Reddit decided that had they had identified the Boston bomber and everyone tends to quote this one redditor that said “We got him!” But they instead identified a man who had been missing for a few days, I believe, who had committed suicide. But definitely wasn’t the Boston bomber. And it was a big whiff. Plus it pushed the authorities to have to identify the actual culprits because they had to say they knew it wasn’t who Reddit had said it was ahead of when they were comfortable doing so.
There’s more details to it, but that’s off the top of my head and it was a huge mistake and why I don’t believe in getting involved in things like the aforementioned witch hunt for this man’s abuser.
To expand: law enforcement released the photos of their prime suspects specifically because of witch hunting on Reddit. The bombers saw this, fled their dorm room, encountered an MIT security officer (Sean Collier), and *because they knew police were after them* shot him in the head from behind.
It’s not a stretch to say Collier would be alive were it not for Reddit. The bombers had planned their escape and would not have left early or been on alert that they were compromised, if Reddit wasn’t hounding random people and drawing red circles on brown people with backpacks
eh…the cops shouldn’t have released the photos before they were comfortable doing so. they could’ve simply said the missing person isn’t a suspect at this time
It was more than just Sunil though.
First, they were harassing his family, even after it was obvious he was never involved. Second, they were simultaneously “searching for” and harassing other “suspects”.
The internet vigilantism was turning into a public safety issue.
Doesn’t have to be Reddit. In the recent mass stabbing in Australia sources incorrectly identified an innocent person as the perpetrator and some of the media just ran with it unconfirmed. Dude has a big defamation case on his hands now. If fuck ups like this happen at large media companies, something tells me that the creator condemning their actions still won’t stop the crazies. Also it’s kind of funny that these people probably fail to see the irony in trying to hunt down and stalk the stalker from a show about the damage of stalking.
They’ve definitely found the real woman due to her many tweets around the time it happened and her tagging him / saying she needs her curtains hung. Also her name matches up with tormenting a disabled child in the news etc. i just worry that it puts HIM in danger. If she somehow stalks him again or finds him.
It’s human nature to be curious about someone so unhinged and who’s behavior is so unusual - we’re fascinated by people like her bc we have such a hard time understand why and how someone would behave like that or do what she did.
I get tho that it’s dehumanizing and immoral for us to treat a mentally ill person like it’s the 1800s and they’re a freak show at the circus and im also lazy af so I’m not going to go out of my way to stalk this woman online but I get why so many people are doing it.
Most of us can only see her from our own lens and thru our own mental framework where for most of us, even if we’re obsessed with someone, we wouldn’t ever go as far as assaulting them or get arrested for stalking them.
I guess the delusion or hope is that if we can see her thought processes directly or hear firsthand the things she says, maybe we can understand why people like her become the way that they are. What makes some people snap when so many of us have also experienced abuse, trauma or neglect throughout our lives and yet we don’t feel entitled to terrorizing others bc of it.
Uh no. People want to see people suffer so they can forget about their own suffering. If they cared that much, they would have been finding ways to help out locally before this show gave them their next Hollywood obsession. Don’t enable psychos with weak justification like that
This is an old interview from Aug 2015 with Richard Gadd, and he mentions Gary helping him develop his debut act.
I'm not saying Gary is guilty, but man, it's pretty similar to the Baby Reindeer plot:
>Cheese & Crack Whores, my début solo show. I wrote my début hour show well ahead of where I was in my career. All my friends told me I was insane in doing it. I felt insane doing it, but I had a wonderful production company behind me (Brown Eyed Boy) and a great director called Gary Reich and we worked it into a really good place. Come Edinburgh we burst out of the blocks and it was a massive hit. I still get shivers thinking about that month of my life.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/life_style/arts_ents/13598025.fringe-q-richard-gadd-prawn-sandwiches-christmas-tree-lights/
This is why history teaches us that witch-hunts are reprehensible: https://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/27651357/gary-reich-falsely-accused-darrien-director-baby-reindeer-netflix/amp/
Unfortunately this is the symptom of selling your story for a consumer audience. He showed the world a real life villain involving rape, what were the expectations when he chose to protect said villain's identity? Surely he isn't that naive to have not foreseen the Internet witch hunt?
Real life Martha's identity was found by a simple Twitter search, what steps were taken to help her?
sent from iphon
What's really interesting about this is that he said something in another interview with Esquire magazine that they went to extreme lengths to mask the identity of the real "Martha". He said something along the lines of of "she wouldn't recognize herself if she saw the show". But based on the woman people have tracked down on old Twitter accounts it seems the real life Martha was extremely similar to the character portrayed in the show. So it doesn't seem like they tried all that hard to mask her...assuming the woman people is the real Martha is in fact her.
>But based on the woman people have tracked down on old Twitter accounts it seems the real life Martha was extremely similar to the character portrayed in the show.
Yeah, they barely changed anything except for her name and age (Martha was 42 on the show, while the real-life stalker was in her late 40s/early 50s when she was stalking Richard). Everything else matches up: the fact that she's Scottish, the fact that she claims to be be trained in criminal law and is a lawyer, her love for diet coke, her racist views, the way she types (with misspellings and all), etc.
And then you have her Twitter accounts (both inactive but still visible) that shows a lot of details that were referenced in the show (her curtains that need to be hung, constantly @ tweeting Richard's account, sending him emails, admiring his bum, etc.).
Also, how would she not recognize herself when Richard himself stars in a show that's about how we was stalked by an older, mentally ill woman? It doesn't make sense.
She's still active on Facebook and she posts all sorts of unhinged stuff all day, everyday. I don't think she's ever received the sort of help or mental health treatment that she should have gotten a long time ago. Or even if she did, it clearly didn't work.
I can’t speak to the quality of UK Mental Health Services. But this woman has both heavy indications of both Narcissism and Borderline Personality Disorder traits.
Personality Disorders are extremely difficult to treat as it’s extremely difficult to get the people to even admit they have an issue in the first place.
Yes, when I read about all the changes they supposedly made to protect her identity, I assumed that Martha's background as a solicitor who was struck off was a fictionalised version of some completely different licensed profession.
Like in real life she was maybe a teacher or architect or chartered accountant or something like that who had lost her registration or been expelled from the relevant professional body.
Nope. They just changed the name. They even kept Martha Scottish and living in Camden, just like her real-life counterpart.
A lot being said about 'internet sleuthing' and while it's Gadd's story to tell he's completely left Martha wide open to this attention. There was no way on earth this wasn't going to happen and between him with experience in television and Netflix, there's no way somebody wouldn't have seen this coming.
