Quiz (Charles Ingram WWTBA Millionaire fraud drama on ITV)

[Captain Z]

Just learned of this, starts Monday 13th April, 9pm on ITV. To this day I'm still slightly fascinated by this case, so am looking forward to watching.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-51645456

[Malcy]

Ah I thought it was a one off and not a series. Looking forward to it as well.

[Thomas]

Interested to see this. One thing we'll all be scrutinising, of course, is Michael Sheen's Chris Tarrant. We've already been gifted with Peter Serafinowicz's version.

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

Serafinowicz is extraordinary, isn't he?

[Wayman C. McCreery]

We've already been gifted with Peter Serafinowicz's version.

Thats fucking brilliant. The 50/50 gag was so obvious but it didn't stop me howling with delight at the reveal.

[olliebean]

I saw the play this is based on, it was OK but a bit over-hyped.

[Hand Solo]

Bit insensitive and triggering to screen a drama that revolves around a bunch of people coughing at the moment, isn't it?

[Captain Z]

Bit insensitive and triggering to screen a drama that revolves around a bunch of people coughing at the moment, isn't it?

+1 karm for this message

[Small Man Big Horse]

I once went on a date with a researcher on the show, who was working for it back when this all happened (and who was briefly a talking head in the documentary about it), she didn't have any gossip or shocking behind the scenes info about what happened that day but she did tell me she once gave her then boyfriend a handjob on the set of the Tweenies. So I'll be tuning in to see if there's a dramatisation of that moment in her life for sure.

[Rolf Lundgren]

Interested to watch this as I'm led to believe it indicates they're innocent which is something I'm completely convinced of. There's a brilliant book called 'Bad Show' which I recommend to anyone interested in the case.

[Jockice]

Thats fucking brilliant. The 50/50 gag was so obvious but it didn't stop me howling with delight at the reveal.

Claire Taylor played by Catherine Shepherd. There was a Claire Taylor AND a Catherine Shepherd at school with me. I bet they even knew each other.

[mjwilson]

Interested to watch this as I'm led to believe it indicates they're innocent which is something I'm completely convinced of. There's a brilliant book called 'Bad Show' which I recommend to anyone interested in the case.

The writer of the show: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/apr/07/coughing-major-millionaire-case-not-black-and-white-says-quiz-writer

I hadn't realised it was in question to be honest.

[Hand Solo]

I hadn't realised it was in question to be honest.

I don't think it is to be honest unless you're a bit desperate to come up with a new angle on the case.

Ingrams and Whittock never spent any time together and had only had one eight-minute phone call before the show.

So there's provably one phone call between them presumably from Whittock's residence to the Ingrams? How can they prove they never met previously, or hadn't had other contact from anon mobiles or payphones? The fact they had any previous contact yet end up on the same difficult to get on quiz show at the same time is a bit coincidental, isn't it? And come on, the way he would waver round in circles reading all the options then just completely going against his own logical choice at the last minute after the coughs.. his wife's cough is the most telling, she looks panicked right before he's about the get the Craig David question wrong. They also were arguing with eachother backstage and in the hotel room night after the win which made the production team very suspicious, presumably because Whittock and wifey went off-script to the plan and started coughing so much it would raise suspicion.

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

I've no idea what the writer is wanging on about in that interview, as the show he's actually written (I've seen it) doesn't suggest for a moment that the Ingrams were innocent.

He states that people might've unfairly taken agin them because they're posh, but he depicts them in the show as entitled buffoons. At one point someone even refers to the Major as Tim Nice-But-Dim, which is basically how he's portrayed throughout.

It's a very entertaining series, a hoot and a half, but it doesn't present the case in an ambiguous light. At all. You do end up feeling slightly sorry for the Ingrams in a way, as they committed a highly publicised yet essentially farcical crime which will haunt them forever (this show is evidence of that). You won't think they were innocent, though.

[Mobius]

I wonder if he thinks it'll get more viewers for his show if it doesn't look like such an open and shut case.

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

I wonder if he thinks it'll get more viewers for his show if it doesn't look like such an open and shut case.

