Why would I need to explain anything? I'm not Jules O'Dwyer or one of the shows producers.

Skippy ran of stage too, I suppose you think that was an attempt to hide that dog as well.

If she meant to be deceptive the dog wouldn't have had a collar on saying Chase. I'm not sure why you're struggling with that. Or what is so hard to understand about that. It's a basic fact.

At what point did I say the dog was on a tea break? I made no reference to where Chase was. Because I don't care. Even remotely.

Let's for a second enter the real world, now I'll go slowly because I realise common sense and logic aren't natural for you. That much is obvious.

If Jules wanted the fact Chase did the rope walk hidden, why did she when asked on TV this morning say it was Chase that did the rope walk? Generally when someone wants to hide a fact, they don't freely admit it on national TV. They in fact do the exact opposite of that. And lie, or refuse to comment. Jules did neither of those.

Are you with me so far?

Why, if she was so hell bent on hiding the fact did Chase he a collar on that said Chase? And not one that said Matisse? We're she so intent on hiding it or fooling us into believing it was in fact Matisse, why not put a collar that says Matisse, surely that's why someone trying to fool someone into thinking it was Matisse would do? Or why put a collar on the dog at all? Could it be to point out that the dog wasn't Matisse and was in fact, Chase.

I'm not sure what strange world you're living in, but people in the real world like to base opinions on facts. And the fact is Jules was the one that said Chase did the rope walk. Jules was the one that put a collar on the dog saying Chase. Again, let me spell this out for you, since it's obvious you're struggling here. When a normal person sees facts such as the above, it becomes obvious that the person the conversation is about wasn't trying to perpetrate any type of deception. This is obvious due to the above evidence, namely Jules SAYING it was Chase and not Matisse that did the rope walk. And this NOT lying about it. If that's not sunk in please feel free to read it back as many times as it takes.

Obviously for some reason you're struggling to grasp the basic facts of this situation. And will no doubt just ramble off more deranged theories. I'm entirely bored of talking about it now. So please feel free to carry on with your inane waffling safe in the knowledge I won't be bothering you with actual facts and common sense again.

The story continues.

A quick Google search brings up the names of the producers and exec producers but surely Simon Cowell must have known?

Who are you to say what she can and can't do in her dog act? She's effectively done a bit of stage-magic switching (again, with her own dog, that she's trained, so it's no big deal) and you're up in arms? It's funny that you've been losing your shit in threads criticising the magician, crying that people are "bullying the magician" and "demanding" they do things a certain way, when they should just enjoy the act, and here you are doing the same thing. How hypocritical.

You appear to be saying that the young lady was a better magician than the magicians were.

That's the point. In the narrative, Matisse walks the tightrope.

Haha, yh because I'm sure you noticed the collar on the show live didn't you, and so did all the other viewers.
Edit: just looked at the mirror article, HAHAHA, are you serious? How could anyone spot that name during the act, when there's so many reasons why you wouldn't notice, not to mention that no one is going to actually be looking for it. It's had the full CSI treatment just to be able to make it out in a still image.

This is a classic case of trying it on with plausible deniability, and these things help it.

"Oh, but the dog had a tiny collar on with it's name on" "we used 3 dogs in the semi final" "the dog looked a tiny bit different"

They tried it on because they knew it would look better, but they have now been caught out by the reaction after everyone found out.

Someone else said this and I agree, they should have actually played on the part about having a stunt dog, I mean, it's just a perfect little quirk to the whole thing "hey, the star of our show can't do the dangerous stunts, so we have a stunt dog! Just like the movies" I actually think this would have went down better than the show did without people knowing about the stunt dog.

She was not/is not bill as a magic act.

Can you really not see the different in false advertising or are you just clutching at straws because you wanted the doggy act to win. (The real thing behind all this)

The desperation on the straw grabbers is getting silly now.

She went out to deceive and nothing will change that.

Funny how the collar hasn't been mentioned till now as no one spotted it on the night and now the supporters are trying to run with that as it's the only thing they've got.

Maybe one of them could explain if no one had spotted it until yesterday, how could they have done so whilst paying for their votes?

