1,177 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'.
|
|
3,057 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.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli 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!
|
|
2,206 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!
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli 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.
|
|
18,774 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!
|
|
1,001 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?
|
|
2,206 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.
|
|
2,206 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?
|
|
721 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.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on May 2, 2020 21:06:58 GMT
Just caught up, much better than the play version for me. how much of the court case is true? Did the jury really all start coughing or is that just artistic spin?
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on May 2, 2020 21:48:40 GMT
Just caught up, much better than the play version for me. how much of the court case is true? Did the jury really all start coughing or is that just artistic spin? That happened! As did the Judge asking Chris Tarrant if that was his “final answer”!
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on May 2, 2020 22:10:21 GMT
Just caught up, much better than the play version for me. how much of the court case is true? Did the jury really all start coughing or is that just artistic spin? That happened! As did the Judge asking Chris Tarrant if that was his “final answer”! Cringe worthy! Wow. i'd have said were they not worried about being found in contempt of court (don't actually know what that entails) but if the judge is making jokes I guess not. It's like some early reality tv show.
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on May 3, 2020 21:52:35 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! Agreed. I don't think they did it either. x
|
|