Later tonight, Susan Menez, based on inaccurate information from Mr Lubbock and his friend Mr Cichy, claimed that my post was 'lies'.
So that everyone can clearly see who's telling the truth here and who is lying, here, in sequence is:
a) my posting earlier tonight
b) the excitable response from Susan Menez, and
c) the original letter I wrote on Terry Lubbock's behalf, dated 5 June 2007, which is the one that prompted Senior Investigation Officer Gareth Wilson to inform the CICA that Essex Police had now changed their stance and would, after all, confirm that in their judgment Stuart's death was more likely than not to have been the result of a crime of violence.
I've no time to read every occasion on which Susan Menez and her acolytes screech 'Bennett Lies! on the 'MM' forum, I would love to respond to every one if I had the time. Here's a response that shows where the truth lies:
TONY BENNETT EARLIER TONIGHT
Responding to that, one of my achievements in the Stuart Lubbock case was that after a long struggle I managed to persuade the police to issue a statement to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) that it was more likely than not that he died from a crime of violence, or 'on the balance of probabilities', as they say. That meant that Stuart's father Terry was awarded £6,800 by the CICA - £5,500 being the statutory sum paid out to the relative of someone who has died as the result of a crime of violence, and £1,300 towards the funeral costs.
By the way this help to Stuart's father was given voluntarily and I neither charged him a penny for helping him with his CICA claim, nor did I receive one. I might add for the record that his previous Solicitors Steed and Steed had failed to obtain a CICA payment for him.
SUSAN MENEZ THEN SCREECHED...
He did not complete the claim to the CICA, Terry Lubbock did most the claim himself! Then Harry Cichy went with Terry to get proof of payment from the funeral director. Terry's solicitor, Kingsley Napley at the time completed the claim!
And it was G W from Essex police letter to the CICA 2 July 2007 and his statement that produced the change of heart from the CICA & Terry Lubbock's subsequent claim being approved which had nothing to do with Bennett whatsoever.
AND THIS IS THE LETTER I WROTE ON TERRY LUBBOCK'S BEHALF TO THE CICA
From: Tony Bennett M.A.
Tel: Harlow (01279) 635789
Director Tuesday 5 June 2007
Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority
300 Bath Street
S C O T L A N D
re: Claim for Criminal Injuries Compensation by Mr Terry Lubbock in respect of the violent death of Stuart Lubbock on 31 March 2001
I act for Mr Terry Lubbock, whose 31-year-old son Stuart Lubbock was pronounced dead at 8.23am on Saturday 31 March 2001. Stuart went to what was described as a ‘party’ at the home of Michael Barrymore in Roydon, Essex, at around 2.30am that morning. It is known that he suffered a violent attack, something which the Essex Police have always acknowledged, probably between 4.30am and 5.00am that morning.
This claim by Mr Terry Lubbock has been made as a result of a new analysis of the case (by myself) and recent statements by Essex Police.
There are a number of points of relevance to make in connection with this claim which is made over 6 years after the death of Stuart Lubbock, and I will make them in chronological order.
It is important fist of all to say that Mr Terry Lubbock has no recollection of ever having made a claim for Criminal Injuries Compensation, nor does he believe his former Solicitor Mr Peter Richards of Steed and Steed did so.
It is also important to state that if Mr Lubbock is awarded compensation, which I believe would amount to £5,500 in this case (i.e. half of £11,000), then his former wife [name withheld - T.B.] would also be entitled to the same amount. I do not act for her but have her address. I have spoken to her and she seems to recollect some kind of claim having been made at some stage in the past, but she has no details about any such claim, nor can she remember to whom any such claim might have been addressed, or what happened to it if it was made.
This has been a very ‘high profile’ media case in which many comments have been made. There have been TV programmes made about Stuart’s death, and Michael Barrymore’s recent book 'Awight Now: Setting the Record Straight' has three chapters dealing with the events of that night. I am about to publish, together with Terry Lubbock, an analysis of the case titled: 'Not Awight: Getting Away With Murder'. The book is already printed and will be released at the end of this month or the beginning of July.
My analysis of the case is contained within that book, which runs to 404 pages. I can send it to you, but do not think this would be necessary.