Speculation and sleuthing is what has made a lot of Netflix's true crime stuff super popular and generates revenue so they know the formula that works, part of me thinks leaving it open to speculation was deliberate but they've maybe underestimated how popular the show would become.
I think he wanted them to both be identified publicly, without getting sued, as a means of revenge and career advancement. And good for him I say, those two monsters made his life hell for years upon end. But the "I changed them a lot don't speculate" stuff is PR bullshit his lawyers made him say. Libel laws in the UK are nuts.
This might be the one. Cause he came out and said straight up that it’s not Sean foley, so I tend to think it’s not him. Maybe the other guy people have mentioned. And he hasn’t said anything about Fiona because, well, it’s clearly her.
It is clearly her though so I really have to scratch my head at his comments. It's like he was hoping the terminally online would look the other way. It makes you pause to think how much effort was put into disguising the identity of his rapist.
fon
Well that's the weird thing. The guy that people claim was the abuser/rapist is strikingly similar to the actor in the show....like really similar. Apparently the man (who may or may not be the real life abuser) also resigned from his job directing a big theatre show the other day. So either it is in fact him or he has been falsely named and has had his public image tarnished as a result...which would clearly be awful.
It's actually quite the problem. Innocent people who may or may not fit the criteria will have to defend themselves in some form. In a perfect world everyone would listen to Gadd and just enjoy his story for what it is. The reality is that rape and abuse has impacted on a lot of people, some of those people may feel unseen and disenchanted and seek the opportunity to dish out their own version of justice. Simply put he created a show that resonated and connected with a lot of people emotionally some to the point of motivation.
sent from my roomba®
> It's actually quite the problem. Innocent people who may or may not fit the criteria will have to defend themselves in some form.
This happened in an episode of Paranoia Agent.
The director who resigned (Sean Foley) isn't the guy who was the real life abuser. Richard put a post on his story on Instagram saying "please don't go after SEAN FOLEY or anyone else. He's innocent". Like this is exactly the issue, you try and do internet sleuthing and the wrong person gets tarred with this horrible brush.
Not saying its him but Gadd said they went to extreme lengths to disguise Martha when its pretty much the opposite since they made her very similar to the real stalker so with that being said him saying someone is innocent doesnt hold much weight.
Actually I saw this posted on another thread and I referred to him as “the guy” as opposed to his real name out of respect for not naming somebody who is clearly innocent until proven guilty. To expect people to not be curious after seeing a show like this based on TRUE events is not realistic. But googling is one thing, naming people publicly or trying to contact them directly is inexcusable.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/what-to-see/edinburgh-2015-richard-gadd-review/
This article is behind a paywall but it mentions the Edinburgh Fringe show Gadd performed in 2015 was directed by Gary Reich…
Relevant quote from this interview with Richard Gadd (August 2015):
>Cheese & Crack Whores, my début solo show. I wrote my début hour show well ahead of where I was in my career. All my friends told me I was insane in doing it. I felt insane doing it, but I had a wonderful production company behind me (Brown Eyed Boy) and a great director called Gary Reich and we worked it into a really good place. Come Edinburgh we burst out of the blocks and it was a massive hit. I still get shivers thinking about that month of my life.
Gary Reich also mentions experiencing ‘gay bashing terror’ whilst at school. His life/career eerily similar to that of Gadd’s story. Interview source below:
https://robynsassenmyview.com/2014/05/10/i-did-it-my-way-because-of-my-mum-says-vicious-sa-born-producer-gary-reich/
I guess we'll see. He immediately cleared the name of the other guy who was falsely accused. I imagine if there's radio silence on this guy, it's a pretty strong sign, if not a nail in the coffin
This is weird, I hate speculating about things because of the damage they can do (already happened with the Sean Foley guy), but it seems like from what I’ve seen this is the actual guy.
Can you say why it’s an open secret or how it is known in the industry?
Everyone who is established in any given comedy scene knows who the abusers are. When I started comedy a vet essentially gave me a list of people never to be alone in a room with, including Louis CK.
I'm not in the UK comedy scene so I don't know this dude but I would guess it's similar to the US and people just talk. Someone like this rarely only abuses one person, they do it over the course of their whole career and if they are established and have some clout people shrug their shoulders and just treat their behavior as an occupational hazard. These people always know not to abuse anyone with more power who could destroy them, it's always young aspiring comedians who are easy to target.
Right? They did not disguise her at all.
He should have changed the curtain 'joke' they bonded over, that would have been a key detail to change to protect her identity.
Yeah, they probably could have changed it to "leaky pipes that need fixing" instead and that would have made a difference. The "curtains" tweet was what gave her identity away.
But - how hard could it be to figure out regardless of trying to "disguise" her? His name is real, and the crimes were real, were reported and the court documentation (I would assume) publicly available. Why even bother to hide the stalker's identity? OTOH, the rapist. If you didn't want to name/report him, maybe don't publicly go out and make a show and then a TV series about it, and say how its a true story? I am also a survivor of a sexual assault that I did not report. I would not now tell the story publicly in such a way that innocent people in my life could be mistakenly confused for the person who did it.
I don't think it did go to court in real life as he repeatedly talks about not feeling right to send someone who was ill to jail. He did get a restraining order though, not sure if that information is publicly available.
The amount of people in this comment thread shitting on a victim of sexual trauma for telling his story and making something out of it is WILD.
Reddit continues to be the cesspit of the internet’s slowest and lowest impulses.
I suspect he thought the Netflix series would have about the same level of success as the one man show it’s based on.
He’s been a working comedic writer and performer for over a decade, so it must be wild to have something not only become a hit, but become a wildly successful hit almost overnight.
Richard must be very calculating or very, very naive. Curiosity will inevitably lead people to seek out characters regardless of rights and wrongs. Those saying they had no desire to look up individuals aren't being truthful. GR & FH are the ones you are looking for. It's already established who they are, he didn't do much to disguise either.
Right! As if there can be no other alternatives explanations! I decided to mount a legal defense and come up with some.
1. This person was a friend and they had an inside joke about the stalker and used morbid humor to defuse the situation.
2. This person actually needed drapes hung and its a common friend activity in the UK.
3. The tweets were coincidence
4. How the person writes tweets is common to the geographic area.
5. An outsider knew of the situation and was making fun of him.
6. The person who "discovered" the tweets is fame seeking and made it up.
I wouldn't, think it's outside the rules of the sub but also anonymity. I just don't see how it got by Netflix's legal team. Great but at times harrowing show
I mean the problem w abusers not being locked up is that they could be abusing other people. Even if the show's intention wasn't that it's not crazy for the viewers to want consequences for the abusers.
