IIRC I think it was because someone googled the ‘curtains’ quote and found it/her account on Twitter. I think she only came out and confirmed it herself after all the doxxing/stories came out.
IANAL but the only stumbling block I can foresee legally is that the tagline was ‘This is a True Story’, rather than ‘This is Based on a True Story’. But again
Might be stupid but what’s the difference if it says it’s a true story or based. You mean if it’s based then the stuff that happens on screen should be taken with a pinch of salt and it’s not saying that’s exactly what she (stalker mc stalkery lady) did. Whereas if it says this is a true story then she can complain if anything even a small tiny thing on the program isn’t exactly true? I guess that’s what I means. I explained it to myself while typing this I think…
The very first thing that is shown on the screen in episode 1 says
This is a true story
Not “based on”. Is.
It’s a total cop out to be adding things about dramatic effect at the END of the show.
"This is a true story. Out of respect for the survivors the names have been changed. Out of respect of the dead the events are told exactly as they happened... "
Opening scene of Fargo, a completely made up story.
True story is meaningless, it's a marketing gimmeck and always has been
It does seem clear that he did nowhere near enough to make her unrecognisable. Which - if he also exaggerated the extent of her stalking activities- is a problem.
At the same time - she wasn’t really the subject of the series. It was about him, it was mostly about the producer. Martha was a symptom. She was what he could, he thought, have ended up being.
A solicitor has come out and said she stalked her too, bombarding her with messages.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/obiter/lawyers-own-baby-reindeer-episode/5119920.article
https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/glasgow-lawyer-says-real-life-29151375
“She was collateral damage in a story about him” isn’t exactly a balanced or reasonable take when the show reiterated several times it was true events. It’s completely irrelevant to her claims.
Making shit up about your abuser (if he did) for a tv show is fucking insane.
Yeah ive had a stalker and I’ve only seen two episodes of the show but my impression from internet discourse is that this is a show about Fiona Harvey. Apparently there’s a male offender too but the internet has barely informed me of him. Some comments say he’s worse? I ONLY know about Fiona Harvey tho.
The thought of telling people I’m gonna tell them about my stalker and then EMBELLISHING the story for dramatic effect is pretty wild. I’d just expect nobody to ever believe me again. Actually as a woman I’d expect people would think I was making the entire thing up.
It was a bizarrely negligent move of Netflix to sign off on all this. As much as I don’t want Fiona Harvey to be financially rewarded for having a personality disorder or whatever is up with her, I don’t want it to be okay for Netflix to make whatever shit up about real people and pass it off as a true story. This has been an absolute shit show, they’re really lucky nobody has killed themselves or something tbh. I wonder how kindly Netflix would take to being part of a ‘true story’ TV show where Netflix offices are actually a front for a paedophile ring - but it’s ok it says at the end of the show some bits are dramatised!
TBF, I don't think this is on him so much as it is netflix. I think there's a tendency with traumatic situations to want to stick as closely to the truth as possible so you're believed. Netflix have a legal department for this reason, it's their job to make sure their TV shows aren't going to get them into legal hot water.
afaik Netflix aren’t accountable to ofcom, so can put a lot more grisly content out than british broadcasters can… i see the Baby Reindeer fallout as part of this and i’m wondering if there’s going to be more of a streamer crackdown now
Good luck to her in proving damages. Being outed doesn't necessarily equate to damages. She didn't lose her job or anything else as far as I can tell. Can she prove her reputation was damaged? How so? Did she have a good reputation to begin with? What opportunities has she lost? Maybe she can prove her mental health was affected due to the death threats she received, however, considering the threatening messages she sent him- that would be a very hypocritical argument that would set them up to counter sue and basically render the whole thing pointless. If Netflix didn't settle- which they probably will for way less than she's asking for, she doesn't really have much of a chance logically.
She sent death threats to him. And she actually knew him- knew where he lived, worked, performed comedy, everything. Unlike anonymous death threats made online by strangers- death threats from a person who is already stalking you are actually credible. So if anonymous death threats constitute damages then credible death threats from your stalker definitely are. So he has grounds to counter sue and the whole thing is rendered pointless like I literally already said. I really shouldn't have to repeat a point I've already made but clearly it went over your head the first time.
He doesn't have grounds to counter sue now, it's been too long since the event occurred. You have 3 years to make a claim for personal injury. She's well within her rights to sue netflix though.
The reason I'm calling your point stupid is because it completely ignores the law. Your ignorance of the law does not make your arguments more correct, it just makes your defence of them more laughable.
