Author Topic: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]  (Read 16639 times)

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6202
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #50 on: May 17, 2024, 09:47:12 AM »
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'.

The Piers Morgan interview with real life Martha was analyzed by a team of body language experts called The Behavior Panel. These guys have many videos on YouTube and I enjoy their take on things. Anyway, they all came to the conclusion that there’s likely something quite wrong with real life Martha and Piers Morgan is  a jerk to parade her around the web, capitalizing on that.

They use the analogy of patients in London’s Victorian mental hospital Bedlam  who provided entertainment for rich people. The rich people paid a feee and  came by to watch the bedlam inmates for their own entertainment.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2024, 11:06:44 AM by iris lily »

spartana

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1373
  • FIREd at 36
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #51 on: May 17, 2024, 11:51:52 AM »
^^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.
Hmmm... A stalker who wants to talk to me for endless hours everyday or one that wants my head on his fireplace mantel? I think I'll stick with fireplace guy lol! He's currently incarcerated now for assault (of my male house sitter on my property) but I'll be in the wind once he's released...again. Sigh. I'm going to find a way to watch this show as it sounds pretty twisted.

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6202
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #52 on: May 17, 2024, 12:52:16 PM »
^^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.
Hmmm... A stalker who wants to talk to me for endless hours everyday or one that wants my head on his fireplace mantel? I think I'll stick with fireplace guy lol! He's currently incarcerated now for assault (of my male house sitter on my property) but I'll be in the wind once he's released...again. Sigh. I'm going to find a way to watch this show as it sounds pretty twisted.

Oh She-ra sistah, i’m glad you carry. Sounds like you need to.

spartana

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1373
  • FIREd at 36
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #53 on: May 17, 2024, 03:57:04 PM »
^^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.
Hmmm... A stalker who wants to talk to me for endless hours everyday or one that wants my head on his fireplace mantel? I think I'll stick with fireplace guy lol! He's currently incarcerated now for assault (of my male house sitter on my property) but I'll be in the wind once he's released...again. Sigh. I'm going to find a way to watch this show as it sounds pretty twisted.

Oh She-ra sistah, i’m glad you carry. Sounds like you need to.
Lol! It's pretty hard to get someone convicted on a stalking charge, even to get an actual crime of stalking reported,  here in Calif but we're pretty progressive with fewer loopholes then other states but still difficult to "prove". So I can see Why many people don't get the police involved. Or not until things escalate. So maybe that the reason that there was no record of assault on this guy or his GF because it wasn't reported. That's pretty comm9n with women and I imagine much more common with male victims.

I'll admit I do have an (unhealthy?) fascination with stalkers (and serial killers) and find the different types interesting. The deluded who believe they are in relationships with someone (often celebrities), the romantics who after one date or one meeting feels the compulsion to constantly assert themselves into their stalkees life, the controller who wants to know what you're doing every second of the day and go to great lengths to watch and control you - often terrorize you - etc. My sister had one of those one-date stalkers who turned obsessively violent and she had to move and keep hidden for years.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20613
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #54 on: May 17, 2024, 05:59:19 PM »
^^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.
Hmmm... A stalker who wants to talk to me for endless hours everyday or one that wants my head on his fireplace mantel? I think I'll stick with fireplace guy lol! He's currently incarcerated now for assault (of my male house sitter on my property) but I'll be in the wind once he's released...again. Sigh. I'm going to find a way to watch this show as it sounds pretty twisted.

Oh She-ra sistah, i’m glad you carry. Sounds like you need to.
Lol! It's pretty hard to get someone convicted on a stalking charge, even to get an actual crime of stalking reported,  here in Calif but we're pretty progressive with fewer loopholes then other states but still difficult to "prove". So I can see Why many people don't get the police involved. Or not until things escalate. So maybe that the reason that there was no record of assault on this guy or his GF because it wasn't reported. That's pretty comm9n with women and I imagine much more common with male victims.

I'll admit I do have an (unhealthy?) fascination with stalkers (and serial killers) and find the different types interesting. The deluded who believe they are in relationships with someone (often celebrities), the romantics who after one date or one meeting feels the compulsion to constantly assert themselves into their stalkees life, the controller who wants to know what you're doing every second of the day and go to great lengths to watch and control you - often terrorize you - etc. My sister had one of those one-date stalkers who turned obsessively violent and she had to move and keep hidden for years.

I lived for a few years with a criminal psychologist who specifically studied repeat sex offenders, I was in my psych undergrad, so we had endless talks about the various types of obsessive stalkers.

Serial killers too, I read so many books on serial killers during those years.

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6202
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #55 on: May 17, 2024, 09:23:07 PM »
^^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.
Hmmm... A stalker who wants to talk to me for endless hours everyday or one that wants my head on his fireplace mantel? I think I'll stick with fireplace guy lol! He's currently incarcerated now for assault (of my male house sitter on my property) but I'll be in the wind once he's released...again. Sigh. I'm going to find a way to watch this show as it sounds pretty twisted.

Oh She-ra sistah, i’m glad you carry. Sounds like you need to.
Lol! It's pretty hard to get someone convicted on a stalking charge, even to get an actual crime of stalking reported,  here in Calif but we're pretty progressive with fewer loopholes then other states but still difficult to "prove". So I can see Why many people don't get the police involved. Or not until things escalate. So maybe that the reason that there was no record of assault on this guy or his GF because it wasn't reported. That's pretty comm9n with women and I imagine much more common with male victims.

I'll admit I do have an (unhealthy?) fascination with stalkers (and serial killers) and find the different types interesting. The deluded who believe they are in relationships with someone (often celebrities), the romantics who after one date or one meeting feels the compulsion to constantly assert themselves into their stalkees life, the controller who wants to know what you're doing every second of the day and go to great lengths to watch and control you - often terrorize you - etc. My sister had one of those one-date stalkers who turned obsessively violent and she had to move and keep hidden for years.
My stalker was questioned  in a quite famous criminal case in his town, but in reality that’s not meaningful because it is likely every person who was even vaguely weird or suspect was probably questioned in that town about the case.

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7661
  • Location: U.S. expat
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #56 on: May 17, 2024, 11:39:02 PM »
Lol! It's pretty hard to get someone convicted on a stalking charge, even to get an actual crime of stalking reported,  here in Calif but we're pretty progressive with fewer loopholes then other states but still difficult to "prove". So I can see Why many people don't get the police involved. Or not until things escalate. So maybe that the reason that there was no record of assault on this guy or his GF because it wasn't reported. That's pretty comm9n with women and I imagine much more common with male victims.
I'd recommend lowering expectations for a twisted series, and then watch Baby Reindeer.  It could be something that lets you discuss stalking with others.  If you discuss the series, and your personal experience, that combination might make it easier for others to bring up similar experiences.

spartana

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1373
  • FIREd at 36
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #57 on: May 18, 2024, 10:15:19 AM »
^^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.
Hmmm... A stalker who wants to talk to me for endless hours everyday or one that wants my head on his fireplace mantel? I think I'll stick with fireplace guy lol! He's currently incarcerated now for assault (of my male house sitter on my property) but I'll be in the wind once he's released...again. Sigh. I'm going to find a way to watch this show as it sounds pretty twisted.

Oh She-ra sistah, i’m glad you carry. Sounds like you need to.
Lol! It's pretty hard to get someone convicted on a stalking charge, even to get an actual crime of stalking reported,  here in Calif but we're pretty progressive with fewer loopholes then other states but still difficult to "prove". So I can see Why many people don't get the police involved. Or not until things escalate. So maybe that the reason that there was no record of assault on this guy or his GF because it wasn't reported. That's pretty comm9n with women and I imagine much more common with male victims.

I'll admit I do have an (unhealthy?) fascination with stalkers (and serial killers) and find the different types interesting. The deluded who believe they are in relationships with someone (often celebrities), the romantics who after one date or one meeting feels the compulsion to constantly assert themselves into their stalkees life, the controller who wants to know what you're doing every second of the day and go to great lengths to watch and control you - often terrorize you - etc. My sister had one of those one-date stalkers who turned obsessively violent and she had to move and keep hidden for years.

