[SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" is introduced with "this is a true story".  After the series aired, people quickly located the real-life Martha, who then did an interview disputing the events in the series.

In my view, if someone lies to nearly everyone, I have trouble believing they are telling me the truth.  In his auto-biographical series, Richard Gadd lies frequently, and yet he also wrote the narrative.  To me, numerous things in the story didn't make sense, and I thought discussing them might enlighten me or others.

I plan to bring up events throughout the series, so anyone who is ignoring [spoiler] tags has been warned.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Maybe I missed something, but the Facebook friend sequence doesn't make sense to me.

In the series, he receives a friend request and looks up Martha on the internet.  The series shows him finding assault and stalker convictions (which are disputed by the real Martha).  Richard Gadd's character then accepts the friend request and claims he doesn't know why he did it.  I don't see how both of those things can be true.

If you search for someone before accepting their friend request, isn't felony conviction of assault a reason to decline the request?  And if he wanted drama and chaos, why say he doesn't know why he accepted it?

[2Birds1Stone]

People aren't rational....

Posting to follow. DW and I enjoyed the limited series.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Soon after the series aired, the real-life Martha was uncovered, and gave an interview disputing the details of the series.  In that interview, she said she has never been arrested.  Not for stalking, not for assault.  The Netflix series claims she was arrested twice - once shown in the Facebook friends sequence, and again near the end when she confesses in court.  Journalists have been unable to find arrest records, which makes me wonder if those events were accurately depicted in the series.

[2Birds1Stone]

Soon after the series aired, the real-life Martha was uncovered, and gave an interview disputing the details of the series.  In that interview, she said she has never been arrested.  Not for stalking, not for assault.  The Netflix series claims she was arrested twice - once shown in the Facebook friends sequence, and again near the end when she confesses in court.  Journalists have been unable to find arrest records, which makes me wonder if those events were accurately depicted in the series.

There's a thread about TV shows here on the forums where someone posted that this series was not meant to be a fact by fact account of reality.....sounds like your expectations are not aligned with what the show was meant to be?

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Soon after the series aired, the real-life Martha was uncovered, and gave an interview disputing the details of the series.  In that interview, she said she has never been arrested.  Not for stalking, not for assault.  The Netflix series claims she was arrested twice - once shown in the Facebook friends sequence, and again near the end when she confesses in court.  Journalists have been unable to find arrest records, which makes me wonder if those events were accurately depicted in the series.

There's a thread about TV shows here on the forums where someone posted that this series was not meant to be a fact by fact account of reality.....sounds like your expectations are not aligned with what the show was meant to be?

I saw that, and didn't want to take the thread off topic to focus on this.

The show is introduced with "this is a true story", not an adaptation or based on true events, but literally "a true story".  Others can review the starting sequence to confirm it.

I hated the amount of lying by the main character.  It also got me wondering... if someone lies frequently to people that matter to them, maybe the narrative written by that person contains lies as well.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I view lying by omission as lying, maybe others disagree.  For example, the stalker winds up in his house under a fake name.  Richard Gadd's character doesn't reveal this woman is a stalker - that's lying by omission.  He has seen that this woman stalked someone before and assaulted an ex-girlfriend.  It is very likely his ex-girlfriend, who is staying in the house, is going to be assaulted.  Yet he says nothing.

His landlady treats him as an adopted son.  And yet when a strange woman gives one name, and her adopted son calls the woman "Martha", that disparity is glossed over and ignored?  That's very strange, to not trust someone living in your house, who is your adopted son, who brings up something like this.  In my view, Richard Gadd is trying to make himself look better, to make it look difficult for him to tell the truth.

I predicted the assault halfway through episode 3 and stopped watching.  Someone had to convince me to keep going, and I waited until episode 5 to see that happen.

[iris lily]

Here are my thoughts so far after watching the Netflix drama and also the Piers Morgan interview with real life Martha:

1. The Netflix show is a dramatization, and I don’t care if Netflix presents it as “real life. “ Certain things are emphasized, even made up, for dramatic effect. He said something to the effect that all events in it are are not true, but the show represents the emotional arc of what happened

2.  Real life Martha is a liar, full stop. She may not have sent 41,000 communications to Gadd but she certainly sent more than the handful she admits to.

3. Just because real life Martha is a liar doesn’t mean it’s OK for the Internet Mob go ballistic on her. She is likely a very damaged woman who can’t distinguish fact and fiction herself.

4. it is unfortunate for real life Martha that she got caught up in this, and it is unfortunate for me that I’ve spent time on the controversies of it.

[iris lily]

I view lying by omission as lying, maybe others disagree.  For example, the stalker winds up in his house under a fake name.  Richard Gadd's character doesn't reveal this woman is a stalker - that's lying by omission.  He has seen that this woman stalked someone before and assaulted an ex-girlfriend.  It is very likely his ex-girlfriend, who is staying in the house, is going to be assaulted.  Yet he says nothing.

His landlady treats him as an adopted son.  And yet when a strange woman gives one name, and her adopted son calls the woman "Martha", that disparity is glossed over and ignored?  That's very strange, to not trust someone living in your house, who is your adopted son, who brings up something like this.  In my view, Richard Gadd is trying to make himself look better, to make it look difficult for him to tell the truth.

I predicted the assault halfway through episode 3 and stopped watching.  Someone had to convince me to keep going, and I waited until episode 5 to see that happen.

I don’t see Gadd as a person of integrity and yes, I cringed when Martha came into his girlfriend‘s mother‘s house and he did not reveal why she was there. Creepy. he acted like a little creep.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

2.  Real life Martha is a liar, full stop. She may not have sent 41,000 communications to Gadd but she certainly sent more than the handful she admits to.

Piers Morgan asked her about the various communications Netflix claims she sent (including 41,000 emails).
In that interview, real-life Martha responds saying she didn't send him "anything", then no more than "a couple of emails", followed by "a handful" and then "less than ten".  Changing her answer repeatedly does not look good for her.

The courtroom scene shows her pleading guilty to stalking, and then going to prison for 9 months.  I would be surprised if Netflix hadn't researched this key element in the story, but journalists haven't found evidence of a stalking conviction.

In the interview, Martha claims to have "4 or 6 phones", and it sounds like she received calls on at least 4 of those.  The only time I've seen someone with four phones, it looked like a professional Pokemon Go player bringing multiple phones to different locations.

[2Birds1Stone]

The only time I've seen someone with four phones, it looked like a professional Pokemon Go player bringing multiple phones to different locations.

What about your friendly neighborhood drug dealer? (before the advent of smartphones)

[MustacheAndaHalf]

The only time I've seen someone with four phones, it looked like a professional Pokemon Go player bringing multiple phones to different locations.

What about your friendly neighborhood drug dealer? (before the advent of smartphones)

Like Darrien, in Baby Reindeer?

