Use code EmilyBakerClass at www.GreenChef.com/emilybaker50 to get 50% off your first box, plus 20% off your next two months! Control Body Odor ANYWHERE with @lumedeodorant and get 15% off with promo code LAWNERD at LumeDeodorant.com ! #lumepod #ad Go to shopify.com/lawnerd now to grow your business-no matter what stage you’re in.
@ 6:19 you talked abt If they ask the jury abt the verdict then they might ask why they didn't put it on the slips. Judge Canone admitted to never having given them the updated verdict slips. So that could've been the reason. My second point is she told them NOT to fill out the verdict slip until they'd come to a decision on all 3 counts. So my questin 2 you would be well then if it's the judges fault this happened the way it did isn't that cause to overturn the appeal and have them brought into answer if they had a verdict or not? As jurors they followed the judges instructions and worked with the slips they had is not their fault she forgot to do her job and wasn't clear in her instructions as far as having a verdict for 1 or more charges but not another one so Karen shouldn't be forced to have her right of relief from double jeopardy stripped. What are your thoughts? Thanks.
This video is not really up to date. Netflix lost as their reasoning and arguments to dismiss didn't hold up, and Richard Gadd's declaration contradicted what is meant to be depicted as true. From The Guardian - "A US judge has ruled that Fiona Harvey, the woman accused of stalking Baby Reindeer creator Richard Gadd, can pursue her defamation lawsuit against Netflix, noting that the show was wrongly billed as a “true story” when Netflix “made no effort” to fact check Gadd’s story or disguise Harvey as the inspiration for Martha. Harvey has alleged the show falsely implied that she sexually assaulted Gadd and gouged his eyes, and that she had been sent to prison for stalking him. After viewers managed to identify her as the inspiration for Martha - against Gadd’s wishes - Harvey filed a US$170m lawsuit, arguing that the show had defamed her by depicting Martha as a convicted stalker as she had not been convicted of a crime. In his ruling, handed down on Friday in California, US district judge Gary Klausner noted that because the show’s episodes begin with the line “This is a true story”, it invited viewers to take the story as fact. But while Harvey’s “purported actions are reprehensible”, Klausner found, Martha’s actions in the show are “worse” than what Harvey is accused of in reality. “There is a major difference between stalking and being convicted of stalking in a court of law,” he wrote. “Likewise, there are major differences between inappropriate touching and sexual assault, as well as between shoving and gouging another’s eyes. While plaintiff’s purported actions are reprehensible, defendants’ statements are of a worse degree and could produce a different effect in the mind of a viewer.” In his ruling, handed down on Friday in California, US district judge Gary Klausner noted that because the show’s episodes begin with the line “This is a true story”, it invited viewers to take the story as fact. But while Harvey’s “purported actions are reprehensible”, Klausner found, Martha’s actions in the show are “worse” than what Harvey is accused of in reality. “There is a major difference between stalking and being convicted of stalking in a court of law,” he wrote. “Likewise, there are major differences between inappropriate touching and sexual assault, as well as between shoving and gouging another’s eyes. While plaintiff’s purported actions are reprehensible, defendants’ statements are of a worse degree and could produce a different effect in the mind of a viewer.” In his defence, Gadd alleged that Harvey stalked him for years while he worked at a London pub, would pinch his behind, and sent him thousands of disturbing emails and voicemail messages. He said that while he reported her to the police, she got a “harassment warning” and was not criminally prosecuted or sent to jail. Gadd has said that the Netflix show and the stage play on which it was based, were both fictionalised and not intended as a “beat-for-beat recounting” of reality. In June, the Sunday Times reported that Gadd had reservations about the line “This is a true story,” but that it was included at Netflix’s request. Klausner noted the Sunday Times article in his ruling, arguing that it could demonstrate “actual malice” if Netflix chose to represent the story as fact when they knew it was fictionalised. Harvey was never named in Baby Reindeer, but members of the public quickly identified her through her social media posts. Harvey has said she has received death threats, with Klausner acknowledging that she had suffered “severe emotional distress” and felt fearful about going outside. Klausner said Netflix “should have known the statements and portrayal of plaintiff through Martha were false, and that viewers would discover her identity and harass her based on these false statements and portrayals. Yet, defendants made no effort to investigate the accuracy of these statements and portrayals, or take further measures to hide her identity.” Klausner denied Netflix’s motion to throw out the suit and dismissed Harvey’s claims for negligence, violation of her publicity rights, and for punitive damages. But, the judge allowed Harvey to pursue a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, which applies to “extreme and outrageous” false statements. “It appears that a reasonable viewer could understand the statements about Martha to be about plaintiff,” the judge wrote. “The series states that plaintiff is a convicted criminal who sexually and violently assaulted Gadd. These statements may rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct.” It seems both parties have been in the wrong, but Netflix and Gadd's actions have doxxed this woman and made her subject to death threats. Are you advocating for mob justice via the internet?