I lived for a few years with a criminal psychologist who specifically studied repeat sex offenders, I was in my psych undergrad, so we had endless talks about the various types of obsessive stalkers.

Serial killers too, I read so many books on serial killers during those years.
I have a BS in Criminal Justice and was pretty obsessed with serial killers, stalkers and all kind of criminally deviant behaviors back in the day. Other crimes too but that was mostly money related stuff not psychological stuff. Less so now but its still pretty fascinating. From the bit I read online about the series, along with the comments here, it sounds like a narcissistic man dealing with a mentally unstable woman and kind of revelling in the attention. But I'll go watch it before I comment further.

spartana

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1373
  • FIREd at 36
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #58 on: May 18, 2024, 10:18:55 AM »
Lol! It's pretty hard to get someone convicted on a stalking charge, even to get an actual crime of stalking reported,  here in Calif but we're pretty progressive with fewer loopholes then other states but still difficult to "prove". So I can see Why many people don't get the police involved. Or not until things escalate. So maybe that the reason that there was no record of assault on this guy or his GF because it wasn't reported. That's pretty comm9n with women and I imagine much more common with male victims.
I'd recommend lowering expectations for a twisted series, and then watch Baby Reindeer.  It could be something that lets you discuss stalking with others.  If you discuss the series, and your personal experience, that combination might make it easier for others to bring up similar experiences.
I've been reading about it online and it does sound less twisted then I first thought. I don't generally talk about my own stalking situation unless it's to warn others to be careful what they put online as it can often lead to a person finding you IRL.

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7661
  • Location: U.S. expat
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #59 on: May 21, 2024, 07:38:59 AM »
If real-life Martha sues Netflix (and others), I'll probably necro-post in this thread.

For those getting a lot of unwanted attention from someone, have you wondered how much their behavior overlaps with stalking?  Which is my way of asking people who are or aren't in denial to be open minded about it.
https://victimconnect.org/learn/types-of-crime/stalking/

GilesMM

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2538
  • Location: PNW
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #60 on: June 02, 2024, 07:15:48 AM »
Stalking is nuts.  A friend of mine was stalked for years by a lover who turned out to be a nut.  My friend was also a nutcase (and seemed to attract/encourage stalkers in some ways as he had more than one; he seemed to relish the drama of it all).  The stalker eventually went to prison for several years for stalking, breaking and entering, burglary, etc.  All the details of their relationship, with full names and dates, are still online for all to read from the criminal case and an appeal. It reads like a horror movie script!

simonsez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Midwest
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #61 on: June 10, 2024, 09:01:52 AM »
She has sued Netflix for $170 mil.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20613
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #62 on: June 10, 2024, 09:09:04 AM »
She has sued Netflix for $170 mil.

Yeah, I'm really curious what this case will mean for future "true story" content. From what I'm reading, there's really not a clear standard for anything that isn't considered proper journalism, so is the fact that Netflix has a disclaimer at the end of every episode enough to cover them or not??

Even if she doesn't win, will a new standard develop?

I'm very curious.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5232
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #63 on: June 10, 2024, 02:58:00 PM »
I think a big piece of her lawsuit comes from the fact that Netflix and Gadd did not take 'reasonable steps' to protect her identity... and she has a strong case for that.

This will probably end up being settled out of court and just be specific to her situation.  Netflix made plenty of money on net, so I wouldn't be surprised to see them continue to walk a fine line on using the 'true story' hook.  Their latest hit, 'Hitman' starts off with a tongue in cheek - this is a true story, sort of...  The ending obviously wasn't very realistic, which is also where Baby Reindeer messed up apparently (e.g. Martha did not go to jail), but it kept me watching and invested for like 75% of the runtime.

Edit to add - the exact phrasing used in 'Hit Man' is "what you're about to see is a somewhat true story ... inspired by the life of Gary Johnson"

Definitely more legally ambiguous than "this is a true story"
« Last Edit: June 10, 2024, 04:27:04 PM by EscapeVelocity2020 »

Fresh Bread

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3611
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #64 on: June 10, 2024, 03:46:52 PM »
I'm glad she's suing, I hope she gets a good payout.

With regard to no clear standards, hopefully this means Netflix gets them so this doesn't happen to anyone else.

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4195
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #65 on: June 10, 2024, 03:54:52 PM »
So there would be no way Stalker McStalkerbutt could send 41k emails or texts to me. Why didn't this guy do that?

I'm late to this thread, and others have answered this question better than I can, but that question is why I believe the series blew up.   Donny doesn't make the right decisions and even he doesn't know why.   His desire for attention and approval blunt his clear thinking time and again, leaving him with regret, time and again.   I think we all have small elements of that.   And that's maybe why it resonated.  There is a little bit of Donny in all of us, as much as we don't want to think about it.

Re: True Story.  I assumed the story arc was true, but I never believed the events were accurate as depicted.  I just assumed lots of it was fictionalized in service of the story.   At the end, there is a disclaimer that says basically a bunch of this is fictionalized.  I have no idea if that disclaimer is sufficient for protection in a lawsuit.  But it is interesting that enough of the story was true people were able to find Martha's real identity.   In that regard, the story might not have been fictional enough.   

GilesMM

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2538
  • Location: PNW
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #66 on: June 10, 2024, 03:58:25 PM »
I'm glad she's suing, I hope she gets a good payout.

With regard to no clear standards, hopefully this means Netflix gets them so this doesn't happen to anyone else.


The ultimate irony and insult will be that she gets more cash from the series via her lawsuit than the author/creator/victim!!

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4195
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #67 on: June 10, 2024, 04:01:50 PM »
Yeah, I'm really curious what this case will mean for future "true story" content. From what I'm reading, there's really not a clear standard for anything that isn't considered proper journalism, so is the fact that Netflix has a disclaimer at the end of every episode enough to cover them or not??

Even if she doesn't win, will a new standard develop?

I'm very curious.

I'm not a lawyer and I have no real idea.  However, Netflix is a huge corporation that produces tons of content.   I'd be very surprised if Netflix's attorneys' didn't evaluate the possibility of lawsuits prior to production.   I assume there are generally accepted standards for how to safely portray real people in a semi-fictional setting.   

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20613
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #68 on: June 10, 2024, 05:04:42 PM »
Yeah, I'm really curious what this case will mean for future "true story" content. From what I'm reading, there's really not a clear standard for anything that isn't considered proper journalism, so is the fact that Netflix has a disclaimer at the end of every episode enough to cover them or not??

Even if she doesn't win, will a new standard develop?

I'm very curious.
I'm not a lawyer and I have no real idea.  However, Netflix is a huge corporation that produces tons of content.   I'd be very surprised if Netflix's attorneys' didn't evaluate the possibility of lawsuits prior to production.   I assume there are generally accepted standards for how to safely portray real people in a semi-fictional setting.

You might assume, but I can't say I've ever seen a kind of true show about an identifiable stalker who was never charged.

I'm not a lawyer either and I don't know what the details are around portraying someone real in a TV drama, but where this case is interesting is that it's both real and not real at the same time. It pushes the limits of both what you can consider real and what you can consider fiction.

Fresh Bread

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3611
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #69 on: June 10, 2024, 08:51:09 PM »
The BBC have standards / guidelines around this. They would have had to change her appearance, where she's from etc etc so she would not be identifiable. It's surely partly for legal reasons even though suing is not common in the UK. I'm amazed that Netflix doesn't have a process for lawyers to vet true story type stuff but I guess they'll get a system in place now!

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7661
  • Location: U.S. expat
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #70 on: June 11, 2024, 04:46:37 AM »
From what I've gathered, Fiona Harvey's (real-life Martha) lawyers ran criminal background checks on her (and any aliases) that came up clean.  She has not been convicted of anything.

Apparently Fiona Harvey stalked Laura Wray, and there was an "interim interdict" (used as a restraining order in Scotland) issued to end the stalking.  That contradicts Fiona Harvey's interview, where she claimed that document doesn't exist (Piers Morgan had it in front of him, when he interviewed Laura Wray).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U1bb4F9CSs

Years ago, Laura Wray didn't sue Fiona Harvey for defamation because Fiona was broke.  If Fiona Harvey has negligible income, how would that add up to $170 million USD?