[2Birds1Stone]

The only time I've seen someone with four phones, it looked like a professional Pokemon Go player bringing multiple phones to different locations.

What about your friendly neighborhood drug dealer? (before the advent of smartphones)

Like Darrien, in Baby Reindeer?

More like Avon Barksdale, in The Wire (still my favorite show to this day).

[PMG]

I haven’t watched the show, but I have written and produced plays that are based on true stories, some of which actually happened.

I thought this article might add to the discussion. https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/film-tv/a60604928/baby-reindeer-netflix-true-story-richard-gadd/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=arb_ga_har_md_pmx_hybd_mix_us_17944069560&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADA2MkK1lE-W14gRtsIab464z8_j4&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIwPfEmM2KhgMVmSvUAR03fgheEAAYASAAEgKMEfD_BwE

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I haven’t watched the show, but I have written and produced plays that are based on true stories, some of which actually happened.

I thought this article might add to the discussion. https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/film-tv/a60604928/baby-reindeer-netflix-true-story-richard-gadd/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=arb_ga_har_md_pmx_hybd_mix_us_17944069560&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADA2MkK1lE-W14gRtsIab464z8_j4&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIwPfEmM2KhgMVmSvUAR03fgheEAAYASAAEgKMEfD_BwE

That article is from before people found real-life Martha and sent her death threats.

While in the show, Martha is sentenced for stalking Donny, it’s unclear whether Gadd’s real-life stalker faced any legal consequences. “The laws surrounding harassment and abuse are so stupid,” Gadd explained to The Independent, suggesting that his stalker’s actions largely did not violate the law.

I read "his stalker's actions largely did not violate the law" as a potential problem for Netflix.  If real-life Martha argues she never went to prison, and even the writer of the episodes agrees with that... then Netflix winds up calling someone a prison convict in a "true story" when they aren't.  And with real-life Martha's name known, she gets her reputation ruined and sues Netflix for their "true story" with false details about her.  I guess this will play out in courts... but it hints that Netflix may have known there was no conviction.

My guess is this winds up settled outside of court.  Netflix and real-life Martha both stand to be embarrassed in a public trial.  And who knows, Netflix might want her to write her own take on events, and make a series about that ...

[iris lily]

The only time I've seen someone with four phones, it looked like a professional Pokemon Go player bringing multiple phones to different locations.

What about your friendly neighborhood drug dealer? (before the advent of smartphones)

Like Darrien, in Baby Reindeer?

More like Avon Barksdale, in The Wire (still my favorite show to this day).

You are Barksdale’s people.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

The elephant in the room (or show, I guess) for me was, Gadd knew that this woman was unhinged and yet he perpetuated the relationship on and off for years.  I'm sure this is why the show has blown up in discussion and popularity, but any half-way normal reaction would be to put a stop to it by escalating it to the authorities well in advance of it blowing up spectacularly.  There were several times when he should have acted - once he discovered her history (which should have happened within a week of her coming in to his life in such a bizarre way), when she shows up at his house, even when he follows her home...  She is clearly not mentally stable, and yet he tries to go on about his life with her in it.  The viewer is uneasy, knowing this will end badly, and yet he somehow keeps pushing on...

As a side note, I dated a pathological liar in college for over a year.  When I tried to break up with her (because I knew something was off, turned out she was still dating her HS boyfriend in a distant relationship), well, she claimed that she had a heart condition.  She would pass out on campus and had to have me around to keep her safe.  Of course, she couldn't tell others because she was worried they would make her un-enroll..  etc etc.  It was the craziest year of my life, resulting in most of my friends turning on me and even my parents keeping me at arms length.  I started to write a book about it in the aftermath, but felt that nobody would believe just how dumb I was to keep going along with her for so long.  Well, the sex was incredible, so I wasn't exactly in my right mind for most of the decision making...

All of this to give kudos to Gadd for pulling off a story that seems to work.  From the outside, the suckers that get themselves mired in to these tar babies come off as naive, dumb, self-deluded, and self-centered villains and it makes their story hard to watch.  It's a delicate balance between who is exploiting who, since he should have known better, but she should have been stopped. 

Oops, I forgot that what I meant to say in relation to this thread is that the 'truth' can be difficult to get across in the telling of these stories.  Sure, the fact was that my pathological GF didn't have a heart condition, but my story hinges on the fact that I believed at the time that she had some sort of medical condition and opted to believe her just in case she did ultimately have a major issue.  Maybe Dunn (Gadd in real time) believed that Martha had been either jailed or some nebulous version of admonished by the law for prior and current stalking.  Or maybe it was shorthand for how serious the stalking was, to help get the point across. 

[iris lily]

The elephant in the room (or show, I guess) for me was, Gadd knew that this woman was unhinged and yet he perpetuated the relationship on and off for years.  I'm sure this is why the show has blown up in discussion and popularity, but any half-way normal reaction would be to put a stop to it by escalating it to the authorities well in advance of it blowing up spectacularly.  There were several times when he should have acted - once he discovered her history (which should have happened within a week of her coming in to his life in such a bizarre way), when she shows up at his house, even when he follows her home...  She is clearly not mentally stable, and yet he tries to go on about his life with her in it.  The viewer is uneasy, knowing this will end badly, and yet he somehow keeps pushing on...

As a side note, I dated a pathological liar in college for over a year.  When I tried to break up with her (because I knew something was off, turned out she was still dating her HS boyfriend in a distant relationship), well, she claimed that she had a heart condition.  She would pass out on campus and had to have me around to keep her safe.  Of course, she couldn't tell others because she was worried they would make her un-enroll..  etc etc.  It was the craziest year of my life, resulting in most of my friends turning on me and even my parents keeping me at arms length.  I started to write a book about it in the aftermath, but felt that nobody would believe just how dumb I was to keep going along with her for so long.  Well, the sex was incredible, so I wasn't exactly in my right mind for most of the decision making...

All of this to give kudos to Gadd for pulling off a story that seems to work.  From the outside, the suckers that get themselves mired in to these tar babies come off as naive, dumb, self-deluded, and self-centered villains and it makes their story hard to watch.  It's a delicate balance between who is exploiting who, since he should have known better, but she should have been stopped. 

Oops, I forgot that what I meant to say in relation to this thread is that the 'truth' can be difficult to get across in the telling of these stories.  Sure, the fact was that my pathological GF didn't have a heart condition, but my story hinges on the fact that I believed at the time that she had some sort of medical condition and opted to believe her just in case she did ultimately have a major issue.  Maybe Dunn (Gadd in real time) believed that Martha had been either jailed or some nebulous version of admonished by the law for prior and current stalking.  Or maybe it was shorthand for how serious the stalking was, to help get the point across.

Gadd says this was a dark time of his life so yeah, continuing to interact with Martha was not a good choice. He was kind of a prick, in addition to being a victim. I think he owns up to that.