Against that background, here are the most relevant events:
1. Stuart Lubbock was a fit 31-year-old man, although toxicology tests showed he had probably used Ecstasy for around 6 months, and had had cocaine and alcohol on the evening he died. Whether he took the cocaine voluntarily that night is not known
2. It appears that there was a total of 9 people at the ‘party’, including Michael Barrymore and Stuart Lubbock. At 5.46am that morning, one of the ‘guests’, Justin Merritt, ’phoned an ambulance stating that Stuart Lubbock had been pulled out of Michael Barrymore’s swimming pool. There are many reasons to doubt whether Stuart Lubbock had ever been in that swimming pool and my forthcoming book deals fully with those issues. Suffice it to say that the stories of how Stuart was ‘rescued’ from the pool ate both highly improbable and wildly contradictory from each other
3. Stuart was pronounced dead at Princess Alexandra Hospital, Harlow, at 8.23am that morning
4. An autopsy later that day conducted by the now discredited pathologist Dr Michael Heath claimed that Stuart’s death was due to ‘immersion’
5. A total of three additional pathologists were called in to give second opinions, respectively Professor Christopher Milroy (called in by the Coroner), and Professor Jack Crane and Dr Ian Calder (called in by Essex Police). In terms, all of these three doubted the ‘drowning’ explanation for Stuart’s death and suggested the possibility that he had been asphyxiated and/or died of a heart attack due to a violent sexual attack. The reports of these pathologists can be made available to you, but they have been superseded by more recent developments (please see below)
6. All four pathologists found that Stuart suffered a violent and ‘serious’ attack in his anus which caused ‘serious’ injury, including deep and extensive lacerations. No DNA of anyone else was found when Stuart’s body was examined and Essex Police, acting on the pathologist’s advice, believed that a hard object, either a fist or some other hard object, was inserted with great force
7. On 6 June 2001, two of the ‘party-goers’, Jonathan Kenney and Justin Merritt, were arrested on suspicion of Stuart’s murder. They were released on bail. In or around October or November 2001, the Police, following Crown Prosecution Service advice, decided there was insufficient evidence to proceed against either man
8. On 11 December 2001, Essex Police conducted a briefing of the Coroner and all four pathologists in the case during which, most regrettably, the assembled experts were informed that Stuart had definitely been swimming in the pool earlier that night and also that he had definitely been found in the pool. It cannot be emphasised too strongly that this briefing was not accurate, as by then Essex Police had ample evidence that the various witnesses were lying about how Stuart died. This is one of 38 separate matters of complaint about Essex Police’s handling of the original investigation now being investigated by a Senior Investigator, Adrian Tapp, at the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The Commissioner in the case is David Petch. The 38 complaints are those which the IPCC has agreed to investigate and a schedule pf complaints, and a full list of the matters the IPCC proposes to investigate, has now been drawn up and will be agreed shortly
9. In September 2002, after an Inquest lasting 5 days, Coroner Mrs Caroline Beasley-Murray delivered an open verdict. In her summing-up (I have the Official Transcript) she said: “Not one of the witnesses, who were party guests in this house for over three hours, has given to this court an explanation about how Stuart Lubbock, a previously fit 31-year-old, should be found floating in a swimming pool at the premises with a significant level of alcohol and drugs in his system, and how serious anal injuries came to be found on his body” (Summing-Up Verdict, Day 5, page 4)
10. Immediately after the case, the Senior Investigating Officer in the case, Detective Chief Superintendent Ian McNeill, said that Essex Police were satisfied that Stuart Lubbock had been subject to a violent attack and that Essex Police were still looking for the perpetrators(s) of that attack. He also expressed the view that he hoped witnesses’ loyalties would change over time, enabling at least one of them to tell the truth about what happened that night
11. In October 2002, Michael Barrymore’s legal team claimed that there was a reasonable possibility that Stuart’s injuries had occurred after he had been taken away in an ambulance from Barrymore’s home. The Police were persuaded to investigate these claims – but after a year-long investigation, they concluded in December 2003 that there was not a shred of evidence to support them
12. Until January 2006, there were no significant developments in the case and Terry Lubbock had virtually given up hope of anybody being brought to justice for how his son died
13. In January 2006 I brought a private prosecution against Michael Barrymore in respect of alleged drinks and drugs offences that night and became engaged as Terry Lubbock’s solicitor in relation to all matters relating to the death of his son Stuart. This triggered a chain of events which helped to persuade Essex Police to commence a thorough review of the case
14. On 4 August 2006 Terry Lubbock signed the enclosed form claiming Criminal Injuries Compensation. After consulting with the Superintendent in charge of the case at the time, Superintendent Tim Wills, it was decided not to proceed with a claim at that stage. He said that the Review had only just begun and that he and Essex Police were unlikely to be able to support any compensation claim by Terry Lubbock, especially as their Review had only just started and was far from complete
