Quiz ITV 9pm

I found the Courtroom scenes to be extremely poor. The bits that we did see could not possibly had led to a Guilty verdict (irrespective of his actual guilt).

I though Sheen was excellent but the programme as a production was extremely poor. I watched it in full, but it was the subject matter which held my attention, not the 'show'.
 


I found the Courtroom scenes to be extremely poor. The bits that we did see could not possibly had led to a Guilty verdict (irrespective of his actual guilt).

I though Sheen was excellent but the programme as a production was extremely poor. I watched it in full, but it was the subject matter which held my attention, not the 'show'.

Good read for you then.
 
I found the Courtroom scenes to be extremely poor. The bits that we did see could not possibly had led to a Guilty verdict (irrespective of his actual guilt).

I though Sheen was excellent but the programme as a production was extremely poor. I watched it in full, but it was the subject matter which held my attention, not the 'show'.

i agree with that. For whatever reason the Major was painted in a very good light and the viewer was led to think that even on the slim chance he was guilty it was his wife who set it all up anyway.
 
Probably not in 2001 though
I just think relatively its not that harder question 2 of the answers most people could rule out straight away. A gigabit most people would know i related to computer storage (at the time most computers were advertised as this being a key feature), Megatron is a joke answer as the most common use is for the villain in Transformers.

The 500k question was much harder and I had no idea for that nor would I have known anyone who would so would have had to take the money. On the whole a fairly easy run of questions I'd have only really struggled with the painting one and the aforementioned. I think its more the luck of the draw with the questions than anything else on that game. A competent player would have gone a long way on those questions without cheating
 

Good read for you then.
It's interesting but none of his quibbles about dramatisations of court procedure are really relevant, except for the bit about her theory of memory.

What she said is supposed to be true, and it has been shown to be relatively easy to manipulate memory to convince people they have experienced things that they haven't. But did she get an expert witness to testify, or is this something that is known today that they wouldn't have been able to say then, and it was the best way to include it? And as for Whittock saying "nice to meet you", yes I'm sure it probably happened at an earlier hearing but so what? You don't want to have a wholly superfluous extra scene just to ensure pedantic levels of accuracy.

Phantom gavels, summons papers aberrations and terminology inexactitudes are all completely irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Something else that nobody has mentioned is the whole thing with the brother-in-law and the 4 different pagers!! That plan was scuppered so they had to revert to plan b. If you watch the footage and disregard the coughing, the behaviour of the major and his wife is completely off. You can see the wife getting more and more frustrated/angry with how the major is playing the game. There's also no way that anyone would play those questions if they were unsure with the amount of money involved. It's a common thing in Millionaire where people could be quite sure of a question but don't play at the risk of losing money. There's no way someone would do that with the amount of questions he did it with. They may well have got away with it if the major wasn't a complete bumbling fool.
But not repeatedly, and she didn't change her answers in response to them.

Plus she went on to be on Eggheads and one of the top quizzers in the country. He went on to commit insurance fraud and declare himself bankrupt 3 times. Complete worng'un.
 
Last edited:
I enjoyed the show and the court scenes did put some doubt in my mind about their guilt, but what I didn’t know until hearing it on the radio was that after Millionaire they went on The Weakest Link, Wife Swap and something called The Games.

Not exactly keeping a low profile.
 
I enjoyed the programme and there were definite loopholes in the prosecution which left me surprised they came to a guilty verdict, but I still can't for the life of me believe that someone would guess an answer to a question that may cost you £468,000 :lol:
 
I enjoyed the programme and there were definite loopholes in the prosecution which left me surprised they came to a guilty verdict, but I still can't for the life of me believe that someone would guess an answer to a question that may cost you £468,000 :lol:
The dramatisation was made in a way that you would think there's doubt, watching the documentary and reading other things there's no doubt they were guilty for me. Yeah he was pretty calm for someone who could lose that much 😂
 
Should have been a civil matter rather than waste crown court's time - the lenient sentence is proof of that. They couid say he broke the rules and refuse to pay him, and he could then have sued them.

Some of the jury too, who heard all the evidence and both up-summings. I wonder if they'd been found not guilty whether they'd have been forced to pay up, or whether they paid Whittock his £1000.
This, just watched it. Police shouldn'f have been involved.
If a footballer cheated with a hand of god to win a Championship play off final woukd the police get involved?
Of course they wouldn't.
 
Not guilty.

The lawyer's argument that how did they know NOT to cough on answers he'd got right was convincing for me.

Still they were absolutely correct in that everyone really does hate poshos.

"If he says the right answer first and is going for it, don't do the cough thing."
"Okay."

"He won't do the cough thing if you say the right answer first and you are going for that one."
"Okay."
Just watched the third episode because I had something on last couple of nights.

Whether they did it or not I can’t see how you could find them guilty beyond Reasonable Doubt on the basis of the evidence presented. The defence barrister was brilliant.

She was terrible. Typical TV barrister; all pomp and not a clue about evidence, juries or the trial process. A real barrister who acted like that would quickly be disbarred.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top