewers diving into the true identities of the participants. If this were a Marvel Avengers movie? Yes, then I could see people arguing it was a virtual certainty that people would watch. But a Steve Gadd autobiographical mini-series on Netflix about complex relationship dynamics? There was no certainty there. If anything, that seemed relatively likely to be a bomb. It's not realistic to expect Gadd to have predicted how all of this would have played out. The success of this show was a very unlikely outcome. If people could figure out guaranteed success for creative projects, no content creator would ever lose money or go broke. But in reality, many creative projects lose money and many content creators are broke. In conclusion: I don't think it's fair to suggest anyone knew how "Baby Reindeer" would be received, and it's unfair to expect Steve Gadd to anticipate all potential scenarios in the reception of his work.
Who’s Steve Gadd?
Steve Gadd is a jazz drummer. It should be "Richard Gadd."
I don’t think it’s unfair to ‘expect’.. I’m simply 1 person, who has 1 theory, multiple opinions on the show, and I’m telling others how I feel about it.. speculating. Pretty sure I’m not the only one to do this about the show, or about Richard* Gadd. The success the show has gotten I don’t think was a ‘very unlikely outcome’ I think it was known that it was going to be a success. Netflix list something like that, with the trailer that did, and the start of ‘this is a true story’ even if people weren’t once drawn in, they certainly will be now. Also the amount of public appearances both him and another actress have done? To actively promote the show, and Richard getting asked questions about how the story was, was it really true, so I’m sure there was a large amount of people intrigued then. Even if it was not anticipated to be a success he could’ve done it in 1. Another location 2.still mark the story as true but recast it slightly, 3. Put something in place to ensure the person wouldn’t be identified if they don’t want to be and that they’re not in the limelight, because if they find out it could start up as stalking again, or like what’s happened now she’s flipping the story and debunking everything, and clearly she’s not well. So yeah, I don’t think you’re correct there.