It does now appear likely that Martha never spent time in jail for any stalking actions.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Gadd says this was a dark time of his life so yeah, continuing to interact with Martha was not a good choice. He was kind of a prick, in addition to being a victim. I think he owns up to that.

It does now appear likely that Martha never spent time in jail for any stalking actions.

I agree, I think the jail time for stalking was a fabrication - but then that's what really sets me off about how he 'ends' the story (although that is not 100% the end, it is a significant part of it).  If someone is willing to lie about that fact for a tidy, self-serving ending, then how much more of the story is a lie?

[iris lily]

Gadd says this was a dark time of his life so yeah, continuing to interact with Martha was not a good choice. He was kind of a prick, in addition to being a victim. I think he owns up to that.

It does now appear likely that Martha never spent time in jail for any stalking actions.

I agree, I think the jail time for stalking was a fabrication - but then that's what really sets me off about how he 'ends' the story (although that is not 100% the end, it is a significant part of it).  If someone is willing to lie about that fact for a tidy, self-serving ending, then how much more of the story is a lie?

 Well, I don’t think that Martha literally sent 41,000 messages to Gadd. Maybe given his dark depression at the time that might’ve felt like she was pummeling him with that level of onslaught but come on, 41,000? I don’t think so.

I think this is a case where Netflix’s promotion machine didn’t touch base in a solid way with the writer of this production to weigh artistic license.

[Metalcat]

Gad has been very clear that it's a dramatization and that it is a fictionalized version of an emotional truth as he experienced it. He even changed his own name in the series to show that it's a fictionalized version of himself.

The only sticking point is that it says at the beginning that it's a true story without clarifying what that really means to Gadd.

A huge point of the story is that he was not psychologically after his sexual assault and that guided so much of his engagement with "Martha." I think he's quite honest and vulnerable about how he was nowhere near a "perfect victim."

If you look at it through a lens of it being a dramatic essay on trauma behaviour and the toxic dynamics that you can invite into your life as a result, I think it's quite insightful.

Netflix fucked up calling it a "true story" without any qualifier, but really, Gadd changing his own frickin' name should be enough of a tipoff for most folks that some of the story has been changed.

[Metalcat]

Gadd says this was a dark time of his life so yeah, continuing to interact with Martha was not a good choice. He was kind of a prick, in addition to being a victim. I think he owns up to that.

It does now appear likely that Martha never spent time in jail for any stalking actions.

I agree, I think the jail time for stalking was a fabrication - but then that's what really sets me off about how he 'ends' the story (although that is not 100% the end, it is a significant part of it).  If someone is willing to lie about that fact for a tidy, self-serving ending, then how much more of the story is a lie?

 Well, I don’t think that Martha literally sent 41,000 messages to Gadd. Maybe given his dark depression at the time that might’ve felt like she was pummeling him with that level of onslaught but come on, 41,000? I don’t think so.

I think this is a case where Netflix’s promotion machine didn’t touch base in a solid way with the writer of this production to weigh artistic license.

Why do you think that's unbelievable? Over three years that's less than 40 emails a day.

An obsessed person could easily send 40.messages a day, especially if they're unemployed. I've seen a controlling couple where the husband sends dozens of emails/messages a day to his wife constantly demanding to know things.

Obsessive behaviour is a powerful motivator.

ETA: for example

https://apnews.com/general-news-782ab017f57c4e1d83ffee43b1ee6a49#:~:text=Jacqueline%20Ades%20sent%20a%20man,went%20on%20a%20single%20date.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Gad has been very clear that it's a dramatization and that it is a fictionalized version of an emotional truth as he experienced it.

The Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" introduces itself with "this is a true story".  The advertising labels it a "captivating true story".  I think you're referring to something most viewers of the story, including me, have never seen.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Given how often the main character lies to other people, I had to consider his writing could also be a lie - that events in the story were distorted or fabricated.  When Derrick (famous TV writer) and Donny (Richard Gad) take drugs together to get the "highest high", one of those drugs is known to cause memory loss.  What if Richard Gad treated every memory loss as him being unconscious, when he actually had a memory gap in his conscious experience?

Waking up involves a memory gap from the prior night - normally, memory gaps are from sleeping.  But someone who is blackout drunk can be conscious the night before, and not remember it later.  It is possible Richard Gad conflated these two things, treating a memory gap as him always being unconscious.  Instead of forgetting when he and Derrick start having sex, he thinks he woke up having sex.  Each of his memory gaps is portrayed this way - as him waking up.  Never him having a memory gap and being awake the whole time.  It seems to me that he is unclear when he had a memory gap, versus when he woke up.

I found it odd that Derrick never asks Donny if he's gay (or bisexual).  According to the series, Derrick reaches down Donny's pants and gives him a hand job without ever asking if Donny is gay.  I don't believe it.  Several times in the story, Donny lies to make himself look better - I think that happens here, too.  I think Donny has told Derrick he doesn't know if he's gay - but that makes him look like he's leading Derrick on, so he deletes it from the script.

Derrick has a great amount of power with his access to fame, and Donny wants to become famous.  Donny is willing to take drugs to become famous.  When he realizes he has forgotten what happened but has evidence of oral sex, he still wants to become famous.  While I disagree with calling this "grooming" since both men are adults, it does raise the question of abuse of power leading to drugs and sex.  Derrick could still be guilty of a crime, but I don't believe it happened like Donny portrayed it.

[Fresh Bread]

There's an article somewhere that points out that if the series had been made by eg the BBC. Martha would have had a different profession, nationality and it would have been set in a different city. And in the opening credits it should have said: "based on a true story" or something.

It is the first time I've ever heard of this type of thing happening. I mean there's often speculation that certain characters in works of fiction are inspired by real life people. True stories documentary style are incredibly rigorous, I can't imagine how the lawyers didn't get a whiff of this and step in. Hopefully Netflix put some procedures in place and it's the last?

[Metalcat]

Gad has been very clear that it's a dramatization and that it is a fictionalized version of an emotional truth as he experienced it.

The Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" introduces itself with "this is a true story".  The advertising labels it a "captivating true story".  I think you're referring to something most viewers of the story, including me, have never seen.

That's why I stipulated already that Netflix messed up.

But anyone who goes looking for more info about the "true story" immediately finds out that Gadd changed details, like his own name.

[Metalcat]

Given how often the main character lies to other people, I had to consider his writing could also be a lie - that events in the story were distorted or fabricated.  When Derrick (famous TV writer) and Donny (Richard Gad) take drugs together to get the "highest high", one of those drugs is known to cause memory loss.  What if Richard Gad treated every memory loss as him being unconscious, when he actually had a memory gap in his conscious experience?

