• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Quiz and the Coughing Saga. (Poll)

Is Major Charles Ingram guilty?

  • Yes

    Votes: 20 80.0%
  • No

    Votes: 5 20.0%

  • Total voters
    25

MattyH

TS Member
Favourite Ride
GIIBBB
So after watching the very interesting Dramaticisation of the Major Charles Ingram story On ITV the last few days, I'd thought I'd get your thoughts on the matter. Did he scheme to win the £1 million pounds? Was it luck, did he know the actual answers?
 
I think they did, there are just too many moments that he conveniently changed his answer and too many people that independently suspected foul play.

but I find it more interesting to consider just how easy it could have been to blame a contestant. The studio really did have all the power to put whatever spin on it they wanted after the recording. Theoreticly there's nothing stopping them accusing every winner if they were corrupt anouth to want too. Then they'd never have to pay out the grand prize.
 
I personally think the chances of the major winning are low and the odds were against him. However, people do win against all odds. Take for example, tossing a coin 10 times in a row and getting the coin to land on heads each time is unlikely to happen, but if you toss a coin many times, eventually you will eventually end up tossing heads 10 times in a row. Put enough people in the chair, and eventually someone will win the jackpot regardless if they know the answers or not.

However, I felt the evidence against him were weak and the people putting the tape together are program makers and it was edited in the prosecution favour. I feel the coughing was not the way that they did it, too many people in the audience were coughing and not all at the right moment. However this doesn't meant that they used other methods to cheat or he could just have been extremely lucky.

If you are asking is he guilty of cheating by coughing, I would say no.
If you are asking is he is guilty of cheating by any other way, I would say highly likely.
But a small part of me say that he might have just got lucky, but very unlikely but possible.

I think that there are things people can do to increase their chances of winning, but is it cheating if you have a game plan? After all, most people that play games, will have some sort of game plan.
 
I think there was something up so I voted guilty on the poll. i think Diana and Adrian are guilty of trying to cheat but I think Charles was a reluctant partner in it and went along with it, so Charles is possible less guilty.

Adrian's machine for learning how to do fastest finger wasn't cheating, but the pager system if it had worked was cheating.

But I am not certain that the jury was right to convict beyond all reasonable doubt, the defence presented quite a lot of doubt about the evidence.
 
I think they were guilty of something, it seems clear that all was not right. However if the court case did go along the lines of what was portrayed in the show then I too am surprised that they were found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution's case did have holes in it, not least that the tape was edited together by the show producers!
 
not least that the tape was edited together by the show producers!

I do think the jury should have been shown the episode as would have been broadcast in addition to the isolated coughing and maybe a more general audience track too so they can see what the normal volume would have been.
 
The main characters weren't fictional though; The Ingrams, their accomplices and the TV execs are real people. It's a fact-based drama.
 
Oh, for sure. I don't think they schemed to get the million; he was meant to stop at a reasonable figure, probably 125/250k to look less suspicious. It's one of the last questions when the wife blatantly coughs on the right answer that swings it for me. I've only seen a clip from the drama but I've watched the footage from the show recording.
 
Alsty does make a good point. This was a dramatization and some elements of the show differed quite a lot. For example both parts of the show were actually filmed on the same day.
I also think they played up Charles innocents way to much. In reality he wanted to be there, he wasn't just bullied into it.
 
The main characters weren't fictional though; The Ingrams, their accomplices and the TV execs are real people. It's a fact-based drama.

Yes which is why you can make two judgements. Based on the TV show Quiz and what is seen therein, were they guilty.

Based on real-life and further evidence, were they guilty.

Its possible to say you think that as shown on Quiz they are guilty, but in the real-world you could have a different opinion.
 
I've just caught up on this, really enjoyed it! Great drama.

As for my verdict, controversially I'd say not guilty, based on what I've just watched on TV. However I don't know much about the real case and maybe I'd come to a different conclusion if I'd actually been there.

Very interesting nonetheless. :)
 
I think they're guilty, but I couldn't quite bring myself to that conclusion, were I on a jury.

This was great, one of the best things on ITV in years. Matthew McFayden is just excellent at playing sad sack blokes out of their depth (see also, Succession) and every scene with Michael Sheen as Tarrant was a joy.
 
Having thought about it a bit more overnight, I wonder if Diana and Tecwen had arranged the cough on the correct answers (the bit where she tampers with her microphone is a bit suspect) and Tecwen's coughs are all on the right answers. In this situation they could have decided between them and hope that Charles picks up on the signals subliminally. I still maintain that Charles isn't guilty but I've convinced myself a bit more now that Diana and Tecwen have a part to play.
 
Having thought about it a bit more overnight, I wonder if Diana and Tecwen had arranged the cough on the correct answers (the bit where she tampers with her microphone is a bit suspect) and Tecwen's coughs are all on the right answers. In this situation they could have decided between them and hope that Charles picks up on the signals subliminally. I still maintain that Charles isn't guilty but I've convinced myself a bit more now that Diana and Tecwen have a part to play.
Yeah Diana and Tecwen are definitely more guilty than Charles, as they were cheating by illegally assisting him.
 
The TV show is based on a play, the play is based on the events, but the point of the play was to give the audience a decision to make by deliberately balancing the evidence for purposes of excitement and entertainment (the audience voted to determin the end of the play), not as a factually accurate retelling of the whole circumstances.

So the TV show is twice removed from reality. Probably best not to have a strong opinion on the conviction based primarily on that then!

Was a good program though. ITV drama usually makes me want to smash my head through a wall but this was well done.
 
The TV show is based on a play, the play is based on the events, but the point of the play was to give the audience a decision to make by deliberately balancing the evidence for purposes of excitement and entertainment (the audience voted to determin the end of the play), not as a factually accurate retelling of the whole circumstances.

From what I read, the audience voted twice, once at the end of the first half, having seen the case put forward by the prosecution and then again at the end of the play having heard the case by the defence. The TV show was structured quite similarly in the episode two was the prosecutions case and episode 3 was the defence (the first episode was more the history of the show).

I believe that most people in the play audience voted guilty at the end of the first half and then a large number changed their mind to not guilty after the second half.
 
The TV show is based on a play, the play is based on the events, but the point of the play was to give the audience a decision to make by deliberately balancing the evidence for purposes of excitement and entertainment (the audience voted to determin the end of the play), not as a factually accurate retelling of the whole circumstances.

So the TV show is twice removed from reality. Probably best not to have a strong opinion on the conviction based primarily on that then!

Was a good program though. ITV drama usually makes me want to smash my head through a wall but this was well done.
Oh, totally. Which is why I'm saying my opinions are based on the characters in the TV show and not the true events.
 
That's fascinating to know. I wish the TV show had done the vote with an online poll. I did wonder why the perspective shifts quite a bit between episode 2 and 3.
 
Top