Options
major charles Ingram and those cheat claimes
big brother 9
Posts: 18,153 Forum Member
✭✭
Anyone remember the who wants to be a millionaire cough scandal? Well here it is for anyone interested to watch the tonight show again
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=yjG5U4neDaqM7Qb39YHwDw&url=http://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DHeR4jS_IO7Y&cd=7&ved=0CC0QtwIwBg&usg=AFQjCNFyCGsd4BF9bpqhk0yzVlhmzUUMHg
I watched the documentary with Martin Bashir about the who wants to be a millionaire coughing scandal on YouTube and followed it up with a bit of googling the major and came across this article.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/jul/17/couldthewhowantstobeami
Now what I want to ask is what is everyone's opinions on the whole furore,?
for me they are guilty but after that article above, it surely brings up new evidence................are the coughing 3 innocent?
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=yjG5U4neDaqM7Qb39YHwDw&url=http://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DHeR4jS_IO7Y&cd=7&ved=0CC0QtwIwBg&usg=AFQjCNFyCGsd4BF9bpqhk0yzVlhmzUUMHg
I watched the documentary with Martin Bashir about the who wants to be a millionaire coughing scandal on YouTube and followed it up with a bit of googling the major and came across this article.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/jul/17/couldthewhowantstobeami
Now what I want to ask is what is everyone's opinions on the whole furore,?
for me they are guilty but after that article above, it surely brings up new evidence................are the coughing 3 innocent?
0
Comments
I've also seen the episode and i've seen the documentary, but reading the article in the OP does indeed provide a different slant on it.
If you were planning to scam a show, particularly such a well-known show, wouldn't you do your planning in advance, not in between the first and second filming?
And Chris Tarrant never heard any coughs either.
Baffles me as to how they were ever convicted; the evidence was circumstantial at best.
Mind you fellas, who's wives don't wear the trousers in their household?
There were too many occasions when he thought he knew the answer, only to suddenly dismiss it and go for one he'd previously discounted ... like the time he thought the album was by A1 ... or when he thought the architect designed Berlin ... or when he thought the final answer was nanomole.
The most revealing one was the £500,000 question. As Tarrant read out the answers, Ingram responded to each of them in turn. He shook his head at Rome, and again shook his head at Paris. Then when Berlin came up, he nodded and looked up at Tarrant. He immediately said he thought it was Berlin. He even said if he was sitting at home, he'd be saying Berlin. He repeatedly discounted Paris, then for absolutely no reason, he suddenly went for Paris. He didn't give a reason or explanation why he went for it or why he suddenly decided to rule out Berlin. For the sort of money he stood to lose, even if someone was just guessing they'd at least try to have an educated guess and say why, especially if they talked their way through the options as Ingram did. There was nothing like that. He suddenly just did a U-turn of epic proportions.
Ite wase obviouse.
The A1/Craig David question was just bizarre. The documentary claimed that, because Whittock didn't cough on that one, Ingram's wife helped him. This was despite the fact that all she did was a hurried, muffled cough from a too great a distance away.
I agree that some of his U-turns were bizarre, but that was just part of his eccentric character and he was playing up to the audience.
I don't think that anyone would try such a hurried, poorly thought through scam, nor do I think Ingram would place so much trust in a man he barely knew.
The whole thing just doesn't make sense, and the prosecution is full of holes; particularly on the Eden question where Whittock is supposed to have loudly whispered "no" when Ingram nearly went for the wrong answer. Wouldn't somebody next to, or behind, him have heard?
http://www.ukgameshows.com/ukgs/The_Ingrams_Millionaire_Trial
Hard to see how they could be innocent.
Amazing how his "eccentric character" didn't come out so much in the rounds when he clearly knew the answer! He said Onassis for the Jacqueline Kennedy question and stuck with it, despite claiming he wasn't sure. Same with the Emmental question. Same with the cricket question. Same with the Holbein answer. If someone was going to dick around and play to the audience, surely they'd do it when they were certain of the answer and/or there was a lot less at stake.
In the rounds when he clearly didn't know the answer, he again picked one, but suddenly switched to a "strategy" of changing his mind.
History is littered with hurried, poorly thought out scams! The number of TV programmes about dumb criminals is testament to that. In any case, my understanding is that it wasn't poorly thought out ... it was poorly executed. If he'd bailed out before getting into the really big money, we wouldn't even be discussing it.
Well, it was on tape! Plus, what would someone sitting near him do in that situation ... stand up and announce that he'd just said "no"?