Lawyers representing Baby Reindeer’s ‘real-life Martha’ Fiona Harvey have claimed the show’s creator Richard Gadd will be asked to testify in the witness box during the £135million lawsuit against Netflix.
Speaking to Piers Morgan Uncensored, Harvey’s US legal representative, Richard Roth, said she has a “very, very strong case” and expects Harvey, Gadd and Netflix executives to testify in court in California.
Harvey, 49, is demanding £135m from the streaming giant, claiming they spread “brutal lies” because “it was a better story than the truth”.
The show, which is said to be based on comedian and writer Gadd’s real-life experiences, sees character Martha Scott, played by Jessica Gunning, stalking him after he offers her a free cup of tea at a pub where she works. .
In a candid interview with Morgan, Roth said the fallout from the Baby Reindeer case “could be a defining moment for streaming television.”
In the show, character Martha Scott, played by Jessica Gunning (pictured), stalks him after he offers her a free cup of tea at a pub where she works.
Fiona Harvey, 49 (pictured) demands £135m from streaming giant Netflix
Speaking about why he had taken the case, Roth said: “(It’s) really reprehensible when someone says something is ‘a true story’ (…). And if Netflix is going to say this is a true story, “It better be true. And doing that is irresponsible of them.”
He added: ‘Fiona Harvey, you’ve had her on your show, she’s been destroyed. This had destroyed her. She receives death threats and she doesn’t want to leave her apartment.
On what the smoking gun in the case will be, Roth said: “One of the smoking guns (…) is that you don’t put ‘this is a true story’ in the front first.” framework of a six-part series, unless it has been put through the wringer.
‘Who really said it’s a true story? Did the legal department review it? It’s not a true story. There are clear falsehoods in it, which are very damning. So I think one thing will be what Netflix did to determine that this was a true story, when it clearly isn’t.
In the show, Martha is convicted of stalking Donny after months of stalking him, during which time she sexually assaults him, waits at the bus stop outside his house, and attacks his girlfriend.
Following the release of Baby Reindeer, viewers of the show found Ms. Harvey and tracked down her identity online.
Mr Roth said: “It is very irresponsible of her to testify under oath before Parliament saying she was convicted when it is clear she was not, that’s the first thing.”
‘The second thing you bring up is that, you know, you said the word “Internet detectives.” I think it’s a bit of a vague term. I could get it (Fiona’s identity) on the Internet. You don’t have to be a detective… It was very easy for each and every one.’
Of press reports that Gadd, who plays protagonist Donny Dunn on the show, was against calling it a “true story,” he added: “It’s actually great news for me. I heard about that story. this weekend… It’s one thing for Richard Gadd to tell you, “It’s true, it’s true, it’s true,” and you don’t do your due diligence.
Ms Harvey is demanding £135m from the streaming giant, claiming they spread “brutal lies” because “it was a better story than the truth”.
“It’s even worse if Richard Gadd says, ‘Well, I really don’t want this to be a true story.’ And Netflix says, ‘No, no, no, no, we want it to be true.'” And they say: ”We don’t want to listen to you. We’re making it a real story.”
‘I mean, let’s go further, this is much worse than negligence. This is intentional misconduct, if they were actually told, “Don’t make it a true story,” and they said it was true.
Roth said he believed Gadd “has no credibility” as a witness due to the drug use and troubling behavior revealed on the show.
“So the man, the person they trust the most, because the truth of the story has been shattered before I can even question him,” Mr. Roth explained.
‘Netflix is incredibly guilty for saying, at the very least, that she is a twice-convicted felon. Did you see the scene where she cries and pleads guilty? All of that is invented.
When asked by Piers whether his client’s past behavior and harassment allegations made by Scottish lawyer Laura Wray would count against Harvey, he said Wray herself seemed to admit that this behavior had not been considered “criminal” in the past.
‘The fact that… something happened 22 years ago with Laura Wray and Fiona, I don’t really care. But what I care about is that Netflix and Gadd represented that she was convicted, twice convicted: once before and once during the show… He says she was a criminal for four and a half years and Laura Wray said none of that. “It’s true,” said Mr. Roth.
Roth explained that he would examine how many emails and messages were produced during Netflix’s discovery, adding: “We haven’t seen anything close to 41,000 emails… We don’t have them yet.” We don’t believe it exists either.
Netflix presents the miniseries starring Richard Gadd (pictured) as a “true story”
Speaking about Ms Harvey, Mr Roth said: “This is a woman who really came into the spotlight. This is not a situation where this is a public figure who was essentially defamed.
“This is a situation where a woman is living her own life and suddenly she receives death threats and can’t leave her apartment.
‘Really, really inappropriate. Why doesn’t Netflix call her and say, “Listen, we’re about to do this story, we’d like you to watch it.” “We would like to check the facts.”
The lawyer added: “Honestly, she is not feeling well, she is locked in her apartment.” She doesn’t know what to do, she doesn’t know where to go. She is suffering. I mean, she’s really been devastated by this.
‘There will be a large percentage of the population that will not believe her and will think that she is the Martha represented in that series. And that is why she is afraid to go out and do the shopping. It’s that bad.’
He concluded: “This could be a watershed moment for streaming television.”
When asked if he expected Fiona Harvey to testify in court, he replied: “Oh, she will testify for sure.”
‘We will make Richard Gadd testify, we will make her testify. We’ll have a series of people on Netflix testifying about what they did…why they accepted the language from the front. What did they do to check it. I also can’t wait to find out how, how (the executive) testified before Parliament.
‘My God, I mean, that’s not a blunder. That’s really, really inappropriate conduct… (and could have) big repercussions on my lawsuit. Honestly, if he goes (returns) in front of Parliament and says ‘I lied or I was wrong or I was wrong.’ “That’s very problematic for Netflix.”
It comes as lawyers representing Ms Harvey demanded the disclosure of thousands of text messages and emails in the lawsuit against Netflix.
The Sun revealed on Sunday that Ms Harvey’s lawyers are now demanding the release of thousands of text messages and emails as they pursue the £135million lawsuit which was launched earlier this month.
Ms. Harvey accused the streaming platform of defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, gross negligence and violations of her right of publicity in the lawsuit filed in a US court.
Netflix has said it intends to “vigorously defend this matter” and defend Gadd’s “right to tell his story.”