Waking up involves a memory gap from the prior night - normally, memory gaps are from sleeping.  But someone who is blackout drunk can be conscious the night before, and not remember it later.  It is possible Richard Gad conflated these two things, treating a memory gap as him always being unconscious.  Instead of forgetting when he and Derrick start having sex, he thinks he woke up having sex.  Each of his memory gaps is portrayed this way - as him waking up.  Never him having a memory gap and being awake the whole time.  It seems to me that he is unclear when he had a memory gap, versus when he woke up.

I found it odd that Derrick never asks Donny if he's gay (or bisexual).  According to the series, Derrick reaches down Donny's pants and gives him a hand job without ever asking if Donny is gay.  I don't believe it.  Several times in the story, Donny lies to make himself look better - I think that happens here, too.  I think Donny has told Derrick he doesn't know if he's gay - but that makes him look like he's leading Derrick on, so he deletes it from the script.

Derrick has a great amount of power with his access to fame, and Donny wants to become famous.  Donny is willing to take drugs to become famous.  When he realizes he has forgotten what happened but has evidence of oral sex, he still wants to become famous.  While I disagree with calling this "grooming" since both men are adults, it does raise the question of abuse of power leading to drugs and sex.  Derrick could still be guilty of a crime, but I don't believe it happened like Donny portrayed it.

FTR, many, many men have been sexually assaulted by other men and never consulted as whether or not they were gay. Kevin Spacey famously assaulted young straight men.

Sexual predators don't care what their victims want sexually, in fact, for a lot of them, the power to make them do what they *don't* want to do is the point.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Given how often the main character lies to other people, I had to consider his writing could also be a lie - that events in the story were distorted or fabricated.  When Derrick (famous TV writer) and Donny (Richard Gad) take drugs together to get the "highest high", one of those drugs is known to cause memory loss.  What if Richard Gad treated every memory loss as him being unconscious, when he actually had a memory gap in his conscious experience?

Waking up involves a memory gap from the prior night - normally, memory gaps are from sleeping.  But someone who is blackout drunk can be conscious the night before, and not remember it later.  It is possible Richard Gad conflated these two things, treating a memory gap as him always being unconscious.  Instead of forgetting when he and Derrick start having sex, he thinks he woke up having sex.  Each of his memory gaps is portrayed this way - as him waking up.  Never him having a memory gap and being awake the whole time.  It seems to me that he is unclear when he had a memory gap, versus when he woke up.

I found it odd that Derrick never asks Donny if he's gay (or bisexual).  According to the series, Derrick reaches down Donny's pants and gives him a hand job without ever asking if Donny is gay.  I don't believe it.  Several times in the story, Donny lies to make himself look better - I think that happens here, too.  I think Donny has told Derrick he doesn't know if he's gay - but that makes him look like he's leading Derrick on, so he deletes it from the script.

Derrick has a great amount of power with his access to fame, and Donny wants to become famous.  Donny is willing to take drugs to become famous.  When he realizes he has forgotten what happened but has evidence of oral sex, he still wants to become famous.  While I disagree with calling this "grooming" since both men are adults, it does raise the question of abuse of power leading to drugs and sex.  Derrick could still be guilty of a crime, but I don't believe it happened like Donny portrayed it.

FTR, many, many men have been sexually assaulted by other men and never consulted as whether or not they were gay. Kevin Spacey famously assaulted young straight men.

Sexual predators don't care what their victims want sexually, in fact, for a lot of them, the power to make them do what they *don't* want to do is the point.

Kevin Spacey who was cleared of all charges in the UK?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66299485

If Derrick's goal is to make Donny do what he doesn't want to... why does he instantly stop giving a hand job when Donny coughs up a "no"?  (While throwing up into a cat bowl, after he takes drugs the first time)

Seeing how often the main character lies, I wondered what is the chance he encountered a gay man versus a sexual predator.  I suppose he intended to make Derrick look like Bill Cosby, who drugged his victims.  But in this case, both men take the same drugs together.  There's nothing hidden about the drugs.  And there are millions of gay men in the U.S., and a far smaller number of sexual predators.  If I don't trust the narrator, it is more likely Derrick is a gay man, not a sexual predator, based on the overall odds.

The pattern is also suspicious, especially for a man who lies repeatedly to make himself look good.  There's the hand job... kissing his bare body... oral sex.  There is evidence each of these occurs, and each time the main character goes back.  But once the main character feels Derrick is no longer useful to him, then he claims he was raped and remembers that sex act - but none of the others.  His memory is very convenient.  Maybe the power dynamic - holding fame as a carrot - is coercive and justifies a criminal trial.  But there are many problems with the main character's story, and I find it unlikely his one-sided account is accurate.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

There's an article somewhere that points out that if the series had been made by eg the BBC. Martha would have had a different profession, nationality and it would have been set in a different city. And in the opening credits it should have said: "based on a true story" or something.

It is the first time I've ever heard of this type of thing happening. I mean there's often speculation that certain characters in works of fiction are inspired by real life people. True stories documentary style are incredibly rigorous, I can't imagine how the lawyers didn't get a whiff of this and step in. Hopefully Netflix put some procedures in place and it's the last?

I often see "based on" in movies, while also claiming no relation to real people.  Maybe Netflix will claim this was a drama, not a documentary, and also (like Metalcat pointed out) mention his name was fictional in the series.  But the poster with "true story" and the words "this is a true story" in the episode are very damning evidence for them.

My prediction is that real-life Martha will follow through on her threat to sue Netflix (and others).  Yet her answers to questions about her communications and phones sound a bit shaky.  She might suffer if this becomes a public court case, instead of settling.  Netflix may have overstepped in showing Martha as being convicted and going to prison, if that did not in fact happen.  Netflix might prefer to pay money to avoid exposing its mistakes in open court.  Both parties, if the lawsuit occurs, seem to have good reasons to want to settle.

I think changes at Netflix will be greater if there is a court case, versus if nothing further happens.

[Metalcat]

There's an article somewhere that points out that if the series had been made by eg the BBC. Martha would have had a different profession, nationality and it would have been set in a different city. And in the opening credits it should have said: "based on a true story" or something.

It is the first time I've ever heard of this type of thing happening. I mean there's often speculation that certain characters in works of fiction are inspired by real life people. True stories documentary style are incredibly rigorous, I can't imagine how the lawyers didn't get a whiff of this and step in. Hopefully Netflix put some procedures in place and it's the last?

I often see "based on" in movies, while also claiming no relation to real people.  Maybe Netflix will claim this was a drama, not a documentary, and also (like Metalcat pointed out) mention his name was fictional in the series.  But the poster with "true story" and the words "this is a true story" in the episode are very damning evidence for them.

My prediction is that real-life Martha will follow through on her threat to sue Netflix (and others).  Yet her answers to questions about her communications and phones sound a bit shaky.  She might suffer if this becomes a public court case, instead of settling.  Netflix may have overstepped in showing Martha as being convicted and going to prison, if that did not in fact happen.  Netflix might prefer to pay money to avoid exposing its mistakes in open court.  Both parties, if the lawsuit occurs, seem to have good reasons to want to settle.

