All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
June 18, 2024 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
24:31
20240618_real-martha-from-baby-reindeer-lawyer-fiona-harvey
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Netflix Insists On True Story 00:15:02
The Sunday Times over in the UK reported they had a source who said Richard Gadd was against calling it a true story, but Netflix insisted it needed to be.
How significant could that be if that turns out to be true?
It's one thing if Richard Gadd says to them, it's true, it's true, it's true, and they fail to do their due diligence.
It's even worse is if Richard Gadd says, well, I don't really want this to be a true story.
And Netflix says, no, no, no, no, we want it to be true.
Fiona Harvey, the real Martha from Baby Reindeer, is suing Netflix for a whopping $175 million.
The 34-page lawsuit claims the streaming giant is responsible for the biggest lie in TV history over his portrayal as Fiona as a twice convicted and twice jailed stalker.
It also contends that Netflix did nothing to prevent Harvey from being identified and that as a result, her life has been ruined.
Well, media commentators say the result of the case could change how true stories are portrayed in TV and cinema forever.
Well, Fiona Harvey's U.S. legal representative, Richard Roth, joins me now from New York.
Mr. Roth, thank you very much for David joining me.
Hey, Pierce, thank you for having me.
But my first question is an obvious one, but why have you taken Fiona's case?
I think there's probably three reasons.
Obviously, I'm in the business of making money, and I think there's a lot of money to be made here.
I think the second reason is that it is really just reprehensible when someone says something's a true story and it isn't.
We deal, you and I, I just heard your last interview, deal with fake news all the time.
And if Netflix is going to say this is a true story, then it better well be true.
And to do that is irresponsible them.
And the third reason is that Fiona Harvey is, you've had her on your show.
She's been destroyed.
She's been shattered by this.
She gets death threats.
She doesn't want to leave her apartment.
So there's really three main reasons, all of which are really important.
What do you believe will end up being the smoking gun of this case?
There's a lot of smoking guns.
The first is, and I've heard, I familiarized myself with your interview, your prior interviews with Mark Garrigos, great lawyer and other people.
And one of the big smoking guns, which is actually what he pointed to, is that you don't put this is a true story on the front frame, first frame of a six-part series unless it's gone through the ringer.
Who actually said it's a true story?
It wasn't done by, did legal look at it?
And so it's not a true story.
I mean, we know it's incontrovertible.
It is not a true story.
There's clear falsities in it, which are very damning.
So I think one thing is going to be, what did Netflix do to determine whether or not this was a true story?
Because it's clearly not.
Yeah, and not only that, but bizarrely, they sent down one of their top executives to the UK Parliament.
Well, under oath, he once again stated two things that were blatantly untrue.
One is that she was a convicted stalker that Richard Gadd had been terrorized by.
And we know that that person they were talking about was based on Fiona Harvey.
And secondly, they've done everything they could, they said, to protect the identities of the real people being found out.
And yet we know from internet sleuths that literally within minutes of the series airing, people tapped into the internet or social media specific phrases from stuff that was being put on screen as being sent by the supposedly fictitious stalker to Richard Gadd.
He's playing himself to compound it.
And they found the exact same phraseology on Fiona Harvey's Twitter feed, for example.
So it could only have been her.
So she was identified immediately.
So the duty of care, it seems to me, just collapsed and was almost non-existent.
And once you assume that it's Fiona Harvey they're talking about, because they're using her exact phraseology, you then move to, well, okay, they've called it a true story.
Was she ever convicted, as they claim, twice?
And I interviewed the supposed first victim of this convicted stalker, Laura Ray, who was this Scottish lawyer, who was a very nice lady, who I did think had a very difficult time with Fiona.
We can come to that part of this.
But she made it clear that no, as far as she was aware, Fiona Harvey never went to prison.
I never went to court over this.
She got an interim edict.
And after that, she didn't hear from her again.
Similarly, Richard Gadd at the end, the big denouement, Fiona Harvey in tears in court breaks down.
I did it and gets another eight and a half months in prison to go with the previous supposed four-year sentence.
And again, that doesn't seem to have happened.