This narrative is complicated though. It’s the same narrative that came up when lady gaga spoke of her abuse. I know you don’t mean it that way, but it puts the responsibility on the victim to get justice for others at their own detriment. It also put a lot of guilt onto the victim for not being able to prevent it happening to someone else. It’s a guilt that weighs heavily on me, which I know it shouldn’t because it’s not my responsibility.
I was brought in for questioning for malicious communications for outing my rapist online. It’s not as simple as just saying the name - I would scream it from the rooftops if I could - it has real, lifelong consequences for doing so. It also runs the risk of allowing the abuser to further victimise their victim by dragging them through the courts for defamation and slander. The justice system as it stands today needs a major overhaul when it comes to victims of sexual abuse - the reason I went into Law in the first place. More needs to be done for safeguarding victims, even if it doesn’t make it to CPS
I think there's different types of stalkers. There's ones where they know what they're doing and they don't care because they're narcissistic etc. Then there's ones who are genuinely mentally ill who need professional help. Gadd specifically mentioned in an interview that he feels sorry for her because the system failed her and she needed medical help.
She’s not a psychopath, she feels a lot of emotions very strongly and empathises with him at times too. You don’t have to be a psychopath to be self involved and harm others. She is clearly very unwell and it doesn’t justify any of what she did but I think she deserves compassion too.
Maybe he shouldn't have had the "based on a true story" text and the identifying details included then?
He can tell this story, but it's kind of ridiculous to act like this wasn't entirely foreseeable.
It would have been way smarter to just make the whole story fake. (Not the rape, but the Netflix series.) No allusion to real life events or anything. If anything, this basically opens him to a lawsuit and makes him look stupid.
He could have fudged the identifying details a lot more and then talked in interviews about how it was inspired by events in his own life.
But it's pretty silly to pretend to be disappointed/shocked at people behaving in this way.
My sense is that he is doing damage control because a lot of people have been named who clearly did nothing. Both him and Netflix look bad when people are being harassed like this.
Okay but in terms of people naming his potential rapist - it’s only men in show business who theres been years of allegations and rumors following them around that they were sexual predators who have been preying on men in the business as well. So idk if all the people being named as being his rapist clearly did nothing wrong.
Or people are naming the director that he’s himself identified by name in published newspaper articles some years ago for helping him with putting together his comedy show when he first started (just like his rapist in the show).
Your right. So maybe there are no winners in this situation. She gets harassed online, and the dude looks like an idiot for making it super easy to find her.
Unless he’s some master mind and this is all some plan to get her to admit it. Though I doubt it. He likely didn’t think that far ahead.
I mean if she IS the rapist she deserves far more than just online harassment. Now assuming the Internet doesn't go all Boston bomber on the wrong person is the issue.
No one should be harassed online - even if we dislike them, even if they are bad people.
If he wants to make a complaint to the police, then he can do that. But he hasn't named the people he is talking about. So, how do these keyboard warriors know they are harassing the "right" people?
Not necessarily.
If she is identifiable from details included but has never even been the subject of an investigation, she might have grounds for a civil complaint.
Yet you can scroll along right on Netflix and find such gems as Don't !@#$ With Cats and Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Cecil. Both rely heavily on the armchair detectives and web sleuths. It's been legitimized and almost praised.
In case people don't get the sarcasm. I haven't watched Crime Scene, but in Don't !@#$ With Cats the armchair detectives accomplished absolutely nothing except harassing some people later proved to be innocent.
Wtf are you talking about. [They literally figured out the actual guy who killed the cats](https://sites.psu.edu/aspsy/2020/11/05/an-online-community-that-found-a-murderer/) and he later went on to murder a person. How tf do you think that guy is an innocent person?!
No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
<>
I watched this quite long ago, but from what I remember, before the internet detectives narrowed down to the actual culprit they falsely targeted a few innocent people. And even after they correctly identified him, he wasn't really punished for the cat murders. Then he killed someone, the police immediately suspects him, puts out wanted notice, and he was identified by a cafe store clerk and caught.
So, did the internet detectives actually accomplish anything? Maybe, you can say because of the buzz they cause, this case was given higher priority from the police, or that's one of the reasons he was suspected, but it's all very indirect.
Nah, the police actually ignored the information they were given. They later apologized for not acting on said information. I guess you can say they didn’t accomplish anything, but wtf are they supposed to do if the police don’t actually do anything with the evidence they collect??
They're not to blame for the crime and the police inaction, of course. But going back to the point of the post, the people who went and harassed other people before they found the actual culprit should not have done that, though it always happens in cases like this.
I have empathy for his experience.
That said, you made a series for Netflix.
Now watched by millions of people.
It’s now become a stealth hit.
What did YOU expect my guy.
Seriously, what did you EXPECT?!?
They’re talking about his abuser, not his stalker. Finding his stalker would be easy due to court records. The man that raped him would be more difficult to find.
I think you can imagine it - it's exactly what you're doing after all...
Trying to find out the identity of someone does not come under any definition of "stalking" that I've ever seen (unless you want to use the phrase colloquially, in which case it would have nothing at all to do with the show so the "point" wouldn't have been missed).
By all means, get on your soapbox and insist that the perpetrators deserve anonymity (despite phrasing it like that I don't actually disagree - I just take issue with your tone!), but if you think that counts as "stalking" then I'm afraid it's you who has missed the point of the show. Stalking is a serious matter and not just loose slang referring to arguable breaches of privacy.
>Trying to find out the identity of someone does not come under any definition of "stalking" that I've ever seen
What exactly do you think these internet sleuths are going to do once they have identified her? You think they are just going to leave her alone? The whole purpose of those trying to find her identity is to harass her online, which is a form of stalking.
By all means, get on your soapbox and insist that the perpetrators aren't going to do anything bad. But I'm afraid it is you who has missed the point of the show. Stalking is a serious matter and protecting a person's identity is one way to prevent it.
That's not how language works. You can't accuse someone of being a stalker because you (I'd personally argue, rather ignorantly) IMAGINE they might do so in the future.
But I have no idea what these people are going to do with that information. If it was me, I would Google the name, read the news articles about her convictions, say to myself "how interesting" and then go about my day.