I think changes at Netflix will be greater if there is a court case, versus if nothing further happens.

I agree that Netflix shouldn't have said it was a true story, but Fargo also has "true story" at the beginning, so obviously there is precedent for fiction being labeled as "true story."

This case is different and I'm interested to see if she actually sues, and even if she doesn't, if this creates some sort of expectation/standard around claiming a story to be true.

[iris lily]

There's an article somewhere that points out that if the series had been made by eg the BBC. Martha would have had a different profession, nationality and it would have been set in a different city. And in the opening credits it should have said: "based on a true story" or something.

It is the first time I've ever heard of this type of thing happening. I mean there's often speculation that certain characters in works of fiction are inspired by real life people. True stories documentary style are incredibly rigorous, I can't imagine how the lawyers didn't get a whiff of this and step in. Hopefully Netflix put some procedures in place and it's the last?

I often see "based on" in movies, while also claiming no relation to real people.  Maybe Netflix will claim this was a drama, not a documentary, and also (like Metalcat pointed out) mention his name was fictional in the series.  But the poster with "true story" and the words "this is a true story" in the episode are very damning evidence for them.

My prediction is that real-life Martha will follow through on her threat to sue Netflix (and others).  Yet her answers to questions about her communications and phones sound a bit shaky.  She might suffer if this becomes a public court case, instead of settling.  Netflix may have overstepped in showing Martha as being convicted and going to prison, if that did not in fact happen.  Netflix might prefer to pay money to avoid exposing its mistakes in open court.  Both parties, if the lawsuit occurs, seem to have good reasons to want to settle.

I think changes at Netflix will be greater if there is a court case, versus if nothing further happens.

I agree that Netflix shouldn't have said it was a true story, but Fargo also has "true story" at the beginning, so obviously there is precedent for fiction being labeled as "true story."

This case is different and I'm interested to see if she actually sues, and even if she doesn't, if this creates some sort of expectation/standard around claiming a story to be true.

Fargo labeling itself “a teue story” is part of its outlandish charm.

[iris lily]

Gadd says this was a dark time of his life so yeah, continuing to interact with Martha was not a good choice. He was kind of a prick, in addition to being a victim. I think he owns up to that.

It does now appear likely that Martha never spent time in jail for any stalking actions.

I agree, I think the jail time for stalking was a fabrication - but then that's what really sets me off about how he 'ends' the story (although that is not 100% the end, it is a significant part of it).  If someone is willing to lie about that fact for a tidy, self-serving ending, then how much more of the story is a lie?

 Well, I don’t think that Martha literally sent 41,000 messages to Gadd. Maybe given his dark depression at the time that might’ve felt like she was pummeling him with that level of onslaught but come on, 41,000? I don’t think so.

I think this is a case where Netflix’s promotion machine didn’t touch base in a solid way with the writer of this production to weigh artistic license.

Why do you think that's unbelievable? Over three years that's less than 40 emails a day.

An obsessed person could easily send 40.messages a day, especially if they're unemployed. I've seen a controlling couple where the husband sends dozens of emails/messages a day to his wife constantly demanding to know things.

Obsessive behaviour is a powerful motivator.

ETA: for example

https://apnews.com/general-news-782ab017f57c4e1d83ffee43b1ee6a49#:~:text=Jacqueline%20Ades%20sent%20a%20man,went%20on%20a%20single%20date.

Sure it is possible to send 41,000 messages but has
Netflix actually coughed uo that evidence?

I do think Martha sent a crap ton of messages.

[Metalcat]

There's an article somewhere that points out that if the series had been made by eg the BBC. Martha would have had a different profession, nationality and it would have been set in a different city. And in the opening credits it should have said: "based on a true story" or something.

It is the first time I've ever heard of this type of thing happening. I mean there's often speculation that certain characters in works of fiction are inspired by real life people. True stories documentary style are incredibly rigorous, I can't imagine how the lawyers didn't get a whiff of this and step in. Hopefully Netflix put some procedures in place and it's the last?

I often see "based on" in movies, while also claiming no relation to real people.  Maybe Netflix will claim this was a drama, not a documentary, and also (like Metalcat pointed out) mention his name was fictional in the series.  But the poster with "true story" and the words "this is a true story" in the episode are very damning evidence for them.

My prediction is that real-life Martha will follow through on her threat to sue Netflix (and others).  Yet her answers to questions about her communications and phones sound a bit shaky.  She might suffer if this becomes a public court case, instead of settling.  Netflix may have overstepped in showing Martha as being convicted and going to prison, if that did not in fact happen.  Netflix might prefer to pay money to avoid exposing its mistakes in open court.  Both parties, if the lawsuit occurs, seem to have good reasons to want to settle.

I think changes at Netflix will be greater if there is a court case, versus if nothing further happens.

I agree that Netflix shouldn't have said it was a true story, but Fargo also has "true story" at the beginning, so obviously there is precedent for fiction being labeled as "true story."

This case is different and I'm interested to see if she actually sues, and even if she doesn't, if this creates some sort of expectation/standard around claiming a story to be true.

Fargo labeling itself “a teue story” is part of its outlandish charm.

Of course, but my whole point was that the label "true story" obviously doesn't actually come with any legal obligation for the story to be true. Perhaps this case will set a precedent that the label of "true story" actually needs to be held to some kind of standard.

This case is testing the limits of what the public will tolerate in terms of claiming a dramatization is "true."

[iris lily]

There's an article somewhere that points out that if the series had been made by eg the BBC. Martha would have had a different profession, nationality and it would have been set in a different city. And in the opening credits it should have said: "based on a true story" or something.

It is the first time I've ever heard of this type of thing happening. I mean there's often speculation that certain characters in works of fiction are inspired by real life people. True stories documentary style are incredibly rigorous, I can't imagine how the lawyers didn't get a whiff of this and step in. Hopefully Netflix put some procedures in place and it's the last?

I often see "based on" in movies, while also claiming no relation to real people.  Maybe Netflix will claim this was a drama, not a documentary, and also (like Metalcat pointed out) mention his name was fictional in the series.  But the poster with "true story" and the words "this is a true story" in the episode are very damning evidence for them.

My prediction is that real-life Martha will follow through on her threat to sue Netflix (and others).  Yet her answers to questions about her communications and phones sound a bit shaky.  She might suffer if this becomes a public court case, instead of settling.  Netflix may have overstepped in showing Martha as being convicted and going to prison, if that did not in fact happen.  Netflix might prefer to pay money to avoid exposing its mistakes in open court.  Both parties, if the lawsuit occurs, seem to have good reasons to want to settle.

I think changes at Netflix will be greater if there is a court case, versus if nothing further happens.

