Baby Reindeer #4

1 Sort by date Sort by reaction score 2
evoway13 said:
She should've deleted her Twitter account(s) and Facebook accounts
Click to expand...

Legally she is entitled to have her own socials though.

The biggest duck up is Netflix saying "This Is A True Story" instead of "Based On A True Story". While the thousands of messages allegedly exist as evidence, the accusation of sexual assault is harder to prove, and that's a serious allegation. Also if she didn't actually go to prison, that's another problem.
 
supers0nic said:
I don't think she'll get millions but I do think there will be some sort of out of court settlement because surely a law firm won't take a case on if they see no prospect of it succeeding in some capacity
Click to expand...

I personally think the issue will be she may well have stalked him but it seems the SA and the prison bits aren’t true and just because someone has done something that’s a crime (ie stalking) doesn’t give you free reign to lie about them publicly and say they also SA’d you, they’ve been to prison etc.
 
justonemorepage said:
Gadd and Netflix could say though that it's about Donny and Martha, not Richard and Fiona so maybe that's how they can avoid paying out. Who knows. It's all getting a bit boring now. I bet she misses spouting off so I'm sure she's found other avenues to rant and vent.
Click to expand...

Then it’s not a true story as they claim.

Which is why I think this might well end up being a landmark case if they don’t settle, really setting out what TV/film can define as true and how far artistic license goes.
 
CabalofBolorneaise said:
Then it’s not a true story as they claim.

Which is why I think this might well end up being a landmark case if they don’t settle, really setting out what TV/film can define as true and how far artistic license goes.
Click to expand...

But Fargo put "this is a true story" at the start of every episode and none of that is true.

Edit to add: maybe that's where Gadd comes unstuck, he used too much of the real story to deny it now I guess? Such as the emails word for word.
 
AlexTwist said:
Legally she is entitled to have her own socials though.

The biggest duck up is Netflix saying "This Is A True Story" instead of "Based On A True Story". While the thousands of messages allegedly exist as evidence, the accusation of sexual assault is harder to prove, and that's a serious allegation. Also if she didn't actually go to prison, that's another problem.
Click to expand...
The 'true' story of Donny Dunn - who doesn't exist

Legally she can have social's but, if I was in her position, I would've made them private - so people couldn't identify me. There's also the issue of Baby Reindeer existing as a play from August 2019 (and as a book) and she was aware of the play but, didn't take steps back then to stop Gadd with legal threats. It had a five week run at the Bush theatre in London after the Edinburgh Fringe , and then went on an extended run at the Ambassador's theatre in London (it was postponed due to lockdown) before going to BAM in New York

Fiona is after a quick pay out - that's the reason she has come forward
 
Last edited:
justonemorepage said:
But Fargo put "this is a true story" at the start of every episode and none of that is true.

Edit to add: maybe that's where Gadd comes unstuck, he used too much of the real story to deny it now I guess? Such as the emails word for word.
Click to expand...

Fargo wasn’t about identifiable people though. That’s what separates this from people using “true” for effect on eg Fargo, plus Gadd has already admitted it’s him and his real story with just the names changed. People found FH within hours of the show being released too so I think any attempt by Netflix to say it wasn’t her would be laughed out of court tbh.
 
evoway13 said:
The 'true' story of Donny Dunn - who doesn't exist

Legally she can have social's but, if I was in her position, I would've made them private - so people couldn't identify me.
Click to expand...
In civil law you are usually meant to mitigate your own loss, making the accounts private or taking the posts down would be one way of doing that, instead she made loads of defamatory posts of her own and someone having a bad character can reduce damages.
Lots of people here still missing the point that it’s not enough for the story not to be true, even Laura Wray said in that interview that Fiona doesn’t have a legal reputation to lose or any financial loss so she wouldn’t be successful. Doesn’t seem like there’s anything landmark about a scrounger scrounging.
 
wiglay said:
In civil law you are usually meant to mitigate your own loss, making the accounts private or taking the posts down would be one way of doing that, instead she made loads of defamatory posts of her own and someone having a bad character can reduce damages.
Lots of people here still missing the point that it’s not enough for the story not to be true, even Laura Wray said in that interview that Fiona doesn’t have a legal reputation to lose or any financial loss so she wouldn’t be successful. Doesn’t seem like there’s anything landmark about a scrounger scrounging.
Click to expand...

She could pretty easily argue that him publicising she’d SA’d him is very likely to affect her job prospects, similarly if he’s exaggerated the stalking and made out she has a criminal conviction.

It doesn’t have to be a legal reputation to be a reputation or a job in the legal field to be a job.
 
CabalofBolorneaise said:
She could pretty easily argue that him publicising she’d SA’d him is very likely to affect her job prospects, similarly if he’s exaggerated the stalking and made out she has a criminal conviction.

It doesn’t have to be a legal reputation to be a reputation or a job in the legal field to be a job.
Click to expand...
I meant ‘a legal reputation’ as in, a ‘reputation’ in a legal sense rather than general. Someone who has seemingly not worked for a very long time - again Laura Wray seemed to confirm this - does not have any job prospects, there is plainly no prospect of her arguing that. Out of interest do you actually have any legal background at all?
 
I don’t think she will get anything and if she does then Laura said she would sue her for defamation…presumably the only reason people haven’t done that already is because she has no job or assets etc so damages wouldn’t be recoverable anyway - if Netflix do pay her off (I’m betting the chances of this getting near a trial are practically zilch as they won’t pass the damages threshold) there could be quite a few people with actual reputational loss (lawyers, politicians, Gadd himself now) coming at her for defamation damages so it’s not really a win
 
I'd love her to win & get awarded £1. I can't see what reputation has been damaged. She doesn't seem to have worked for years. Also, she only seems to be disputing the criminal record. Any Judge will be able to see she’s evil. Gadd & Wray will have evidence of her twisted behaviour.

Also how is she going to fund this? I can't see any UK insurance companies providing her with cover. She may have lawyers on a no win no fee basis which means if she wins they'll take a big cut of anything she’s awarded.

Whilst we know Internet sleuths we're hunting for her, she outed herself. As far as I know Gadd & Netflix have not confirmed Martha is FH.
 
She's 58, so the likelihood of her getting a job now is quite remote. Actually, it would have to be a 'remote' job as she doesn't get along with anyone. I hope the trial is televised in the USA, I want to see this lawyer boyfriend of hers!

I hope Fiona understands that a trial takes years in the USA - if it's allowed to go ahead. The American legal system is hard to navigate, They can have trials in any state connected to Netflix. They have offices in California and New York but, a judge might throw the case out because Fiona was living in England when the tv show aired.
 
wiglay said:
I get the feeling when her lawyers start discovery and see what she’s not telling them it all goes real quiet real fast. The submission omits some key info such as the Netflix disclaimer at the end of the episodes. I kind of think she maybe wrote it herself ngl.
Click to expand...
Yes, they send this submission to a judge, the judge decides on jurisdiction (I've been following the Tati Westbrook case for years- it's bounced around Washington state/California/Nevada/Delaware)....and whether there's any chance of the plaintiff winning the case. If it can, then the 'researchers' (student lawyers) try and find cases similar and tidy up Fiona's claims. To say she hasn't watched it - she knows a lot about it! 😂
---
Edited to add - I cannot believe Fiona is doing this in the first place - they don't mess around with discovery over there. They're going to dig up every single comment/email/text/tweet she's ever made and wipe the floor with her.....

I forgot to add, now Fiona has filed, Netflix have so many days to respond to her claims - and they've got some excellent lawyers at Netflix ....and I'm sure they'll draft some other experts in!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top