Richard Gadd likely to face court as 'real-life Martha' sues Netflix over Baby Reindeer series

A legal representative for the woman believed to be the real-life inspiration behind 'Martha' in Richard Gadd's 'Baby Reindeer' has speculated that Gadd might end up testifying during the million-dollar lawsuit.

In an interview on Piers Morgan Uncensored, Harvey's US lawyer Richard Roth asserted she had a "very, very strong case" and predicted that not only Harvey and Gadd, but also Netflix executives could find themselves on the stand in a Californian court.

Previously reported documents disclosed that Richard A. Roth and his New York-based firm, Roth Law, were demanding a jury trial from the United States District Court Central District Of California to hold Netflix accountable.

READ MORE: Aberdeenshire Labour candidate suspended over ‘pro-Russian’ social media post

READ MORE: BrewDog founder challenges BBC Dragon's Den stars not to miss out again

They accuse the streaming giant of misleading viewers by claiming that Gadd's seven-part series accurately related the story of his experience as the victim of a convicted stalker who had seen prison time and sexually assaulted him, citing "greed" as their motive.

Roth is representing Harvey, who is alleged to be the source of inspiration for the convicted stalker 'Martha' depicted in the award-winning series. 58 year old Harvey, originally from Aberdeenshire, is seeking £135 million from Netflix, angrily asserting that the narrative presented in the widely viewed programme does not faithfully represent the truth despite being presented as a true story.

In his frank exchange with Morgan, Roth put forward the idea that the fallout from the Baby Reindeer controversy could constitute a significant turning point for streaming television. When questioned as to why he had chosen to take on the case, Roth conceded: "I think there's probably three reasons. Obviously, I'm in the business of making money and I think there's a lot of money to be made here.", reports the Daily Record.

"I think the second reason is that it is really just reprehensible when someone says something's 'a true story'... And if Netflix is going to say this is a true story, then it better well be true. And to do that is irresponsible of them."

"And the third reason is that Fiona Harvey, you've had her on your show, she's been destroyed. She'd been shattered by this. She gets death threats, she doesn't want to leave her apartment."

On what will end up being the 'smoking gun' in their case, he went on: "There's a lot of smoking guns... One of the big smoking guns... is that you don't put 'this is a true story' on the front, first frame of a six-part series unless it's gone through the wringer. Who actually said it is a true story? Did legal look at it? It is not a true story. There are clear falsities in it, which are very damning. So I think one thing is going to be what did Netflix do to determine this was a true story when it's clearly not? ".

Baby Reindeer became one of Netflix's most popular TV series of all time. It portrays an ordeal Gadd faced at the hands of a deranged stalker who has been in prison for a historical crime and is sent to prison for stalking him.

His character Donny Dunn is tormented by the woman called Martha in the series. Internet sleuths easily discovered the character was based on Fiona Harvey.

One Netflix executive claimed before the UK Parliament that Gadd's stalker had been convicted and assured that all measures were taken to protect real-life identities, but Roth countered: "It's so irresponsible for him to testify under oath in front of Parliament saying she was convicted when it's clear she wasn't, that's the first thing."

"The second thing you raise is that, you know, you said the word 'internet sleuths'. I think that's sort of a loose term. I could get it [Fiona's identity] on the internet. You don't have to be a sleuth... It was very easy for anyone and everyone."

Roth also commented on recent press reports suggesting Gadd, who portrays lead character Donny Dunn in the series, was reluctant to label it a "true story": "It's actually great news for me. I heard about that story this weekend... It's one thing if Richard Gadd says to them,'It's true, it's true, it's true', and they fail to do their due diligence."

He further elaborated on the implications if Netflix ignored Gadd's stance on the truthfulness of the story: "It's even worse if Richard Gadd says, 'Well, I don't really want this to be a true story'. And Netflix says, 'No, no, no, no, we want it to be true'... And they say, 'We don't want to listen to you. We're making it a true story'. I mean, we're going beyond, this is far worse than negligence. This is intentional misconduct, if they actually were told, 'Don't make it a true story' and they said it were true."

He further stated his belief that Gadd has "no credibility" as a key witness due to some confessions made on the show, such as drug use and other troubling behaviours. "So the man, the person they most rely on, for the truth of the story has been shattered before I even get to cross-examine him," Roth declared.

"Netflix has unbelievable culpability for saying at a minimum, that she's a twice-time convicted felon. You saw the scene where she's crying, and she pleads guilty? That's all fabricated."

In response to Piers questioning whether his client's history - including allegations made by Scottish lawyer Laura Wray of stalking - could harm Harvey, he pointed out that Wray seemed to accept this behaviour hadn't previously been considered 'criminal'. He continued: "The fact that... something happened 22 years ago with Laura Wray and Fiona, I don't really care about that."

"But what I care about is that Netflix and Gadd represented that she was a convicted, twice-convicted - once before and once during the show... He says she was a criminal for four and a half years and Laura Wray said none of that is true."

Netflix had earlier pledged to "vigorously defend" a lawsuit worth millions of dollars. However, Roth admitted if the streaming platform has done her wrong, "wronged her, then she is entitled to their profits" while also acknowledging: "We don't know what that number is.."

He stated: "Again, this is very early. We just filed the lawsuit. But we know that over 60 million people have viewed it. We know that it either has or is becoming the largest show ever on Netflix and we know that Netflix is making a tremendous amount of money from it."

He added: "In fact, Richard Gadd is on a US tour promoting it. Now Richard Gadd was in New York last week... He was on the Today Show in New York. He was on The Tonight Show. So they are pumping this story and they're making oodles of money from it. So we will see, once we get discovery, what the real profits are."

Furthermore, he expressed his viewpoint that the proof burden lies with Netflix, stating: "This is a woman who was really thrust into the limelight. This is not a situation where you have a public figure, who essentially was defamed. This is a situation where a woman lives her own life, and she all of a sudden, found getting death threats, can't leave her apartment. Really, really just inappropriate."

He questioned why Netflix did not reach out to her before broadcasting the story, remarking: "Why is Netflix not calling her up and saying, 'Listen, we're about to do this story, we'd like you to look at it. We'd like to fact-check'. She's not well, she's clammed up in her apartment."

He continued: "She doesn't know what to do, doesn't know where to go. She's hurting. I mean, she really has been shattered by this. There's going to be a big percentage of the populace that don't believe her and thinks she is the Martha who's depicted in that series. And so she's afraid to go out and get groceries. It's that bad."

"This could be a watershed moment for streaming TV."

Despite health concerns, Roth has confirmed that Harvey will "certainly give evidence". He further elaborated: "We'll have Richard Gadd testify, we'll have her testify. We're gonna have a string of people at Netflix testifying as to what they did... why they agreed to the language in the front."

"What they did to check it. I also can't wait to find out how, how [the executive] who testified in front of Parliament. My goodness, I mean, that's not a blunder. That is real, real inappropriate conduct... [and could have] big repercussions from my lawsuit. Honestly, if he goes [back] in front of Parliament and says 'I lied or I was wrong or I misspoke'. That's very problematic for Netflix."

Netflix has been approached by the Record for a statement.