I think so, yes. A pointlessly disingenuous way of selling his show; it would've attracted loads of viewers anyway, he doesn't need to lie about its contents.

[Mobius]

Yeah like everyone here I've read/watched a fair bit on this and I can't see how they are innocent. I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim that in fact..

I'll definitely watch anyway, Matthew Macfadyen is great

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

I'll definitely watch anyway, Matthew Macfadyen is great

I loved his performance in this, he brings a lot of pathos to the role. Ingrams comes across as a hapless idiot, the antithesis of a Machiavellian schemer.

The only thing I agreed with in that Guardian interview was the author saying that, despite being guilty of fraud, the Ingrams aren't awful people. Foolish, arrogant and greedy people, yes, but no one died. They made a terrible mistake and they'll have to live with that.

[Captain Z]

I thought they had practically admitted it in the end? I'm sure I read that the overheard argument was specifically about Charles not sticking to the plan to give up at a more modest amount so as not to arouse so much suspicion/publicity.

[Ambient Sheep]

I'm sure I read that the overheard argument was specifically about Charles not sticking to the plan to give up at a more modest amount so as not to arouse so much suspicion/publicity.

Yup.  He was supposed to stop at £32K.

Can't believe the stupidity of his wife for yelling that at him in the dressing-room though.

That, to me, was the main determinant of their guilt, the fact that according to the backstage staff they both looked miserable and angry, and the argument and its alleged contents.

[Rolf Lundgren]

Yup.  He was supposed to stop at £32K.

Can't believe the stupidity of his wife for yelling that at him in the dressing-room though.

That, to me, was the main determinant of their guilt, the fact that according to the backstage staff they both looked miserable and angry, and the argument and its alleged contents.

His wife didn't yell that at him in the dressing room.

The only evidence is that the production assistant said she heard raised voices in argument but couldn't hear what was being said. Ingram said it was likely that she overheard separate phone conversations he and his wife were having. The idea that they were angry and miserable has come with hindsight. They were certainly restrained and unusual but even Chris Tarrant testified that they acted just like any other million pound winners. The idea that there was a plan to stop at 32k or 125k has all come later and somebody has assumed that's what they were arguing about.

The biggest flaw for me is their very tenuous connection to Whittock. There is very little evidence of them interacting before the show and none of them speaking afterwards. If Whittock had helped out, wouldn't he be asking for his cut? And why is he helping people he barely knew? And why is Ingram relying on answers worth hundreds of thousands of pounds from a coughing stranger he has never met? They also have to hope that Whittock is sitting somewhat close to Ingram and that his cough is indistinguishable enough for Ingram to recognise it consistently among the many others in the studio that night.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Ghostly distorted figures in the background.

Who Wants To Be a Millionaire?: Hades Edition

[Bad Ambassador]

Someone paste him into the big arena on Exegol from Rise of Skywalker. Emperor Tarrantine.

[Ambient Sheep]

His wife didn't yell that at him in the dressing room.

The only evidence is that the production assistant said she heard raised voices in argument but couldn't hear what was being said. Ingram said it was likely that she overheard separate phone conversations he and his wife were having.

I'm sorry, but that last bit sounds very chinny-reckon to me.

However I do know that the P.A. couldn't make most of it out, but I did (apparently incorrectly) think she'd heard at least the figure "32k" screamed at him.  Wish I could remember the source for that.

The idea that they were angry and miserable has come with hindsight. They were certainly restrained and unusual but even Chris Tarrant testified that they acted just like any other million pound winners.

That I didn't know, thanks.  I'm sure I've read various people testifying that they'd never seen any winner look so miserable backstage, but as you say, possibly confabulation after the fact.

Although how can they be both "unusual" and yet "acted just like any other million pound winners"?

The biggest flaw for me is their very tenuous connection to Whittock. There is very little evidence of them interacting before the show and none of them speaking afterwards. If Whittock had helped out, wouldn't he be asking for his cut? And why is he helping people he barely knew? And why is Ingram relying on answers worth hundreds of thousands of pounds from a coughing stranger he has never met? They also have to hope that Whittock is sitting somewhat close to Ingram and that his cough is indistinguishable enough for Ingram to recognise it consistently among the many others in the studio that night.