In my mind: 1) The judge said her verbal instructions overruled any written instructions- and her verbal instructions were not short. 2) The judge instructed the jury not to fill out any verdict forms until they’d reached a unanimous verdict on all counts. NOT “only fill out the verdict slip for each count after you’ve reached a unanimous verdict for that specific count”. 3) I’m sure the jury has seen crime & legal shows where the judge asks if the jury was able to reach a unanimous verdict on ANY count or if they’re deadlocked on all counts. And it’s likely (in my mind) the foreperson (former police officer and now doctor) probably said to expect those questions. But the judge didn’t ask and dismissed immediately. The defense and/or prosecutor had NO opportunity to ask unless they interrupted the judge - and we saw how she responded to that.
The entire handling of John O'keefe's death investigation and the charging/trial of Karen Read have really uncovered a disturbing amount of bad faith and systemic issues in Massachusetts. Between that and Sandra Birchmore, there needs to be a cleaning of house desperately. If anyone hasn't checked out Sandra Birchmore's case, it's incredibly sad and disturbing. It involves police officers taking advantage of kids and teens who look up to them, including SA ultimately up to her murder. BTW, the FBI's investigation of the Birchmore case led to them investigating the Read case because of the crossover of police personnel like Kevin Albert.
I agree 100%. I wonder if the judge actually somehow knew the jury was unanimous on counts 1 and 3 and that’s why she was in a hurry to shoo them out. “Kthxbye!” I certainly wouldn’t be surprised after all we’ve seen in these cases. And she refused defense’s motion to recuse herself and used the wrong standard to do so (she wanted proof not mere appearance). Well guess what legions of people think you’re compromised because it looks that way. That she refused to recuse herself despite at least the appearance of a possible conflict is suspicious (by definition I suppose). Why wouldn’t she? The entire cw’s law enforcement and legal system need to be put under a consent decree. Also, I was wondering if Sandra Birchmore is what first got the Feds involved. It makes sense because it’s a much more straightforward case and they probably got tipped off.
Sadly, even if Netflix settles, I doubt that she will leave him alone. Because this is more about keeping the connection active rather than anything else.
The Baby Reindeer case is wild because: "This is a true story" but also "The characters are not real people" but also "here is all my proof" which parallels the Martha character and Fiona.
@@inxine and she also went against the steps laid out in Massachusetts state law procedure by rushing through it and not giving either side room to make an argument or be heard. She should have read out the note to the lawyers before she called in the jury, and she should have given opportunity for them to be heard on what to do next, even if it's a formality, it's needed to rule out these kinds of situations and these kinds of arguments.
@@inxine Probably because the defense was pushing pretty hard for a mistrial. if you watch the trial you will see that they did not ask for any questions, just pushed for the mistrial and then were high-fiving each other when they got it. Remember, KR ran to her dad and hugged him happily?
@@kittycaryall A little too early to celebrate. Mistrials don’t normally favour the defendant for the second trial. I have no idea why she would think this is a win. Sounds like poor counsel making promises that are unrealistic.
