With Quiz about to make our April on ITV can I please start a crusade for recognition of Bob Woffinden who did most of the reasearch and wrote the first excellent book? A fine man, a good friend, a brave supporter and a much loved investigator. Please spread the word.

It will be interesting to see how they will drag out a 3 hour long series based on an incident which essentially lasted about 30 minutes. Its similar to the recent film miss behaviour which was basically a film about a 10 minute disruption of the Miss World competition where no one was injured

They did it very, very well.

Michael Sheen is incredible (as usual, I'm rewatching his Kenneth Williams take at this moment) and the whole thing is very well paced throughout. Loved the little Easter eggs throughout like the ITV logo from the 1990s and the Jasper Carrott poster in the Celador offices (J C was a shareholder of the company as well as a performer.)

Sheen is good, but his voice is not quite right.

Part Two - still terrific; I love the humorous bits; the script is great. In the play there was a vote half way through and another vote at the end; just to tip you, every time the audience (or jury) totally changed its mind. Watch tomorrow!

steveimp wrote:
They did it very, very well.

Michael Sheen is incredible (as usual, I'm rewatching his Kenneth Williams take at this moment) and the whole thing is very well paced throughout. Loved the little Easter eggs throughout like the ITV logo from the 1990s and the Jasper Carrott poster in the Celador offices (J C was a shareholder of the company as well as a performer.)

Both Jasper and Michael are both very people also.

robbiex wrote:
Sheen is good, but his voice is not quite right.

How should he sound like Lenny Henry across with Bob Carolgees from their Tiswas days ?

Green Man wrote:
robbiex wrote:
Sheen is good, but his voice is not quite right.

How should he sound like Lenny Henry across with Bob Carolgees from their Tiswas days ?

Its not a bad effort, but I would know immediately that it is not the real Chris Tarrant if I heard the voice in isolation. It isn't that important, it isn't supposed to be an impression, but a portrait. It has an essence of Tarrant.

There is nothing I would want to watch more right now than the actual screening of the Major on "Who Want's to be a Millionaire". Did he really make it that obvious that he was guessing each answer and changing his mind each time.

Robbie I suspect, if it follows the route of the stage play, you will LOVE Part three tonight.

Yes I've been gripped so far, and its not very often I say that about an ITV drama series.

Looking at the actual clip of the Major on Millionaire above, he really was acting very suspiciously, as was his wife.

The funny thing is - the guy playing the major on stage (an unknown) was incredibly good and stole the show but because Sheen is so brilliant the TV version is really stolen by him as Chris Tarrant.

I promise you, you'll LOVE tonight's finale. All because of Bob Woffinden's incredible research.

I thought the three parter was absolutely excellent and ITV should be congratulated.
Yes in the stage show every night in the interval the votes were overwhelmingly Guilty; at the end invariably NOT GUILTY.

Yes the series was very good. I probably would have given a not guilty verdict if I was in the jury, based on the defence in the drama. However I wasn't subject to the trial by media that was prevalent at the time.

He went on to become a minor celebrity appearing on various reality shows, such as celebrity wife swap with Jade Goody.

As for Devs on bbc1, the jury is still out. It looks good, but the plot is quite complicated.

JK2006 wrote:
I thought the three parter was absolutely excellent and ITV should be congratulated.
Yes in the stage show every night in the interval the votes were overwhelmingly Guilty; at the end invariably NOT GUILTY.

I still have to say 'not guilty' both ITV and Celador wanted a good story.

I have attended hundreds of concerts and meetings and people cough all the time and throughout the events...blame the wretched smokers.

If about 4 or 5 tapes were edited to make the final tape for court then it's far too suspicious, it's nothing more than stitch up. All the tapes should of been left unedited and been used in court if they were brave enough.

Too me Charles Ingram, was acting the clown and trying to act dumb on TV. The last question he was giving involves a little logic; I still remember doing googol sums at school.

He should of been allowed to keep the money, the mainstream media are the real crooks and always have and will be.

When has ITV ever been reliable on their news and their sports feeds ?

Yes interesting that almost everyone - after Part Two of the stage show (Part 3 of the three part TV series) decided Not Guilty. This was Bob Woffinden's conclusion; a man who really knew the meaning of the word INVESTIGATIVE. His examination of my wrongful conviction from 2001 was extraordinary. He devoted months to research. Do read the chapter in his Nicholas Cases.

The point is not so much if they set out to cheat, but if the trial was fair or not. In my opinion, only a lunatic would think it was ok for a meddled-with tape to be used as evidence.

JK2006 wrote:
Yes interesting that almost everyone - after Part Two of the stage show (Part 3 of the three part TV series) decided Not Guilty. This was Bob Woffinden's conclusion; a man who really knew the meaning of the word INVESTIGATIVE. His examination of my wrongful conviction from 2001 was extraordinary. He devoted months to research. Do read the chapter in his Nicholas Cases.

I wonder if Charles will write an autobiography ? The media need to be scrutinized.

I am a bit outraged that the major was assumed to be thick because he changed his answers.

The Craig David answer made perfect sense to me. First instinct is to go with the one you are familiar with, but then realise that if you have heard of the artist you would be likely to know the album too, so better to go with the one you know nothing about.

Honey wrote:
I am a bit outraged that the major was assumed to be thick because he changed his answers.

The Craig David answer made perfect sense to me. First instinct is to go with the one you are familiar with, but then realise that if you have heard of the artist you would be likely to know the album too, so better to go with the one you know nothing about.


That's how I did well in my exams. Also if someone gasps because you said something wrong, of course alarm bells will ring. The audience helped him with that. So why wasn't they called up in court ?

Honey wrote:
I am a bit outraged that the major was assumed to be thick because he changed his answers.

The Craig David answer made perfect sense to me. First instinct is to go with the one you are familiar with, but then realise that if you have heard of the artist you would be likely to know the album too, so better to go with the one you know nothing about.

It explains on the show that the crowd gasped when the Major said that he thought the answer was A1, so therefore he realised that this probably wasn't correct, so went with the other option of Craig David.

I doubt whether he was that familiar with the teen boy band A1 as a 40+ year old man.