Plaskett and Woffinden's book on the "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" Fraud

[James Plaskett]

A hell of a lot went on, Nick!

I´ve heard people tell stories just like this of Mark Labbett -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... DDING.html

That was part of the backdrop to the saga of The Coughing Major.
Celador were expecting to get hit.

[Nick Ivell]

I never trusted the wisdom of crowds.

From my unscientific perspective as a viewer, it seemed to me that the audience could only be trusted with the easier questions - the questions bordering on trivia.

[Kevin Thurlow]

And of course the programme makers cheating by giving wrong answers or ambiguous questions. That has happened on most quiz shows.

A Millionaire one I recall was, "What was the first name of Watson in the Sherlock Holmes books, (A) John, (B) James, (C) Edward, (D) Douglas" (e.g - I forget what D was). They expected "A" but the answer is also "B" as Conan Doyle forgot what he called Watson, and changed it from James to John after the first story.

[Ian Thompson]

And of course the programme makers cheating by giving wrong answers or ambiguous questions. That has happened on most quiz shows.

The one I remember, because the contestant came from the same town as me, was:

What was the middle name of 18th century-born playwright Richard Sheridan?

A - Brinsley
B - Butler
C - Blake
D - Boynton

The contestant said B and was eliminated because the programme said A was the correct answer. It subsequently transpired that the poet's full name is "Richard Brinsley Butler Sheridan". The contestant was then credited with a correct answer and came back a few weeks later to continue playing.

[Kevin Williamson]

But sometimes a bad question works in the contestant's favour. Tony Kennedy for example:

For £64,000, Tony was asked "Theoretically, what is the minimum number of strokes with which a tennis player can win a set?", with 12, 24, 36, and 48 as choices, which he answered as 24 (four shots to win a game, with six games in a set). However, the Daily Mirror, one day after his episode was broadcast, reported that 12 was the correct answer (as a server, acting four times, the minimum required to win a game; as a receiver, the opponent double-faulting on each serve). The show acknowledged with a statement, but despite this, Tony was allowed to keep his prize money, £125,000, as the mistake was made by the Question Team, and not by Tony himself.

[James Plaskett]

I made constant references to ´The Wisdom of Crowds´ during my stint, Nick, as a friend gave me a book of that title a day or two earlier. Phone A Friends right about 65% of the time. Audience right circa 85%-
Group mind... a much undervalued lifeline.

[Paul Habershon]

I made constant references to ´The Wisdom of Crowds´ during my stint, Nick, as a friend gave me a book of that title a day or two earlier. Phone A Friends right about 65% of the time. Audience right circa 85%-
Group mind... a much undervalued lifeline.

I wonder if contestants tend to use the audience lifeline before the Phone a Friend. Thus the audience is more likely to get an easier question, hence the 85-65% differential. I assume that the questions follow a roughly upward curve of difficulty.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I wonder if contestants tend to use the audience lifeline before the Phone a Friend. Thus the audience is more likely to get an easier question, hence the 85-65% differential. I assume that the questions follow a roughly upward curve of difficulty."

I think there is usually an early question on what we might term "popular culture", like TV soaps or "musicians" of the 2020s. The average contestant does not know much about these topics, but decides the audience might.

[Nick Ivell]

I'm sure that's right. The audience tends to get used earlier; and the earlier questions tend to be easier.

[Joey Stewart]

It's actually a great lifeline if used well as it means you don't have to watch hours of garbage soaps, reality TV and listen to every new song in the charts - the audience has that covered for you so you can focus on learning about Parisian architects, obscure Greek gods, strange scientific terms etc which will get you the big money.

[MJMcCready]

I made constant references to ´The Wisdom of Crowds´ during my stint, Nick, as a friend gave me a book of that title a day or two earlier. Phone A Friends right about 65% of the time. Audience right circa 85%-
Group mind... a much undervalued lifeline.