I've got the background check here that you guys did.
And there's no record of Fiona Harvey under any of the names she's ever used ever having any criminal record.
So if you put all those things together, I mean, look, I'm not a lawyer, but I've spent a lot of time around lawyers.
It does seem to me you've got a pretty open and shut case.
Well, so you raise a lot of things.
Number one, nobody goes to testify in front of Parliament without being thoroughly prepared.
Think about it.
There are teams of lawyers that are going to sit there and ask the questions, get the information, because he knows what is being asked.
So it's so irresponsible for him to testify under oath in front of parliament saying she was convicted when it's clear she wasn't.
That's the first thing.
The second thing you raise is that, you know, you said the word internet sluice.
I think that's sort of a loose term.
I could get it on the internet.
You don't have to be a sleuth.
That's really what I mean by anyone.
No, no, I know what you meant.
My point is it was very easy for anyone and everyone.
And in fact, your guy, John Dingwall, who was on one of your prior episodes, said, I just Googled the real name of Martha.
So it really was a very simple thing to find out.
In today's day and age, you have to make sure you don't make her Scottish.
Make her look different.
Use different tweets.
Use different Facebook pages.
And so it was really irresponsible for them to do that.
And that's the second thing you raise.
And you're right.
It's remarkable that Netflix, one of the largest corporations in the world, and the leader, if not one of the leaders of streaming, would literally put this on their cover page and say this is true.
To me, it's extremely, it's very, very, very strong.
The Sunday Times over in the UK reported at the weekend that they had a source who said Richard Gadd was against calling it a true story, but Netflix insisted it needed to be.
How significant could that be if that turns out to be true?
Well, that even, it's actually great news for me.
I heard about that story this weekend.
And think about it.
It's one thing if Richard Gad says to them, it's true, it's true, it's true, and they fail to do their due diligence.
It's even worse is if Richard Gadd says, well, I don't really want this to be a true story.
And Netflix says, no, no, no, no.
We want it to be true.
The information they get from the person who actually, and the other thing is he wrote it, he started it, right?
The information they get is this isn't true.
And they say, we don't want to listen to you.
We're making it a true story.
I mean, we're going beyond, this is far worse than negligence.
This is intentional misconduct.
If they actually were told, don't make it a true story.
And they said it were true.
The other part of this is quite interesting to me, which I've been saying a lot actually on my show.
Point 25 of your lawsuit says Gad is a self-admitted cracked meth and heroin user with a self-admitted history of masturbating to Fiona Harvey, following her home and spying on her through her window.
And I've made this point really that by his own admission, Richard Gadd is a very damaged individual who did a lot of, you know, pretty damaging stuff to himself and to others.
And that, I guess, points to his reliability in all this, not least if he ends up under oath in a courtroom.
Yeah, I mean, the guy, he has no credibility.
He has no credibility at all.
And what he put in that story about himself is really, it's bothersome.
All the issues about being raped and going back to the guy, everything he has in there.
And he's claiming that's all true.
So the man, the person they most rely on for the truth of the story has been shattered before I even get to cross-examine him.
You know what has struck me, and I've got no basis for knowing this to be true, but just looking at the trajectory of all this, Richard Gadd definitely goes through some experience with Fiona Harvey.
They both go through some experience.
My view of it has always been they were both pretty damaged people when it was going on, whatever it was.
And that he then does this show up in Edinburgh on stage and it starts to get real traction and popularity.
And he's desperate to make it as a comedian, having been very unsuccessful.
And then Netflix hear about it and it all kind of goes to his head.
And he gets to star on his own dramatization of his own show.
He gets to be all over it.
He gets to write it.
For him, coming from where he's come from, this is a fantastic opportunity.
And potentially you can make him very rich, right?
So there's that kind of temptation, if you like, to bend a few of the rules.
And the reason I say that, he told Vanity Fair, I would say the broad strokes are very much true.
But he admitted to tweaking the timeline and changing some details of the story.
And this plays, I think, Richard, to this kind of modern day thing of the truth doesn't matter.
It's my truth that matters.