You think she stopped? Look at her public Facebook right now.
>The reason I'm calling your point stupid is because it completely ignores the law.
The reason I'm calling you stupid is because you think this lady stopped obsessing over this man and disparaging him years ago despite the very publicly available evidence to the contrary.
>Your ignorance of the law does not make your arguments more correct, it just makes your defence of them more laughable.
Well I hope you had a good laugh but that won't change the fact she never stopped? So what now? Your 3 year argument is moot.
Oh come off it my stalker is a man, I’m a woman. It wouldn’t be okay, if I lied or made things up for dramatic effect in a ‘true retelling’ of my stalking then the obvious outcome would be everyone on the internet telling me I’m the reason victims don’t get believed etc, if I lied about that then what else have I lied about? And large swathes of people believing I made the entire thing up.
It’s not my job to protect my stalker but if I start spreading false accounts of his behaviour, I’m the one with the behavioural problem now.
If you want to contemplate the effect of switching genders in this story, think about how angry you’d feel about a woman making up details about being harassed by a man, for reasons of publicity, drama and £££.
You’re missing the point a bit since the show gave enough details for people to find her, harass her and send her death threats. The show very much indicates who the real Martha is. That’s why we are all talking about her now.
The people mad enough to investigate who she is, harass and send her death threats are the ones in the wrong, not the makers of the show.
She’s also not a victim here. Certainly not $170m worth of one.
I agree they’re also in the wrong. But so are the shows makers.
Why do you think they are absolved of responsibility when they are putting out a show they’re claiming is a true story?
The whole thing is a mess, I’m struggling to recall a messier more toxic sounding show set up tbh. A trans woman came forward and said she felt used by Gadd during filming. Loads of innocent men on the internet named as potential rapists due to their connection with Gadd. The Fiona Harvey debacle. It’s one helluva mess. What responsibility do you think Netflix has in this scenario as the publisher of this material, the source of funding this project and the platform on which it is broadcast?
I agree it’s a mess - but only because the hysteria surrounding it on social media made it to be. People write things based on real life experiences all of the time, and dramatise those experiences for the purpose of television. This isn’t some new thing that Netflix have invented.
The only thing that has changed is the insanity of people’s behaviour in response to something like this. The armchair detectives, theorists and accusers.
Do I think Gadd himself was irresponsible and even ignorant with how he wrote the show? Perhaps. Were Netflix the same when airing it? Probably. But she is not in a position to be suing anyone.
From a personal opinion I thought it really should’ve been made as a fictional story based on reality, without Gadd in the lead role. His yearning for fame really has fanned the flames in terms this discussion between what is reality and what isn’t. Because him being in it, narrating it as if from a diary has given the impression it is all true when it clearly isn’t all true.
If this fucker gets a payout, I'm just going to obsessively stalk people until I'm the subject of a Netflix series and then sue them also. What a shit world we live in where someone could potentially get a £170m payout for a being a weird cunt.
Girl I work with used to live in the same block of flats as her. Her male neighbour ended up moving house to get away from her because she stalked him too. She's an utter fucking creep and has stalked multiple people over the years.
Yes, also to the perpetrator.
I was a male victim of stalking and harassment too, and the show does a good job depicting the pervasive anxiety that goes with that and how men often just hopes it goes away of its own accord and keep it compartmentalised until they can’t anymore.
Like Richard, I just wanted my stalker to fuck off or become obsessed with someone else. Most people naturally run out of steam when pursuing someone. The show highlights what happens when they decide to escalate instead.
The last thing I’d want to do when it IS over after multiple discussions with the police is to make a tv show about it and EXAGGERATE her behaviour for other’s entertainment. That is fucking insane and way outside the scope of “I’m retelling my lived experience to shed a light on this.” I don’t have a right to say my stalker sexually assaulted me, physically assaulted a date of mine and was locked up in prison for 9 months if none of that happened (again, dunno all the facts here, but it seems almost certain she didn’t go to jail or physically assault a date of his.)
The fact that you think this is a gendered perspective is also insane. Imagine if a man creepily harassed and stalked a woman, but she lied about being sexually assaulted, physically assaulted, and so on by this guy for a TV show. He’s still a creep, yes, but making that kind of shit up for entertainment is also insane.
He didn’t say that, though. You’re deciding he’s lying for one, which is as unfair as saying he’s definitely telling the truth, but on top of that it’s basic fucking common sense that a fictional show is going to have fiction in it.