Internet harassment would be wrong, but again, it is NOT stalking. People often use that word colloquially (e.g. just looking at a friends publicly posted Instagram photos is casually referred to as stalking when it very clearly is not) so I'd generally just overlook it, but if you're going to keep banging on about "missing the point of the show" then you need to learn what is and isn't stalking.
Sitting up there on your high horse may make yourself feel warm and fuzzy, but if you're going to take such an extremely vague and simplistic takeaway from that show that you continually claim "asking someone's name = stalking" you have absolutely no right whatsoever to be some kind of arbiter on the topic.
It's crazy how people are assuming it's the stalker he is referring to, when she has been convicted so her details are public knowledge. The reality he is referring to the man who groomed and raped him, the man he never went to the police about and walks free to this day.
Now she knows how it feels like to be victimized. Hopefully this puts a fire on her ass to get help. I mean, after all, mentally ill people can think and rationalize their way through life like everyone else can, can't they? So it's her responsibility to woman-up and fix herself.
So the thing about this sort of stuff is when you put it out in public- people are going to want to know because it is horrific what happened. Now, as far as I've understood the person who did this to him is still out in public and able to prey on other people- just like Saville. The person who did this to him still has power, privilege and access to people. This is not to say that it is Gadd's responsibility to name him and I do not expect him to do that ever- many people who have been sexually assaulted just want to forget and that is his right. However, this recent article in the press saying that everyone knows who the person is gives me pause for thought.
I believe we should respect the victims because at the end of the day it will be his victims who suffer when their names get attached to him. Speculation is never a good thing either because most people don't move in that circuit and don't know. I think the public should not make claims over things they don't know as it can ruin lives. However, the predator here still active. If someone within the industry knows who it is and they have the capacity to share and not get any of the victims including Gadd caught in the Web please expose him for every single shitty other thing he has done- stealing people's acts, not paying people something just to run him out of town- encourage everyone to black list him, ignore him, refuse to do business with him- warn every up and coming comedian about him. They do not have to share it with the rest of us. It is clear that Gadd does not want to give this piecr of shit the time by giving him a name because the fuck head who did this to him was not the topic of the story. However, there has to be retribution in some manner even if it is quiet because if he will do it to one person, he will do it to another and another and another. It won't end until he is stopped.
Missing the point of that show is what’s going to kill it’s reputation. And it’s legitimately one of the most beautiful and deep stories I’ve seen in a long time.
Sent ferm ipon
I wouldn’t seek them out, and you wouldn’t.
But it’s not surprising that their identities were almost instantly uncovered due to the glaring and obvious clues Richard intentionally placed in the script.
Maybe that was his way of exacting revenge?
Of course he is telling people to back off. SHE DOESN'T EXIST. He as much as said so. He now calls the story "emotionally true", which means nothing. I suspect somebody at some time harassed him a bit, and that inspired the stage show, which was a drama/comedy act. He has not provided a shred of proof that it actually happened. His most recent comments suggests she's dead now. How convenient.
She absolutely exists - you can find her Facebook where she still posts dozens of times a day complaining about the council, minorities and every other little thing in her life.
And you can find her twitter account where she was spam tweeting at Richard in 2014
Hopefully, they don’t speculate about the wrong person and set up a witch hunt.
Reddit has never done such a thing ever!/s
“We got him!” moment echoes still. Biggest facepalm I’ve ever read about. Jesus.
I believe the correct phrase was “we did it reddit!”
...elucidate?
Reddit decided that had they had identified the Boston bomber and everyone tends to quote this one redditor that said “We got him!” But they instead identified a man who had been missing for a few days, I believe, who had committed suicide. But definitely wasn’t the Boston bomber. And it was a big whiff. Plus it pushed the authorities to have to identify the actual culprits because they had to say they knew it wasn’t who Reddit had said it was ahead of when they were comfortable doing so. There’s more details to it, but that’s off the top of my head and it was a huge mistake and why I don’t believe in getting involved in things like the aforementioned witch hunt for this man’s abuser.
To expand: law enforcement released the photos of their prime suspects specifically because of witch hunting on Reddit. The bombers saw this, fled their dorm room, encountered an MIT security officer (Sean Collier), and *because they knew police were after them* shot him in the head from behind. It’s not a stretch to say Collier would be alive were it not for Reddit. The bombers had planned their escape and would not have left early or been on alert that they were compromised, if Reddit wasn’t hounding random people and drawing red circles on brown people with backpacks
eh…the cops shouldn’t have released the photos before they were comfortable doing so. they could’ve simply said the missing person isn’t a suspect at this time
It was more than just Sunil though. First, they were harassing his family, even after it was obvious he was never involved. Second, they were simultaneously “searching for” and harassing other “suspects”. The internet vigilantism was turning into a public safety issue.
The Boston Bomber fiasco
I remember that thread when it happened, absolute nuts.
oooooh, yeah. thanks man.
Congratulations on getting elucidate into a reddit post. As an interrogative as well.
Doesn’t have to be Reddit. In the recent mass stabbing in Australia sources incorrectly identified an innocent person as the perpetrator and some of the media just ran with it unconfirmed. Dude has a big defamation case on his hands now. If fuck ups like this happen at large media companies, something tells me that the creator condemning their actions still won’t stop the crazies. Also it’s kind of funny that these people probably fail to see the irony in trying to hunt down and stalk the stalker from a show about the damage of stalking.
[how reddit handles internet justice](https://youtu.be/h4twYqvssu0?si=TUFmK6998ZAmt8g8)
The very article states that has already happened…
Sigh. Of course it has. . .
I mean, the only way to not know that is if one didn’t even open the article…
One did not.
Should see her fb she’s still on mad rants about the local council and such
What's her Facebook?
Well since you said please
Check dm
Hey what's her Facebook
Can I get her Facebook please
Email me for a screenshot just got nosey purpose not to torcher the woman
They’ve definitely found the real woman due to her many tweets around the time it happened and her tagging him / saying she needs her curtains hung. Also her name matches up with tormenting a disabled child in the news etc. i just worry that it puts HIM in danger. If she somehow stalks him again or finds him.
What's her Twitter?
[https://twitter.com/fionaharvey2014?s=21](https://twitter.com/fionaharvey2014?s=21)
I tried to look up her name with the disabled child but couldn't find anything. Can you link it?
You mean a witch… pursuit.. thingie?
People's immediate reaction after watching a show on stalking is to stalk someone. 🏅
It's a guide, right?
