Quiz [ITV]

dark crystal

I really enjoyed that - that last episode was definitely veering towards the fact they were innocent. Their barrister was very convincing!

rapul

dark crystal wrote: »

I really enjoyed that - that last episode was definitely veering towards the fact they were innocent. Their barrister was very convincing!

Yeah definitely portraying them as moreso innocent, sad about the dog wonder is that true but very enjoyable all round

I thought the defence presented some solid arguments... Could it actually be beyond reasonable doubt??? I think ITV wanted to make an example of the Major and his wife in order to send a strong message to the syndicate (who was on their radar).

I think two things didnt work in their favour. 1, Diana's brother in the studio. 2, the sudden change of mind on Craig David (so suddenly after the cough) and this is what ultimately convicted them.

Harry Palmr

I've gone from hanging Judge to give them a hug! I think they were sunk by circumstances and group think.

Harry Palmr

Harry Palmr wrote: »

I've gone from hanging Judge to give them a hug! I think they were sunk by circumstances and group think.

Yes, same here. If i was in a jury and heard that evidence, there is no way I would say they were guilty. Jury's sometimes get things wrong....Ched Evans being a strong example.

dark crystal

Deleted User wrote: »

I thought the defence presented some solid arguments... Could it actually be beyond reasonable doubt??? I think ITV wanted to make an example of the Major and his wife in order to send a strong message to the syndicate (who was on their radar).

I think two things didnt work in their favour. 1, Diana's brother in the studio. 2, the sudden change of mind on Craig David (so suddenly after the cough) and this is what ultimately convicted them.

I watched the episode on youtube a few nights back and his strategy was definitely...odd. Although like his barrister said, that could well be confirmation bias at play on my part.

The thing with WWTBAM is that even the most ardent gambler would balk at risking so much money on questions they didn't seem to know in the first instance - I mean, you either know something or you don't. That was the whole concept of the show - how much would you be willing to risk on your general knowledge, or lack thereof.

Ok, so, he didn't know where in the UK the river Foyle was or who Audrey's daughter in Corrie was (although over 80% of the audience knew that one), but as the money and the risk got bigger, he just seem to wing it. He initially gave the wrong answer to almost every question from then on before changing his mind at the last minute and with huge money at stake. Very strange.

The coughing thing is a puzzler though. I mean the Whittock guy played straight after him and only managed to win £1,000. Hardly an egghead! Maybe they agreed to split the winnings, so he wasn't overly motivated to win big that night knowing he was already sitting on a pile of cash. But for the fact Celador withheld Ingram's money, would there have been a money trail between the pair? We'll never know.

It's a very interesting case!

Zaph

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, same here. If i was in a jury and heard that evidence, there is no way I would say they were guilty. Jury's sometimes get things wrong....Ched Evans being a strong example.

They were convicted on a majority verdict, so at least one juror wasn't convinced that they were guilty.

Harry Palmr

Although this wasn't explored maybe the fact Ingram wasn't really a quizzer and was quite comfortable as a Commissioned Officer (about 60k in today's terms) so wasn't himself that worried about blowing 468k of what he "had" even if his wife would have been.

That said there was this later on which sounds pretty bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ingram#Insurance_fraud_case

dark crystal

dark crystal wrote: »

I watched the episode on youtube a few nights back and his strategy was definitely...odd. Although like his barrister said, that could well be confirmation bias at play on my part.

The thing with WWTBAM is that even the most ardent gambler would balk at risking so much money on questions they didn't seem to know in the first instance - I mean, you either know something or you don't. That was the whole concept of the show - how much would you be willing to risk on your general knowledge, or lack thereof.

Ok, so, he didn't know where in the UK the river Foyle was or who Audrey's daughter in Corrie was (although over 80% of the audience knew that one), but as the money and the risk got bigger, he just seem to wing it. He initially gave the wrong answer to almost every question from then on before changing his mind at the last minute and with huge money at stake. Very strange.

The coughing thing is a puzzler though. I mean the Whittock guy played straight after him and only managed to win £1,000. Maybe they agreed to split the winnings, so he wasn't overly motivated to win big that night knowing he was already sitting on a pile of cash. But for the fact Celador withheld Ingram's money, would there have been a money trail between the pair? We'll never know.

It's a very interesting case!

ITV/Celador failed to provide any real solid evidence to support any real collusion other than the telephone calls from Diana to Whittock the night before which could have been to say anything really.