I think Fiona has to show that false parts of the series caused her $170M worth of damages.  There seems to be multiple accounts of Fiona Harvey harassing people, sometimes rising to the level of stalking.  If she really stalked people, and Netflix portrayed that, that doesn't sound like defamation (under U.S. law, where the case is filed).  So the other claims (sexual assault of Gadd, criminal conviction) would need to add up to $170M of damages.

Both parties will look bad in court, so I still think this gets settled.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5232
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #71 on: June 11, 2024, 09:48:55 AM »
Listening to some of the Fiona Harvey Piers Morgan interview, there is no doubt that this woman has some sort of mental issue.  She seems overly sure of her 'facts' although Morgan continued to press her on how ridiculous her claims were (e.g. about only sending a handful of emails and texts).  Even he pointed out how easy it will be, in a court of law, to establish that she had, in fact, sent 'stalking levels' of texts to Gadd...  But Fiona's lawyers are sharp enough to know they can fire a $170M shot over the Netflix bow and get 33 - 40% of the $85M that Netflix will offer without Fiona ever having to make a very messy court appearance... 

But if Fiona Harvey does go to court, I will be following that even more eagerly than I followed 'Baby Reindeer'! 

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4195
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #72 on: June 11, 2024, 10:20:35 AM »
But Fiona's lawyers are sharp enough to know they can fire a $170M shot over the Netflix bow and get 33 - 40% of the $85M that Netflix will offer without Fiona ever having to make a very messy court appearance... 

I would be surprised if she even gets seven figures.  Her argument seems to be she is just a regular stalker and not a convicted stalker.      Did she lose a job or lose reputation because people assumed she was a convicted stalker instead of a regular stalker?   Being harassed online certainly can't be pleasant, but it is hard to argue it is $170 million worth of unpleasant.  And she doesn't seem to have taken affirmative steps to defend her name and reputation.  For example, by deleting her social media posts (which is how she was identified).   Then she chose to draw attention to herself by doing interviews, claiming she was the real life person Martha was based on.  But Netflix and Gadd haven't confirmed that.   Most of us, and myself certainly, would have never heard of her except for the lawsuit.   

The way these things usually work is that it is often cheaper to settle lawsuits than fight them.  So I predict Netflix will calculate how it will cost to fight it, and offer up some number lower than that, and Harvey's lawyers will be glad to take it because it costs them a lot to pursue the case too.   


Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20613
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #73 on: June 11, 2024, 10:26:45 AM »
But Fiona's lawyers are sharp enough to know they can fire a $170M shot over the Netflix bow and get 33 - 40% of the $85M that Netflix will offer without Fiona ever having to make a very messy court appearance... 

I would be surprised if she even gets seven figures.  Her argument seems to be she is just a regular stalker and not a convicted stalker.      Did she lose a job or lose reputation because people assumed she was a convicted stalker instead of a regular stalker?   Being harassed online certainly can't be pleasant, but it is hard to argue it is $170 million worth of unpleasant.  And she doesn't seem to have taken affirmative steps to defend her name and reputation.  For example, by deleting her social media posts (which is how she was identified).   Then she chose to draw attention to herself by doing interviews, claiming she was the real life person Martha was based on.  But Netflix and Gadd haven't confirmed that.   Most of us, and myself certainly, would have never heard of her except for the lawsuit.   

The way these things usually work is that it is often cheaper to settle lawsuits than fight them.  So I predict Netflix will calculate how it will cost to fight it, and offer up some number lower than that, and Harvey's lawyers will be glad to take it because it costs them a lot to pursue the case too.   

She was found online, but when she got major attention was when she outed herself to a british journalist, who she then frickin' stalked.

GilesMM

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2538
  • Location: PNW
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #74 on: June 11, 2024, 10:29:01 AM »
But Fiona's lawyers are sharp enough to know they can fire a $170M shot over the Netflix bow and get 33 - 40% of the $85M that Netflix will offer without Fiona ever having to make a very messy court appearance... 

I would be surprised if she even gets seven figures.  Her argument seems to be she is just a regular stalker and not a convicted stalker.      Did she lose a job or lose reputation because people assumed she was a convicted stalker instead of a regular stalker?   Being harassed online certainly can't be pleasant, but it is hard to argue it is $170 million worth of unpleasant.  And she doesn't seem to have taken affirmative steps to defend her name and reputation.  For example, by deleting her social media posts (which is how she was identified).   Then she chose to draw attention to herself by doing interviews, claiming she was the real life person Martha was based on.  But Netflix and Gadd haven't confirmed that.   Most of us, and myself certainly, would have never heard of her except for the lawsuit.   

The way these things usually work is that it is often cheaper to settle lawsuits than fight them.  So I predict Netflix will calculate how it will cost to fight it, and offer up some number lower than that, and Harvey's lawyers will be glad to take it because it costs them a lot to pursue the case too.   


Most large companies do not bow to frivolous lawsuits as that simply invites more of them.  They will fight with in house and hired attorneys up until it seems very likely they could lose a jury trial at which time they may offer to settle.  In the mean time, they can stall and litigate and basically win by running up the tab for the plaintiff and their attorneys.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20613
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #75 on: June 11, 2024, 11:01:21 AM »
But Fiona's lawyers are sharp enough to know they can fire a $170M shot over the Netflix bow and get 33 - 40% of the $85M that Netflix will offer without Fiona ever having to make a very messy court appearance... 

I would be surprised if she even gets seven figures.  Her argument seems to be she is just a regular stalker and not a convicted stalker.      Did she lose a job or lose reputation because people assumed she was a convicted stalker instead of a regular stalker?   Being harassed online certainly can't be pleasant, but it is hard to argue it is $170 million worth of unpleasant.  And she doesn't seem to have taken affirmative steps to defend her name and reputation.  For example, by deleting her social media posts (which is how she was identified).   Then she chose to draw attention to herself by doing interviews, claiming she was the real life person Martha was based on.  But Netflix and Gadd haven't confirmed that.   Most of us, and myself certainly, would have never heard of her except for the lawsuit.   

The way these things usually work is that it is often cheaper to settle lawsuits than fight them.  So I predict Netflix will calculate how it will cost to fight it, and offer up some number lower than that, and Harvey's lawyers will be glad to take it because it costs them a lot to pursue the case too.   


Most large companies do not bow to frivolous lawsuits as that simply invites more of them.  They will fight with in house and hired attorneys up until it seems very likely they could lose a jury trial at which time they may offer to settle.  In the mean time, they can stall and litigate and basically win by running up the tab for the plaintiff and their attorneys.

Yup.

I've been on the Fiona side of a lawsuit except that it was obvious that my case would win in court, and it was like a bare knuckle brawl to get to a settlement. Large corporations can and will do batshit crazy things to wear down the other side.

For someone as deeply sensitive and mentally ill as Fiona, litigation is likely to be absolute hell, and then she'll probably have to sign an NDA to get any kind of settlement, which again, because she's so sensitive and mentally ill, she won't likely be able to abide by.

 

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4195
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #76 on: June 11, 2024, 12:20:35 PM »
Most large companies do not bow to frivolous lawsuits as that simply invites more of them.  They will fight with in house and hired attorneys up until it seems very likely they could lose a jury trial at which time they may offer to settle.  In the mean time, they can stall and litigate and basically win by running up the tab for the plaintiff and their attorneys.

I don't know that this is completely frivolous.   On a certain level she has some legitimate grounds for a complaint.   Not great grounds in my view, but not zero either.   I'll lay down a marker, this case will get settled before it gets to close to a jury.    Most cases do.   

An article I read about this case gave an example of a somewhat similar case.  An attorney in the Central Park Five case was portrayed in an unflattering manner using her real name in a Netflix production of the story.   The case was settled.  Netflix made a $1 million charitable donation, and the attorney got nothing.   

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7661
  • Location: U.S. expat
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #77 on: June 11, 2024, 03:04:35 PM »
I've been on the Fiona side of a lawsuit except that it was obvious that my case would win in court, and it was like a bare knuckle brawl to get to a settlement. Large corporations can and will do batshit crazy things to wear down the other side.
Netflix is getting priceless free publicity - dragging it out could be profitable for them.


