|
|
Post by talkingheads on Apr 18, 2020 19:36:56 GMT
I thought there were lots of interesting things about the play/tv drama. Is it easier to think slightly unattractive people are guilty? If you are guilty of slightly cheating to get on the show does this make you likely to actually commit fraud on the show? If that’s a yes, does it mean anyone who parks on a yellow line or speeds may commit a crime? Where do we draw the line? If you find money in the street and don’t hand it in to the police are you are a bad persons? In these troubled times if you book a supermarket delivery when you aren’t shielding are you bad? Also interesting is people believing someone is guilty and then making evidence fit....the producers were sure the Ingrams were guilty and edited the audio tape so it picked up cough noises from microphones near the coughs....in reality it wouldn’t have sounded as loud on stage....and the original tape of sound was not available...it was destroyed? As an analogy most of us would use every trick we know to get good theatre tickets when they are out (multiple browsers anyone?) but we would never dream of not actually paying for a ticket! I do think there was reasonable doubt and they should not have been convicted. I think it isn't so much the manipulation of evidence. It's the clear evidence of him cheating based on the footage where he claims never to have heard of Craig David and goes for him, then later affirms and reaffirms he is going for Berlin and then switches to Paris for no reason whatsoever. |
|
754 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Apr 18, 2020 20:04:47 GMT
I also bought into the theory that his wife had told him to be more interesting (as she thought interesting people were given easier questions as they made good television) after the first day and his idea of “interesting” was just downright weird!!! I actually thought the actor in the play gave a better portrayal of Ingram as being socially quite awkward than the one in the TV drama....
So all the changing of his mind and reading out all the answers and weird swerves were his idea of drama....
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 20:30:56 GMT
it amuses me that after a 3 hour (fictionalized) tv show we know the jury got it wrong even though they sat there listening to several weeks of evidence...... On the other hand, unless somebody really had an obsession about it at the time and has carried it with them, we are missing the trial and conviction by media that had already happened. The atmosphere created by that was, as likely as anything, the reason why they were convicted ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Ingram used some typical methods of getting ideas from the audience. I mean, it’s audience 101. Say you will do something and wait to hear a response. Repeat it if necessary. It’s not exactly Derren Brown level but using a more simplistic version of the sort of ‘mind reading’ that he uses. |
|
848 posts
|
Post by duncan on Apr 19, 2020 12:37:40 GMT
I doubt he's reading the audience on the million pound question.
I have no doubt he's part of a criminal conspiracy to defraud the show of a million pounds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2020 12:57:24 GMT
I doubt he's reading the audience on the million pound question. I have no doubt he's part of a criminal conspiracy to defraud the show of a million pounds. The million pound question was pretty easy, compared to some of the others (my knowledge of Craig David is and was zero!). The wrong answers used mega nano and giga as part of the word, which many will have known were too small to be the correct answer. By process of elimination it had to be googol. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Apr 19, 2020 16:05:09 GMT
I doubt he's reading the audience on the million pound question. I have no doubt he's part of a criminal conspiracy to defraud the show of a million pounds. The million pound question was pretty easy, compared to some of the others (my knowledge of Craig David is and was zero!). The wrong answers used mega nano and giga as part of the word, which many will have known were too small to be the correct answer. By process of elimination it had to be googol. I would only been able to answer that one if...... I'd Googled it! I would get my hat and coat but I've already been outside once today. |
|
217 posts
|
Post by Rozzi Rainbow on Apr 19, 2020 17:59:59 GMT
I'd wanted to see this in the West End but didn't get chance, and was hoping to catch the tour at some point. I thought it was a fantastic show, best thing I've watched on TV in a long while. If I was on a jury, and this was the evidence presented to me (which I appreciate is a much shorter version of what actually happened in court) I would definitely not be able find them guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The defence summed it up brilliantly for me with the confirmation bias - if someone says to you, here look at this, don't you think it looks dodgy, you're more likely to think it does indeed look dodgy - and the fact the "evidence" was altered in the prosecution's favour. For me, based on the information shown, it wasn't a fair trial.
