Update: a confirmed victim of Fiona Harvey’s came forward, proving that she was, as the show portrayed her, a deranged stalker. The post below was written when there wasn’t enough verifiable information available – in fact, there wasn’t any, apart from the Netflix character being undoubtedly based on her. With this in mind, the following observations are still useful, as Netflix did not take the trouble to verify what was being alleged, and muddied the waters by adding fictional elements.

With every passing year, fighting off cynicism and misanthropy while using the internet becomes harder. In 2022 we had the Depp vs. Heard “reality show”, as in legal abuse inflicted on a woman on live TV, after her famous ex-husband had astroturfed social media with degrading falsehoods. The masses enjoyed every moment of the circus. They played armchair detectives, lawyers, psychologists, body language experts. They were insatiable. Some even attended court dates dressed in pirate costumes.

Today, the public has reached a new level of oddity, again worthy of Charlie Brooker’s Black Mirror.

They are blending a real woman with the fictional Netflix character she claims was based on her, to turn her into a product of mass consumption (and vilification). The masses became acquainted with the fictional character first. By the time the real person came forward, they were too emotionally invested in the hatred and mockery towards the fictional version of her to realise their lack of logic.

The series Baby Reindeer is the most discussed Netflix show at the moment. Written by and starring Richard Gadd, it is supposedly based on his life experience as an aspiring comedian, yet mainly focuses on his alleged female stalker, renamed in the show as Martha.

To be perfectly clear, I don’t know if the woman engaged in disturbing behaviour a decade ago or not (she denies it and contemplates suing), or if she possesses any of the character’s traits. Her personality or likeability don’t count in this equation. This is a matter of how the public processes reality. Thus far, it has been quite worrying.

Blurring fact and fiction while using identifiable people

This is a true story, the show claims. These exact words are used. Not based on a true story, but this is a true story.

Somewhere in the small print there is a mention that people or events have been dramatised for entertainment purposes. How much of it is false? Is it 5%, 10%, 75%? No one knows. The audience overall seems to think every detail is accurate. They want to think so, anyway, as it’s a story about Gadd’s experience, right? They want to be immersed, empathetic, and hear him out regarding those who had caused him damage over the years.

They are treating it as a MeToo documentary of sorts. Except it isn’t. By Gadd’s own admission, elements were added, such as Martha’s court hearing, guilty plea and sentence of 9 months in prison for having stalked him and harassed his parents. This never happened, he admits – in real life, he never even reported her.

Gadd tried to have it both ways – to create a show based on his own life experience, featuring people he had interacted with, and take creative liberties with the characters based on them.

As some of the real alleged stalker’s social media posts were used, internet sleuths immediately identified Gadd’s “muse” as 58-year-old lawyer Fiona Harvey, a former acquaintance of his. Instant harassment followed, as one would expect by now (unfortunately). Without a doubt, Gadd knew this would happen and so did Netflix. It’s 2024. Give me a fucking break.

Identified and forced to defend herself publicly, Fiona Harvey, this completely unknown person, is now expected to act, think and emote identically to the fictional character. To the public, she is Martha and this is a true story.

When she went on Piers Morgan to deny the allegations, the public cried out that she wanted attention, because she was a narcissist. Even that highly unpleasant fellow had to be civil, as in truth, nothing against her has been proven to date, while the damage to her life and reputation increases each day.

Gadd’s story, if true, matters, of course, and he has every right to tell it, as does anyone.

However, the way he went about it is at the very least dishonest and manipulative. Viewers cannot differentiate fact from fiction, as apart from Martha’s imagined court proceedings and prison sentence, there is no clarification on what is based in truth and what is made up.

Gadd and Netflix have a moral duty to disclose what was real and what was fiction. But they are not doing so, letting viewers impute everything, fiction included, to Fiona Harvey. If they continue to do so, they are patently immoral people and their production should not be supported.

This is not OK.

Another character sleuths hunted down unsuccessfully was Donnie’s (Gadd’s character’s) alleged rapist, portrayed as successful in the entertainment industry and a person Donnie/Gadd had met in Edinburgh. To no one’s surprise, the identity of said alleged rapist was much better disguised than Martha’s. Sleuths identified and harassed the wrong person as a result.

Again, this is not OK (at all). The format Gadd chose for his story invited this type of speculation and finger-pointing.

Duty of care

When it comes to privacy issues and people deemed to be vulnerable, such as the mentally ill (as Gadd claimed of Fiona), the way they are represented in such productions is now taken into account, in terms of potential impact. The Jeremy Kyle show “boasted” three suicides. A number of reality show participants have also taken their own lives.