For someone as deeply sensitive and mentally ill as Fiona, litigation is likely to be absolute hell, and then she'll probably have to sign an NDA to get any kind of settlement, which again, because she's so sensitive and mentally ill, she won't likely be able to abide by.
People outside this forum are diagnosing Fiona Harvey from afar, which violates ethics of the American Psychiatric Association.  Realistically, violating ethics in this manner probably doesn't get punished.  But it does bias the discussion when only those violating ethics are offering a psychiatrist's opinion of Fiona Harvey (who isn't their patient).

"APA Calls for End to 'Armchair' Psychiatry"
...
(start of 2nd paragraph)
"The ethical principle, in place since 1973, guides physician members of the APA to refrain from publicly issuing professional medical opinions about individuals that they have not personally evaluated in a professional setting or context."
https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/apa-calls-for-end-to-armchair-psychiatry


MustacheAndaHalf

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7661
  • Location: U.S. expat
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #78 on: June 11, 2024, 03:38:25 PM »
An article I read about this case gave an example of a somewhat similar case.  An attorney in the Central Park Five case was portrayed in an unflattering manner using her real name in a Netflix production of the story.   The case was settled.  Netflix made a $1 million charitable donation, and the attorney got nothing.

It's interesting to compare that case against this one.  That attorney was actually a Manhattan prosecutor, who I assume dealt with murders in her day job, often seeing horrific images of crime scenes.  Showing a person like that suffered mental distress may be more difficult - it might have mattered in the settlement.
https://apnews.com/article/netflix-central-park-five-lawsuit-duvernay-33e090919d183c32537cc952ef3031ff

In a lawsuit, any evidence of Fiona Harvey's prior mental illness would help her in the case.  It would show she is more vulnerable to death threats and online abuse.  What is less clear is how a jury would view her lying, so I assume her lawyers will want to portray all negative traits as part of mental illness made worse by her treatment by the public.

GilesMM

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2538
  • Location: PNW
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #79 on: June 11, 2024, 09:12:06 PM »
.....
People outside this forum are diagnosing Fiona Harvey from afar, which violates ethics of the American Psychiatric Association.  Realistically, violating ethics in this manner probably doesn't get punished.  But it does bias the discussion when only those violating ethics are offering a psychiatrist's opinion of Fiona Harvey (who isn't their patient).
...


It is the internet. We are free to diagnose Fiona based on a tv show and a couple news clippings, then legally quarterback her lawsuit and spitball it against another one we saw headlined once.  We have all the answers right here!  Just post your questions.

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7661
  • Location: U.S. expat
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #80 on: June 12, 2024, 08:48:57 AM »
.....
People outside this forum are diagnosing Fiona Harvey from afar, which violates ethics of the American Psychiatric Association.  Realistically, violating ethics in this manner probably doesn't get punished.  But it does bias the discussion when only those violating ethics are offering a psychiatrist's opinion of Fiona Harvey (who isn't their patient).
...

It is the internet. We are free to diagnose Fiona based on a tv show and a couple news clippings, then legally quarterback her lawsuit and spitball it against another one we saw headlined once.  We have all the answers right here!  Just post your questions.

To clarify, I meant psychiatrists (see "physician members of the APA", re-quoted below), but I did not want another poster in this thread to think I was targeting them, specifically.

"APA Calls for End to 'Armchair' Psychiatry"
...
(start of 2nd paragraph)
"The ethical principle, in place since 1973, guides physician members of the APA to refrain from publicly issuing professional medical opinions about individuals that they have not personally evaluated in a professional setting or context."
https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/apa-calls-for-end-to-armchair-psychiatry

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20613
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #81 on: June 12, 2024, 12:48:35 PM »
.....
People outside this forum are diagnosing Fiona Harvey from afar, which violates ethics of the American Psychiatric Association.  Realistically, violating ethics in this manner probably doesn't get punished.  But it does bias the discussion when only those violating ethics are offering a psychiatrist's opinion of Fiona Harvey (who isn't their patient).
...

It is the internet. We are free to diagnose Fiona based on a tv show and a couple news clippings, then legally quarterback her lawsuit and spitball it against another one we saw headlined once.  We have all the answers right here!  Just post your questions.

To clarify, I meant psychiatrists (see "physician members of the APA", re-quoted below), but I did not want another poster in this thread to think I was targeting them, specifically.

"APA Calls for End to 'Armchair' Psychiatry"
...
(start of 2nd paragraph)
"The ethical principle, in place since 1973, guides physician members of the APA to refrain from publicly issuing professional medical opinions about individuals that they have not personally evaluated in a professional setting or context."
https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/apa-calls-for-end-to-armchair-psychiatry

If you mean me, I didn't feel targeted.

I also don't diagnose anyone beyond observing frankly self-evident presence of mental illness of unspecified form. And given the number of unrelated people who have given a consistent account of her stalking behaviours, the presence of Fiona's mental illness is absolutely frank and self-evident.

Beyond that, yes, armchair diagnosing is wildly unethical, especially in this case since the person is clearly going to see it and appears to be unstable, likely untreated/unsupported, and highly reactive to how she is seen and portrayed.

I can't imagine any mental health professional legitimately looking at this case and thinking "If I exploit this for clout in the media, I won't be causing her harm."

Now, there is an argument to be said for discussing the kind of behaviours she is displaying, for discussing the kind of harm that it can cause, for better understanding it. But we have very little access to objective information about her other than through other people's interpretations of events, and an interview that she gave under extreme emotional stress.

So while there is a lot of useful and helpful mental health discourse to be had around this case, it's hard to imagine any specific armchair diagnosis serving any purpose other than the enrich an influencer/mental health professional.

I see a lot of these mental health professional influencers online who do reaction videos to reality shows, and while a lot of the discussions they have are insightful and valid, again, I question how they can possibly look at themselves in the mirror and believe that they haven't harmed the subjects of their commentary, knowing that these are extraordinarily emotionally vulnerable people, because frankly, mentally healthy folks don't generally sign up for and get selected for reality tv.

So yeah, I have a lot of discomfort with the way mental health influencers engage with content about real people who aren't their clients, especially since if they were their clients, they wouldn't be able to speak about them publicly.

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7661
  • Location: U.S. expat
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #82 on: June 13, 2024, 02:18:00 AM »
Yes, I wanted to avoid targeting you.

"Baby Reindeer" has been watched 85 million times, making it one of the most-watched Netflix shows (#10) of all time.  I suspect my reaction, being bothered by the main character's lying, is an outlier.  Most people focus on him being a victim, and how vulnerable he makes himself in sharing his story.

I assume lawyers for Netflix and Fiona Harvey (real-life Martha) will consider how a jury trial might proceed, even if they ultimately settle.  On the stand, I don't know if Fiona Harvey would be viewed in a sympathetic light; viewed as not being trustworthy; or mixture of the two.

Laura Wray's interview (linked above) covered her experience of being stalked by Fiona Harvey.  Laura Wray tolerated her answering machine being filled up daily by Fiona Harvey.  She dealt with lies spread by Fiona Harvey aimed at hurting her reputation.  But a false accusation of child abuse (by Fiona Harvey) went too far, so Laura Wray applied for an "interdict" (restraining order).  After Fiona Harvey failed to submit any legal paperwork, the order took effect, and Fiona Harvey stopped stalking her.

That interview does give more credibility to Richard Gadd's claims about excessive emails, text messages, and phone calls.  I'm inclined to think Fiona Harvey isn't very sympathetic.  A jury could look at her as a perpetrator - someone who stalks others to get what she wants.  (If she can't control it, why did she stop because of a restraining order?)  Her delusions about love might be compelling, but when her lies are self-serving that probably doesn't look good to a jury.


We have all the answers right here!  Just post your questions.
I'll take the bait: how do you think real-life Martha would be viewed by a jury?

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7661
  • Location: U.S. expat
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #83 on: June 13, 2024, 02:32:06 AM »
...  Fiona's lawyers are sharp enough to know they can fire a $170M shot over the Netflix bow and get 33 - 40% of the $85M that Netflix will offer without Fiona ever having to make a very messy court appearance... 
I found legal definitions of defamation, but Wikipedia is easier to read (*).  If someone makes a true statement, in the U.S. that is not defamation.  Anything that was true in the series cannot be part of the lawsuit.  How much worse is someone going to prison, if they are already known to be a stalker?  My guess is the settlement needs to be proportional to that incremental bit of defamation.