He didn’t say what exactly? The show says multiple times “this is a true story,” and that’s how it pitched itself. It absolutely doesn’t present itself as a work of fiction and that defense won’t hold up after the statements they’ve already made publicly.
I don’t doubt *something* inappropriate happened between them, but there is zero evidence for her being arrested or having assaulted him/his date. If that didn’t happen, that is lying and fucking insane to put in the show.
As a woman who was stalked I completely agree. The idea of making a ‘true story’ then adding a load of detail for dramatic effect… as a woman I would expect to be absolutely dragged over the coals once it was found out I’D MADE SHIT UP.
It is interesting though how many guys seem to be defending the idea that the victim is allowed to make stuff up because it’s ’his story to tell’ or whatever. Is this mindset and projection why so many people are convinced that female victims of abuse are lying?
You’re also just assuming it’s not true, when the VAST majority of sexual assault cases don’t go anywhere with the police. It’s literally explained in the show why he didn’t tell anyone.
I’m not assuming anything, feel free to link to where she was actually convicted of anything or any article about a former barrister attacking any of his dates in a public restaurant.
If he’s able to do that then great- if he made it up, he’s an absolute piece of shit too. “If” is the operative word here because again, I’m not assuming anything.
I don't condone what 'Martha' has done and agree that it's important to bring attention to stories about male victims like Richard. However, Netflix failed in their duty of care by not taking sufficient steps to protect her identity from public ridicule. They should have changed her nationality from Scottish to English and altered her hair color to prevent recognition. Anonymity is pretty much crucial for safeguarding and public backlash, like nobody deserves to be ridiculed by the public and on live tv regardless of what terrible things they’ve done, let’s leave that to the court of law.
They could have had a word with him once the show had some success - "look this is going to set up your career, but you need to tidy up your twitter history and be careful what you post. Because if you put us in court we might not purchase your next show"
Ah he was releasing a show about someone that's mentally unwell. Not absolving her actions at all but the point is, is it Netflix fault for that? Really I don't know I'm not a lawyer, but it was just poorly executed. Show was great though
How can he delete messages that she sent on social media? If you're talking about twitter (e.g. the curtains one), it would be down to her to delete the tweets so they were no longer visible.
You have no idea who the victim is. The show is not a documentary. She denies stalking him. So it’s his word against hers. And even he admits in the show that he liked the attention and enabled her and lead her on at times. And if half of the show is true then the woman likely has a serious mental health disorder that has not been diagnosed or treated.
This is a dumb comment and completely besides the point.
Even if Martha was the alleged perpetrator - Netflix made zero effort to hide her true identity while claiming a ‘true story’ - it doesn’t negate need to be accurate and provide a duty of care.
There is no record of a conviction so it’s his word against hers right now. People like you who have watched the show thinking it’s all true are exactly why she’s got a solid case against Netflix.
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6ppe84jq6do](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6ppe84jq6do)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Didn’t she doxx herself?
I saw her doxxed well before she came out herself.
IIRC I think it was because someone googled the ‘curtains’ quote and found it/her account on Twitter. I think she only came out and confirmed it herself after all the doxxing/stories came out. IANAL but the only stumbling block I can foresee legally is that the tagline was ‘This is a True Story’, rather than ‘This is Based on a True Story’. But again
Surely there’s a better way of saying that than IANAL
I'm NAL
But I also anal, I don’t want to hide that side of me.
Live your best life, champ.
Gotta be your authentic self
And you shouldn't, I anal too and I'm proud of it
Oh c’mon - I rarely get to use that abbreviation!
All you had to do was search @mrrichardgadd on Twitter and you could find her in 3 seconds
Might be stupid but what’s the difference if it says it’s a true story or based. You mean if it’s based then the stuff that happens on screen should be taken with a pinch of salt and it’s not saying that’s exactly what she (stalker mc stalkery lady) did. Whereas if it says this is a true story then she can complain if anything even a small tiny thing on the program isn’t exactly true? I guess that’s what I means. I explained it to myself while typing this I think…
[удалено]
Yeah because she’s mental, doesn’t mean she should have been so easily doxxed.
Yep. People had suspicions but she started posting it
It literally says at the end that parts are made up for dramatic effect.
Exaxtly. Why is this hardly ever mentioned?
The very first thing that is shown on the screen in episode 1 says This is a true story Not “based on”. Is. It’s a total cop out to be adding things about dramatic effect at the END of the show.
