[ad_1]
Who wants to be a millionaire? audience member says she KNEW Charles Ingram had cheated on Chris Tarrant’s “disdain” and “elder” behavior, but admits he didn’t notice the cough
- Andrew Silke was 19 years old and was in the audience in 2001 when Charles Ingram won a million pounds on the popular ITV game show Who Wants to be a Millionaire?
- Ingram’s 2003 conviction for cheating is the subject of ITV’s new drama contest
- Silke says he knew there was something odd about the major’s victory, but he told Twitter that it wasn’t the cough that made him think the foul play might have been underway.
- Instead, it was Tarrant’s “disdain” for Ingram and the older’s “strange” behavior.
A man who was in the audience when Charles Ingram made his infamous appearance on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? He said it was clear that something was wrong that night.
Journalist Andrew Silke turned to Twitter to tell what it was like to sit in the studio while Major Charles was in the millionaire’s chair, saying that, while unaware of the cough, he noted that the main performance was “oddly” and was convinced at the time. You may have cheated.
Ingram, his wife Diana and his accomplice Tecwen Whittock were convicted in court in 2003, two years after the show was first recorded, for cheating. The Ingrams and Whittock received two-year suspended prison terms for the crime.
Scroll down to watch the video
Firsthand account: Andrew Silke was 19 years old and was in the audience in 2001 when Charles Ingram won a million pounds on the popular ITV game show Who Wants to be a Millionaire? He says it was not the cough that made him think Ingram had cheated, but his “strange” behavior
Quiz, ITV’s recreation of the scandal, starring Matthew Macfadyen as Ingram and Michael Sheen as Chris Tarrant, is currently airing: Former audience member Silke says the show has made “it all makes sense.”
Silke, who works for Bloomberg, was just 19 when he sat in the ITV studio and said, “It all makes sense now, seeing how suspicious the production team was even while it was filming.”
Tweeting about yesterday’s experience, he said: ‘I was in the audience on night two when Charles Ingram cheated and won the million pounds. I even have a shred of that winner’s glitter somewhere in a box in my loft, true story. “
The journalist said that neither he nor his partner noticed the cough that eventually led to Ingram’s conviction because no one at the time had anticipated that it could happen.
He wrote, “Personally, I didn’t notice the cough at all, nor did the person I was with. I know we all know the story now, but it just wasn’t on anyone’s radar.”
Revision? Who Wants To Be A Millionaire To Cheat Charles Ingram’s lawyer says the new technology had sparked coughs from multiple audience members, casting doubt on Ingram’s guilt.
However, the thread suggests that it was clear that this was not an ordinary contestant in the chair. ‘What I did notice: the older one behaved strangely. Reading the answers over and over, changing your mind.
He says watching the reenactment of the ITV scandal, starring Matthew Macfadyen as Ingram and Michael Sheen as Chris Tarrant, he realized the fact that the show’s star presenter clearly did not hold the army commander in high regard.
Silke says, “The only thing that really surprises me, seeing him recreated, is Chris Tarrant’s obvious disdain for Charles.”
“He kept yelling ‘older’ like a bad Fawlty Towers sketch and telling his face how he basically thought he was stupid and crazy. Tarrant was trying to do his thing like a pro, but he was obviously furious even when the cameras were rolling. ‘ .
After the thread got a great response, Silke silenced him, but clarified that he thought Chris Tarrant was “a professional” and said, “I felt a certain disdain, maybe it was a joke, it was 20 years ago.”
Meanwhile, Ingram’s attorney has claimed this week that new, improved audio evidence from the show detected that several audience members were coughing during filming.
Criminal defense attorney Rhona Friedman, who is behind the former military major’s new appeal, said the case is “full of holes.”
Friedman said it was “ridiculous” to suggest that there was a conspiracy on the game show in 2001.
She told the Telegraph: “There is a gap at the heart of this evidence,” he said. “It wasn’t a conspiracy, it’s just ridiculous.”
Lawyers claim that the evidence was not considered by the jury during the trial and that it undermines the prosecution case.
They also claim that the integrity of the audio evidence could have been compromised because it came from the prosecution and was not submitted for independent analysis to the Forensic Science Service.
Friedman added that there were “gaps” in the “continuity chain” of audio evidence.
She said: ‘In the case of Ingrams, program creators were allowed to produce the’ expert evidence ‘with very limited police oversight.
“What ended up in the trial was a gentleman’s agreement that nothing had been done to alter the evidence in the trial, but there is no place for a gentleman’s agreement in a criminal trial.”