I'm not yet convinced they were innocent, just not convinced they were guilty. And in our courts, innocence doesn't need to be proved, only guilt. I think Diana's brother was the shiftiest of them, followed by Diana herself. Yes they were playing the system, what they did was possibly immoral and unethical, but not illegal. I think the production crew were biased against Charles straight away because of the history with the family. I loved it when they showed Judith Keppel's final question, and (normal!) coughs were heard on the correct answer!!
|
|
1,250 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 23, 2020 10:51:07 GMT
Might have got this completely wrong but I think a friend told me that at the NT production the audience voted as to whether they were guilty or innocent. Can anyone confirm if that is true? It wasn't at the NT, it was in Chichester and then the West End, and yes, the audience voted twice - once just before the interval, at the end of the recreation of the TV episode, and once at the end of the show, after the trial. I'm sure that Chichester or James Graham published some stats at the end of one of the runs, but I can't find them now. Essentially, the audience usually voted heavily for Guilty at the interval (roughly equivalent to the end of episode 2 of the TV adaptation), and a majority (albeit smaller) voted Innocent by the end of the show. There were a number of other audience interactions, a few people came up on stage to take part in the Price is Right, there was a quiz that was done during the first half and marked in the second - there was a bit more about why people were so interested in quiz shows in the stage production. Edited to add - from the Chichester thread: emsworthian - The audience at the Saturday matinee had a majority Not Guilty and a results board projected onto the of stage backdrop revealed that out of 39 performances, at all but at two performances the majority voted Not Guilty @n1david - The show I was at was the first one to find the Ingrams guilty in the run (interesting to hear it was one of only two). The cast were genuinely taken aback and while they obviously had a script to prepared them for this, it was very unexpected. On the way out, theatre staff were asking people if they’d voted guilty at the end and if so, why. I wonder if this has been part of Graham’s recalibration if the show to weigh things one way or the other. I went to the West End production and the voting did indeed go that way. But it's important to note that people changed their vote (I did) to "Not Guilty" not "Innocent". There is a huge difference and this is due to the different level of proof required by criminal and civil law. What most of us were saying is that the prosecution were unable to demonstrate, in the trial, that the Ingrams had "beyond reasonable doubt" set out to steal a million quid. It is not enough to say they probably did it, you have to prive they definitely did it. Having said that I suspect if ITV had lost the case they would then have gone on to file a civil suit against the Ingrams and probably won it. But at least they wouldn't have been left with a criminal record and maybe he wouldn't have lost his job. |
|
2,761 posts
|
Post by n1david on Apr 23, 2020 11:13:29 GMT
I went to the West End production and the voting did indeed go that way. But it's important to note that people changed their vote (I did) to "Not Guilty" not "Innocent". There is a huge difference and this is due to the different level of proof required by criminal and civil law. What most of us were saying is that the prosecution were unable to demonstrate, in the trial, that the Ingrams had "beyond reasonable doubt" set out to steal a million quid. It is not enough to say they probably did it, you have to prive they definitely did it. Having said that I suspect if ITV had lost the case they would then have gone on to file a civil suit against the Ingrams and probably won it. But at least they wouldn't have been left with a criminal record and maybe he wouldn't have lost his job. You're absolutely right - sloppy writing on my part! |
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Apr 23, 2020 11:50:27 GMT
For anyone that may be interested, there's an accompanying podcast to this called Final Answer. One podcast per episode, 35/40 mins each (perfect to listen to on a daily walk!) with contributions from editors, producers, costume, hair, make up and writer James Graham of course! Some insight into putting it all together, from re-creating the WWTBAM set, fake teeth and wigs, editing real-life footage with recorded footage and what is fact and what they took artistic license with!