I run a pub in between the Hawley arms and Aces & Eights. Funny hearing you talking about them venues. When baby reindeer came out, before Fiona came public, we had about 4 regulars who fit the bill. Lots of weirdos around here, something in the water I think
It irks me so badly that someone who stalked this man is harassing him again using the legal system. You stalked someone, he told his story without using your name, then you outed yourself. Hope Netflix changes the wording to "based on" but seriously lady, let this go, you've done enough!
This! He probably could have fictionalized it more, but it was his story to tell and telling it likely helped him move forward past this situation. Of course the internet is going to internet and interfere where they shouldn’t, but in the end…she outed herself.
I understand that he was the victim, but Fiona was identified easily, and Netflix version said that she is an ex-convict. Sooo, I can see her point too.
@@mariee.5912 this is true, there was more that could have been done to protect her identity better. But she could have as well by not going on Piers Morgan.
I mean if the jurors are asked "why wasn't it written on the slip?" Bev should go straight under the bus because she said don't fill out the form unless you're unanimous on all three counts. CW just doesn't want Bev thrown under the bus.
You would think the legislature might be just a bit annoyed at how much resources were spent on this trial if it was spoiled so carelessly at the end. Oh, and are there other trials that maybe need to occur? Of course, they’re probably be trying the wrong people too. I’m only *slightly* kidding. With this and Sandra Birchmore, I wonder how many people in the cw prisons actually did the thing.
@@silikon2 Agreed. How many innocents were locked away because the police were too lazy to actually do their jobs? Anyone else would have been fired immediately, but nah, these guys just lose their vacation days.
With Baby Reindeer Fiona knew about the play he wrote which later became the series. She wrote him a letter congratulating him on the play not a cease and desist. She knew it was about her then. She is scary!
@@lacysnake she wasn’t being doxxed or receiving death threats then, and scary? Where is the compassion for mentally vulnerable? Bar staff who worked with Gadd have said that he was not the victim of her as he claims. Regardless - it doesn’t negate the fact that the Netflix series said :this is a true story, and the female is convicted of stalking in the series. It is not a reach for people to think that the real life female was as well. Gadd has the whole Netflix team to assist him, who did Fiona have in the barrage of death threats and doxxing that was done to Fiona. Gadd can attend the Emmys. Fiona doesn’t want to leave her flat in London in case she is recognised. Who is the victim here? Really?
@@kb2007xox OOoo. Thanks i appreciate that perspective check you laid down and I'm pickin it up. Really i haven't followed reindeer very closely, just surface info no rabbit hole... Yet lol. But it's scary aslllllll how shit can/does get so fn twisted, for clarity I don't mean your recap is twisted nor any side in reindeer because im noob to it
@@cstump2005 I carry and I'm a 6ft tall black man , it's a fact of life that people get stalked , I've had a few situations where I've nearly had to pull because dudes wouldn't take me not having a dollar to gvie as an answer . Some places do allow a 16 year old to carry , but in the case of can't: teaser or pepper spray.
@@Ike_of_pyke That's great.. If you live in a country that doesn't consider a gun or taser as an illegal weapon and pepper spray as chemical warfare. For people from more conservative countries I guess it's just survival of the fittest.
I would like to give some extra context on the baby reindeer situation. She's Scottish, hardly anyone in the UK knew she was the person who did this until she came out and confirmed it. A small minority found her, but if she hadn't done and interview with Piers Morgan about it, most people wouldn't have bothered to search her up. I am tired of her victimizing herself, when she was the one stalking and harassing a man. A husband of my mus friend used to work beside her, she (allegedly) was an arsehole there too.
I'm from uk also, it was very obvious it was her before she went on piers , I'm not agreeing with what she did. I just don't belive netflix should say its a true story. As some things in programme didn't happen. They also didn't change anything about them. It wasn't like she was cast different , she looked exactly the same and they used exact twitter quote so was easy to find her. I think glad did it on purpose for revenge which is his choose but it has consequences, netflix didn't do their Do diligence
I hope the Supreme Court cuts down on the jury instruction gaming for Read and all defendants. An entire case being lost, mistrialed, or convicted because of being manipulative or shady with the instructions to confuse the jury or deny a person their rights needs to be dialed down. Polling the jury should be law. Clarity is key and our judicial process needs to be honest, not manipulative.