I think if your that bitter about paying for votes then don't vote again EVER!

Jules didnt do anything wrong. They shouldve given her a different name which showcased her talent better.

What stuns me is the witchhunt going on. Women are given such a hard time on talent shows. Just look at Jules. Here she is, a fantastic dogtrainer who also takes care of wounded dogs yet the production makes it all about the dog.
A woman cant be acknowledged for having talent without something to go with it and to me thats so sad.

Same with Chloe the magician. How cool it was to see a female magician! But cos shes a woman and a good looking woman its 'Simon only fancies her', 'big deal anyone can fly'

I wish acts didnt have to dress up to fit the producers wish. Death metal singers shouldnt have to sing Disney songs, women shouldnt have to be in the shadow of their talent and I dislike how its a hidden race issue.

So what? The acts can do what the hell they like. Who are you to define what the boundaries for each act are?

Haha, a classic reply when you can't think of anything else to say.

It's like Sepp Blatters "England are just pished because they lost the world cup hosting vote"

Not at all. I've argued my point in many threads and I've been fair.
I agree the act shouldn't have been called Jules and Matisse. And I've said it was silly they didn't mention another dog walked the tightrope. Posters have pointed out to me though that chase was mentioned in the semi final. I don't think Jules set out to decieve- of cause the shows production knew about the third dog! And of cause the producers are to blame not Jules! No act goes on that show without being told how to choreograph their act!
My point is that if Jules had set out to decieve then the dog wouldn't have been wearing a collar and she wouldn't have declared it in Lorraine!
I do find it pathetic that people are saying they were robbed when they picked up the phone and chose to spend the best of 10pence! If people get that wound up about results of talent/reality shows then I stand by what I said and they are not mature enough or have the mentality to vote. Half the stuff we see on TV is fixed or manipulated. Everyone knows that!

To be fair you're right, it wasn't anything to do with Jules I'm sure, it was the producers, they knew what they were doing though, they 100% did it knowing that the public would think that it was Matisse.

I think some of the arguments against people complaining are stupid though. It's not like a stunt double in a movie, people shouldn't have know just because there was a 3rd dog in the semi final, having a name on a tiny collar that needs CSI enhancement does not mean everyone should have known.

They should have obviously had the 3rd dog jump down and come around to the stage at the end, instead they BS us saying it didn't have time! haha, what.

Basically I think the producers of these shows just take the P out of the public too much with the fakeness of most of it, so now the public seem to have had enough.

All this fuss! Contestants are told what to say /do on these shows,they are merely puppets.I dont think they dictate what the act should be but they are in control of what happens.So Jules was probably told "we will announce Chase as being in the act dont worry" So act finishes Jules is all excited,relieved it all went without a hitch and doesnt think anything further.
Producers are made aware thus its their job to tell audience.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...P=share_btn_tw

A fair account of what happened.

I agree with that. I used to vote on the xfactor but I've realised its all a farce and just watch it for what it is now. I don't think you can believe what you see. I get frustrated with people for complaining about voting because these shows have been around long enough now and whoever wins there is always some controversy.
I do genuinely feel very sorry for Jules. These people will throw her to the Sharks and claim ignorance on the whole thing.
I think the main thing is that Jules did at least train that dog and it was hers. At least the stunt did happen.

I only looked for the winner on the night and saw the video on the site. They should have shown all dogs at the end. I thought Matisse did everything on the video. I thought it was misleading as only 2 dogs shown.

Well, you would find it misleading because you probably haven't seen the semi final performance.

So what if he didn't and even if he did, I had no clue there were more than one dog

You can't complain about something being misleading if you're not loyal to the show.

Could've just missed one night like I did - or am I too unloyal to call myself a fan

Both the mass hysteria of people both defending and criticising the act should really stop. I just hope they learn their lesson and be more transparent about things next year

You would have no leg to stand on to complain if you missed the semi final with Jules & Matisse on as it would be your fault for not knowing Chase was part of the act.

Yes I would because I would be voting for a different performance. You all need to find a new hobby as opposed to defending an act where there were clear failings from the producer and the act to be clear and transparent to the public, in the sane way people need to get a bit of a life and stop winging about it.