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

[James Plaskett]

Prosecution nabbed him simply to prevent the formality of his being called as a witness for the defence.
Had he been called for the defence the anodyne nature of his testimony would have been more likely to register with the jury if he carried the label Witness for the Defence.
That´s all.
And their resorting to inconsequential and vacuous questioning they most likely took as encumbent upon them since they had been hired as barristers. Under the circumstances it might have appeared bizarre, almost contemptuous not to question the key witness.
Although I agree that as much would have been attained in the pursuit of truth by declining to quiz him at all.

[John Upham]

Regardless of the coughing what was your impression of CIs abilities as a quizzer ?

Having watched almost all episodes of the Tarrant era he struck me as a buffoon who was way out of his comfort zone: I'm referring to the real CI and
not the dramatised version.

Was he, as some may have claimed putting on a strange act to appear ignorant or was that genuine ?

[Neville Twitchell]

There seem to be at least three different threads on "Not Chess" relating to WWTBAM. There is also "Would you like to become a Millionaire?" and "Millionaire Major Coughing Scandal", and there is a large overlap in regard to the material covered and arguments presented. Is there perhaps some way of collapsing or combining the different threads into one for the sake of ease of reference for users?

[Alistair Campbell]

(Reuben voted Guilty, but told me he would have preferred the Scots option of Not Proven.)

Isn't this faintly troubling?

Either you find the case against the accused proven (beyond reasonable doubt), in which case you find them guilty, or you don't - in which case the verdict should be "not proven" or "not guilty" - these are equivalent and result in acquittal.

True, some jurors will insist on interpreting "not proven" as "probably but not certainly guilty". There may even be some circumstances when one believes the case proven but it fails a secondary test (such as there being sufficient corroboration) in which case "not guilty" may be appropriate.

But to have doubts and still vote "guilty" seems rather odd?

[JustinHorton]

Then again it's a vote based on a play rather than the presentation of evidence in a court

[David Sedgwick]

Then again it's a vote based on a play rather than the presentation of evidence in a court

Exactly.

I have known Stewart Reuben for nearly forty years. Had he been a juror in a court of law, I have no doubt whatsoever that he would have carried out his duties correctly.

[Roger de Coverly]

Then again it's a vote based on a play rather than the presentation of evidence in a court

Total speculation, but you wonder what the result might have been in a civil case. That might be where Celador declined to pay the prize money but no criminal case was pursued. The Inghams then sued for their winnings. It's then "Balance of Probability" whether the win was legitimate.

[Ian Thompson]

Total speculation, but you wonder what the result might have been in a civil case. That might be where Celador declined to pay the prize money but no criminal case was pursued. The Inghams then sued for their winnings. It's then "Balance of Probability" whether the win was legitimate.

There's nothing stopping them doing that even after conviction, is there? It happens that people are acquitted in criminal prosecutions but then lose a civil case relating to the same incident, so I don't see why the reverse shouldn't apply after a criminal conviction.

The fact that they didn't sued Celador might suggest they'd have been unlikely to win. They could have tried on a no-win no-fee basis if any lawyer had been prepared to take the case on on that basis.

[James Plaskett]

First of all, please accept EVERYTHING that David Sedgwick character writes with some suspicion!
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/199 ... taft_p1_i1

I imagine Reuben had some doubts but, when forced to choose between Guilty or Not Guilty went for the first one but would have preferred the Scots option.
Regarding de Coverley´s point, Ingram HAD initiated proceedings Vs Celador for his justly acquired million pounds.
Celador deferred and deferred acceptance of his suit Vs them until the CPS announced they would prosecute TWO days before the final, FINAL deadline for the Civil case.
Indeed Bob reasoned that the only reason Celador strung things out so long was they thought they would lose Ingram´s Civil suit.
(We go into this in some depth in Bad Show and provide detailed analysis of the Civil and Criminal case tapes.)
btw guys, on their tape for the Civil suit no "No!" is audible after Ingram´s mentioning of the incorrect option of "Berlin" to his 500K Question.
It is on the tape Celador subsequently provided for the Criminal case.
Woffinden argued to me that if at any point a cough comes from behind Ingram after his mentioning of an incorrect option "The prosecution case collapses".
So they had to come up with something.
Their tape for the Criminal case they provided to Ingram´s solicitors THREE days before trial.
Ingram´s solicitor, Stephen Gentle, told Bob that only then did he begin to fear for his client.
I have sat in seat three, where Whittock sat.
Do not forget that the floor manager, Phil Davies stood only some twelve to fifteen feet away from Whittock and was intently scrutinising him. He heard no "No!". Neither did the people at Whittock´s elbows in seats two and four. The front row of the audience is so near that I once accepted a proffered sweet from a lady. None of them heard it.
Nobody heard it.
Go figure, guys.

And, I say again: that these tapes were not promptly seized by Police but were allowed to remain with Celador throughout could, of itself, constitute a valid reason to invalidate the trial.

But then so are they all
All honourable men.

(My arse.)

[David Sedgwick]

First of all, please accept EVERYTHING that David Sedgwick character writes with some suspicion!
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/199 ... taft_p1_i1

Thank you for the link.

My name is surprisingly common. I set up a Google Alert for it three or four years ago and I receive messages about once a month. So far, only one of the messages has been about me.

[Jacques Parry]

There seem to be at least three different threads on "Not Chess" relating to WWTBAM. There is also "Would you like to become a Millionaire?" and "Millionaire Major Coughing Scandal", and there is a large overlap in regard to the material covered and arguments presented.

There was also the thread about cheating (in chess), which included some discussion about whether cheating is a crime. It doesn't really make any difference whether the prize is £1m or £100.

[Roger de Coverly]

It doesn't really make any difference whether the prize is £1m or £100.

There is however a premise that a prosecution should be in the public interest. A prosecution for using a computer engine to win a £ 100 prize in a tournament is thus unlikely as it could and perhaps would be regarded as a waste of police and court time.

There is a precedent for a Congress withholding a prize on the grounds of alleged malpractice by the player. This was where an ungraded player was permitted to enter a grading restricted section that he then won. A civil case in the Small Claims Court was successful in getting the prize reinstated.

[Jacques Parry]

There is however a premise that a prosecution should be in the public interest. A prosecution for using a computer engine to win a £ 100 prize in a tournament is thus unlikely as it could and perhaps would be regarded as a waste of police and court time.

The CPS might decide that a prosecution is not in the public interest, but I don't think it would be likely to do so. People get prosecuted for stealing items worth much less than £100, even without premeditation.

The more interesting question, in my view, is whether the cheat can fairly be regarded as practising a deception (by pretending that he is not cheating) as against simply cheating, which is not an offence in itself. Ingram was convicted on the basis that he deceived Celador, by falsely representing that he was answering the questions without assistance. I have never understood why anyone might think he was making such a representation. He didn't say, even by implication, "I am not cheating": he just cheated. (If he did. Personally I agree with GM Plaskett that the evidence of this was ridiculously weak.)

[Jacques Parry]

Either you find the case against the accused proven (beyond reasonable doubt), in which case you find them guilty, or you don't - in which case the verdict should be "not proven" or "not guilty" - these are equivalent and result in acquittal.

What question are the audience asked: whether they think Ingram was guilty, or whether they are sure that he was guilty?

[MJMcCready]

I think they were asked 'On a scale of 1-10 how sure are you that he is guilty'. After analysis, the mean was calculated at 6.66.