15. On 2 December 2006, Essex Police, following their Review, announced that they were now conducting a re-investigation of Stuart’s death and said they were pursuing several new lines of enquiry
16. Later that month, Essex Police changed - after nearly 9 years - their official description of how Stuart was found at Michael Barrymore’s home. For nearly 6 years, they had said: “Stuart Lubbock, who was found floating in a swimming pool at a house in Roydon”. Now, they have changed this to “Stuart Lubbock, found at a house in Roydon”, thus dropping what we say is a highly contentious reference to his allegedly being found in a swimming pool
17. During the latter half of 2006 and earlier this year I completed and refined my analysis of the circumstances of Stuart’s death, coming to the conclusion that there had been an elaborate cover-up of the true circumstances of Stuart’s death and that Police Officers acted either incompetently or corruptly, thus creating a situation in which it was very difficult for the police and Crown Prosecution Service to press charges on those suspected of being responsible
18. A few weeks ago, I discussed the case, this time with a new Senior Investigating Officer for Essex Police, Detective Superintendent Gareth Wilson. He was non-committal; but he advised that Terry Lubbock should now make an application if he wished to and that if required to by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority he would give ‘the appropriate answer’ to the CICA if they contacted him.
There is clearly much more information about the case which it is impossible even to summarise in a letter. I have some of it; the police obviously know more than I do.
I should also add that I have recently engaged Dr Ian Calder, one of the three pathologists in the case, to carry out a re-consideration of his previous analysis of the case and give his revised opinion of the likely cause oft Stuart Lubbock’s death in the light of the probability (I would say certainty) that Stuart Lubbock was never in that swimming pool as witnesses falsely claimed.
To summarise, therefore, the reasons why the claim is made over 6 years after the date of Stuart Lubbock’s death (and assuming that neither him nor his wife have made a claim previously):
1. The Inquest reached an ‘open verdict’ in September 2002 and the police did not feel they could charge anyone with the violent attack on Stuart or his murder
2. Nothing occurred until 2006 that gave Terry Lubbock any notion that he could make a claim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority
3. A form was completed and signed by Terry Lubbock in August last year, but at that time Detective Superintendent Tim Wills said that Essex Police were carrying out a Review and that any claim would become premature
4. Since November2006, the following events have occurred that have made it appropriate to make a claim now:
(a) In November, the Essex Police Review decided there should be a re-investigation
(b) In December the re-investigation began
(c) During the first part of 2007, Essex Police dropped their reference to Stuart Lubbock having been found in a swimming pool
(d) I have now completed the analysis which is in my book and which strongly suggests that on the balance of probabilities Stuart Lubbock died from an extremely violent sexual attack on him that killed him - and which was covered up by those who perpetrated the attack and witnessed it
(e) Last month, the Independent Police Complaints Commission accepted that there were 38 separate potentially valid grounds of complaint about the way Essex Police conducted their initial investigation, including suggestions of possible corruption.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you should require any further information.
1. I completed the CICA form for Terry in August 2006
2. I spoke to Gareth Wilson in April/May 2007 clearing the way for a succesful approach to the CICA
3. I then wrote the letter of claim to the CICA on 5 June 2007.
I very much regret that for their own reasons, Terry Lubbock, Harry Cichy and Susan Menez are attempting to re-write history.
In which case I'm glad that I can provide the historical record that proves that my original claim on the forum was the unvarnished truth and that Susan menez was wholly wrong to shriek 'Lies!'.
The only thing I will acknowledge is that the adminstrative matter of getting a receipt from the Funeral Director was indeed obtained after Terry Lubbock parted company with me on 13 July 2007.
- Posts : 13975
Reputation : 2148
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex
(dentists tools at the ready)
- Posts : 334
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-04
Molly wrote:No, it's not. He's working on his replies. Best to prepare yourself for a lot of reading.
Could the forum employ somebody for a day to just give a summary do you think?
- Posts : 334
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-04
@DCB1 wrote:Molly wrote:No, it's not. He's working on his replies. Best to prepare yourself for a lot of reading.
Could the forum employ somebody for a day to just give a summary do you think?
Nope. Unless we'll start a Fund. With cheques and stamps.
They have some really good deals on TVs at Asda at the moment.
- Posts : 440
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-16