The summary of ‘“Richard Gadd is PSYCHOTIC” Baby Reindeer’s ‘Real’ Martha Fiona Harvey’

00:00:00

In this segment, the video focuses on the controversy surrounding the Netflix show “Baby Reindeer,” which depicts real-life events of harassment experienced by comedian Richard Gad. The show has garnered significant attention, leading fans to seek out the real identities behind the characters. Richard Gad and Netflix claimed to have disguised the real stalker, but she was quickly identified online. Fiona, the woman alleged to be the stalker, has come forward in a television interview to address the accusations. She reveals that she faced intense online persecution and death threats, prompting her to speak out despite not having watched the show herself. Fiona clarifies that she suspected her depiction years ago when Gad wrote a play on the same topic, and her identity was further confirmed when Netflix adapted the story.

00:05:00

In this segment of the video, the individual discusses their recent decision to leave Facebook and their absence from other social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter) due to concerns about their portrayal in the media. They recount the shock and dismay of being depicted negatively, particularly in relation to tweets that connected their identity to a controversial show. The individual criticizes the accuracy of the portrayal, mentioning the ordeal with different media outlets, including differing experiences with The Daily Mail and the Daily Record.

The segment transitions to a discussion about “Baby Reindeer,” a show inspired by this person’s interactions with Richard Gad, where they express skepticism about the show’s depiction of events. They clarify key moments, stating inaccuracies such as not receiving free drinks or being depicted as poor. Despite being portrayed as frequently visiting a pub and having had a toy reindeer, many details are branded as fictional or exaggerated. The individual emphasizes that the majority of the show’s content is not factual, although minor truths, like Gad shaving his head, were acknowledged. Finally, they reflect on being compared to the actress in the show and reject the notion that they created intimate comments used in the series.

00:10:00

In this part of the video, the speaker addresses allegations against them, specifically denying claims made in a Netflix show about sending a large number of communications (41,000 emails, 350 voice messages, etc.) to an individual named Richard. The speaker disputes these figures, acknowledging only sporadic contact, including a few emails and up to 18 tweets. They assert that Richard and potentially Netflix have fabricated these details. Furthermore, the speaker suggests that verification through technological means, such as examining IP addresses, would easily disprove the allegations. They criticize the accusations as defamatory, insisting that their communications were minimal and that other allegations, including a sexual assault claim, are false.

00:15:00

In this part of the video, the speaker discusses the process of obtaining evidence from various communication platforms in a court case, emphasizing the importance of disclosure. The speaker denies sending a large number of emails to Richard Gad and suggests that Gad may have fabricated them. They firmly state they never heckled him at stand-up shows, attacked his girlfriend, stalked him, or contacted his parents. The discussion also covers a Netflix drama portraying these allegations, which the speaker asserts are fictional and defamatory. The speaker clarifies that they have never been charged with or convicted of any criminal offense, contrasting their accent and background with the character depicted in the show.

00:20:00

In this part of the video, the speaker discusses their experiences with criminal charges and name changes, clarifying that they have never been charged with a criminal offense. They recount how they changed their surname to Harvey after their parents’ divorce. Additionally, they touch on a specific case involving Richard Gad, where they express shock and disapproval of Gad’s behavior and his portrayal of events. The speaker emphasizes that they never felt like Gad was acting out of sympathy and criticizes his alleged psychotic behavior. They mention the negative impact of the media and social media on their reputation, criticizing the dramatized depiction of Gad’s experiences. The speaker also doubts the authenticity of Gad’s narrative, pointing to potential mental health issues.

00:25:00

In this part of the video, the speaker discusses how they were portrayed negatively, including in a rape scene, and mentions feeling betrayed because they hadn’t received any apologies from Netflix or the involved parties. The speaker highlights the inaccuracies in the allegations and characters represented in the show, and reflects on the impact of public speculation about real-life identities. The conversation touches on how quickly the internet identified the real person behind the story, using past social media interactions as evidence. It also delves into the speaker’s personal background, upbringing, and family life, mentioning their efforts to protect their mother from the situation’s details. Further, the segment covers allegations from a colleague about inappropriate behavior and references the speaker’s past professional connections and experiences.

00:30:00

In this part of the video, the discussion revolves around a controversy involving employment law and personal disputes. The speaker was headhunted by Fiona M to work at her firm due to their expertise in employment law. However, they were dismissed shortly after for alleged misconduct and rudeness. Fiona M and her husband took legal action against the speaker, including issuing personal alarms to staff and serving an interim interdict (injunction), which the speaker argues was mishandled and is not actually in place.

The segment further delves into accusations of harassment towards Fiona M and Richard Gad, another individual involved in the case. The speaker vehemently denies these allegations, attributing them to political motivations and misunderstandings from articles found online. Additionally, the speaker discusses personal aspects, such as their heterosexuality, past relationships, and the impact of these accusations on their social and professional life. They assert that friends and colleagues support them and understand the situation’s complexity, emphasizing the falseness of the harassment claims despite the detailed email and voicemail evidence purportedly held by Richard Gad.

00:35:00

In this segment of the video, the interviewee denies claims about sending a significant number of emails and voice messages to another individual, expressing doubt over the allegations. They assert that any messages attributed to them could only have been recorded without their knowledge. Despite being questioned about the possibility of having some communication with the individual, the interviewee firmly states that they did not engage in the more serious accusations such as physical confrontations or sexual assault. They challenge the credibility of the accuser and the accuracy of a Netflix dramatization based on these events, labeling these narratives as false. The core argument centers around potential misrepresentation and the interviewee’s insistence on the inaccuracy of the more severe allegations.

00:40:00

In this part of the video, the discussion revolves around a legal dispute and allegations of harassment. The speaker argues against claims made by another person, Rich Gad, asserting that there is no interim interdict against them, contrary to what Gad claims. The speaker expresses their intention to take legal action against Gad and Netflix, with some legal steps already initiated. They challenge the authenticity of 41,000 emails and 106 letters allegedly linked to them, emphasizing disbelief in these accusations and the need to employ handwriting experts to prove otherwise. Additionally, the speaker mentions their use of multiple email addresses for various purposes.

00:45:00

In this segment, the conversation explores the subject’s use of multiple emails and phones to separate personal and professional interactions and transitions into a discussion about the implications of sending a large number of emails, such as 41,000, which could be perceived as stalking. The subject clarifies that context matters and that close relationships could contribute to high email volumes without malicious intent. The discussion shifts to the relationship with Richard G, touching on allegations of leading someone on and proposals that were politely declined. The subject expresses frustration about a Netflix series that has portrayed them unfavorably and questions the financial gains Richard G may have made from the series. The segment concludes with reflections on the subject’s academic achievements and the consideration of writing a book about their experiences.

00:50:00

In this segment of the video, the discussion revolves around the academic backgrounds and grades of the speakers. One individual mentions achieving a law degree with 13 subjects from Aberdeen University and later a politics degree, performing better in the latter. They discuss the general lack of academic rigor among students in the 1980s and the use of lie detector tests, particularly in criminal cases. The speaker insists on their honesty except for occasional “white lies” and reflects on their limited interactions with Richard G, suggesting ulterior motives behind his actions. They urge viewers to critically analyze the situation and media portrayal, expressing confidence in their stance against Richard G’s allegations.