Moreso, the imminent danger was online harassment. The logical route to take, for an entertainment production, would have been to completely fictionalise the character in terms of identifiable traits, making it impossible for it to be linked to the real person.

The show’s producers, if not Gadd himself, said efforts had been made to disguise her identity, to the point that she wouldn’t even recognise herself. That is a flat out lie. First off, they used her real social media posts, which had viewers track her down instantly. Secondly, the character has her approximate age at the time, her profession, similar physical appearance, nationality and accent.

Thirdly, the show was named after a stuffed toy she admitted having given him – a reindeer. So spare me with the “we tried to protect her identity and made it so she wouldn’t even recognise herself”.

Not to mention that Gadd openly starred in a show about his own life, making the pool of potential names much smaller. They wanted this to happen, presumably as a publicity stunt, which worked in their favour, as the show exploded in popularity.

If Fiona Harvey ever was a mentally ill stalker, Gadd’s fans are now giving her a run for her money, in terms of psychotic behaviour. They think they know her intimately through a work of fiction. That is quite Martha of them.

Falsely portrayed as a convicted criminal

The character, Martha, is a serial stalker, once sent to prison for four years. She had even stalked a police officer. In the show’s finale, she pleads guilty to stalking and harassing Gadd’s character, Donnie, as well as harassing his parents, and is sentenced to nine months in prison. Again, according to Gadd himself, this part is fictitious, as he admits he never even reported her.

Fiona Harvey does not have any criminal convictions.* This was clarified during her interview with Piers Morgan. She finds herself depicted publicly as a serial offender, well known to police and labelled as dangerous. Viewers eat it up. Serial stalker is now part of her public persona.

Later edit: she does not have any unspent criminal convictions, namely, if she had any, enough time has passed an they are now erased from her criminal record. This is a particularity of the Scottish legal system. It is certain that in both cases the show portrays her as having gone to prison for, she did not.

“She needed help”

Gadd’s assertion that part of his motivation for making this show was the fact that she needed help is perplexing. Again, this is about 10 years later.

When exactly did their interaction cease? Has he heard from her since? Does she still need help? So why now? And why make her so easily identifiable? Certainly not because she needs/needed help.

It’s OK to want revenge, if someone severely messed up your life. But why be sanctimonious about it and claim you’re setting the internet on one (potentially ill) person out of pity? To better sell the story to your empathetic audience, while raking in the money, knowing this person is being turned into your work of fiction? It’s disingenuous.

Gadd’s own character

The protagonist and recipient of everyone’s sympathy, Gadd’s character, Donnie, admittedly based on himself, is fairly disturbed – obsessed with fame to the point of returning to his rapist for potential work opportunities.

He encourages the stalker, purportedly out of pity, by allowing her to sit at the bar at his work daily for hours on end, talking continually. He then watches her sit on a bench outside his home for months, for up to 13 hours, daily, and does nothing about it, until one night when he takes her home out of pity.

First off, this is not even plausible in real life. A woman sitting on the same bench, all day, for months. Someone would’ve noticed. Residents, police, people helping the homeless. Not to mention how it would presumably feel to have this individual sit there day in and day out, observing, waiting, and letting it happen. No, it’s not plausible and I would bet anything that this is another fictionalised aspect.

“She is just like Martha…!”

The one glimpse the public have had of this (formerly private individual) was the Piers Morgan interview. It lasted for under an hour.

Voracious, the usual suspects (body language “experts”, yellow journalism channels, armchair psychologists etc.) are feasting like maggots, with no shred of decency, or the benefit of the doubt for this person. There must be hundreds of them making a video as I write, as this is the latest gravy train – the psychotic woman everyone will love to hate.

Could they be correct down the line? Sure. Anything is possible.

Could they be correct based on the factual information they currently have? Hell no.

Please bear in mind these 3 issues:

  1. Nobody knows what she actually did and didn’t do. Verifiably. Her character was so heavily fictionalised that criminal convictions she doesn’t have were added.
  2. Body language analysis is pseudoscience. On YouTube, it’s a grift, to profit from trending topics.
  3. YouTube psychologists could not possibly gain an understanding of this individual through one interview done under pressure, in a very stressful situation, through which she did not reveal much anyway. It’s not possible.

In conclusion…

Fiona Harvey may as well be the most obnoxious, irritable, pushy, inappropriate individual. This whole circus would still not be OK, on principle, regardless of her personality or behaviour towards Gadd 10 years ago.

Fact and fiction need to be clearly separated when the potential of defaming an individual, especially before such a large audience, is involved. I am not a lawyer; I am only concerned with moral red lines, this being one of them.

This shit cannot and should not be normalised.