(*) "Truth is an absolute defense against defamation in the United States,[1] meaning true statements cannot be defamatory."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20613
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #84 on: June 13, 2024, 03:34:51 AM »
Yes, I wanted to avoid targeting you.

"Baby Reindeer" has been watched 85 million times, making it one of the most-watched Netflix shows (#10) of all time.  I suspect my reaction, being bothered by the main character's lying, is an outlier.  Most people focus on him being a victim, and how vulnerable he makes himself in sharing his story.

I assume lawyers for Netflix and Fiona Harvey (real-life Martha) will consider how a jury trial might proceed, even if they ultimately settle.  On the stand, I don't know if Fiona Harvey would be viewed in a sympathetic light; viewed as not being trustworthy; or mixture of the two.

Laura Wray's interview (linked above) covered her experience of being stalked by Fiona Harvey.  Laura Wray tolerated her answering machine being filled up daily by Fiona Harvey.  She dealt with lies spread by Fiona Harvey aimed at hurting her reputation.  But a false accusation of child abuse (by Fiona Harvey) went too far, so Laura Wray applied for an "interdict" (restraining order).  After Fiona Harvey failed to submit any legal paperwork, the order took effect, and Fiona Harvey stopped stalking her.

That interview does give more credibility to Richard Gadd's claims about excessive emails, text messages, and phone calls.  I'm inclined to think Fiona Harvey isn't very sympathetic.  A jury could look at her as a perpetrator - someone who stalks others to get what she wants.  (If she can't control it, why did she stop because of a restraining order?)  Her delusions about love might be compelling, but when her lies are self-serving that probably doesn't look good to a jury.


We have all the answers right here!  Just post your questions.
I'll take the bait: how do you think real-life Martha would be viewed by a jury?

To be clear, I was bothered by a lot about Gadd, but the fact that he was so transparent about his own profoundly embarrassing faults is what I found to be quite remarkable. I mean, he plays himself and makes himself look very, very bad.

He also had profound psychological damage, which is blatantly self-evident, but the contrast between his self-portrayal as extremely willing to look bad vs Fiona's where she's so extremely self-aggrandizing is pretty interesting.

Gad wasn't in a reality TV show where we saw him lie repeatedly. He wrote a show about himself with substantial creative license and chose not to make himself look good AND chose to make "Martha" look quite sympathetic.

The actress who plays her makes it clear that the goal was never to make Martha a villain, she's supposed to be a severely psychologically damaged, highly vulnerable, dangerously unstable, but eminently sympathetic character.

The story is about two people suffering the toxic interactions of two horribly untreated cases of profound mental illness.

As a mental health professional, this is actually what I deal with most. People who have untreated mental illness are drawn to other people with untreated mental illness, and most people are harmed by their own mental illness through the interpersonal dynamics they have with those other people.

Various forms of intimacy between damaged people is the main mechanism by which mental illness hurts people.

I found the show a very, very honest representation of how two people with untreated and serious psychological issues interacted in a way that produced horrible results.

Gad is not a perfect victim and Fiona is not a perfect villain, they're both extremely human, extremely vulnerable people, and I thought the show did a fantastic job of portraying that, which is why so many people are describing it as an incredibly accurate portrayal of trauma.

People with psychological damage don't tend to behave "well," that's pretty much the whole point of the show.

charis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3322
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #85 on: June 13, 2024, 05:58:40 AM »
If she really stalked people, and Netflix portrayed that, that doesn't sound like defamation (under U.S. law, where the case is filed).  So the other claims (sexual assault of Gadd, criminal conviction) would need to add up to $170M of damages.

Both parties will look bad in court, so I still think this gets settled.

Why would the sexual assault of Gadd have any bearing on defamation of "Martha"? Or anyone else for that matter.  Even if it were untrue, which you seem to believe for reasons I don't follow, no one is defamed in the fictionalized telling of it, least of all Martha.

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7661
  • Location: U.S. expat
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #86 on: June 13, 2024, 08:18:02 AM »
If she really stalked people, and Netflix portrayed that, that doesn't sound like defamation (under U.S. law, where the case is filed).  So the other claims (sexual assault of Gadd, criminal conviction) would need to add up to $170M of damages.

Both parties will look bad in court, so I still think this gets settled.

Why would the sexual assault of Gadd have any bearing on defamation of "Martha"? Or anyone else for that matter.  Even if it were untrue, which you seem to believe for reasons I don't follow, no one is defamed in the fictionalized telling of it, least of all Martha.
I think you're confusing one of the sexual assaults (his comedy writing mentor) with the other (Martha lying in wait for him at night, grabbing his crotch).  If the story shows Martha committing sexual assault, but she didn't, that could be defamation.

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7661
  • Location: U.S. expat
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #87 on: June 13, 2024, 08:55:39 AM »
That interview does give more credibility to Richard Gadd's claims about excessive emails, text messages, and phone calls.  I'm inclined to think Fiona Harvey isn't very sympathetic.  A jury could look at her as a perpetrator - someone who stalks others to get what she wants.  (If she can't control it, why did she stop because of a restraining order?)  Her delusions about love might be compelling, but when her lies are self-serving that probably doesn't look good to a jury.

To be clear, I was bothered by a lot about Gadd, but the fact that he was so transparent about his own profoundly embarrassing faults is what I found to be quite remarkable. I mean, he plays himself and makes himself look very, very bad.

He also had profound psychological damage, which is blatantly self-evident, but the contrast between his self-portrayal as extremely willing to look bad vs Fiona's where she's so extremely self-aggrandizing is pretty interesting.

Gad wasn't in a reality TV show where we saw him lie repeatedly. He wrote a show about himself with substantial creative license and chose not to make himself look good AND chose to make "Martha" look quite sympathetic.

The actress who plays her makes it clear that the goal was never to make Martha a villain, she's supposed to be a severely psychologically damaged, highly vulnerable, dangerously unstable, but eminently sympathetic character.

The story is about two people suffering the toxic interactions of two horribly untreated cases of profound mental illness.

As a mental health professional, this is actually what I deal with most. People who have untreated mental illness are drawn to other people with untreated mental illness, and most people are harmed by their own mental illness through the interpersonal dynamics they have with those other people.

Various forms of intimacy between damaged people is the main mechanism by which mental illness hurts people.

I found the show a very, very honest representation of how two people with untreated and serious psychological issues interacted in a way that produced horrible results.

Gad is not a perfect victim and Fiona is not a perfect villain, they're both extremely human, extremely vulnerable people, and I thought the show did a fantastic job of portraying that, which is why so many people are describing it as an incredibly accurate portrayal of trauma.

People with psychological damage don't tend to behave "well," that's pretty much the whole point of the show.
The characters in "Baby Reindeer" were located immediately because of how little effort was made to fictionalize events.  The characters location in Scotland wasn't changed.  When Fiona Harvey stalked Laura Wray in Scotland, that made front page news (decades ago).  Re-using the exact same details of a front page news story is hardly fiction.  Same with tweets or posts Fiona Harvey made on social media, which were shown verbatim in the series.  Events matched reality very closely, which is reinforced by the "true story" Netflix used in advertising and in the preamble.  Maybe Gadd can argue otherwise, and use what you mentioned of fictional character names, but compared to how closely events match reality I don't think that will fly in court.

I'm not convinced he did the same for the head comedy writer who he accuses of rape.  Either he always goes to sleep when he does drugs, or his distorting events, and pretending any time he forgets is him waking up.  That's the difference between starting to have sex and forgetting it (drug-fueled memory lapse), versus waking up to sexual assault.  He later says this man groomed him, despite Gadd being about 30 years old at the time.  There's enough problems with his telling - and it is only his version of events - that I am suspicious he distorted things to remove any possibility he wasn't a victim, or anything mitigating for the other gay man (who never asked Gadd if he's gay in the story, which I find unbelievable).

