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

[James Plaskett]

So, enough for now.
Let Messrs Benjamin, McReady and Farthing watch the series and judge for themselves.
(Possibly either around the time of Christ´s birth or resurrection!)

[James Plaskett]

From doubts about it all, to concerned communications to his solicitors, to crossing swords with many in the Guilty camp at quizzing websites, to Online essay, to recruitment of as prominent a figure as any in the field of writing about miscarriages of justice, to newspaper articles
...
to Book
...
to Chichester Play
...
to West End Play
...
to Film.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 00066.html

[Kevin Thurlow]

Three-episode "Quiz" is broadcast on ITV at 9pm on 13, 14 and 15th April for those in UK. Also on ITV Hub of course.

Michael Sheen looks creepily like Chris Tarrant.

[J T Melsom]

I hope that any coughing is followed by hand washing.

[MJMcCready]

So, enough for now.
Let Messrs Benjamin, McReady and Farthing watch the series and judge for themselves.
(Possibly either around the time of Christ´s birth or resurrection!)

Preaching to the converted is inadvisable at times. I grant the under-lying motives in play here remain undetected for I know not how to take any of this with the seriousness it appears to have attained. Sometimes we become entangled, I shall wait for Mr. Plaskett to untangle himself.

[Leonard Barden]

This seems pretty strong......

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

[Roger de Coverly]

This seems pretty strong......

What Chris Tarrant is alleging is that in a method reminiscent of the Khanty-Mansiysk Olympiad, that the questions were being transmitted to outside of the studio during recording. The mystery collaborators were then able to research the correct answer and communicate it back to the Major's friends in the audience by some unknown means. The coughing method of communicating the answer to the contestant then followed.

[MJMcCready]

Is anyone profiting from this latest production about how someone once somehow profited from a mass-media production personally? If not what is the purpose behind its production?

[NickFaulks]

If not what is the purpose behind its production?

I think possible miscarriages of justice are often a matter of widespread interest.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"This seems pretty strong...…"

Tarrant seems very sure of this, considering that when the news broke, he expressed amazement that such a thing could happen.

My father did ring the premium line to try and get on the programme once and he said it consisted of about 3 minutes of telling you how much it cost before eventually asking you the population of Mexico City (or some such). So maybe the programme makers cannot take much moral high ground, also given that every so often they have ambiguous questions.

Still I will eagerly watch it.

[Neville Twitchell]

This seems pretty strong......

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

Have just seen the first instalment of this drama yesterday evening. So far it seems fairly mediocre as drama with a rather wooden script and acting to match, and not too authentic either (barrister walking around the courtroom and making comments re. sentencing he would not be allowed to make in his opening speech), but it may pick up. Certainly seems to be revealing interesting sidelights, if they are true, re the degree of collaboration amongst the quizzing community but one has no idea how accurate this is. Since the series is made by ITV or at least being shown on ITV, presumably with the participation of ITV and Celador I am tending to assume it will portray the Ingrams and Whittock as guilty, though Chris Tarrant's article in the Daily Mail seem to suggest otherwise. But Tarrant's comments that he found it suspicious contradicts what I thought he had said contemporaneously with the events that he did not find anything suspicious at the time of the recording.

[James Plaskett]

Much about the gangs who targeted Millionaire? you have already read in our book, Neville. And you´ll be seeing more of Paddy Spooner in the third episode of QUIZ.
Certainly true that Tarrant´s 53 minute testimony was that he suspected nothing on either night Ingram occupied the hot seat and found both Ingrams to be behaving just as would be expected of people who had just won a million pounds when he visited them in their dressing room afterwards.
"They did seem fine."
Indeed, so anodyne was his testimony that in cross examination the three defence teams had to resort to questions such as, "Has anybody got the first question wrong?"
Not exactly what you´d expect of those defending people accused of stealing a million pounds, eh?
But the late Bob Woffinden explained to me that the reason why Tarrant had been seized by the prosecution as their witness was solely to prevent the defence seizing him as theirs!
For he had absolutely nothing to contribute to the prosecution case. And had he been heard saying all that for the other team then the defence might well have triumphed.
My phone´s been ringing for several days now with journalists seeking interviews, so I won´t add too much more to a chess forum.
Except that this piece is the second time in less than two years that Tarrant has published in the Daily Mail that Ingram´s suggestion for his wife´s communications with Whittock was that she was bonking him.

Ingram never suggested any such thing, as Chris Tarrant well knew each time he had that published.

[Jacques Parry]

But the late Bob Woffinden explained to me that the reason why Tarrant had been seized by the prosecution as their witness was solely to prevent the defence seizing him as theirs!
For he had absolutely nothing to contribute to the prosecution case. And had he been heard saying all that for the other team then the defence might well have triumphed.

I don't follow that. What matters is the evidence that a witness gives, not which side he is supposed to be on. Once he was in the witness box, the defence were free to ask him all the questions they wanted. Indeed it's easier if the witness is called by the other side, because in that case you're allowed to ask leading questions.

[James Plaskett]

There was nothing for the defence to contest.
In 53 minutes Tarrant said he´d noticed nothing suspicious of any kind.
As a result the defence lawyers had to resort to questions like, "Has anybody ever got the first question wrong?"
Which generated laughter. Even the judge himself was wont to join in with interjections such as, "Is that your final answer?"
But then this was truly - and in every sense of the term - a SHOW trial.

The prosecutor, Nicholas Hilliard, attended the West End performance of QUIZ where he was photographed with the actor portraying him, Paul Bazeley.
In 2015 Hilliard became the senior judge at the Old Bailey.
Atop that court stands F. W. Pomeroy´s golden statue of the Roman goddess Iustitia.
She holds aloft in one hand the sword of truth and in the other carries the scales of justice.

She sports no clown´s mask.

But the people want bread and the circus.
Don´t they?

[Jacques Parry]

But you said that (according to Woffinden) the prosecution called Tarrant to prevent the defence calling him. With respect, that makes no sense. Assuming that the defence would have called him if the prosecution hadn't, they were certainly happy to cross-examine him instead, since that way the restrictions on examination in chief (i.e. on the kind of questions that you can ask your own witness) did not apply. And if the defence had nothing useful to ask him, why would the prosecution want to prevent them calling him? There is no advantage, but a risk of disadvantage, in calling witnesses who don't support one's case.

As a result the defence lawyers had to resort to questions like, "Has anybody ever got the first question wrong?"

You seem to be under the impression that, because he was there in the witness box, the defence had to dream up some questions for him. But they could have simply asked him no questions, since his evidence had not helped the prosecution. Maybe they should have done just that.