I wonder if contestants tend to use the audience lifeline before the Phone a Friend. Thus the audience is more likely to get an easier question, hence the 85-65% differential. I assume that the questions follow a roughly upward curve of difficulty.

That's correct Paul, they are meant to get progressively harder but how they determine what makes one question harder than another is another matter. Sometimes you get questions early on that seem a lot harder than questions which come later.

[MJMcCready]

Mr McCready; his first preference was the right answer on five of the eight questions he faced that evening before any coughs.
That´s 1 in 1024. He jettisoned his initial preference at Questions ten, fourteen and fifteen.

Chris; that coughs are discernible on five or maybe six of the questions when an earlier winner, Keppel, mentioned a preference but before she confirmed her decision strongly supports a cause and effect mechanism. So if you think Ingram used the corresponding coughs as prompts there has to be, therefore, an indubitable case for Celador to call in the Police against her.
And, like I posted here, I did make that point to James Graham when he was writing his TV series and he did have that point made at trial to Celador MD, Paul Smith.
When Keppel appeared on the penultimate UK edition of Anne Robinson´s The Weakest Link in March 2012 (this used to be visible on Youtube) she introduced herself thus -
"My name is Judith Keppel, I was the first person to win the million on Who Wants to be a Millionaire? and (smothering a cough!) nobody coughed!".
Sorry darling but they did.
Had Paul Smith called in the Police on her she could not have provided that explanation for the concordance so would probably have to resort to the correct one.
"I did not hear any coughing".
But whilst sipping her Earl Grey he should not forget that the last person to tell them that was not believed and, subsequently, neither did a jury believe them.
So I hope you enjoy your cuppa with the cops, Judith!
He was not at all selective in his hearing. Having sat in the hot seat I have to agree with you that coughs would be audible. Especially if you repeated the options. But he was deliberately bouncing an option off the audience and so consciously listening out for their reaction.
A reaction which was generated by many more people than just one, don´t forget.

But IM Rudd is right on the money when he points out the attraction of going after a guy because he got into the big money zone!

Slumdog Millionaire took eight Oscars in 2009 and the guy who wrote the book that led to that film, Vikas Swarup, told me he based it on the Ingram case. An Indian kid answers all of the questions correctly and therefore must be cheating.
Except he wasn´t.
Martin Flood (see Wikipedia) contacted me in November 2005 and asked if I could help since he had won the top prize down under but the Aussies withheld the cheque because of just one cough. He did get paid, though.

Stuart Conquest was escorted out of the studio by Celador personnel after he laughed when I faced my 250K Question.

It is very dangerous to get beyond 125K on that show, as I personally may attest.
Ingram has called for the players to be better protected, and with that I must agree. It is simply unfair that we should be suspected of stealing our way to life-changing money because of something like one cough.
Am I not right?

James, the amount all this means to you is astounding. You clearly are very passionate about it.

[James Plaskett]

It was a miscarriage of justice.
The prosecution did not make its case. So the guy must receive his million quid.

I made that case, successfully, to the man in the miscarriage of justice field, Bob Woffinden, and we got a book out there which morphed into an internationally screened TV series.
That series has already sown seeds of doubt or even changed the minds of many people throughout the world re the rightness of the verdict.
e.g. listen to the presenter here at 40:08 saying to James Graham how the most classic of "open and shut cases" has been blown wide open by QUIZ and that were he to call ten different friends he would probably receive ten different opinions as to their guilt https://play.acast.com/s/the-quarantea- ... eatre-arts

And of that I am, to be frank, very proud.

And it was NOT ME who started this thread, Sñr McCready...

PLUS -

HAPPY NEW YEAR, GUYS!!!

[James Plaskett]

... and it looks like it´s not all over yet, boys.

Stay tuned!

[Joey Stewart]

I don't know why this is so relevent after 20+ years, or why there is such doubt as to the guilt of Ingram - people have cheated at various competitions for years, for many of them it is a way of life, so why should this one specific case with plenty of supporting evidence be the only time somebody was falsely accused.