On some TV show, Richard Gadd pointed to a significant surge in people reporting their stalkers to police.  He's proud of that, as I think he should be.  He can certainly take credit for that - for writing a hit series that raised awareness of stalking and how it can progress.  For making people more aware of what events could be stalking, which people might have written off as something else.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20613
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #88 on: June 13, 2024, 09:19:55 AM »
That interview does give more credibility to Richard Gadd's claims about excessive emails, text messages, and phone calls.  I'm inclined to think Fiona Harvey isn't very sympathetic.  A jury could look at her as a perpetrator - someone who stalks others to get what she wants.  (If she can't control it, why did she stop because of a restraining order?)  Her delusions about love might be compelling, but when her lies are self-serving that probably doesn't look good to a jury.

To be clear, I was bothered by a lot about Gadd, but the fact that he was so transparent about his own profoundly embarrassing faults is what I found to be quite remarkable. I mean, he plays himself and makes himself look very, very bad.

He also had profound psychological damage, which is blatantly self-evident, but the contrast between his self-portrayal as extremely willing to look bad vs Fiona's where she's so extremely self-aggrandizing is pretty interesting.

Gad wasn't in a reality TV show where we saw him lie repeatedly. He wrote a show about himself with substantial creative license and chose not to make himself look good AND chose to make "Martha" look quite sympathetic.

The actress who plays her makes it clear that the goal was never to make Martha a villain, she's supposed to be a severely psychologically damaged, highly vulnerable, dangerously unstable, but eminently sympathetic character.

The story is about two people suffering the toxic interactions of two horribly untreated cases of profound mental illness.

As a mental health professional, this is actually what I deal with most. People who have untreated mental illness are drawn to other people with untreated mental illness, and most people are harmed by their own mental illness through the interpersonal dynamics they have with those other people.

Various forms of intimacy between damaged people is the main mechanism by which mental illness hurts people.

I found the show a very, very honest representation of how two people with untreated and serious psychological issues interacted in a way that produced horrible results.

Gad is not a perfect victim and Fiona is not a perfect villain, they're both extremely human, extremely vulnerable people, and I thought the show did a fantastic job of portraying that, which is why so many people are describing it as an incredibly accurate portrayal of trauma.

People with psychological damage don't tend to behave "well," that's pretty much the whole point of the show.
The characters in "Baby Reindeer" were located immediately because of how little effort was made to fictionalize events.  The characters location in Scotland wasn't changed.  When Fiona Harvey stalked Laura Wray in Scotland, that made front page news (decades ago).  Re-using the exact same details of a front page news story is hardly fiction.  Same with tweets or posts Fiona Harvey made on social media, which were shown verbatim in the series.  Events matched reality very closely, which is reinforced by the "true story" Netflix used in advertising and in the preamble.  Maybe Gadd can argue otherwise, and use what you mentioned of fictional character names, but compared to how closely events match reality I don't think that will fly in court.

I'm not convinced he did the same for the head comedy writer who he accuses of rape.  Either he always goes to sleep when he does drugs, or his distorting events, and pretending any time he forgets is him waking up.  That's the difference between starting to have sex and forgetting it (drug-fueled memory lapse), versus waking up to sexual assault.  He later says this man groomed him, despite Gadd being about 30 years old at the time.  There's enough problems with his telling - and it is only his version of events - that I am suspicious he distorted things to remove any possibility he wasn't a victim, or anything mitigating for the other gay man (who never asked Gadd if he's gay in the story, which I find unbelievable).

On some TV show, Richard Gadd pointed to a significant surge in people reporting their stalkers to police.  He's proud of that, as I think he should be.  He can certainly take credit for that - for writing a hit series that raised awareness of stalking and how it can progress.  For making people more aware of what events could be stalking, which people might have written off as something else.

I'm not at all arguing that Gad didn't fuck up, I agree that he did.

I just am kind of fascinated by the specifics that you are bothered by.

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4195
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #89 on: June 13, 2024, 10:02:23 AM »
I'm not convinced he did the same for the head comedy writer who he accuses of rape.  Either he always goes to sleep when he does drugs, or his distorting events, and pretending any time he forgets is him waking up.  That's the difference between starting to have sex and forgetting it (drug-fueled memory lapse), versus waking up to sexual assault.  He later says this man groomed him, despite Gadd being about 30 years old at the time.  There's enough problems with his telling - and it is only his version of events - that I am suspicious he distorted things to remove any possibility he wasn't a victim, or anything mitigating for the other gay man (who never asked Gadd if he's gay in the story, which I find unbelievable).

Donny's comedy act was bombing but after after he started working with Darrien the jokes were landing and the bar the was packed.   Darrien gave Donny GHB and sexually assaulted him.   Donny realized what happened afterwards but kept going back because he viewed Darrien as a mentor and wanted his approval. Similarly, at times he enabled Martha's stalking and would masturbate thinking about her because she thought he was funny and handsome which his how he wanted to see himself.

Donny wasn't innocent.   He definitely played a role in enabling his abusers and he could not understand why.    I think that's why the show is such a hit because that's how abuse works in real life, but that's not how it is normally portrayed in popular culture. 

charis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3322
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #90 on: June 13, 2024, 10:39:49 AM »
If she really stalked people, and Netflix portrayed that, that doesn't sound like defamation (under U.S. law, where the case is filed).  So the other claims (sexual assault of Gadd, criminal conviction) would need to add up to $170M of damages.

Both parties will look bad in court, so I still think this gets settled.

Why would the sexual assault of Gadd have any bearing on defamation of "Martha"? Or anyone else for that matter.  Even if it were untrue, which you seem to believe for reasons I don't follow, no one is defamed in the fictionalized telling of it, least of all Martha.
I think you're confusing one of the sexual assaults (his comedy writing mentor) with the other (Martha lying in wait for him at night, grabbing his crotch).  If the story shows Martha committing sexual assault, but she didn't, that could be defamation.

Ah correct.  I don't recall that Martha incident.  But I guess I don't follow why you think Gadd is lying about everything because one falsity in the show - the conviction - has been pointed out.  From what I gather, there's much more evidence that "Martha" has a history of lying than Gadd.  Do you know something about him and a history of dishonesty that the general population doesn't?

He later says this man groomed him, despite Gadd being about 30 years old at the time.  There's enough problems with his telling - and it is only his version of events - that I am suspicious he distorted things to remove any possibility he wasn't a victim, or anything mitigating for the other gay man (who never asked Gadd if he's gay in the story, which I find unbelievable).

Your posts seem to show a very black and white view of victimization and sexual orientation.  Which might explain why you are viewing the show differently than most people.  I get that, it can be difficult to understand how a grown adult can "allow" themselves to be abused by another adult.  But that's kind of the crux of the story.  Accommodating abuse is a common reaction to being abused. 

I wouldn't fixate on his use of the term "groom." Yes, it's often used in the context of children being groomed by adults.  However, there's no age limit - adults can be abused by other adults via grooming, and intoxication and drug use is a very common strategy for abusers.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20613
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #91 on: June 13, 2024, 11:17:53 AM »
I'm not convinced he did the same for the head comedy writer who he accuses of rape.  Either he always goes to sleep when he does drugs, or his distorting events, and pretending any time he forgets is him waking up.  That's the difference between starting to have sex and forgetting it (drug-fueled memory lapse), versus waking up to sexual assault.  He later says this man groomed him, despite Gadd being about 30 years old at the time.  There's enough problems with his telling - and it is only his version of events - that I am suspicious he distorted things to remove any possibility he wasn't a victim, or anything mitigating for the other gay man (who never asked Gadd if he's gay in the story, which I find unbelievable).

Donny's comedy act was bombing but after after he started working with Darrien the jokes were landing and the bar the was packed.   Darrien gave Donny GHB and sexually assaulted him.   Donny realized what happened afterwards but kept going back because he viewed Darrien as a mentor and wanted his approval. Similarly, at times he enabled Martha's stalking and would masturbate thinking about her because she thought he was funny and handsome which his how he wanted to see himself.

Donny wasn't innocent.   He definitely played a role in enabling his abusers and he could not understand why.    I think that's why the show is such a hit because that's how abuse works in real life, but that's not how it is normally portrayed in popular culture.