Im bemused with Chris Tarrant in particular who was a pretty poor witness for the prosecution and yet he is contionusly adamant in the media that they are 'guilty as hell' in spite of being of any use in terms of supporting the prosecutions argument. He is even adamant he copped nothing but yet asserts they are guilty as hell :rolleyes: This is based on the confirmation bias in the ITV studios

I really dont think that not knowing the Coronation St was in anyway unusual. Plenty of smart people detest soaps. Hardly makes him a thicko. The river foyle is also in the North of Ireland. While in the same 'country' technically speaking, it is not on the same island. The Craig David 'u-turn' i admit i did find strange.

I think what the evidence proved is that the coughing was a really weak argument. In a dry studio with a bit of dry ice for effect im sure it would be hard for anyone to intake, especially with Whittocks condition.

Skid X

Very enjoyable show, I have sympathy for Charles and Diana and Tecwen - I suspect there might be at least 'reasonable doubt' on their convictions


I would recommend the 1994 Oscar Nominated movie 'Quiz Show' if anyone is looking for similar viewing material

I don't know where you could watch it legally *cough*

Zaph

Zaph wrote: »

They were convicted on a majority verdict, so at least one juror wasn't convinced that they were guilty.

Which given the evidence i find strange. id have been at least split on it.

Harry Palmr

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Although this wasn't explored maybe the fact Ingram wasn't really a quizzer and was quite comfortable as a Commissioned Officer (about 60k in today's terms) so wasn't himself that worried about blowing 468k of what he "had" even if his wife would have been.

That said there was this later on which sounds pretty bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ingram#Insurance_fraud_case

The false claims were before he went on Millionaire.. He might have told lies to keep his premium down but it came back to haunt him

dark crystal

Skid X wrote: »

Very enjoyable show, I have sympathy for Charles and Diana and Tecwen - I suspect there might be at least 'reasonable doubt' on their convictions


I would recommend the 1994 Oscar Nominated movie 'Quiz Show' if anyone is looking for similar viewing material

I don't know where you could watch it legally *cough*

Brilliant film!

freshpopcorn

It did make me wonder would they pick up more people cheating if they put other episodes under the microscope!

Harry Palmr

Well the whole show was "gamed" by the invisible quiz army, about 10% of winnings went to that cohort.
Which maybe helped to explain what I commented upon myself when WWTBAM was on air in its early days* (*and I was still watching it) - that it was very very white middle class and "home counties" biased. An observation enhanced by the fact the set was dark coloured and the audience was usually dressed in dark hues so the racial profile was rather obvious.

freshpopcorn

freshpopcorn wrote: »

It did make me wonder would they pick up more people cheating if they put other episodes under the microscope!

Evidence for the defence as part of the ingram trial pointed to Judith Keppell (the first UK millionaire winner) and there was coughs just as the options were being called out to her also on that. not suggesting any wrong doing (or either was the defence) but establishing the like for like situation

Morgans

I know that the drama was to cast doubt on the whole thing but guilty as sin, for me Clive. The Judith Keppel argument is moot really. a) She wasnt changing her mind - not to rule out whether she was getting secondary confirmation from a 'syndicate' member in the audience b) has proven herself an established quizzer since.

Edit: Having watcher her back, Judith doesnt read out all the options to give an accomplice the opportunity in the version currently on yputube. When stuck she uses her lifelines intelligently. Any coughs would have been incidental (using that version as evidence).

By far and away the most likely scenario was that Charles was a stooge for his wide/brother in law who knew that the quiz could be gamed for a large pay off. The Craig David change-up where its clear that wife coughs was inexplicable. I think the video is damning. He was as was mentioned Tim Nice But Dim and wasn't good enough as an actor to be non-committal while reading out the options. Less than 1% chance of being innocent in my mind. Whether I could prove it I dont know. But Id bet there hasnt been a millionaire who has won the million having inexplicably changed his mind correctly as often as he did. I looked at some youtube clips after the programme and the gasp that he talks about with the A1 answer is very faint (if it can be heard at all). Maybe edited out.

I feel a bit sorry for the Tecwin lad who may have just got a phone call out of the blue and ended up going down for something he may not have seen as serious.

S.M.B.