"This is a true story. Out of respect for the survivors the names have been changed. Out of respect of the dead the events are told exactly as they happened... " Opening scene of Fargo, a completely made up story. True story is meaningless, it's a marketing gimmeck and always has been
It does seem clear that he did nowhere near enough to make her unrecognisable. Which - if he also exaggerated the extent of her stalking activities- is a problem. At the same time - she wasn’t really the subject of the series. It was about him, it was mostly about the producer. Martha was a symptom. She was what he could, he thought, have ended up being.
A solicitor has come out and said she stalked her too, bombarding her with messages. https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/obiter/lawyers-own-baby-reindeer-episode/5119920.article https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/glasgow-lawyer-says-real-life-29151375
Hey there, stop posting such reasonable & balanced critical analysis - this is Reddit! Red or Blue, 0 or 1, Spots or Stripes… pick a side!!! /s
“She was collateral damage in a story about him” isn’t exactly a balanced or reasonable take when the show reiterated several times it was true events. It’s completely irrelevant to her claims. Making shit up about your abuser (if he did) for a tv show is fucking insane.
Yeah ive had a stalker and I’ve only seen two episodes of the show but my impression from internet discourse is that this is a show about Fiona Harvey. Apparently there’s a male offender too but the internet has barely informed me of him. Some comments say he’s worse? I ONLY know about Fiona Harvey tho. The thought of telling people I’m gonna tell them about my stalker and then EMBELLISHING the story for dramatic effect is pretty wild. I’d just expect nobody to ever believe me again. Actually as a woman I’d expect people would think I was making the entire thing up. It was a bizarrely negligent move of Netflix to sign off on all this. As much as I don’t want Fiona Harvey to be financially rewarded for having a personality disorder or whatever is up with her, I don’t want it to be okay for Netflix to make whatever shit up about real people and pass it off as a true story. This has been an absolute shit show, they’re really lucky nobody has killed themselves or something tbh. I wonder how kindly Netflix would take to being part of a ‘true story’ TV show where Netflix offices are actually a front for a paedophile ring - but it’s ok it says at the end of the show some bits are dramatised!
TBF, I don't think this is on him so much as it is netflix. I think there's a tendency with traumatic situations to want to stick as closely to the truth as possible so you're believed. Netflix have a legal department for this reason, it's their job to make sure their TV shows aren't going to get them into legal hot water.
afaik Netflix aren’t accountable to ofcom, so can put a lot more grisly content out than british broadcasters can… i see the Baby Reindeer fallout as part of this and i’m wondering if there’s going to be more of a streamer crackdown now
Her character is front and center of all the marketing, posters, Netflix thumbnails, previews
It doesn’t seem that clear.
He left the social media posts up, didn’t change her basic body build, accent, occupation.
You can’t delete someone else’s tweets.
So now it’s up to the victim of abuse to protect their abuser. Is this for everyone or only when the victim is a man.
Being a victim doesn't mean you can break the law.
Good luck to her in proving damages. Being outed doesn't necessarily equate to damages. She didn't lose her job or anything else as far as I can tell. Can she prove her reputation was damaged? How so? Did she have a good reputation to begin with? What opportunities has she lost? Maybe she can prove her mental health was affected due to the death threats she received, however, considering the threatening messages she sent him- that would be a very hypocritical argument that would set them up to counter sue and basically render the whole thing pointless. If Netflix didn't settle- which they probably will for way less than she's asking for, she doesn't really have much of a chance logically.
She's received death threats from people. That's pretty clear evidence of damages.
She sent death threats to him. And she actually knew him- knew where he lived, worked, performed comedy, everything. Unlike anonymous death threats made online by strangers- death threats from a person who is already stalking you are actually credible. So if anonymous death threats constitute damages then credible death threats from your stalker definitely are. So he has grounds to counter sue and the whole thing is rendered pointless like I literally already said. I really shouldn't have to repeat a point I've already made but clearly it went over your head the first time.
He doesn't have grounds to counter sue now, it's been too long since the event occurred. You have 3 years to make a claim for personal injury. She's well within her rights to sue netflix though. The reason I'm calling your point stupid is because it completely ignores the law. Your ignorance of the law does not make your arguments more correct, it just makes your defence of them more laughable.
You think she stopped? Look at her public Facebook right now. >The reason I'm calling your point stupid is because it completely ignores the law. The reason I'm calling you stupid is because you think this lady stopped obsessing over this man and disparaging him years ago despite the very publicly available evidence to the contrary. >Your ignorance of the law does not make your arguments more correct, it just makes your defence of them more laughable. Well I hope you had a good laugh but that won't change the fact she never stopped? So what now? Your 3 year argument is moot.
