English Chess Forum

James Graham e mails to tell me the very probable broadcast date in the UK will be Monday 13th April and then, on each of the two successive nights, parts Two and Three also.

So, enjoy, Sñr Thurlow!



AMC dates fixed for May 25th, 26th and 27th in the USA.

"James Graham e mails to tell me the very probable broadcast date in the UK will be Monday 13th April and then, on each of the two successive nights, parts Two and Three also."

Thanks for that - I'll be watching!

The Inside Story for you, Kevin!

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bread-Circus-J ... oks&sr=1-1

Added to my Kindle!

And your thoughts...?

See "Book Reviews" section...

Aha!
Was it you who added the review at the Amazon Kindle page, then, may I ask?

Yes - but without looking at the earlier one. I think I marked it down a star for typos. I did enjoy reading it, good insight into the programme.

Are you expecting anyone to sue you? Someone who appears on a regular quiz programme might be annoyed...

A law suit from whom ought I to dread?

"What judgement need I fear doing no wrong?"

Shylock

You seemed to imply that someone got through the telephone round by using unfair means?

Well... depends what you mean by "unfairly".
Diana Ingram´s brother called in at specific times, usually in tranches of thirty calls, often in the small hours and always just after the announcement of a new series.

As I detailed, Charles tried to apply most elements of a plan, since that plan had got his wife and brother-in-law into the hot seat to win 32K apiece.

One of the elements of that ´programe´ was to act thick at rehearsal. That Charles did by flunking an easy question.

I mentioned that people were forming syndicates and reaping millions that way. But whether or not that constitutes cheating is still moot.
Celador were well aware of the syndicates but couldn´t be arsed to do anything about it.

James Plaskett wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 2:12 pm

One of the elements of that ´programme´ was to act thick at rehearsal.

A theme he maintained for much of the non-rehearsal questions.

Acting or genuine?

er... well why don´t you tell us?
Not forgetting that he had two degrees, one of which rendered him a Civil Engineer, was also a member of Mensa and his first supposition to the right answer WAS the right one on five of the eight questions he faced on the second evening before any coughing. That´s over 1000 to 1 against chance.
And that Mark Labbett and ex-Quizzing World Champion, the late Mark Bytheway, each told me (at the Millionaire studios) they did NOT think he had cheated.
And that many of the cast of the TV series QUIZ are far from sold he cheated,
And that Polls taken at The Sun, The Daily Mirror, Twitter, the Spanish edition of ESQUIRE magazine and an armedforces.uk website now show that, after QUIZ aired in 2020, less than 70% of a now total Poll sample of thousands are not convinced the verdict was just.

AND that Kevin Thurlow himself here posts that he thinks prosecution failed to make its case...

YOU tell us, if you would be so kind.

You aren't quoting actual voodoo polls are you? Doesn't matter how many "thousands" take part in them if they aren't representative.

(this is an entirely neutral comment overall btw, I fully accept that many are not convinced of his guilt)

A Poll taken of some 1,000 Sun readers after the Major Fraud documentary re the cheats aired on Easter Monday 2003 showed 95% thought him guilty.
After the Resurrection with the broadcast of the first episode of James Graham´s QUIZ, also on Easter Monday, 2020, the above Polls were taken.
Only three people CAN know for sure (short of God taking human form for the second time). But their stories never varied, the Ingrams declined 675K proffered by Piers Morgan for his Daily Mirror newspaper and instead raised 94K for Charities.

What we all can know for sure is that prosecution failed to make its case.

Tarrant conceded afterwards that it could have resulted in a verdict of not guilty because of the lack of concrete evidence making it all so circumstantial and so it all lay in the hands of the jury.
A jury whom, btw, took over thirteen and a half hours (not including a weekend) to deliberate until the foreman told the judge they thought Ingram and Whittock were guilty but Ingram´s wife innocent. Judge pointed out all three stood accused of the same thing. So twenty minutes later he said, "Alright. She´s guilty too then."

Ingram was two lifelines down when the second evening began. But using lifelines early on was normal for strong players as Tarrant told me two years before Ingram won and repeats in his book Millionaire Moments.

A tranche of calls, thirty-eight, between the Ingrams and Whittock were located. But, since Diana and her brother had each won 32K on the show and were writing a book about it who could have been a more plausible person for a Millionaire? wannabe like Whittock to have contacted?

Why rely on Whittock´s prompts when he could only win 1K when he played after Ingram? Tarrant also twice pointed that out, in Millionaire Moments and the Radio Times.

What were the chances of getting in a fake cougher when Whittock tested positive for hayfever, rhinitis and cough variant asthma? Professor of Respiratory Medicine at Hull University, Alyn Morice, attested so and later said he was "Astonished" the Millionaire Three were found guilty.

Why weren´t the simplest of codes used? A sip of water to indicate´A´. Or have the affirmatory cough come on a prearranged wrong answer?
Why were not presentation and affirmation coded? These most trivial of disguises would have rendered the whole operation almost failsafe. Don´t you agree?

I pointed out to James Graham that whilst Ingram got done for, across two adjacent evenings, his mentioning an option, a cough coming and his then giving that as his final answer en route to the million something very similar may be discerned when Judith Keppel won the million before him. And no charges were pressed against her! I was pleased to see the late Helen McCrory, playing Ingram´s counsel, had two of those Keppel coughs played to the court.
Had that happened at trial I don´t think there would have been a guilty verdict.

And those are just some of the reasons for us to be unconvinced prosecution made its case.