Well, actually, I don't think courtrooms really recognize my truth very much.
They tend to stick to what they view as incontrovertible, provable facts.
And that is where I think if this does end up in court, particularly with a jury trial, that they could really come unstuck.
You're absolutely right.
And that was one of my three reasons.
The first question you asked me, what is truth?
And what's interesting, and you pointed it out, Pierce, I give you credit for it because you put it out before I even noticed it, is that when Netflix came back, they didn't say we stand by the story being true.
They say we stand by Richard Gadd telling his story.
Well, that's very different than saying it's true.
So we have Richard Gadd, who's running from the facts of the series, and we have Netflix running from the facts of the series.
And they're doing so because there's so much in there that it just fabricated.
And when you talk about truth and fake news and what, you know, we live in this whole world where we hear it and we believe it.
And when you read that, when you hear this and you believe this is a true story, you have an obligation as I don't care if you're a network.
I don't care if you're a newscaster.
I don't care if you're a streamer to be honest.
They didn't say it was based on a true story.
They didn't say it was inspired by a true story.
They said this is a true story.
And you know what?
If it's not, then they have to be held accountable.
This is a more difficult question, but when I interviewed Fiona Harvey, I mean, she wasn't the most sympathetic interviewee I've ever come across, right?
She's quite abrasive.
She's quite combative.
And talking to Laura Ray, who was the Scottish lawyer that she certainly, I would say that she harassed her quite badly and certainly behaved badly towards her.
Does any of that matter?
I mean, does it matter what Fiona Harvey may have been like in terms of trolling people, maybe even harassing people, if it doesn't cross a line of criminal behavior?
If a network like Netflix in this show under the title True Story says you are a convicted stalker, does any of what Fiona Harvey may have done that doesn't cross that line matter?
So here's what matters.
And you pressed Laura Ray.
I actually watched that interview as well.
You pressed her on whether or not the conduct that Fiona engaged in was criminal.
And she said it wasn't.
You have to actually physically hit someone to be criminal.
And you even asked her, have the laws changed?
Would it be criminal today, even though this is 22 years ago?
And she said, no, it never was criminal.
I never filed a criminal complaint.
And yet, Netflix has on its story while Richard Gadd is doing his due diligence, his research, that she was in jail for four and a half years.
And even Laura Ray said you wouldn't be in jail for anywhere near that amount of time.
So that's what becomes relevant.
The fact that there was something happened with 22 years ago with Laura Ray and Fiona, I don't really care about that.
But what I care about is that Netflix and Gad represented that she was a convicted, twice convicted, once before and once during the show.
But before, while he's doing his investigation, he says she was a criminal for four and a half years.
And Laura Ray said none of that is true.
And even Laura Ray thought that was irresponsible.
I'm curious about your decision to do this in California.
For example, if you did it in England, I know this from when I used to run newspapers here, the libel laws here are much tougher.
You know, you would have probably had an easier legal battle here, I would argue, than in America.
So why the choice of venue of California?
And why this gigantic figure that you've come up with of $175 million?
So the reason, two questions.
I'll give you the answer to both.
The reason why California is because we don't want to engage in all kinds of procedural motions by Netflix.
We've seen lawsuits against Netflix.
We've seen them against Hulu.
They will move for form non-convenience.
They'll move for wrong jurisdiction.
We're going right for them.
They can't get out of the fact that they are domiciled in California.
So we're doing away with a lot of procedural lawyer arguing and lawyer legal motions.
So that's the answer to your first question.
California is where they're from, and they have to be responsible in California.
The second question, $170 million, it is a huge number, no question about it.
But some of the causes of action in the complaint entitle Fiona to loss to the profits that Netflix obtained from this series.
That's what the law provides.
That if they wronged her, then she is entitled to their profits.
We don't know what that number is.
Again, this is very early.
We just filed a lawsuit, but we know that over 60 million people have viewed it.
We know that it either has or is becoming the largest show ever on Netflix.
And we know that Netflix is making a tremendous amount of money from it.
In fact, Richard Gad is on a U.S. tour promoting it.
Richard Gadd was in New York last week having a discussion.