Exactly this. It's resonating because it's so authentic to real people's lived experiences. This is why Gad describes it as true to his emotional experience, not true to the facts of the case.

Now whether that flies in court is another matter, but I get why Gad artistically constructed the show as he did.

Netflix dropped the ball on the legal front, I would say. Someone should have seen the litigation risk and reigned in Gad in some important areas, but when seen from the perspective of an artist trying to show lived trauma and the deeply disturbing behaviours that result from it, it's fucking SPOT ON.

I especially appreciated how honestly he portrayed the sexualization of his abusers. This is virtually NEVER portrayed in media and yet it's so unbelievably common for SA victims to hyper sexually fixate on their abusers or people like them.

Audiences aren't comfortable seeing SA victims sexually fantasize about their attackers or their experience. They are much more psychologically comfortable seeing the victims express disgust, sadness, or what they think PTSD looks like. When really, sometimes the intrusive thoughts of PTSD are highly erotic and create a compulsive erotic drive around the assault.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone but Gad portray this so accurately.

SA victims often feel enormous shame and self-disgust because their experience looks nothing like it's shown in the media.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2024, 11:23:44 AM by Metalcat »

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5232
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #92 on: June 13, 2024, 03:25:16 PM »
To be honest, what is interesting to me is that it turned out to be Fiona Harvey suing Netflix out of all of this.  After I watched the show, I really thought we should get rape charges for the executive Gadd had basically implicated in this 'true story'.  I still wonder how it is that this individual was never identified and yet Fiona was uncovered within a day of searching.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20613
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #93 on: June 13, 2024, 05:00:35 PM »
To be honest, what is interesting to me is that it turned out to be Fiona Harvey suing Netflix out of all of this.  After I watched the show, I really thought we should get rape charges for the executive Gadd had basically implicated in this 'true story'.  I still wonder how it is that this individual was never identified and yet Fiona was uncovered within a day of searching.

He definitely took more pains to protect the rapist than Fiona, and that's pretty egregious, IMO.

When I found out just how easily Fiona was found because of the highly, highly emphasized curtain hanging comment, which was still publicly visible on her Twitter with him tagged...like fuck, that's bad.

But also rapist dudes in positions of power in entertainment are also just so unbelievably, predictably kind of generic. Also they tend to have so many folks wrapped up in NDAs and they cover their own tracks really well.

Fiona wouldn't cover her tracks because in her mind she's never done anything wrong. It's easy to find folks who aren't trying to hide their behaviours.

ETA: that said, the character could also be a compilation of people, although I did read one article that quoted someone who was saying that in the UK comedy scene, who the guy is is an open secret. Whether that's at all reliable, who knows. But there are open secret predators in just about every arena of power.

I called out the blatant sexual predators in my doctoral program quite vocally and was dismissed repeatedly because the dean was one of them. They're ubiquitous and very well shielded.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2024, 05:03:58 PM by Metalcat »

Fresh Bread

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3611
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #94 on: June 13, 2024, 05:14:41 PM »
I think it was Richard Osman who said something like 'everyone knows who he is'. Everyone knew about Jimmy Saville - even my mum who was not in the entertainment world one iota said, when he was visiting a local hospital, 'no you don't want to meet him, apparently he's not nice', but no-one spoke out.

Edit to add: Gadd's abuser must be someone with significant power surely then.

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7661
  • Location: U.S. expat
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #95 on: June 14, 2024, 01:29:58 AM »
I'm not convinced he did the same for the head comedy writer who he accuses of rape.  Either he always goes to sleep when he does drugs, or his distorting events, and pretending any time he forgets is him waking up.  That's the difference between starting to have sex and forgetting it (drug-fueled memory lapse), versus waking up to sexual assault.  He later says this man groomed him, despite Gadd being about 30 years old at the time.  There's enough problems with his telling - and it is only his version of events - that I am suspicious he distorted things to remove any possibility he wasn't a victim, or anything mitigating for the other gay man (who never asked Gadd if he's gay in the story, which I find unbelievable).

Donny's comedy act was bombing but after after he started working with Darrien the jokes were landing and the bar the was packed.   Darrien gave Donny GHB and sexually assaulted him.   Donny realized what happened afterwards but kept going back because he viewed Darrien as a mentor and wanted his approval. Similarly, at times he enabled Martha's stalking and would masturbate thinking about her because she thought he was funny and handsome which his how he wanted to see himself.

Donny wasn't innocent.   He definitely played a role in enabling his abusers and he could not understand why.    I think that's why the show is such a hit because that's how abuse works in real life, but that's not how it is normally portrayed in popular culture.
Darrien called the combination of GHB and another drug the "highest of highs".  Both of them took GHB, not just Donny.

When Darrien reaches down Donny's pants and starts jerking him off, Donny says "stop", and Darrien immediately stops.  Does that sound like a predator?

Donny portrays Darrien as a Bill Cosby figure who sexually assaults people in their sleep.  I asked myself which is more likely: Darrien is a regular gay man, or a predator.  Given how much Donny lies, I can't accept the story at face value, because Gadd (Donny) wrote the parts for all the characters - he can change the narrative any way he likes.

I think Donny confuses losing memory (side effect of GHB) with waking up (when most people stop feeling continuous time).  Either he is always going to sleep when he takes drugs, or he just has memory gaps.  If it is the former, Darrien is a rapist like Bill Cosby.  If the latter, drugs loosened up two men who had sex, both taking the same drugs.

Another area where I disagree is the value Gadd places on mentorship.  He wants to be famous, which is why he tolerates everything.  At one point he thinks Darrien is lying to him about his chances for fame, and hours later he claims he was raped.  Isn't that timing convenient - that it is only rape when Donny is no longer getting what he wants?

Later in the show, Donny finds a note on the script he wrote: Darrien wrote that the script was amazing.  It appears Donny was wrong to abandon him... and so later, he goes back to Darrien to work with him again.  It's the same thing playing out - when Donny thinks he can get famous, he works with the guy he accused of rape.

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7661
  • Location: U.S. expat
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #96 on: June 14, 2024, 01:36:07 AM »
To be honest, what is interesting to me is that it turned out to be Fiona Harvey suing Netflix out of all of this.  After I watched the show, I really thought we should get rape charges for the executive Gadd had basically implicated in this 'true story'.  I still wonder how it is that this individual was never identified and yet Fiona was uncovered within a day of searching.
According to Laura Fray, she was the first person identified.  A member of parliament's wife getting stalked was a unique event that made front page news in Scotland.  She was the easiest one to locate - some people probably even remembered her name without checking.

That front-page news story also mentioned Fiona Harvey.  I think people identified her from the story, and then verified the connection by looking on social media.

Somewhere I read or saw a video, with the claim people in the industry know the name of that executive.  In the story, he was a head writer of a made-up show... that is much harder to track down.

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7661
  • Location: U.S. expat
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #97 on: June 14, 2024, 01:43:28 AM »
If she really stalked people, and Netflix portrayed that, that doesn't sound like defamation (under U.S. law, where the case is filed).  So the other claims (sexual assault of Gadd, criminal conviction) would need to add up to $170M of damages.

Both parties will look bad in court, so I still think this gets settled.

Why would the sexual assault of Gadd have any bearing on defamation of "Martha"? Or anyone else for that matter.  Even if it were untrue, which you seem to believe for reasons I don't follow, no one is defamed in the fictionalized telling of it, least of all Martha.
I think you're confusing one of the sexual assaults (his comedy writing mentor) with the other (Martha lying in wait for him at night, grabbing his crotch).  If the story shows Martha committing sexual assault, but she didn't, that could be defamation.

Ah correct.  I don't recall that Martha incident.  But I guess I don't follow why you think Gadd is lying about everything because one falsity in the show - the conviction - has been pointed out.  From what I gather, there's much more evidence that "Martha" has a history of lying than Gadd.  Do you know something about him and a history of dishonesty that the general population doesn't?

He later says this man groomed him, despite Gadd being about 30 years old at the time.  There's enough problems with his telling - and it is only his version of events - that I am suspicious he distorted things to remove any possibility he wasn't a victim, or anything mitigating for the other gay man (who never asked Gadd if he's gay in the story, which I find unbelievable).