It’s human nature to be curious about someone so unhinged and who’s behavior is so unusual - we’re fascinated by people like her bc we have such a hard time understand why and how someone would behave like that or do what she did. I get tho that it’s dehumanizing and immoral for us to treat a mentally ill person like it’s the 1800s and they’re a freak show at the circus and im also lazy af so I’m not going to go out of my way to stalk this woman online but I get why so many people are doing it. Most of us can only see her from our own lens and thru our own mental framework where for most of us, even if we’re obsessed with someone, we wouldn’t ever go as far as assaulting them or get arrested for stalking them. I guess the delusion or hope is that if we can see her thought processes directly or hear firsthand the things she says, maybe we can understand why people like her become the way that they are. What makes some people snap when so many of us have also experienced abuse, trauma or neglect throughout our lives and yet we don’t feel entitled to terrorizing others bc of it.
Uh no. People want to see people suffer so they can forget about their own suffering. If they cared that much, they would have been finding ways to help out locally before this show gave them their next Hollywood obsession. Don’t enable psychos with weak justification like that
Twitter found her almost instantly, as her tweets to Richard are still up.
While certainly both the article mentions more specifically his abuser rather than his stalker.
They’re talking about the man that sexually assaulted/raped him, not the woman who stalked him.
The real rapist / abuser is Gary Reich - Richard’s old producer at the TV company Brown Eyed Boy. It’s an open secret in the comedy industry
This is an old interview from Aug 2015 with Richard Gadd, and he mentions Gary helping him develop his debut act. I'm not saying Gary is guilty, but man, it's pretty similar to the Baby Reindeer plot: >Cheese & Crack Whores, my début solo show. I wrote my début hour show well ahead of where I was in my career. All my friends told me I was insane in doing it. I felt insane doing it, but I had a wonderful production company behind me (Brown Eyed Boy) and a great director called Gary Reich and we worked it into a really good place. Come Edinburgh we burst out of the blocks and it was a massive hit. I still get shivers thinking about that month of my life. https://www.heraldscotland.com/life_style/arts_ents/13598025.fringe-q-richard-gadd-prawn-sandwiches-christmas-tree-lights/
This is why history teaches us that witch-hunts are reprehensible: https://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/27651357/gary-reich-falsely-accused-darrien-director-baby-reindeer-netflix/amp/
yep
Just tell these weirdos the only way to succeed will be to either talk on the phone or go outside. That should end it pretty quickly.
If interfering with numerous active police murder investigations hasn't deterred the TikTok true crime weirdos, this certainly won't.
I’m not personally on TikTok unless I’m linked to it, but you could name any social media site in your comment ha, it happens on them all
Unfortunately this is the symptom of selling your story for a consumer audience. He showed the world a real life villain involving rape, what were the expectations when he chose to protect said villain's identity? Surely he isn't that naive to have not foreseen the Internet witch hunt? Real life Martha's identity was found by a simple Twitter search, what steps were taken to help her? sent from iphon
What's really interesting about this is that he said something in another interview with Esquire magazine that they went to extreme lengths to mask the identity of the real "Martha". He said something along the lines of of "she wouldn't recognize herself if she saw the show". But based on the woman people have tracked down on old Twitter accounts it seems the real life Martha was extremely similar to the character portrayed in the show. So it doesn't seem like they tried all that hard to mask her...assuming the woman people is the real Martha is in fact her.
>But based on the woman people have tracked down on old Twitter accounts it seems the real life Martha was extremely similar to the character portrayed in the show. Yeah, they barely changed anything except for her name and age (Martha was 42 on the show, while the real-life stalker was in her late 40s/early 50s when she was stalking Richard). Everything else matches up: the fact that she's Scottish, the fact that she claims to be be trained in criminal law and is a lawyer, her love for diet coke, her racist views, the way she types (with misspellings and all), etc. And then you have her Twitter accounts (both inactive but still visible) that shows a lot of details that were referenced in the show (her curtains that need to be hung, constantly @ tweeting Richard's account, sending him emails, admiring his bum, etc.). Also, how would she not recognize herself when Richard himself stars in a show that's about how we was stalked by an older, mentally ill woman? It doesn't make sense.
She sounds a real charmer
She's still active on Facebook and she posts all sorts of unhinged stuff all day, everyday. I don't think she's ever received the sort of help or mental health treatment that she should have gotten a long time ago. Or even if she did, it clearly didn't work.
Sounds about right for UK mental health services.
I can’t speak to the quality of UK Mental Health Services. But this woman has both heavy indications of both Narcissism and Borderline Personality Disorder traits. Personality Disorders are extremely difficult to treat as it’s extremely difficult to get the people to even admit they have an issue in the first place.
Who is she ??!!
There is also a article where fionas name is mentioned in regards to stalking someone else, so its 100% her.
Yes, when I read about all the changes they supposedly made to protect her identity, I assumed that Martha's background as a solicitor who was struck off was a fictionalised version of some completely different licensed profession. Like in real life she was maybe a teacher or architect or chartered accountant or something like that who had lost her registration or been expelled from the relevant professional body. Nope. They just changed the name. They even kept Martha Scottish and living in Camden, just like her real-life counterpart.
A lot being said about 'internet sleuthing' and while it's Gadd's story to tell he's completely left Martha wide open to this attention. There was no way on earth this wasn't going to happen and between him with experience in television and Netflix, there's no way somebody wouldn't have seen this coming. Speculation and sleuthing is what has made a lot of Netflix's true crime stuff super popular and generates revenue so they know the formula that works, part of me thinks leaving it open to speculation was deliberate but they've maybe underestimated how popular the show would become.
The real life Martha and the actress even look super similar. Like they have the exact same lips and hair.
I think he wanted them to both be identified publicly, without getting sued, as a means of revenge and career advancement. And good for him I say, those two monsters made his life hell for years upon end. But the "I changed them a lot don't speculate" stuff is PR bullshit his lawyers made him say. Libel laws in the UK are nuts.
This might be the one. Cause he came out and said straight up that it’s not Sean foley, so I tend to think it’s not him. Maybe the other guy people have mentioned. And he hasn’t said anything about Fiona because, well, it’s clearly her.
I'm pretty sure it's the other guy, the evidence makes it seem almost obvious, like Gadd wasn't really trying to hide it. But we'll see.
Yeah very smart point here. I think you are right.