Yeah it’s absurd. The instructions were far too complex and the verdict slip was too complex. It took the judge nearly an hour to read what’s essentially legally fine print! I know they got them printed too, but it’s absurd to think every jury is going to be able to understand a mini crash course of law. I have a very dim view of the lesser includeds even being included at all. Those aren’t in there for justice, they’re a ploy by prosecution who didn’t want it clear. I doubt the jury all had the same understanding of either the instructions or the slip. The first slip version, I thought it was fine too until Jackson explained the ambiguity. The jury could easily have different personal interpretations of this stuff and not even be aware of it. Lally is simply a fundamentally dishonest prosecutor. He’s gaming, not seeking justice.
The defense actually spoke up about jury numerous times. They were aggressive throughout the trial. They walked out without questioning. Supreme Court has enough real issues
People have always made semi-autobiographical creative work. It is often therapeutic and can serve as a step toward moving past traumatic events in one's life. As someone who does this fairly regularly, this is scary to me...work of this kind should not open anyone (or any entity/publisher) to litigation. I am reminded of the quote from Anne Lamott: "You own everything that happened to you. Tell your stories. If people wanted you to write warmly about them, they should have behaved better.”
It's part of why I want to keep following this case. People should be able to tell their stories, but when those stories are partly fictionalized how is that accounted for under the law.
@@TheEmilyDBaker I'm sure there is legal precedent for a case like this, right? Something more specific to the creation of semi-autobiographical creative works than Anti SLAPP? Would Fiona Harvey have figured out the series was about her if the internet didn't internet as mercilessly as they do? I have questions...
Even if netflix made an error of judgement and should have said 'based on' a true story, this is unjust. She should not be rewarded for her continued stalking using the legal system.
It's funny, I never heard of this show or character until she sued. She's definitely bringing more attention to it than would otherwise be there. Streisand effect indeed.
@@FancyRPGCanada I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying, that me, someone who would have never heard of this show otherwise, knows about it solely because of the lawsuit.
Too bad Netflix made absolute statements that are false (arrest, conviction, etc ) If they had just put "based on a true story," they'd be covered. But they didn't.
But surely the statement is immediately contradicted by the fact that the names (at a minimum) are changed. Therefore the audience reasonably knows that not literally EVERY detail is 100% accurate.
The end credits also say "This program is based on real events: however certain characters, names, incidents, locations, and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes."
@@Red1Green2Blue3 definition per se. The fact that she could easily be identified in reality based off of very specific information in the series negates the name change.
if Baby Reindeer was presented as a documentary I would understand, but it was a TV show about real events, I don't think it should be expected that dramatizations be almost 100% factually accurate. By nature media created around real events are going to be impacted by the individual's perception of said events. Can't it be argued changing facts in the story is necessary to protect the individual(s) depicted??
The irony is that Fiona claims defamation but at the same time says she didn't do any of those things at all. So why does she think the character is her? And I think Netflix has all the evidence that the story is actualy true.
@@angelaversnik4570 That's what gets me about this whole thing! She swore up and down on Piers Morgan that the character couldn't be her because she didn't do those things, but that it was her and it's defamation because she didn't do those things, and also Netflix should have changed more facts so that people didn't know the character (who definitely wasn't her) was her. It's incredibly circular.
Why it wasn't on the form is irrelevant it's evident they either thought they had to have all the levels decided and the judge should have polled the jury especially with a blank form! 😢
Not polling the jury and Bev saying explicitly saying don’t write anything down unless you’re unanimous on all 3 counts is the cause here- both could have been addressed by the judge actually doing her job rather than trying to rush out the door and get home early. Lots of what she’s said sounds like she’s trying to put fault on the jury for not knowing what to do which is such nonsense, they’re laypeople they don’t know what they don’t know, it’s no one but Bev’s job to ensure stuff like this doesn’t happen. I’ve criticised a lot of her choices through the case, but this is the most egregious and doubling down on it rather than admitting any fault just smacks of someone who can’t accept they’re wrong or evolve their learning.