I agree that Netflix shouldn't have said it was a true story, but Fargo also has "true story" at the beginning, so obviously there is precedent for fiction being labeled as "true story."

This case is different and I'm interested to see if she actually sues, and even if she doesn't, if this creates some sort of expectation/standard around claiming a story to be true.

Fargo labeling itself “a teue story” is part of its outlandish charm.

Of course, but my whole point was that the label "true story" obviously doesn't actually come with any legal obligation for the story to be true. Perhaps this case will set a precedent that the label of "true story" actually needs to be held to some kind of standard.

This case is testing the limits of what the public will tolerate in terms of claiming a dramatization is "true."

Has anyone expressed an  expectation that “a true story” means it is legally enforceable as true? I don’t see anyone in any of the discussions here or elsewhere are saying that.

The legality will come in with UK laws (unknown to me) about real life Martha’s life being disrupted by this production. I have no idea how that plays out, but I do know UK libel laws are pretty different from US laws as is Free Speech protections.

 I think this is  just a friendly discussion about how far a story can deviate from fact and be considered “true.” Some people have more tolerance for shades of grey or truthiness than others.

I like dramatizations based on true stories and I recognize and appreciate the artistic license in producing a good story. What is really “true” anyway, hmmm.

[Metalcat]

Gadd says this was a dark time of his life so yeah, continuing to interact with Martha was not a good choice. He was kind of a prick, in addition to being a victim. I think he owns up to that.

It does now appear likely that Martha never spent time in jail for any stalking actions.

I agree, I think the jail time for stalking was a fabrication - but then that's what really sets me off about how he 'ends' the story (although that is not 100% the end, it is a significant part of it).  If someone is willing to lie about that fact for a tidy, self-serving ending, then how much more of the story is a lie?

 Well, I don’t think that Martha literally sent 41,000 messages to Gadd. Maybe given his dark depression at the time that might’ve felt like she was pummeling him with that level of onslaught but come on, 41,000? I don’t think so.

I think this is a case where Netflix’s promotion machine didn’t touch base in a solid way with the writer of this production to weigh artistic license.

Why do you think that's unbelievable? Over three years that's less than 40 emails a day.

An obsessed person could easily send 40.messages a day, especially if they're unemployed. I've seen a controlling couple where the husband sends dozens of emails/messages a day to his wife constantly demanding to know things.

Obsessive behaviour is a powerful motivator.

ETA: for example

https://apnews.com/general-news-782ab017f57c4e1d83ffee43b1ee6a49#:~:text=Jacqueline%20Ades%20sent%20a%20man,went%20on%20a%20single%20date.

Sure it is possible to send 41,000 messages but has
Netflix actually coughed uo that evidence?

I do think Martha sent a ceap ton of messages.

I have no idea, I didn't argue that "Martha" sent that many messages, I'm just shocked that you seem to think that 41K messages over 3 years from an obsessive stalker doesn't sound realistic. It sounds extremely realistic to me, but I've had a stalker who sent me dozens of messages a day, it's exactly how a certain type of obsessive person behaves.

The fact that he's claiming 41K messages in no way makes his claim sound false. Yes, it's a ton of messages, but it's also well within the realm of established patterns of behaviour for obsessive stalkers.

Hence why I posted a news story about a women who sent several times more messages in a much shorter time span.

If this kind of claim doesn't sound realistic to you, that just means you haven't encountered many folks with this particular type of mental health issue.

Am I saying he's telling the truth? No.
He could be lying and he could have fabricated the number based one what is absolutely realistic for the kind of character he was looking to portray, but the vast number itself in no way suggests that he's lying. It's highly plausible and completely consistent with the rest of the story.

Again, it's possible he wrote a consistent story, but my point is that the volume of messages claimed isn't any kind of smoking gun that it's untrue. If anything, it's one of the more realistic/plausible elements of the story.

Borderline scalping his girlfriend in a public bar brawl? Much less realistic, IMO, since it resulted in absolutely no police reports or action from anyone. His girlfriend being a therapist, reacting the way she did, and letting a violent assault slide? Also not terribly realistic, but very consistent with Gadd's internal reality of the experience, so I assumed all of that was dramatization, as well as his interactions with the police. They were all thematically very consistent representations of his own reality.

Many trauma victims have lauded the show as an exquisite representation of the toxic hell that can result from unprocessed trauma, and *that* is really the "truth" that a lot of people are valuing.

It's just too bad it had to get bogged down in the dumbfuck decision to call it a "true story" when it very transparently was never intended to be one.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Borderline scalping his girlfriend in a public bar brawl? Much less realistic, IMO, since it resulted in absolutely no police reports or action from anyone. His girlfriend being a therapist, reacting the way she did, and letting a violent assault slide? Also not terribly realistic, but very consistent with Gadd's internal reality of the experience, so I assumed all of that was dramatization, as well as his interactions with the police. They were all thematically very consistent representations of his own reality.

I found the scene where Teri is attacked in a bar hard to believe.  Even while it was happening I couldn't imagine any excuse from the main character that would convince Teri not to call police.  If someone is assaulted and knocked down, is everyone's first reaction to stare at them awhile?  Zero people help Teri or ask if she's okay, which looked cartoonish to me.  And that also highlights that Donny didn't help or focus on Teri, but instead helped numerous people throw his stalker out of the bar.  Is that his priority, when his girlfriend has been attacked?  And to have Teri refuse to call police makes no sense either.  She stands up to Donny when things have gone too far - but not this time, when her face is bleeding from an attack?

Speaking of bar assaults that seem fake, when Donny is attacked by his stalker in the bar where he works, that is another ideal time to call police.  But conveniently, the cameras are pointed away and the other guys don't want to get in trouble... why is this a rational discussion after the fact, when Donny could have called the police immediately?  Why doesn't Donny mention this woman has been stalking him for years, and the police are the only way he can stop her?  Nothing... just convenient problems with video cameras that could get the bar in trouble.  If this convenient excuse was an isolated problem, and not a pattern, maybe I'd view it differently.

Netflix has confidence in the stalking being real.  I assume they have evidence of real-life Martha's communication with Richard Gad.  Although that is vague, I find that assumption more trustworthy than relying on statements by real-life Martha (who changed her email count multiple times in her interview) or by Richard Gad (who lies frequently in the story).  The closest I get to Netflix's view is this statement by a Netflix executive:

"Baby Reindeer is an extraordinary story, and it is obviously a true story of the horrific abuse that the writer and protagonist, Richard Gadd, suffered at the hands of a convicted stalker,"
[Netflix senior director of public policy in the UK and Ireland, Benjamin King] said

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/baby-reindeer-netflix-piers-morgan-martha-richard-gadd-151538470.html

[iris lily]

Gadd says this was a dark time of his life so yeah, continuing to interact with Martha was not a good choice. He was kind of a prick, in addition to being a victim. I think he owns up to that.