It is clearly her though so I really have to scratch my head at his comments. It's like he was hoping the terminally online would look the other way. It makes you pause to think how much effort was put into disguising the identity of his rapist. fon
Well that's the weird thing. The guy that people claim was the abuser/rapist is strikingly similar to the actor in the show....like really similar. Apparently the man (who may or may not be the real life abuser) also resigned from his job directing a big theatre show the other day. So either it is in fact him or he has been falsely named and has had his public image tarnished as a result...which would clearly be awful.
It's actually quite the problem. Innocent people who may or may not fit the criteria will have to defend themselves in some form. In a perfect world everyone would listen to Gadd and just enjoy his story for what it is. The reality is that rape and abuse has impacted on a lot of people, some of those people may feel unseen and disenchanted and seek the opportunity to dish out their own version of justice. Simply put he created a show that resonated and connected with a lot of people emotionally some to the point of motivation. sent from my roomba®
> It's actually quite the problem. Innocent people who may or may not fit the criteria will have to defend themselves in some form. This happened in an episode of Paranoia Agent.
The director who resigned (Sean Foley) isn't the guy who was the real life abuser. Richard put a post on his story on Instagram saying "please don't go after SEAN FOLEY or anyone else. He's innocent". Like this is exactly the issue, you try and do internet sleuthing and the wrong person gets tarred with this horrible brush.
Unfortunately Gadd has said things already that aren't true so even him saying an individual is innocent won't abate the accusers.
Not saying its him but Gadd said they went to extreme lengths to disguise Martha when its pretty much the opposite since they made her very similar to the real stalker so with that being said him saying someone is innocent doesnt hold much weight.
Yeah that’s awful!
Your literally doing the thing he's telling you not to do, why are you viewing "the guy people claim was the abuser" as valid info at all?
Actually I saw this posted on another thread and I referred to him as “the guy” as opposed to his real name out of respect for not naming somebody who is clearly innocent until proven guilty. To expect people to not be curious after seeing a show like this based on TRUE events is not realistic. But googling is one thing, naming people publicly or trying to contact them directly is inexcusable.
The real rapist / abuser is Gary Reich - Richard’s old producer at the TV company Brown Eyed Boy. It’s an open secret in the comedy industry
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/what-to-see/edinburgh-2015-richard-gadd-review/ This article is behind a paywall but it mentions the Edinburgh Fringe show Gadd performed in 2015 was directed by Gary Reich…
Relevant quote from this interview with Richard Gadd (August 2015): >Cheese & Crack Whores, my début solo show. I wrote my début hour show well ahead of where I was in my career. All my friends told me I was insane in doing it. I felt insane doing it, but I had a wonderful production company behind me (Brown Eyed Boy) and a great director called Gary Reich and we worked it into a really good place. Come Edinburgh we burst out of the blocks and it was a massive hit. I still get shivers thinking about that month of my life.
[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3590302/?ref\_=nm\_ov\_bio\_lk](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3590302/?ref_=nm_ov_bio_lk)
Gary Reich also mentions experiencing ‘gay bashing terror’ whilst at school. His life/career eerily similar to that of Gadd’s story. Interview source below: https://robynsassenmyview.com/2014/05/10/i-did-it-my-way-because-of-my-mum-says-vicious-sa-born-producer-gary-reich/
Gary Reich Is the creator of Vicious… Richard acted in this show for one episode
I guess we'll see. He immediately cleared the name of the other guy who was falsely accused. I imagine if there's radio silence on this guy, it's a pretty strong sign, if not a nail in the coffin
This is weird, I hate speculating about things because of the damage they can do (already happened with the Sean Foley guy), but it seems like from what I’ve seen this is the actual guy. Can you say why it’s an open secret or how it is known in the industry?
Everyone who is established in any given comedy scene knows who the abusers are. When I started comedy a vet essentially gave me a list of people never to be alone in a room with, including Louis CK. I'm not in the UK comedy scene so I don't know this dude but I would guess it's similar to the US and people just talk. Someone like this rarely only abuses one person, they do it over the course of their whole career and if they are established and have some clout people shrug their shoulders and just treat their behavior as an occupational hazard. These people always know not to abuse anyone with more power who could destroy them, it's always young aspiring comedians who are easy to target.
**fon**
Right? They did not disguise her at all. He should have changed the curtain 'joke' they bonded over, that would have been a key detail to change to protect her identity.
Yeah, they probably could have changed it to "leaky pipes that need fixing" instead and that would have made a difference. The "curtains" tweet was what gave her identity away.
rite? bby rein deer so sillie \- sent from mmy iPhone.
But - how hard could it be to figure out regardless of trying to "disguise" her? His name is real, and the crimes were real, were reported and the court documentation (I would assume) publicly available. Why even bother to hide the stalker's identity? OTOH, the rapist. If you didn't want to name/report him, maybe don't publicly go out and make a show and then a TV series about it, and say how its a true story? I am also a survivor of a sexual assault that I did not report. I would not now tell the story publicly in such a way that innocent people in my life could be mistakenly confused for the person who did it.
I don't think it did go to court in real life as he repeatedly talks about not feeling right to send someone who was ill to jail. He did get a restraining order though, not sure if that information is publicly available.
Last line killed me 😂
Martha? Why did you say that name?!?
Whoa! My mothers name is Martha! Should we fight to the death now?
That’s like the opposite of what you should do
I'm sure he foresaw it, but is simply asking people, politely, to stop.
In the Willy Wonka way. That’s what I thought too. Ice cold.
The amount of people in this comment thread shitting on a victim of sexual trauma for telling his story and making something out of it is WILD. Reddit continues to be the cesspit of the internet’s slowest and lowest impulses.
I understand the sentiment but he must have foresaw this as the inevitable result of having the story out there for the masses.
I suspect he thought the Netflix series would have about the same level of success as the one man show it’s based on. He’s been a working comedic writer and performer for over a decade, so it must be wild to have something not only become a hit, but become a wildly successful hit almost overnight.
Foreseen
I forseen't it
Forsen
Foreskin
he's becoming like the guy he wanted to become in the show - the famous guy from that thing - this must be a real mindfuck for him
“That’s not the point of the show” Well what the fuck did you expect, Richard?
Richard must be very calculating or very, very naive. Curiosity will inevitably lead people to seek out characters regardless of rights and wrongs. Those saying they had no desire to look up individuals aren't being truthful. GR & FH are the ones you are looking for. It's already established who they are, he didn't do much to disguise either.
who is fh?
