Is this pissing match really going anywhere? The man cheated. Does it really matter how it went down?
The problem here is that one side's saying it doesn't matter "how it went down" because there was no cheating, period.
And, on that note, I have two cents to add...
Three times proves the guy didn't need to cheat to get ahead genius.
Three times proves the guy didn't need to cheat on those questions.
He wasn't coughing during this time in the hot seat because
Ah, but per the context that's not what was being said. If Tecwen really did have a coughing issue, why wasn't he coughing more while in the audience?
you can keep spouting the same asinine drivel all the live long day and it won't magically make you any more correct.
Like, say, thinking The Chamber was a good show?
I also choose to let the evidence be my guide and to me it points to the major being innocent, but unlike you i'm not so close-minded and afraid of being proven wrong that i'm refusing to read a book.
A book that, per several Amazon reviews, is very much biased towards the Ingrams and Tecwen not only being innocent but victims of a conspiracy (as opposed to laying out all the facts and statements and letting the reader decide for themselves whether cheating occurred).
But fine, you say there's evidence they're innocent. Lay it on us.
There were at least 192 coughs that day, and Whittock only made 19 of them, which heavily points to him not being guilty. Also only his coughs during questions were enhanced, the other coughs he made were not because they didn't help the prosecutions case any. Not to mention there were similar coughs during both previous Millionaire winners questions when they were listing out answers, yet they were never suspected of fraud. Also when Tarrant was another TV program and was asked about the episode, he said the sound on the tape shown to the jury was nothing like it was on that night.
I fail to see how me liking a show you don't like is somehow "asinine drivel", though your post certainly is troll. I really don't get this weird obsession with people on here over what I think of this one game show, it's downright bizarre, it's like why are you obsessed with my opinion over this one show? It's actually kind of funny how seriously you are taking my opinion
Oh please, all books(and pieces of media in general) are "biased" in some way, there's no such thing as an "unbiased" piece of media, so I fail to see how that automatically means the book is bad or wrong. Maybe actually try reading it yourself before making baseless assumptions? Also the reviews are still mostly positive, so clearly it resonated with a lot of people.
Have you not been reading this entire thread? I've been laying out evidence for why they are innocent from the beginning, don't know you could've possibly missed it, but fine i'll list more if that'll make you stop whining.
First off this whole crazy idea that there was some aborted plan to strap pagers to Charles body and have them get rung to provide him with the correct answer, both of the Ingrams were searched after their win and neither of them had pagers on them, not to mention provided a perfectly logical explanation for ringing the pagers in the first place, they also did not have a phone to the studio(if they did sound engineers would've detected it) and the phone records only showed phone calls between Diana and Charles and nobody else, and in fact Charles, Diana and Whittock never actually owned a pager themselves, only their brother-in-law Adrian did.
Second why on earth would the prosecution call Tarrant as a witness when nothing he said pointed to the Ingrams being guilty? Simple, so that the defense could not call on him as a witness, as if they did the jury almost certainly would've been convinced of the Ingram's innocence.
Third none of the other Fastest-Finger-First contestants besides Whitehurst(who BTW has changed his story several times, first saying he didn't suspect anything suspicious was going on until the final question and then saying he was aware of the coughs throughout Ingram's entire run, strikes me as very shady that he would suddenly change his story like that for no real reason) testified to hearing any coughing whatsoever.
Fourth, the fact that Paul Smith was called as a witness despite him not actually being present during either taping of Ingram, yet two other executives who were there that night were not called as witnesses(David Briggs and Adrian Woolfe)
Fifth, the fact that the tapes were not immediately handed over to the cops and instead the production team was allowed to mess around with them, which is not traditionally how gathering evidence for a case is supposed to go, if a murder happens, you don't play around with the murder weapon before the cops get there for example.
Sixth all of the audience members were questioned and not a single one of them heard any coughing.
Seventh, the claim that Whittock coughed a "No" during the penultimate question, that's a claim that was not presented until much later on in the case, when officers interviewed the Ingrams they said nothing about that claim and none of the audience members testified to hearing a "No" that day and when the senior sound technicians made their initial statements they too said nothing about hearing a "No", and according to the actual transcript of that case that "No" was not at all present in ITV's original evidence.
Eighth, the fact that unlike most cases, there was no visit to the "scene of the crime" which is almost always done to give jurors an idea of what the environment was like, now why on earth would they not want jurors to visit the alleged scene of the crime?
Ninth, the original verdict by the jury was that Diana was found not guilty, and the jury were ordered to change their verdicts, which strikes me as highly unethical.
I could list many more examples, but I think i've proved my point for now.