Morgans wrote: »

By far and away the most likely scenario was that Charles was a stooge for his wide/brother in law who knew that the quiz could be gamed for a large pay off. The Craig David change-up where its clear that wife coughs was inexplicable. I think the video is damning. He was as was mentioned Tim Nice But Dim and wasn't good enough as an actor to be non-committal while reading out the options. Less than 1% chance of being innocent in my mind. Whether I could prove it I dont know. But Id bet there hasnt been a millionaire who has won the million having inexplicably changed his mind correctly as often as he did. I looked at some youtube clips after the programme and the gasp that he talks about with the A1 answer is very faint (if it can be heard at all). Maybe edited out.

Not only was he not good enough as an actor, he completely self sabotaged the whole plan by saying things like "I don't know who Craig David is". Surely anyone with any degree of sense would not be as reckless by throwing out statements like this when trying to cheat their way to £1 million.

Mehaffey1

Watched the 3 episodes all last night and really enjoyed it. You'd swear Michael Sheen was Chris Tarrant's brother, one high quality actor.

As to the case itself I'd say guilty as sin but did feel for the family in terms of how badly they were treated nationwide and in their community. The temptation for a 'sure thing' is always great not taking into consideration it was a million pounds involved!

All that fandango

Brilliant series, and Michael Sheen..wow. More like Chris Tarrant than Chris Tarrant himself. One thing I didnt really get though if someone could explain. The guy who was head of ITV, tall slim grey hair northern Irish accent...why did he look quite guilty or nervous about something towards the end like he knew something everyone else didnt?

Morgans

All that fandango wrote: »

Brilliant series, and Michael Sheen..wow. More like Chris Tarrant than Chris Tarrant himself. One thing I didnt really get though if someone could explain. The guy who was head of ITV, tall slim grey hair northern Irish accent...why did he look quite guilty or nervous about something towards the end like he knew something everyone else didnt?

Think it was set up to suggest that ITVs new head of programming wanted 'event tv' and got one with this scandal just as ratings were dropping. We need something of Diana level - Martin Bashir did an interview with Diana and a documentary on the Ingram's. (There was a scene where Paul Smith got his summons where he suggested if there could be a documentary out of the scandal)

Harry Palmr

and here we are 20 years later and the damn thing is still going!

extra gravy

Was the defence barrister's dialogue taken verbatim from the trial I wonder? Because it was very convincing.

Morgans

extra gravy wrote: »

Was the defence barrister's dialogue taken verbatim from the trial I wonder? Because it was very convincing.

Until you watch Judith Keppel's performance on the show. Not a leg to stand on. She immediately knows the answer in most questions, doesnt list out each option, doesnt change her mind, and to suggest there was coughing that was signalling the answers to her would have been easily knocked down.

Its not that there was coughing in the audience that was the giveaway - that was the 'proof' they used. Of course there was coughing on every show, but none of them coincided so clearly with a contestant giving the appearance that he knew nothing of the questions, suddenly with no rationale, switching to the correct answer. He definitely cheated and had he stopped at 250K, they probably would have got away with it - unfortunately he was too dim to stop there.

The unanswered question is how easy is it to cheat a MENSA exam.

maudgonner

Harry Palmr wrote: »

I've gone from hanging Judge to give them a hug! I think they were sunk by circumstances and group think.

This show was based on a play, and the audience of the play got to vote (via WWTBAM style keypads) at the interval, and again at the end, whether they thought they were guilty or innocent.


The vast majority voted them guilty after the first half and innocent by the end


Personally, if I ever get hauled up in front of a jury I'd like Helen McCrory to defend me.

PeterDuggan

Big ask... Does anyone have a copy of the last episode (episode 3) please? I managed to record the wrong flippin' channel last night! ...and it doesn't look like there's any repeat scheduled.

Would be very grateful.

rapul

Keep an eye on itv1 late night or over the weekend, they do tend to repeat

Zaph

Morgans wrote: »

The unanswered question is how easy is it to cheat a MENSA exam.

I'm guessing that the MENSA tests are similar to the aptitude tests that some of us may have done in school or applying for certain jobs. They usually contain a lot of logic based questions - numbers, shapes, angles, spatial awareness, etc. - rather than quiz type questions. Ingram has a degree in engineering, so I'd imagine that those sort of questions would be a lot easier for him than questions on pop culture.

PeterDuggan

rapul wrote: »

Keep an eye on itv1 late night or over the weekend, they do tend to repeat

Thanks I know they often do repeat but I've checked listings for the next several weeks ahead and it's not repeated.

So if anyone does have a copy of the last episode please do let me know. Thanks.

Harry Palmr

You may have to wait until Virgin One show it.