Wow. I am surprised at how the judge ruled. Harvey deserves nothing for being a hideous, abusive stalker. I don't care about the issue with her being charged or not. She should have been charged and it is the fault of the police for not pursuing it further.
I wonder if Netflix and other platforms that do these “true but also not” shows are going to start using an Inventing Anna type disclaimer in the future: “This whole story is completely true, except for all the parts that are totally made up”
Even if that process existed here it wouldn't be applied in this case. Police don't care about stalking here and very rarely act upon it because "nothing has happened", until it's too late because something serious happened. This is the same lack of care for victims of both genders, but is especially worse for male victims who are never taken seriously the moment it's established that the aggressor is a female.
I feel like the farther away we get from the original case the harder it is to be able to rely on one's memories of what happens, and the more the potential for influence to occur.
They were told not to tell anyone, including the judge, anything unless you have a unanimous result. THEY got stuck on the chain of events ideology imv.
Jury instructions said not to fill anything unless there was unanimous verdict on everything. Even Yannetti said he'd never seen it done like that. They can just poll the jury, don't need to get into deliberations... easy peasy.
The jury HAD questions regarding the instructions and the Judge said "the instructions are the instructions" Was it just me that heard this? Maybe I'm confused, but the injuries have been proven not to be caused by Karen Reed's car so what exactly is the IQ level in MA?
In my opinion Gadd should be able to tell his story. If you don’t want someone to tell people you’re a stalker don’t be a stalker. He tried to protect her by changing some things and now she’s complaining that she was portrayed to do things she didn’t so I say he make a tell all showing the prof of exactly what she DID do 🤷🏻♀️
Opinion: A retelling can never be accurate and can never be entirely true. It will always be a retelling. A retelling for the purpose of viewer engagement will always be that. Is it true? Yes. Is it entirely true? No. She said the weather was different. It probably was. The facts are substantiated, and that's why it is traceable to her, and that's why it's not defamation.
She called attention to herself. She is using this lawsuit to harass him again. I know it’s just Netflix named, but he is having to deal with her. This woman could be dangerous.
@@mariee.5912 the public identified several people as the stocker. Only she was the only one that ran to television and Morgan. She let everyone know that was the correct guess.
It seems plain to me that the jury instructions (which didn't discuss filling out the form if you were unanimous on some counts and not the others to fill it out and hand it in), then they should be able to ask if they reached a unanimous verdict on some counts, then deduce that they didn't know to turn in the verdicts they agreed upon, and the jury instructions were lacking...(being the court's fault.) If they don't do this and take into account the verdicts reached, than the justice system is even more flawed and broken than I thought it was.
It's likely just a wrong button clicked (brain fart maybe, either way an accident) when setting up the stream. It was open before the end, and she doesn't limit chats to member's only unless it's a specific member's only stream like the behind the scenes podcast recordings. Streamyard made some changes recently, and everyone gets a little messed up when that happens.
@@lyndachele when she records the podcast is members only. When it premiers that’s open to all on Wednesday when it posts. They fixed it right after I got on. She even commented she was trying to fix it but it wouldn’t let her through the mobile app. It’s all good.
How hard would it have been for Netflix to write “Based on a True Story”? I think that has been pretty standard since a movie about Rasputin from the 1930s. Netflix deserves what it gets.
The next question: Why were verdicts not put to paper? does not enter deliberations to me. It is a procedural problem. MA jury instructions are a mess and need rewritten. Polling the jury on each charge ought to be mandatory. Given the absurd things that get endlessly argued during trials, to not poll the jury is in itself criminal.
I 100% feel for Gadd and Harvey should have been dealt with thru the justice system in the UK years ago for the things she actually did to him. Unfortunately for Gadd he gets re-victimized with this lawsuit because Netflix in their greed and to sensationalize & exploit the story decided to start it with "This is a true story" instead of just based on a true story when it was so close to what had happened but with the added things that could be viewed as defamation because they never happened. So Netflix unfortunately did this to themselves even tho Harvey isn't a good (or 100% mentally well) person.