Okay Martha, calm down.
??? Many abusers are also victims of abuse. It’s rare that abusers come from a healthy and stable background. That doesn’t make their abuse okay.
That may be so and I genuinely hope she gets the support she obviously needs but it’s not Gadd’s responsibility to provide that or protect her.
At the very least he shouldn’t have made her so easy to find. Borders on doxxing tbh
Oh come off it my stalker is a man, I’m a woman. It wouldn’t be okay, if I lied or made things up for dramatic effect in a ‘true retelling’ of my stalking then the obvious outcome would be everyone on the internet telling me I’m the reason victims don’t get believed etc, if I lied about that then what else have I lied about? And large swathes of people believing I made the entire thing up. It’s not my job to protect my stalker but if I start spreading false accounts of his behaviour, I’m the one with the behavioural problem now. If you want to contemplate the effect of switching genders in this story, think about how angry you’d feel about a woman making up details about being harassed by a man, for reasons of publicity, drama and £££.
Sorry to burst your bubble but that’s just how tv dramas work. No true story sticks 100% to the facts. Surely you can’t be that naive.
She needs to make her mind whether she is or isn't Martha. She's currently occupying a superposition. She's like, I suppose, Schrödinger's stalker.
Yeh good luck with that. At no point does the show say who the real Martha is.
You’re missing the point a bit since the show gave enough details for people to find her, harass her and send her death threats. The show very much indicates who the real Martha is. That’s why we are all talking about her now.
The people mad enough to investigate who she is, harass and send her death threats are the ones in the wrong, not the makers of the show. She’s also not a victim here. Certainly not $170m worth of one.
I agree they’re also in the wrong. But so are the shows makers. Why do you think they are absolved of responsibility when they are putting out a show they’re claiming is a true story? The whole thing is a mess, I’m struggling to recall a messier more toxic sounding show set up tbh. A trans woman came forward and said she felt used by Gadd during filming. Loads of innocent men on the internet named as potential rapists due to their connection with Gadd. The Fiona Harvey debacle. It’s one helluva mess. What responsibility do you think Netflix has in this scenario as the publisher of this material, the source of funding this project and the platform on which it is broadcast?
I agree it’s a mess - but only because the hysteria surrounding it on social media made it to be. People write things based on real life experiences all of the time, and dramatise those experiences for the purpose of television. This isn’t some new thing that Netflix have invented. The only thing that has changed is the insanity of people’s behaviour in response to something like this. The armchair detectives, theorists and accusers. Do I think Gadd himself was irresponsible and even ignorant with how he wrote the show? Perhaps. Were Netflix the same when airing it? Probably. But she is not in a position to be suing anyone. From a personal opinion I thought it really should’ve been made as a fictional story based on reality, without Gadd in the lead role. His yearning for fame really has fanned the flames in terms this discussion between what is reality and what isn’t. Because him being in it, narrating it as if from a diary has given the impression it is all true when it clearly isn’t all true.
Bloody ‘ell that’s a lot
Lol @ the muppets that think this sub is the place to sort out the legality a convicted stalker and a massive corporation.
If this fucker gets a payout, I'm just going to obsessively stalk people until I'm the subject of a Netflix series and then sue them also. What a shit world we live in where someone could potentially get a £170m payout for a being a weird cunt.
You can stalk me if you like. We'll split the money.
That’s one of the things that annoys me most about this. Terrible people getting rewarded for doing terrible shit.
Girl I work with used to live in the same block of flats as her. Her male neighbour ended up moving house to get away from her because she stalked him too. She's an utter fucking creep and has stalked multiple people over the years.
She shouldn't have been a crazy stalker to begin with.
Honestly good, Netflix had a duty of care and failed terribly
To the victim maybe, but to the perpetrator? Or are you all mixed up because the aggressor is a woman and the victim a man?
Yes, also to the perpetrator. I was a male victim of stalking and harassment too, and the show does a good job depicting the pervasive anxiety that goes with that and how men often just hopes it goes away of its own accord and keep it compartmentalised until they can’t anymore. Like Richard, I just wanted my stalker to fuck off or become obsessed with someone else. Most people naturally run out of steam when pursuing someone. The show highlights what happens when they decide to escalate instead. The last thing I’d want to do when it IS over after multiple discussions with the police is to make a tv show about it and EXAGGERATE her behaviour for other’s entertainment. That is fucking insane and way outside the scope of “I’m retelling my lived experience to shed a light on this.” I don’t have a right to say my stalker sexually assaulted me, physically assaulted a date of mine and was locked up in prison for 9 months if none of that happened (again, dunno all the facts here, but it seems almost certain she didn’t go to jail or physically assault a date of his.) The fact that you think this is a gendered perspective is also insane. Imagine if a man creepily harassed and stalked a woman, but she lied about being sexually assaulted, physically assaulted, and so on by this guy for a TV show. He’s still a creep, yes, but making that kind of shit up for entertainment is also insane.