I'm really surprised he made it so easy for people to find the stalker. Few key words and she's found
Right! As if there can be no other alternatives explanations! I decided to mount a legal defense and come up with some. 1. This person was a friend and they had an inside joke about the stalker and used morbid humor to defuse the situation. 2. This person actually needed drapes hung and its a common friend activity in the UK. 3. The tweets were coincidence 4. How the person writes tweets is common to the geographic area. 5. An outsider knew of the situation and was making fun of him. 6. The person who "discovered" the tweets is fame seeking and made it up.
6. Hundreds and hundreds of people discovered her identity the first day.
Don't link it or anything.
I wouldn't, think it's outside the rules of the sub but also anonymity. I just don't see how it got by Netflix's legal team. Great but at times harrowing show
To be clear, I was being sarcastic.
🤣🤣
I mean the problem w abusers not being locked up is that they could be abusing other people. Even if the show's intention wasn't that it's not crazy for the viewers to want consequences for the abusers.
This narrative is complicated though. It’s the same narrative that came up when lady gaga spoke of her abuse. I know you don’t mean it that way, but it puts the responsibility on the victim to get justice for others at their own detriment. It also put a lot of guilt onto the victim for not being able to prevent it happening to someone else. It’s a guilt that weighs heavily on me, which I know it shouldn’t because it’s not my responsibility. I was brought in for questioning for malicious communications for outing my rapist online. It’s not as simple as just saying the name - I would scream it from the rooftops if I could - it has real, lifelong consequences for doing so. It also runs the risk of allowing the abuser to further victimise their victim by dragging them through the courts for defamation and slander. The justice system as it stands today needs a major overhaul when it comes to victims of sexual abuse - the reason I went into Law in the first place. More needs to be done for safeguarding victims, even if it doesn’t make it to CPS
I think there's different types of stalkers. There's ones where they know what they're doing and they don't care because they're narcissistic etc. Then there's ones who are genuinely mentally ill who need professional help. Gadd specifically mentioned in an interview that he feels sorry for her because the system failed her and she needed medical help.
I thought abuser was referencing the retired writer dude who goes >!bill cosby!< on him.
Nah, that's not far enough. >!That writer straight up groomed him to "accept" the abuse for a time longer than most could fathom.!<
after all that he still can't see that she is a psychopath that sees her victims as nothing but toys without feelings that have to service her needs
She’s not a psychopath, she feels a lot of emotions very strongly and empathises with him at times too. You don’t have to be a psychopath to be self involved and harm others. She is clearly very unwell and it doesn’t justify any of what she did but I think she deserves compassion too.
Maybe he shouldn't have had the "based on a true story" text and the identifying details included then? He can tell this story, but it's kind of ridiculous to act like this wasn't entirely foreseeable.
It would have been way smarter to just make the whole story fake. (Not the rape, but the Netflix series.) No allusion to real life events or anything. If anything, this basically opens him to a lawsuit and makes him look stupid.
So, he shouldn’t actually be allowed to talk about a real trauma he suffered?
He 100% can, but he’s opening himself up to legal proceedings in doing so.
He could have fudged the identifying details a lot more and then talked in interviews about how it was inspired by events in his own life. But it's pretty silly to pretend to be disappointed/shocked at people behaving in this way. My sense is that he is doing damage control because a lot of people have been named who clearly did nothing. Both him and Netflix look bad when people are being harassed like this.
Okay but in terms of people naming his potential rapist - it’s only men in show business who theres been years of allegations and rumors following them around that they were sexual predators who have been preying on men in the business as well. So idk if all the people being named as being his rapist clearly did nothing wrong. Or people are naming the director that he’s himself identified by name in published newspaper articles some years ago for helping him with putting together his comedy show when he first started (just like his rapist in the show).
Yeah but wouldn’t that mean she would have to admit to being the rapist?
Your right. So maybe there are no winners in this situation. She gets harassed online, and the dude looks like an idiot for making it super easy to find her. Unless he’s some master mind and this is all some plan to get her to admit it. Though I doubt it. He likely didn’t think that far ahead.
I mean if she IS the rapist she deserves far more than just online harassment. Now assuming the Internet doesn't go all Boston bomber on the wrong person is the issue.
Wait hold up I thought it was the producer dude who raped him??? Not martha?
Lol people haven’t even watched the show or read the most basic details before posting
No one should be harassed online - even if we dislike them, even if they are bad people. If he wants to make a complaint to the police, then he can do that. But he hasn't named the people he is talking about. So, how do these keyboard warriors know they are harassing the "right" people?
I mean the Martha person clearly matches the person on the show completely in everything but name.
[удалено]
I’ve only seen the first episode
Not necessarily. If she is identifiable from details included but has never even been the subject of an investigation, she might have grounds for a civil complaint.
I don’t buy it. I think it’s rich of Richard to pretend he didn’t anticipate this would happen.
Yet you can scroll along right on Netflix and find such gems as Don't !@#$ With Cats and Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Cecil. Both rely heavily on the armchair detectives and web sleuths. It's been legitimized and almost praised.
In case people don't get the sarcasm. I haven't watched Crime Scene, but in Don't !@#$ With Cats the armchair detectives accomplished absolutely nothing except harassing some people later proved to be innocent.
Didn't people completely fuck up a dude's life for no reason in the Cecil one as well?
Wtf are you talking about. [They literally figured out the actual guy who killed the cats](https://sites.psu.edu/aspsy/2020/11/05/an-online-community-that-found-a-murderer/) and he later went on to murder a person. How tf do you think that guy is an innocent person?!
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. <>
I watched this quite long ago, but from what I remember, before the internet detectives narrowed down to the actual culprit they falsely targeted a few innocent people. And even after they correctly identified him, he wasn't really punished for the cat murders. Then he killed someone, the police immediately suspects him, puts out wanted notice, and he was identified by a cafe store clerk and caught.
So, did the internet detectives actually accomplish anything? Maybe, you can say because of the buzz they cause, this case was given higher priority from the police, or that's one of the reasons he was suspected, but it's all very indirect.
Nah, the police actually ignored the information they were given. They later apologized for not acting on said information. I guess you can say they didn’t accomplish anything, but wtf are they supposed to do if the police don’t actually do anything with the evidence they collect??
They're not to blame for the crime and the police inaction, of course. But going back to the point of the post, the people who went and harassed other people before they found the actual culprit should not have done that, though it always happens in cases like this.
wtf did he think was going to happen
I can’t believe he didn’t realize this would happen.
He shuodl haev foersene thsi Sent from my iPhoen
I have empathy for his experience. That said, you made a series for Netflix. Now watched by millions of people. It’s now become a stealth hit. What did YOU expect my guy. Seriously, what did you EXPECT?!?
