Baby Reindeer #4

1 Sort by date Sort by reaction score 2
It's quite odd to me that she's saying in the filing that everything said about her in the programme is untrue, but at the same time they're taking everything about Gadd from the show as writ - that he masturbated over her, that he was a meth addict (I'm not even sure it said that, just that he used it) etc. Plus all the over emotive narc language at the start. It does read like she wrote it.
 
wiglay said:
This is what they’ve filed in America. It’s a hilarious read albeit horribly jarring in its Americanisations and hyperbole.

Click to expand...
Not sure if I’ve missed it but I can’t see anything where she denies attacking his girlfriend / being transphobic in the pub? Is it because there is possibly a record somewhere of this incident so they’ve left it out? 🤔 I’d have thought they’d have been quick to include that as untrue too.
 
I haven't read the whole court document left, but I laughed at this paragraph:

Screenshot 2024-06-08 at 01.24.03.png


I like how they've just skimmed past how she stalked someone else; an accusation taken so seriously that a newspaper wrote an article about it.
 
I hope she receives NOTHING, not a penny. I personally feel this is just an extension of her stalking - to make his life hell and destroy any happiness.

She’s said some disgusting things about him on her Facebook, you’re telling me he can’t counter sue for very CLEAR defamation, using his correct name etc?!

She really needs to get some mental health support.
 
iieee said:
It's quite odd to me that she's saying in the filing that everything said about her in the programme is untrue, but at the same time they're taking everything about Gadd from the show as writ - that he masturbated over her, that he was a meth addict (I'm not even sure it said that, just that he used it) etc. Plus all the over emotive narc language at the start. It does read like she wrote it.
Click to expand...
She didn’t write it. A lawyer did. And they’re trying to discredit Gadd - hence emphasising he took drugs/followed her home etc.
 
wiglay said:
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?
Click to expand...

So someone who hasn’t worked for a long time isn’t more appealing to hire for say a shop job or a cleaning job than someone known to be a sex offender? I know which of the two I’d rather hire.

Unless she’s dead, she has job prospects. It might not be a glamorous job, but a job is a job.

I don’t have legal background, never claimed I have 🤷‍♀️
 
CabalofBolorneaise said:
So someone who hasn’t worked for a long time isn’t more appealing to hire for say a shop job or a cleaning job than someone known to be a sex offender? I know which of the two I’d rather hire.

Unless she’s dead, she has job prospects. It might not be a glamorous job, but a job is a job.

I don’t have legal background, never claimed I have 🤷‍♀️
Click to expand...
Thought not.
The point is that a court is not going to find that someone who has been on benefits for tens of years has any realistic job prospects to have ‘lost’. Realistically Fiona is never going to work again and she doesn’t have a job loss or prospect of losing a profession because she’s been defamed. You can’t seem to separate the way a court would view things and how the average person might, they aren’t the same.
---
Likkleone said:
I hope she receives NOTHING, not a penny. I personally feel this is just an extension of her stalking - to make his life hell and destroy any happiness.
Click to expand...
Quite. I was glad to see Netflix say they will defend this, she’s now using legal proceedings to keep bullying Gadd. Also can’t see an American court wanting to restrict what can and can’t be shown in TV dramas given all the references to Los Angeles…it’s a big business. The firm she’s instructed don’t look very good if you skim their website
 
doodlebug said:
Why is the filing in the States?
Click to expand...
...because Netflix is American and the claim for damages is huge over there........Prince Harry was stalked by phone hackers and only got something like £300k over here
---
iieee said:
I don't doubt it. Just that the language used feels quite unprofessional to me.
Click to expand...
The lawyers use her words - basically like a police statement......so, it's not written by lawyers
 
It might also be that English lawyers have now told her she has no chance but the American ones would give it a go. A bit like when there’s cases like Charlie Gard, the treating doctors have all the info, doctors from abroad fall over themselves to offer a treatment without the full facts then can’t when they do have the info.

iieee said:
I don't doubt it. Just that the language used feels quite unprofessional to me.
Click to expand...
It’s very dramatic, we wouldn’t write like that in legal documents over here
 
My niece did a law degree, then had to do the diploma to get a legal traineeship. She was at a Scottish Uni too. The traineeship is the final stage of qualifying in Law. To apply to the traineeship you need a degree in Scots law, the diploma and an entrance certificate from the Law Society of Scotland. Once you do the traineeship you are fully qualified.

My niece doubts that FH is a fully qualified lawyer. So has most certainly never practiced either. The behaviour mentioned by Laura Wray would indicate that FH has probably never held down a job, but in her delusional way tells people she is a lawyer. Because she believes she is despite not being one.
 
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...
But that’s completely irrelevant because there was no real people involved. What Fargo said is irrelevant as nobody was affected.
 
The lawyers would have written the document but FH would have approved it & may have insisted on some wording. It definitely reads quite childish to me but maybe that's normal for the US.

It's interesting how she also didn't mention the matter involving Laura Wray, unless I missed it.

Asking for a jury trial has cheered me up, fingers crossed for another Depp v Heard rollercoaster!
 
I’m surprised they asked for a jury trial because she comes across terribly on PM’s show and I don’t think a jury will take to her at all. The way Gadd wrote her was much more sympathetic than how she is in real life IMO. I felt sorry for Martha, Gadd wrote her like she was a victim of her own mind, Fiona couldn’t be further from that. She struggled with Piers’ questioning, in the States I believe they have less stringent rules on how to cross examine than we do here, I reckon she would completely fall apart with under a ruthless cross examination. Very strange strategic choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top