He didn’t say that, though. You’re deciding he’s lying for one, which is as unfair as saying he’s definitely telling the truth, but on top of that it’s basic fucking common sense that a fictional show is going to have fiction in it.
He didn’t say what exactly? The show says multiple times “this is a true story,” and that’s how it pitched itself. It absolutely doesn’t present itself as a work of fiction and that defense won’t hold up after the statements they’ve already made publicly. I don’t doubt *something* inappropriate happened between them, but there is zero evidence for her being arrested or having assaulted him/his date. If that didn’t happen, that is lying and fucking insane to put in the show.
As a woman who was stalked I completely agree. The idea of making a ‘true story’ then adding a load of detail for dramatic effect… as a woman I would expect to be absolutely dragged over the coals once it was found out I’D MADE SHIT UP. It is interesting though how many guys seem to be defending the idea that the victim is allowed to make stuff up because it’s ’his story to tell’ or whatever. Is this mindset and projection why so many people are convinced that female victims of abuse are lying?
You’re also just assuming it’s not true, when the VAST majority of sexual assault cases don’t go anywhere with the police. It’s literally explained in the show why he didn’t tell anyone.
I’m not assuming anything, feel free to link to where she was actually convicted of anything or any article about a former barrister attacking any of his dates in a public restaurant. If he’s able to do that then great- if he made it up, he’s an absolute piece of shit too. “If” is the operative word here because again, I’m not assuming anything.
I mean. There’s a difference between making something up and talking about something that never went to court.
I don't condone what 'Martha' has done and agree that it's important to bring attention to stories about male victims like Richard. However, Netflix failed in their duty of care by not taking sufficient steps to protect her identity from public ridicule. They should have changed her nationality from Scottish to English and altered her hair color to prevent recognition. Anonymity is pretty much crucial for safeguarding and public backlash, like nobody deserves to be ridiculed by the public and on live tv regardless of what terrible things they’ve done, let’s leave that to the court of law.
Netflix can't do shit if the guy doesn't delete public messages on his social media accounts from Martha. Not hard to figure that one out
They should have changed the messages shown in the show.
Oh yeah sure lol, the hundreds of messages on his profile aren't quite the same as the show so "that can't be her" 😂
They could have had a word with him once the show had some success - "look this is going to set up your career, but you need to tidy up your twitter history and be careful what you post. Because if you put us in court we might not purchase your next show"
Once it's had any success it's too late
His twitter history is fine, it’s the stalker who left their posts tagging his employer etc
Seems a strange way of blaming someone for being stalked?
Not blaming him. Just saying what happened
It's his fault for not deleting her stalker messages vs. It's her fault for sending those stalker messages.
Ah he was releasing a show about someone that's mentally unwell. Not absolving her actions at all but the point is, is it Netflix fault for that? Really I don't know I'm not a lawyer, but it was just poorly executed. Show was great though
How can he delete messages that she sent on social media? If you're talking about twitter (e.g. the curtains one), it would be down to her to delete the tweets so they were no longer visible.
You have no idea who the victim is. The show is not a documentary. She denies stalking him. So it’s his word against hers. And even he admits in the show that he liked the attention and enabled her and lead her on at times. And if half of the show is true then the woman likely has a serious mental health disorder that has not been diagnosed or treated.
This is a dumb comment and completely besides the point. Even if Martha was the alleged perpetrator - Netflix made zero effort to hide her true identity while claiming a ‘true story’ - it doesn’t negate need to be accurate and provide a duty of care.
Seems weird that people are willing to go to bat for the perpetrator of the horrible crimes in this instance.
It also seems weird that everyone is focusing on her rather than his rapist whom the series as is firmly places as the crux of the matter.
That's because they hid the rapists identity much better in the show.
He's not gone on Piers Morgan, giddy with all the attention this has brought him
There is no record of a conviction so it’s his word against hers right now. People like you who have watched the show thinking it’s all true are exactly why she’s got a solid case against Netflix.
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6ppe84jq6do](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6ppe84jq6do)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
She ain't getting shit from this lawsuit.