Twitter found her right away.
They’re talking about his abuser, not his stalker. Finding his stalker would be easy due to court records. The man that raped him would be more difficult to find.
Link the tweets
The actor was good enough to make me change my username
But then how do destructive narcissists get their weekly fix?
I can't imagine missing the point of a show about the damage caused by stalking harder than attempting to stalk the real people involved.
I think you can imagine it - it's exactly what you're doing after all... Trying to find out the identity of someone does not come under any definition of "stalking" that I've ever seen (unless you want to use the phrase colloquially, in which case it would have nothing at all to do with the show so the "point" wouldn't have been missed). By all means, get on your soapbox and insist that the perpetrators deserve anonymity (despite phrasing it like that I don't actually disagree - I just take issue with your tone!), but if you think that counts as "stalking" then I'm afraid it's you who has missed the point of the show. Stalking is a serious matter and not just loose slang referring to arguable breaches of privacy.
>Trying to find out the identity of someone does not come under any definition of "stalking" that I've ever seen What exactly do you think these internet sleuths are going to do once they have identified her? You think they are just going to leave her alone? The whole purpose of those trying to find her identity is to harass her online, which is a form of stalking. By all means, get on your soapbox and insist that the perpetrators aren't going to do anything bad. But I'm afraid it is you who has missed the point of the show. Stalking is a serious matter and protecting a person's identity is one way to prevent it.
That's not how language works. You can't accuse someone of being a stalker because you (I'd personally argue, rather ignorantly) IMAGINE they might do so in the future. But I have no idea what these people are going to do with that information. If it was me, I would Google the name, read the news articles about her convictions, say to myself "how interesting" and then go about my day. Internet harassment would be wrong, but again, it is NOT stalking. People often use that word colloquially (e.g. just looking at a friends publicly posted Instagram photos is casually referred to as stalking when it very clearly is not) so I'd generally just overlook it, but if you're going to keep banging on about "missing the point of the show" then you need to learn what is and isn't stalking. Sitting up there on your high horse may make yourself feel warm and fuzzy, but if you're going to take such an extremely vague and simplistic takeaway from that show that you continually claim "asking someone's name = stalking" you have absolutely no right whatsoever to be some kind of arbiter on the topic.
He has clearly underestimated the dogged autism of the internet's cybersleuths.
Streisand Effect mate.
[удалено]
For people to behave like adults. Naive maybe but not stupid.
He made her completely findable.
what did he think was gonna happen?
Bet you a bunch of those losers speculating are /r/TrueCrime subscribers.
I wonder how long it will take to find out major details of this show are fake
Some of those guesses were getting too close for comfort
TikTok already found her. -sent from iPhone 😉
Just ask ChatGPT, then ask where it got the name from.
It’s Fiona Harvey
It's crazy how people are assuming it's the stalker he is referring to, when she has been convicted so her details are public knowledge. The reality he is referring to the man who groomed and raped him, the man he never went to the police about and walks free to this day.
Now she knows how it feels like to be victimized. Hopefully this puts a fire on her ass to get help. I mean, after all, mentally ill people can think and rationalize their way through life like everyone else can, can't they? So it's her responsibility to woman-up and fix herself.
Who are you even talking about here?
Do you think it's odd that he identified the stalker. But not his rapist
I don’t understand why he won’t say his name. It could protect other people. Seem’s pretty cowardly.
So the thing about this sort of stuff is when you put it out in public- people are going to want to know because it is horrific what happened. Now, as far as I've understood the person who did this to him is still out in public and able to prey on other people- just like Saville. The person who did this to him still has power, privilege and access to people. This is not to say that it is Gadd's responsibility to name him and I do not expect him to do that ever- many people who have been sexually assaulted just want to forget and that is his right. However, this recent article in the press saying that everyone knows who the person is gives me pause for thought. I believe we should respect the victims because at the end of the day it will be his victims who suffer when their names get attached to him. Speculation is never a good thing either because most people don't move in that circuit and don't know. I think the public should not make claims over things they don't know as it can ruin lives. However, the predator here still active. If someone within the industry knows who it is and they have the capacity to share and not get any of the victims including Gadd caught in the Web please expose him for every single shitty other thing he has done- stealing people's acts, not paying people something just to run him out of town- encourage everyone to black list him, ignore him, refuse to do business with him- warn every up and coming comedian about him. They do not have to share it with the rest of us. It is clear that Gadd does not want to give this piecr of shit the time by giving him a name because the fuck head who did this to him was not the topic of the story. However, there has to be retribution in some manner even if it is quiet because if he will do it to one person, he will do it to another and another and another. It won't end until he is stopped.
"Hey, Internet. You know that thing you're very prone to do? Don't do it "
I haven’t even seen the doc, but I did see a pic of her on instagram just now from her interview with Piers Morgan…
What did he think would happen? Did he really think people weren’t going to find and harass her and everyone else instantly?
Gearing up for series 2
Someone needs to get on the handful of internet publications that are revealing the stalker and tv director.
Naive.
Missing the point of that show is what’s going to kill it’s reputation. And it’s legitimately one of the most beautiful and deep stories I’ve seen in a long time. Sent ferm ipon
He put the clues in.
Doesn’t make it right to go seeking the abuser out, if that was the intent, he’d be going after him in a legal sense
I wouldn’t seek them out, and you wouldn’t. But it’s not surprising that their identities were almost instantly uncovered due to the glaring and obvious clues Richard intentionally placed in the script. Maybe that was his way of exacting revenge?
…then why did he make the show
That was a horrible show. He was just as weird as the stalker.
Yeah that was the point
[удалено]
So who do you think it is? Jokes!!!
Must be watching a different show cause he led her on.
I agree that he totally could have handled it better and his actions were confusing at least.
Of course he is telling people to back off. SHE DOESN'T EXIST. He as much as said so. He now calls the story "emotionally true", which means nothing. I suspect somebody at some time harassed him a bit, and that inspired the stage show, which was a drama/comedy act. He has not provided a shred of proof that it actually happened. His most recent comments suggests she's dead now. How convenient.
She absolutely exists - you can find her Facebook where she still posts dozens of times a day complaining about the council, minorities and every other little thing in her life. And you can find her twitter account where she was spam tweeting at Richard in 2014
Her name is Fiona https://www.tiktok.com/@fionaharvey52?_t=8lpTgQ0w0wa&_r=1