He was on the Today Show in New York.
He was on the Tonight Show.
So they are pumping this.
They are pumping this story and they're making oodles of money from it.
So we will see once we get discovery what the real profits are.
Netflix says they intend to defend this matter vigorously and they stand by Gad's right to tell his story.
Pumping The Fake Narrative 00:08:46
But as you pointed out, that's not quite the same as saying we stand by this as being a true story.
It's huge.
I mean, to me, it's even an admission.
Now, obviously, it's a public statement, but yeah, why wouldn't we, we're already seeing a lot of divisiveness between Netflix and GAD.
Gad saying he told them it wasn't true.
Gad saying he bended.
And then Netflix is just saying, uh-oh, we will stand behind it.
That they have to deny the allegations.
And we'll see where this plays out.
It's going to be a very interesting path, roadmap we're on.
But I will tell you that Netflix has unbelievable responsibility, culpability for saying at a minimum that she's a twice-time convicted felon.
You saw the scene where she's crying and she pleads guilty.
That's all fabricated.
Well, this is what I've been saying from the start.
Listen, I don't think it's Richard Gadda.
I think he's a talented guy.
I thoroughly enjoyed the series, right, before I ever sat down with Fiona.
But when I sat down with her, I was struck by a number of things about her in the interview.
One, she conducted herself with remarkable confidence, given she'd never done an interview of that kind in her life.
Secondly, the damage to her and her privacy and everything else and the threats she'd been receiving was clear and palpable and was having a clearly palpable effect on her.
But thirdly, I was really curious when I pushed her on things like, look, Netflix say in the series, they list 41,000 emails.
They talk about X number of text messages, X number of this.
Very, very precise.
And I sort of thought, well, they would only do that, Netflix, if Richard Gaddard actually supplied them with the evidence of those numbers of things.
Do you have any knowledge yet from Fiona's side?
Has she shown you anything, which either supports that those numbers are correct or actually contradict them?
We've seen nothing near 41,000 emails.
And as Fiona said, think of how many, how long it would take to write 41,000 emails.
So we will get it in discovery.
We don't have it yet, nor do we believe it exists.
But to your other point, you know, this is a woman who was really thrust into the limelight.
This is not a situation where you have a public figure who essentially was defamed.
This situation where a woman lives her own life and she all of a sudden found getting death threats, can't leave her apartment, really, really just inappropriate.
Why is Netflix not calling her up and saying, listen, we're about to do this story.
We'd like you to look at it.
We'd like to fact check.
I mean, my God, Pierce, that's all you do is fact check all day.
You know what the laws are.
And it's terrible.
And you saw how nervous she was on there.
She's also a very bright woman.
She has her legal degree.
She's very bright.
She was very nervous.
She didn't, personally, she was thrust into the limelight, which is unfortunate, but she stood her ground.
And I will, to your credit, you're not an easy cross-examiner.
And so it was not easy for her.
And she's very, she's very nervous, destroyed, tattered from this.
The show's end credits, as some people have pointed out, say the program is based on real events.
However, certain characters' names, incidents, locations, and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes.
Does that make any difference if at the start you've said this is a true story?
My answer is good luck with that.
I mean, that's a disclaimer, which after you've seen the whole thing, to us, it doesn't make any difference.
They don't, you know, they put it at the end when people are ready to go to watch another series.
They make it very clear from the inception of this story that it's a true story.
And the reason why it got such big attention is because it's a crazy story to be true.
So if Netflix is the one pushing for the true story lingo up front, then at the end, the argument that we have this little disclaimer at the end that it could be fictionalized means nothing to me.
I mean, this may or may not come to court.
We'll have to wait and see how Netflix conduct themselves.
But what is the onus in California?
Is it on you to prove these allegations are untrue or is it on Netflix to prove that they are true?
It's at Netflix to prove that they are true.
We are, she's not a public figure, and there's two different tiers.
If you're a public figure, it's easier under the anti-slap statutes for the press to win the case.
But when you're this person who sits in your own apartment and all of a sudden you've been thrust in the limelight, they're going to have to show.
