Quiz (James Graham) - ITV

I finally saw the last episode last night and thoroughly enjoyed it! I thought the series was so well written and overall wonderfully acted. (I particularly enjoyed Marc Bonnar's performance. Don't think I've ever seen him in anything before.)

I didn't think they were guilty, though, I thought the defence did a far superior job to the prosecution and there were definitely enough elements there for 'reasonable doubt'.

Yep. They were guilty 20 years ago, this reaffirms they're guilty now. No question in my mind.

Do you think they are innocent? Can I ask why, seems a pretty open and shut case to me

Not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Surely you can see how media editing manipulated the jury and, through trial by tabloid, the wider population? That alone causes there to be reasonable doubt in their guilt. Production companies have so much form in this area, as we have seen in the manufacture of ‘reality’ TV. 

I've seen some of the arguments that they're innocent and sure it makes me doubt. But could someone explain how Charles Ingram acted like a risk-taker in a show that is designed to play on your doubts that you can answer the increasingly difficult questions when you can take the money instead.

I had another look at the episode on youtube ignoring the coughs (and not the one shown on the official WWTBAM channel where they keep saying LOOK THERE WAS A COUGH). So he had a shaky start in the first episode but maybe he was lucky to get questions he knew the answers to like 'The Ambassadors' and 'Anthony Eden' ones. Then you get the Born to do It, Baron Haussman and the million pound questions and he's doing a complete 180 on his answers. Maybe he was right when he said you only do this once, but the last two were the top tier questions with so much to lose. 

"I don't think its Paris". Couple of seconds later "there's a chance its Paris". He seemed so certain it was Berlin as he was convinced Hoblein painted The Ambassadors

I never heard of Googol and yet I think that's the answer

On a side note, why would ITV risk putting on a drama that could influence the public on whether the Ingrams were innocent?

I originally put this in a spoiler alert but I guess those who want to will have seen this show by now.

SPOILER

According to this version, the wife only got in touch with the 'cougher' the night where the Major had to wait to return the next day.
So no premeditated plan for this to happen.
I would have thought it a good part of a defence to point out that we need to believe that two parties, previously strangers, agreed this over the phone and enacted it well enough to walk away with the million.
MAYBE I MISSED THIS AND they did discuss it? It rather seemed to me the opposite and they were deliberately distracting us from this realisation and its implications.

Is there any evidence they shared the prize - such an action would surely have been 'proof'(perhaps not as I'm not sure they ever were paid?).


But it was an entertainment and I couldn't convict on what I was shown.

I thought this was a man who was trying very hard to be “entertaining” and interesting as, according to the defence, his wife had told him off after the first night for not being amusing enough! To me the completely daft behaviour seemed plausible if he was not very socially adept and trying hard to be “amusing”....have we all not seen people at parties trying too hard to be interesting and just coming across as bizarre or weird? It was enough to make me give credence to the possibility that he was innocence and therefore not convict on reasonable doubt. 

That happened! As did the Judge asking Chris Tarrant if that was his “final answer”!