The Karen Reed case was so corrupt from start to finish. I cant believe count 1 and 3 were even charged. This case is one big appeal. After watching lawtube, im not impressed with our court system.
If this were a case in the UK it would probably rule in Netflix favor, based on Johnny Depp Case, where the news paper had reasonable belief that Amber herd was telling the truth. And i feel like for media that is not a bad standard. if Gadd showed the emails/voicemails then the media company should not be held responsible. the writer may still be liable but the media company showing the movie/tv show/article is not responsible.
I'd be interested in hearing more of the Netflix judge's ruling. Also, so many modern movies start with "This is a true story," when it's pure fiction. I'm guessing that would be a defense in context as well.
Hello Emily, I really really think the Karen Reid case should be dismissed. Totally because she did not get a fair trial just from what the officers did.
IMO, If Netflix had used the argument that the character Donnie was typing "This is a true story", they might have weaseled out, but they made the mistake of insisting that it was completely true. Their legal argument has never been solid on this, but certainly helped improve the show's public interest
Excuse Mrs. Baker, I have to do my work. Lol This eye catchy countdown has me watching and waiting for these fidgety pieces to knock into one another like a house cat.😵💫😵💫😵💫 yes absolutely keep it but also i will need something on letterhead to give to my job. Lol
It is an easy answer. You ask one question. Was a verdict reached on some charges. You didn't have to go further. Judges limit what can be asked often. Leave to lawyers to make it more complicated.
I never want Netflix to win, but that woman outed herself then got upset that she was outed, so ig I support Netflix here. And I’ve seen many of the emails, Gad was afraid for his life, she was violent and extremely lewd.
A lot of this could’ve been avoided if they would have pushed more to fix the jury paperwork to where they actually had to check not guilty instead of just having the spot to mark guilty and no spot to mark not guilty. It would’ve been easy to see then that they had come to a decision on some of the counts.
@AF Berg I can't even pay my rent on time! I'm struggling, and not through any fault of my own... RU-vid and chatting with people around the world keeps my mind of sh*t…So yeah... Thanks a lot for your comment, that helps.
Great summary, as always! Would Karen have to foot the bill for the federal appeal? That makes sense but seems incredibly unfair. I’m wondering if a financial backer or nonprofit with considerable resources steps in at that point?
I see the admissions documentary and Baby Reindeer as quite different - one purports to be journalism, and the other is art. Journalism should be held to a high standard of accuracy because that is its purpose, but we've agreed as a society that you can make things up for art, allowing us to have wonderful things like novels and Star Trek. Some journalism is art, but it is difficult because you still have to commit to all the rules of reporting. The statement "This is a true story" takes an emotional art piece and repositions it as journalism when it was not made that way. I'm glad Netflix is taking the legal heat for this, especially because it seems like the artist knew this might be an issue!
Replay Law Nerd Champion🙌🏼 I hope to shake your hand & thank you one day. Just for being EDB. Your authenticity has had such a positive influence in my life🙏🏼 Gratitude 🙏🏼 13:28
I don't understand how the Baby Reindeer lady is a public person. No one knew who she was until she identified herself. She could have just stayed quiet and when confronted said it was'nt her
People found her on Twitter first, I believe. They looked back at Richard’s old tweets and who had tweeted at him. She had sent him a ton of tweets a long time ago the public put it all together. She denied it at first and then went on tv and did interviews. Probably once they offered her money 😅
i have to remind myself that Gadd himself is not being sued and that i don’t actually feel bad for a major corporation. Fiona seems like she sucks, but netflix put storytelling over the truth and then decided anyway to say it was a true story. i can see why they did those things from a writer’s room perspective, but it does seem to me they are in the wrong under these specific set of circumstances
Any one here British who can explain your trespassing laws? It seems a lot of this could have been avoided if "Martha" has been trespassed from the bar and or comedy venues. Here in the US business have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. (Within the specifications of the law.) Once the person is removed or if the person refuses to leave, police can formally trespass the unwanted individual. If that individual does not leave when formally trespassed or returns after being formally trespassed by police, they will be arrested.