It does now appear likely that Martha never spent time in jail for any stalking actions.

I agree, I think the jail time for stalking was a fabrication - but then that's what really sets me off about how he 'ends' the story (although that is not 100% the end, it is a significant part of it).  If someone is willing to lie about that fact for a tidy, self-serving ending, then how much more of the story is a lie?

 Well, I don’t think that Martha literally sent 41,000 messages to Gadd. Maybe given his dark depression at the time that might’ve felt like she was pummeling him with that level of onslaught but come on, 41,000? I don’t think so.

I think this is a case where Netflix’s promotion machine didn’t touch base in a solid way with the writer of this production to weigh artistic license.

Why do you think that's unbelievable? Over three years that's less than 40 emails a day.

An obsessed person could easily send 40.messages a day, especially if they're unemployed. I've seen a controlling couple where the husband sends dozens of emails/messages a day to his wife constantly demanding to know things.

Obsessive behaviour is a powerful motivator.

ETA: for example

https://apnews.com/general-news-782ab017f57c4e1d83ffee43b1ee6a49#:~:text=Jacqueline%20Ades%20sent%20a%20man,went%20on%20a%20single%20date.

Sure it is possible to send 41,000 messages but has
Netflix actually coughed uo that evidence?

I do think Martha sent a ceap ton of messages.

I have no idea, I didn't argue that "Martha" sent that many messages, I'm just shocked that you seem to think that 41K messages over 3 years from an obsessive stalker doesn't sound realistic. It sounds extremely realistic to me, but I've had a stalker who sent me dozens of messages a day, it's exactly how a certain type of obsessive person behaves.

The fact that he's claiming 41K messages in no way makes his claim sound false. Yes, it's a ton of messages, but it's also well within the realm of established patterns of behaviour for obsessive stalkers.

Hence why I posted a news story about a women who sent several times more messages in a much shorter time span.

If this kind of claim doesn't sound realistic to you, that just means you haven't encountered many folks with this particular type of mental health issue.

Am I saying he's telling the truth? No.
He could be lying and he could have fabricated the number based one what is absolutely realistic for the kind of character he was looking to portray, but the vast number itself in no way suggests that he's lying. It's highly plausible and completely consistent with the rest of the story.

Again, it's possible he wrote a consistent story, but my point is that the volume of messages claimed isn't any kind of smoking gun that it's untrue. If anything, it's one of the more realistic/plausible elements of the story.

Borderline scalping his girlfriend in a public bar brawl? Much less realistic, IMO, since it resulted in absolutely no police reports or action from anyone. His girlfriend being a therapist, reacting the way she did, and letting a violent assault slide? Also not terribly realistic, but very consistent with Gadd's internal reality of the experience, so I assumed all of that was dramatization, as well as his interactions with the police. They were all thematically very consistent representations of his own reality.

Many trauma victims have lauded the show as an exquisite representation of the toxic hell that can result from unprocessed trauma, and *that* is really the "truth" that a lot of people are valuing.

It's just too bad it had to get bogged down in the dumbfuck decision to call it a "true story" when it very transparently was never intended to be one.

You are right, my stalker of 43 years plays a long game and has different methodologies.

[Metalcat]

You are right, my stalker of 43 years plays a long game and has different methodologies.

I'm sorry, my comment was out of line.

[iris lily]

You are right, my stalker of 43 years plays a long game and has different methodologies.

I'm sorry, my comment was out of line.

no no, you are fine! No problem, don’t worry.

My stalker,, an old old old boyfriend, is never threatening, he is just relentless. He contacts people I know. His  latest thing from a few years ago was friending my Facebook friends. Because my personal philosophy is he’s going to do what he’s going to do and I’m not going to have anything to do with it, I let it alone.

So, he was Facebook friends with a couple of my friends for several years until one day I casually said to my friends “you know, this is my old boyfriend who stalks me. You don’t know who he is. What you do with that information it’s up to you but just be aware.”

Once he called my in-laws’  house in another state when I was scheduled to visit there and asked to speak to me, but I wasn’t there yet. He told the in-laws he was my brother and when they passed on that message I knew immediately who it was because my brother would never call my in-laws for any reason.

I suspect he’s been in our yard in our current house because the neighbors reported somebody walking around a couple of years ago. Again, this is not threatening. It’s just… obsessive.

And I am not the only object of obsession, I know there are others.

Since I use Facebook to keep an eye on people myself, I can’t get too worked up about his behavior.

[spartana]

^^Little Bitty Bobby ;-)? One crazy dude! I haven't seen this show but as a person with a stalker I can tell you one of the first things I did was get a new email address, phone number and get off any social media so I couldn't he tracked as easily. So there would be no way Stalker McStalkerbutt could send 41k emails or texts to me. Why didn't this guy do that? 

[Metalcat]

^^Little Bitty Bobby ;-)? One crazy dude! I haven't seen this show but as a person with a stalker I can tell you one of the first things I did was get a new email address, phone number and get off any social media so I couldn't he tracked as easily. So there would be no way Stalker McStalkerbutt could send 41k emails or texts to me. Why didn't this guy do that?

That's really the entire point of the whole show and why it's interesting. The stalker story isn't that interesting, as this thread shows, stalkers are a dime a dozen.

The riveting part of the show is that the main character was previously a victim of sexual assault and experienced enormous trauma symptoms as a result, which leads to him engaging this stalker who was quite a sympathetic character.

There's trauma at play, gender roles, mental health issues, etc.

The whole fascinating element of the show is how intensely Gadd portrays how self destructive and dysfunctional victims of abuse can be. Also, the actress who portrays the stalker does an astoundingly good job of making her both intensely creepy AND sympathetic at the same time, which is a mind fuck and she deserves ALL of the awards for being able to do that.

As I've said in multiple posts, Gadd portrays a very flawed victim, which is important because most victims don't live up to society's expectations of victims, which is a huge factor in victims of these types of crimes ever getting appropriate support or justice.

For a lot of SA victims, it's not just the initial assault that causes damage, but the subsequent damage that comes as a result of the unhealthy trauma behaviours that follow.

[spartana]

Yeah I probably should watch it before commenting but just thought it was weirdly co-dependent (he gets an ego boost for having a woman so obsessed with him) to keep avenues of contact open to a violent stalker. Maybe a female stalker seems less threatening than a male.   It sound good though but saw it was listed as a true dark comedy which is also weird.

[Metalcat]

Yeah I probably should watch it before commenting but just thought it was weirdly co-dependent (he gets an ego boost for having a woman so obsessed with him) to keep avenues of contact open to a violent stalker. Maybe a female stalker seems less threatening than a male.   It sound good though but saw it was listed as a true dark comedy which is also weird.