Yes, all of that, plus even more so "How was Whittock getting the right answers?"  Obviously vague mentions of radio or earpieces etc. but nothing was ever found.  Also, IIRC, the studio was radio-shielded.

As you can see, I'm not convinced either... enough for a civil "balance of probabilities" perhaps but certainly not for a criminal "beyond reasonable doubt".


The funniest thing for me about the whole business is that I knew the answer to the £1m question, as did anyone else who avidly pored over The Guinness Book of World Records (1975 edition, but probably others too) as a child -- it hadn't heard of Graham's Number back then and the entry for the biggest named number was a Googolplex: 10 to the power of a Googol (a 1 followed by 100 zeroes)...

[Rolf Lundgren]

I'm sorry, but that last bit sounds very chinny-reckon to me.

However I do know that the P.A. couldn't make most of it out, but I did (apparently incorrectly) think she'd heard at least the figure "32k" screamed at him.  Wish I could remember the source for that.

Yeah I agree, the loud voices explanation does sound a bit fishy and can see why it might have caused somebody to wonder about it but to my mind somebody has retrofitted the argument to fit their accusation about a plan going too far. They could have been arguing but I doubt it was about that.

That I didn't know, thanks.  I'm sure I've read various people testifying that they'd never seen any winner look so miserable backstage, but as you say, possibly confabulation after the fact.

Although how can they be both "unusual" and yet "acted just like any other million pound winners"?

Eye of the beholder is the most likely explanation. What one of the producers considered 'unusual', Tarrant found perfectly normal so it is a tricky one but they certainly weren't behaving in a way that made everyone who saw them consider something was up. The fact that they were both restrained and not visibly jumping for joy is very consistent with their characters.

Yes, all of that, plus even more so "How was Whittock getting the right answers?"  Obviously vague mentions of radio or earpieces etc. but nothing was ever found.  Also, IIRC, the studio was radio-shielded.

As you can see, I'm not convinced either... enough for a civil "balance of probabilities" perhaps but certainly not for a criminal "beyond reasonable doubt".

Yeah, very true. Whittock didn't exactly walk away with a million himself afterwards. I still find it pretty shocking that it became a criminal case and how it can be perceived they had a fair trial considering how much was written in the press and how vilified they had already become by that point.

[lankyguy95]

The biggest flaw for me is their very tenuous connection to Whittock. There is very little evidence of them interacting before the show and none of them speaking afterwards. If Whittock had helped out, wouldn't he be asking for his cut? And why is he helping people he barely knew? And why is Ingram relying on answers worth hundreds of thousands of pounds from a coughing stranger he has never met? They also have to hope that Whittock is sitting somewhat close to Ingram and that his cough is indistinguishable enough for Ingram to recognise it consistently among the many others in the studio that night.

Some uncertainties, definitely. I imagine - if we presume that they were guilty for a moment - that Whittock would have had a cut of the money afterwards. The money was never actually handed over to them and they were told that the show was being investigated like a week or so after the recording, as far as I can recall. The rest of your questions aren't easy to answer. It certainly wouldn't have been a foolproof system.

I still strongly believe they're guilty because the recording is so suspicious. Almost everything in it makes them look guilty. Ignoring the coughs, Diana's the biggest giveaway; constantly looking in the direction of Tecwen Whittock is bizarre and her coughing on the Craig David question is just laughable.

[The Bumlord]

I hope it includes a dramatic reenactment of the Major running over his foot with his lawnmower.


Also, ARGH MY EYES

[Captain Z]

Yes I must admit I'm interested to see how John Inman was associated with all this.

[mr. logic]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/jul/17/couldthewhowantstobeami

Surprised this hasn't been mentioned. Jon Ronson, who attended the trial, believes in their innocence.

[mjwilson]

The essay which Ronson links to: https://web.archive.org/web/20060305191039/http://www.portia.org/chapter14/major.html