They're going to have to show that they have the facts to support their claim.
And quite frankly, I don't know how they're going to do it.
She wasn't convicted once.
She wasn't convicted twice.
Are there 41,000 emails?
Was she, you know, did she do all the things that they allege in there?
We have several facts in the complaint, and it's detailed for a reason, listed, which say this didn't happen.
This didn't happen.
And this didn't happen.
Let's see what Netflix comes back with, because right now we're hearing a little sort of dance going on that, you know, we believe he should tell the story.
Gad retracting himself.
So, yes, it's their obligation to tell us that if they wrote a story, it better darn well be true.
Have you been talking regularly to Fiona throughout this process?
Yes, I speak to her regularly.
Yes.
And how is she doing?
I mean, honestly, she's not well.
She's clammed up on her apartment.
She doesn't know what to do, doesn't know where to go.
She's hurting.
I mean, she really has been shattered by this.
The people, you know, there's going to be a big, a lot of the big percentage of the populace that don't believe her and think she is the Martha who's depicted in that, in the series.
And so she's afraid to go out and get groceries.
It's that bad.
Well, I appreciate her coming on uncensored.
I appreciate you coming on uncensored.
I'm going to be following this with great interest because I think it's a fascinating case.
My final question: there are massive wider implications from this.
There was a case at the weekend, Steve Coogan and a project he was involved with, now moving forward in a defamation case where they identified somebody.
Do you think this is going to be potentially a tipping point for the entertainment industry?
I think it should be.
It's very easy to say this is inspired by a true story.
This is based on a true story.
I think it should be.
We live in a world of fake news.
And if this is fake, then they should be held accountable.
I guarantee you that the next time Hulu, Max, you name it, Paramount Plus, Netflix, et cetera, even YouTube TV does a story and they claim it to be true.
There's going to be a ton of lawyers who are going through the facts to make sure that they're right.
And I'm very curious to see what Netflix did here to confirm the veracity of what they say is a true story.
You know, all they had to do is what they did with the crown, to say it's based, you know, they didn't say with the crown, this is a true story.
They made it clear that they changed stuff.
And that's what you have to do.
And what compounds it is it is such a vile story.
I mean, the acts in there are horrific.
And to attribute a woman who's never had any, never been in the limelight and has never been had any, to face the press on this.
Yeah, this could be a watershed moment for streaming TV.
And just finally, sorry, if it does go to court in California, will Fiona give evidence?
Will she testify?
Oh, she'll certainly give evidence.
We'll have Richard Gadd testify.
We'll have her testify.
We're going to have a string of people at Netflix testifying as to what they did, why they agreed to the language in the front, what they did to check it.
I also can't wait to find out how King, whatever his name was, was prepared in front of Parliament, who testified in front of Parliament.
My goodness.
I mean, that's not a blunder.
That is real, real inappropriate conduct.
Well, we've already had members of parliament asking that Netflix come back and respond following the revelations that came after.
It was a Netflix executive called Benjamin King.
It was giving evidence at Westminster's Culture Media Support Committee in Parliament under oath.
If he's misled Parliament, that's a pretty serious offense in this country.
And it could have, again, big repercussions for Netflix corporately.
And big repercussions for my lawsuit.
Honestly, if he goes in front of Parliament and says I lied or I was wrong or I misspoke, that's very problematic for Netflix.
Massive Parliamentary Repercussions 00:00:42
Richard Roth, great to see you.
Apparently, I did meet you at the finale of Celebrity Apprentice in 2008 when I won it.
You were there, apparently.
I was at the finale.
I have a very good dear friend, Carol Ald, who was there.
Oh, I love Carol, one of my fellow contestants.
And I believe we met back then.
I told your producer I didn't want to say, I didn't want to say that because I don't want to, I mean, you are, in your own right, very well known.
But yes, I was at the finale of The Apprentice, which you won.
And congratulations how many years later?
Well, who would have known that the guy who made me a celebrity apprentice would then become president of the United States?
It's a funny old word.
It's a very different conversation.
Richard Roth, thank you very much.
Thank you, Pierce.
Export Selection