Your posts seem to show a very black and white view of victimization and sexual orientation.  Which might explain why you are viewing the show differently than most people.  I get that, it can be difficult to understand how a grown adult can "allow" themselves to be abused by another adult.  But that's kind of the crux of the story.  Accommodating abuse is a common reaction to being abused. 

I wouldn't fixate on his use of the term "groom." Yes, it's often used in the context of children being groomed by adults.  However, there's no age limit - adults can be abused by other adults via grooming, and intoxication and drug use is a very common strategy for abusers.
You're claiming Wikipedia is wrong about the definition of sexual grooming?

"Sexual grooming is the action or behavior used to establish an emotional connection with a minor, and sometimes the child's family,[1] to lower the child's inhibitions with the objective of sexual abuse."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_grooming

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20613
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #98 on: June 14, 2024, 04:33:47 AM »
I'm not convinced he did the same for the head comedy writer who he accuses of rape.  Either he always goes to sleep when he does drugs, or his distorting events, and pretending any time he forgets is him waking up.  That's the difference between starting to have sex and forgetting it (drug-fueled memory lapse), versus waking up to sexual assault.  He later says this man groomed him, despite Gadd being about 30 years old at the time.  There's enough problems with his telling - and it is only his version of events - that I am suspicious he distorted things to remove any possibility he wasn't a victim, or anything mitigating for the other gay man (who never asked Gadd if he's gay in the story, which I find unbelievable).

Donny's comedy act was bombing but after after he started working with Darrien the jokes were landing and the bar the was packed.   Darrien gave Donny GHB and sexually assaulted him.   Donny realized what happened afterwards but kept going back because he viewed Darrien as a mentor and wanted his approval. Similarly, at times he enabled Martha's stalking and would masturbate thinking about her because she thought he was funny and handsome which his how he wanted to see himself.

Donny wasn't innocent.   He definitely played a role in enabling his abusers and he could not understand why.    I think that's why the show is such a hit because that's how abuse works in real life, but that's not how it is normally portrayed in popular culture.
Darrien called the combination of GHB and another drug the "highest of highs".  Both of them took GHB, not just Donny.

When Darrien reaches down Donny's pants and starts jerking him off, Donny says "stop", and Darrien immediately stops.  Does that sound like a predator?

Donny portrays Darrien as a Bill Cosby figure who sexually assaults people in their sleep.  I asked myself which is more likely: Darrien is a regular gay man, or a predator.  Given how much Donny lies, I can't accept the story at face value, because Gadd (Donny) wrote the parts for all the characters - he can change the narrative any way he likes.

I think Donny confuses losing memory (side effect of GHB) with waking up (when most people stop feeling continuous time).  Either he is always going to sleep when he takes drugs, or he just has memory gaps.  If it is the former, Darrien is a rapist like Bill Cosby.  If the latter, drugs loosened up two men who had sex, both taking the same drugs.

Another area where I disagree is the value Gadd places on mentorship.  He wants to be famous, which is why he tolerates everything.  At one point he thinks Darrien is lying to him about his chances for fame, and hours later he claims he was raped.  Isn't that timing convenient - that it is only rape when Donny is no longer getting what he wants?

Later in the show, Donny finds a note on the script he wrote: Darrien wrote that the script was amazing.  It appears Donny was wrong to abandon him... and so later, he goes back to Darrien to work with him again.  It's the same thing playing out - when Donny thinks he can get famous, he works with the guy he accused of rape.

All I can say is that after many, many years of working on various contexts with sexual assault victims and being a sexual assault victim myself, I don't have the same reaction as you do.

And I will say again, the response has been overwhelmingly positive that Gad's messy, complicated representation of date rape is incredibly accurate to a lot of people's experiences.

In fact, most victims are left extremely confused as to whether or not they even were assaulted.

I can see how you are conceptualizing this, and it sounds like you don't have a ton of exposure to real life SA victims. Which is why Gad is being so lauded because TV almost never portrays the messy, complex, contradictory, confusing reality of what SA actually looks like and feels like to a lot of victims, or the fucked up ways in which they respond.

Also, I agree, the use of the word grooming may or may not be ideal since people are using it in different ways, which is suboptimal. But the fact persists that predators in power do create situations pretty much identical to how children are groomed by predators.

Perhaps you haven't been in a situation where someone with extreme power in your world decides to target you for abuse. It's an extremely disorienting experience. A big part of it is that they start offering you what you want most and then make it really, really confusing as to what you owe them in return, and they often make it clear that substantial harm can come if you don't comply. All of this is typically done with a veneer of plausible deniability. Sometimes drugs and alcohol are used to create a lot of plausible deniability, but not always. So yes, there are often individual circumstances where an advance will be rejected and the person puts on a display of respecting the rejection. That's part of the process, but they fully intend to proceed once they can create circumstances to do so. ETA: This is why Gad chose to include that scene of Darrien ostensibly appearing to respect boundaries. That was the whole point.

What makes it sexual assault is that the person absolutely does not want to have sexual contact with the person in power, but have ended up in a dynamic where they feel they have no choice, or where they lose capacity to enforce a choice.

Gad's experience strikes you as strange, but it strikes folks who are extremely familiar with this process as downright textbook.

There's a whole range of predators out there. There are the Weinsteins who lure and pounce, the Cosby's who lure and drug, the R Kelly's who lure and imprison, but those are patterns of extremely bold predators who evolved their tactics in an environment of extreme protection.

Most predators in positions of power need to be more subtle than that. The plausible deniability is a huge element of their own survival as serial sexual predators.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2024, 09:24:14 AM by Metalcat »

charis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3322
Re: [SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]
« Reply #99 on: June 14, 2024, 08:18:19 AM »
If she really stalked people, and Netflix portrayed that, that doesn't sound like defamation (under U.S. law, where the case is filed).  So the other claims (sexual assault of Gadd, criminal conviction) would need to add up to $170M of damages.

Both parties will look bad in court, so I still think this gets settled.

Why would the sexual assault of Gadd have any bearing on defamation of "Martha"? Or anyone else for that matter.  Even if it were untrue, which you seem to believe for reasons I don't follow, no one is defamed in the fictionalized telling of it, least of all Martha.
I think you're confusing one of the sexual assaults (his comedy writing mentor) with the other (Martha lying in wait for him at night, grabbing his crotch).  If the story shows Martha committing sexual assault, but she didn't, that could be defamation.

Ah correct.  I don't recall that Martha incident.  But I guess I don't follow why you think Gadd is lying about everything because one falsity in the show - the conviction - has been pointed out.  From what I gather, there's much more evidence that "Martha" has a history of lying than Gadd.  Do you know something about him and a history of dishonesty that the general population doesn't?

He later says this man groomed him, despite Gadd being about 30 years old at the time.  There's enough problems with his telling - and it is only his version of events - that I am suspicious he distorted things to remove any possibility he wasn't a victim, or anything mitigating for the other gay man (who never asked Gadd if he's gay in the story, which I find unbelievable).

Your posts seem to show a very black and white view of victimization and sexual orientation.  Which might explain why you are viewing the show differently than most people.  I get that, it can be difficult to understand how a grown adult can "allow" themselves to be abused by another adult.  But that's kind of the crux of the story.  Accommodating abuse is a common reaction to being abused. 

I wouldn't fixate on his use of the term "groom." Yes, it's often used in the context of children being groomed by adults.  However, there's no age limit - adults can be abused by other adults via grooming, and intoxication and drug use is a very common strategy for abusers.
You're claiming Wikipedia is wrong about the definition of sexual grooming?

"Sexual grooming is the action or behavior used to establish an emotional connection with a minor, and sometimes the child's family,[1] to lower the child's inhibitions with the objective of sexual abuse."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_grooming

Yes, 100% disagree with your claim that only minors can be groomed (it even says that in your post/link).  It applies to abusers, who commonly target children, but adults can be groomed and can be victims of sexual abuse. There are lots of resources on the subject that are not wikipedia.

But even if he was technically using the wrong word, that doesn't really mean anything, right? We all know what he meant by the statement.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2024, 08:24:11 AM by charis »

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!