|
|
1,250 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 23, 2020 12:07:11 GMT
I went to the West End production and the voting did indeed go that way. But it's important to note that people changed their vote (I did) to "Not Guilty" not "Innocent". There is a huge difference and this is due to the different level of proof required by criminal and civil law. What most of us were saying is that the prosecution were unable to demonstrate, in the trial, that the Ingrams had "beyond reasonable doubt" set out to steal a million quid. It is not enough to say they probably did it, you have to prive they definitely did it. Having said that I suspect if ITV had lost the case they would then have gone on to file a civil suit against the Ingrams and probably won it. But at least they wouldn't have been left with a criminal record and maybe he wouldn't have lost his job. You're absolutely right - sloppy writing on my part! No! You were quoting the "Innocent"! Just thought it was important to restate the difference in the burden of proof. |
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Apr 24, 2020 14:03:05 GMT
I think the doubts worked better on TV than on stage (I stubbornly voted Guilty because I think they were as dodgy and desperate as hell but there is reasonable doubt) as it felt contrived on stage. I find Graham can be subtle and classy and the production was not that. I think if seeds of doubt/guilt had been better sown throughout the production I would have enjoyed it more but Graham clearly thinks they are not guilty and that overwhelms the production.
|
|
|
|
Post by Forrest on Apr 24, 2020 14:31:47 GMT
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'.
|
|
3,352 posts
|
Post by Dr Tom on Apr 25, 2020 17:46:12 GMT
An annotated version of Tape G has now been uploaded to the official WWTBAM YouTube channel, if anyone wants to refresh their memory (or watch this for the first time):
|
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Apr 25, 2020 18:26:50 GMT
An annotated version of Tape G has now been uploaded to the official WWTBAM YouTube channel, if anyone wants to refresh their memory (or watch this for the first time): Yep. They were guilty 20 years ago, this reaffirms they're guilty now. No question in my mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2020 1:43:14 GMT
An annotated version of Tape G has now been uploaded to the official WWTBAM YouTube channel, if anyone wants to refresh their memory (or watch this for the first time): Yep. They were guilty 20 years ago, this reaffirms they're guilty now. No question in my mind. This is not the original footage, it is the infamous manipulated Tape G that was used to sway the jury. It seems as though it is still effective in doing that! |
|
2,340 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Apr 26, 2020 7:46:41 GMT
Yep. They were guilty 20 years ago, this reaffirms they're guilty now. No question in my mind. This is not the original footage, it is the infamous manipulated Tape G that was used to sway the jury. It seems as though it is still effective in doing that! Do you think they are innocent? Can I ask why, seems a pretty open and shut case to me |
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Apr 26, 2020 7:56:46 GMT
This is not the original footage, it is the infamous manipulated Tape G that was used to sway the jury. It seems as though it is still effective in doing that! Do you think they are innocent? Can I ask why, seems a pretty open and shut case to me Exactly. I could believe three or four coincidental coughs on the right answer but this? The wife is caught doing on camera for goodness sake! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2020 12:13:15 GMT
This is not the original footage, it is the infamous manipulated Tape G that was used to sway the jury. It seems as though it is still effective in doing that! 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. |
|
19,797 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Apr 26, 2020 17:37:53 GMT
Their defence counsel’s summing up was pretty convincing, if that was based on reality. Tape G was created by the producers to support their claim. They highlighted 19 coughs out of 192 heard during the show and amplified the 19 on the tape. No one in the studio heard the “No” including Tarrant, and why would anyone hire an accomplice who had a persistent cough to perform a complicated cough-based con trick?
Not guilty!
|
|
1,062 posts
|
Post by David J on Apr 26, 2020 19:58:06 GMT
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?
|
|
2,340 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Apr 27, 2020 19:35:23 GMT
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? This. I've watched you tube version again also. Just thought it was obvious. That is from someone who wasn't in court and heard none of the trial but it's not subtle If you had gone on trial by media, not getting a fair trial maybe you could say that. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Apr 28, 2020 10:27:24 GMT
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.
|
|
2,340 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Apr 28, 2020 12:09:14 GMT
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. Yep prize never paid, never find out what his cut was unless they tell us. Is the guilty conversation real life or evidence as per show? |
|
754 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Apr 29, 2020 23:06:58 GMT
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 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. |
|