Yes, and he's extremely honest about all of his deeply flawed and toxic motivations along the way. It lasted for 3 years and you want to scream at the screen a few times "DON'T FUCKING DO THAT!"

[Metalcat]

I think this account gives credence to the plausibility of her sending 30ish emails a day to Gadd, she very clearly engaged in patterns of highly repetitive, compulsive contact.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-13379157/The-real-life-Martha-Baby-Reindeer-targeting-Ive-four-day-barrage-non-stop-calls-terrifying-messages-just-like-Netflix-writes-NEIL-SEARS-type-phone-ringing-again.html

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Yeah I probably should watch it before commenting but just thought it was weirdly co-dependent (he gets an ego boost for having a woman so obsessed with him) to keep avenues of contact open to a violent stalker. Maybe a female stalker seems less threatening than a male.   It sound good though but saw it was listed as a true dark comedy which is also weird.

In the series, he mentioned feeling sorry for her, and also liking the attention she gave him.  Those seem like rather light emotions, compared to his actions.  He connects to her on Facebook, accepts all her emails, text messages and voicemails - never blocks or makes an attempt to avoid those.  When Teri asks why he doesn't try to stop her, he says "I don't know", which sounds like a lie to me.  He doesn't know why he takes no effort to prevent the stalking, and accepts her on Facebook, and refuses to unfollow her?  That isn't just an "I don't know" situation.  Maybe the story is about two people who lie compulsively, and who know nobody else understands their compulsion.  Maybe two compulsive liars are drawn to each other, which is something the main character doesn't want to admit (but the narrative and his lies hint at the possibility).

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Yeah I probably should watch it before commenting but just thought it was weirdly co-dependent (he gets an ego boost for having a woman so obsessed with him) to keep avenues of contact open to a violent stalker. Maybe a female stalker seems less threatening than a male.   It sound good though but saw it was listed as a true dark comedy which is also weird.

Yes, and he's extremely honest about all of his deeply flawed and toxic motivations along the way. It lasted for 3 years and you want to scream at the screen a few times "DON'T FUCKING DO THAT!"

He said he felt sorry for her, and that he liked the attention.  There were numerous times where he said "I don't know" instead of explaining himself:  when he accepts Martha's Facebook request, when he thinks of unfollowing her, when he explains the situation to Teri.  Other than feeling sorry for Martha and liking the attention, I didn't see when he was "extremely honest about all of his deeply flawed and toxic motivations".

[Metalcat]

Yeah I probably should watch it before commenting but just thought it was weirdly co-dependent (he gets an ego boost for having a woman so obsessed with him) to keep avenues of contact open to a violent stalker. Maybe a female stalker seems less threatening than a male.   It sound good though but saw it was listed as a true dark comedy which is also weird.

Yes, and he's extremely honest about all of his deeply flawed and toxic motivations along the way. It lasted for 3 years and you want to scream at the screen a few times "DON'T FUCKING DO THAT!"

He said he felt sorry for her, and that he liked the attention.  There were numerous times where he said "I don't know" instead of explaining himself:  when he accepts Martha's Facebook request, when he thinks of unfollowing her, when he explains the situation to Teri.  Other than feeling sorry for Martha and liking the attention, I didn't see when he was "extremely honest about all of his deeply flawed and toxic motivations".

IDK, as someone whose job it is to talk to people about their trauma, I found his discussion around his reactions to sexual assaults and the fact that he was honest about at one point he became sexually fixated on her to be remarkably honest.

He shared a lot of details about his own reactions and behaviours that are typically extremely difficult for trauma survivors to admit, much less portray publicly.

Even your point about how much the character lies. Gadd could have made himself look a lot better, but he didn't. That's what I am referring to.

[Omy]

As someone who was stalked 20 years ago by an ex bf, Gadd's responses seemed pretty similar to what I went through. I knew that I should block and report my stalker, but I told myself that it was better that I knew his state of mind and what he was up to.

On some screwed up level, I liked the attention. When we were dating, he bolstered my self esteem and I mistook the drama in the relationship for passion. When he was stalking me, I felt that he must really be into me. Because I had never experienced a crazy dating relationship like this before, his obsession with me was strangely flattering.

Before that experience with my stalker, I would have scoffed at the responses of the main character in this series. After living through it, I found that his reactions rang true.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

These replies remind me of a part of the story that made me particularly mad at Gadd.  Donny Dunn clearly didn't have any realistic romantic interest in Martha (other than the aforementioned kink), so why perpetuate the romantic aspect of the relationship for so long?  He is so weak about shutting her down, allowing things to flare up - and only then he finally puts a bit harder effort in to shutting her down, for a short period.  The part of the story when Martha sits at the bus stop for days on end made it very difficult for me to continue to support Gadd's bravery for sharing his flaws.  He very clearly manipulated a vulnerable, mentally unstable woman, almost to the point of breaking her.  The idea that he possibly made up the fact that she was sent to prison for stalking him further makes me dislike him.  Ironically, Martha / Fiona comes off as the victim to me, in all of this.

Also the fact that nothing has come of sleuthing around Darrien's character (with so many juicy specific clues) - makes me think Dunn really bent the truth on the telling of that...  What if Gadd is the monster in all of this, making up the 'victimization' to make himself less to blame with Martha's being strung along and making the story more palatable?  We'll probably never know much of the truth of this 'true story'.

[iris lily]

^^Little Bitty Bobby ;-)? One crazy dude! I haven't seen this show but as a person with a stalker I can tell you one of the first things I did was get a new email address, phone number and get off any social media so I couldn't he tracked as easily. So there would be no way Stalker McStalkerbutt could send 41k emails or texts to me. Why didn't this guy do that?

I will neither confirm nor deny anyone’s identity. :)

Boy do I have some stories about those days, long before social media. Probably the best stories are back in the day. My stalker called me all the time long distance and those were the  days when it cost big time money. So I would let him blather on for minutes turning into hours, and sometimes I put the phone down and just walked away. Of course I told him not to call anymore, but he paid no attention to that. Anyway, one day, his real life girlfriend who he lived with called me from states away demanding to know why I had a relationship with her live-in boyfriend. She had seen his phone bill.

Another time I moved across 3  states and asked my boss to be sure not to tell anyone where I moved to since I was moving back into stalker land, even though he lived in a contiguous state. In a trick of coincidence, he drove down a particular street in the town where I was living and saw my car in a parking lot. It was a pretty distinctive car.

No escape! Haha.

Over several decades I go through periods of interacting with him and then not. Once a while he can be funny, but the noise to humor ratio is not good and his stupid boring obsessive interests got old decades ago.

As for just changing ones email address, that’s not easy to do when you’re in the entertainment world and you don’t want to risk anyone not being able to contact you. I myself fear having to lose my email address because I do so much community work via email, and once you change it, so many people will not be able to find you no matter how many times you distribute your new email address.