The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

The killing of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's home on 1 April 2001 - Discussion on what really happened

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

The killing of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's home on 1 April 2001 - Discussion on what really happened

Post by Tony Bennett on 11.08.12 19:34

'dragonfly' has asked for a new thread on the forum to discuss the killing of Stuart Lubbock at the home of Michael Barrymore.

I will be happy, as soon as practicable, to answer any questions about the case. I will also publish a few 'tasters' from my book, which by the way is still on sale and available from me:

NOT AWIGHT: Getting Away with Murder, by Terry Lubbock and Tony Bennett, 404pp - Price £5.00 including postage to anywhere in the UK - send me a 'pm' or email: ajsbennett@btinternet.com

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here's the first extract (pp. 168-172]:


The Martin Bashir interview

On Tuesday 30 October, Barrymore’s celebrated TV interview with Martin Bashir was transmitted on Tonight with Trevor McDonald.

That very week, Barrymore’s show My Kind of Music had been voted Britain’s ‘most popular entertainment programme’ at the National TV Awards. But Barrymore did not attend.

The Bashir interview was clearly a gamble, designed to seek forgiveness from his former fans, some of whom were beginning to desert him - and also of course to put him back into the ‘good books’ of the TV companies, who were understandably holding off from offering further employment to someone who might have been involved in some way in a murder.

But the Bashir programme backfired miserably. A record 600,000 people turned off the boring programme, even before the first commercial break, as the self-obsessed celebrity wallowed in self-pity, showing no remorse for his actions.

Many viewers actually telephoned to complain about the programme, some of them claiming it had been ‘insensitive to the Lubbock family’, according to the Daily Mail
on 1 November. And the Daily Mail reported that “a poll conducted after the show was overwhelmingly against him being allowed to resume his career”.

Another poll on Channel 5’s The Wright Stuff
found 69% against Barrymore resuming his TV shows. But the public’s fascination with Barrymore still led 6.5 million viewers to start watching the programme, even though so many switched off during the programme.
It contained one memorable line, clearly rehearsed: “I’m sick and tired of feeling sick and tired”. He won no friends with that epitome of self-pity. He also admitted drinking bottles of Jack Daniel and wine, night after night, and “doing pot, cocaine, speed, whatever was necessary to change the way I felt”.


Also, he gave clues as to his drinks and drugs parties: “Everybody would stay for the night. That’s what happens when you do drugs and drink”. The clear impression was given that ‘drink and drugs parties’ were a regular feature at 4 Beaumont Park Drive, Roydon, which is consistent with other evidence. He even admitted to having been on a four-day binge on his last birthday (4 May).

Describing the early events of the evening of the party at which Stuart Lubbock died, Barrymore told Bashir: “I was feeling low after discovering my mother Margaret had cancer, and I was about to lose two members of my production team. I was getting over the breakdown of my relationship with Shaun Davis. I just wanted to cheer myself up, so I said to Jonathan, who was with me at the time: ‘Shall we go down to a club?’”

We may simply note here that this contradicts Kenney’s earlier account which was that he
had ’phoned Barrymore from his place of work and made the suggestion that they go out.

Barrymore told Bashir: “It was on the spur of the moment. I was high, and there was a good buzz. I had loads of girls coming up to me and I was talking to loads of blokes. We got home. I said: ‘Help yourself to drinks’ and said if they wanted to use the jacuzzi, they could. Stuart had had a drink, they’d all had a drink, but nothing, nothing, nothing I’d judge as so drunk that they had to be taken care of…I didn’t give anyone cocaine. I wasn’t so out of my head that I didn’t know what was going on. I went down to the other end to have a smoke with the lads, came back, went out to the jacuzzi, and that’s when I discovered Stuart”.

We have of course greatly shortened the account he gave Bashir - but the above is all that he says about what we call ‘the missing hour-and-a-half’. He gives the impression that for that hour-and-a-half he, Futers and Shaw were simply smoking cannabis.

Barrymore stuck firmly to the line that it was he alone that ‘found Stuart’. He said: “I saw the dead body and felt sick. My friend John called the ambulance and police [NOTE: incorrect - it was Merritt]. I’m ashamed to say I just panicked and ran off to stay with a friend [Shaw] in the village”.

It’s interesting to note that he conceded that Shaw was a ‘friend’ - having initially told the police that he had never seen him before. The Sun
refers at this time to Shaw - correctly, we say - as ‘Barrymore’s pal’.

Barrymore added: “Stuart just wasn’t coming round. I didn’t think about what I was doing. I didn’t think what was right or wrong. They [Futers and Shaw] ushered me away and said: ‘There’s nothing you can do’. I said: ‘I want to do something’, but they said: ‘It’ll be a nightmare. Just go out’”.

He then adds: “I didn’t leave without straightaway ringing my PA, Mike, and telling him where I was. I wasn’t running away from the scene”. Precisely when Barrymore first ’phoned his PA is a matter of great interest for us to know - and certainly his 'phone call should have been to the police. Only the police know - assuming, that is, that they ever checked Barrymore’s mobile ’phone records.

What did he say? “Mike, someone’s drowned in my pool and I’m going to go down and hide at Simon’s”. Or what?
In fact, Barrymore’s last comment appears to be a slip by him. For, according to the statements given to the police by Barrymore, Futers and Shaw, it was only
after
Barrymore arrived at Shaw’s girlfriend’s flat that Barrymore ’phoned Mike Browne. But here he tells Martin Bashir quite clearly that he contacts Mike Browne before ‘running away from the scene’.

Significantly, Barrymore faced no questions about his mobile ’phone records when interviewed by the Police on 6 June.

We know from an account of one witness that Barrymore was seen talking on his mobile ’phone to someone just before he entered the taxi with the Merritts and Stuart Lubbock. Just who was he talking to at around 2.40am? - and what about?

One would dearly love to know, for example, who Barrymore ’phoned on his mobile ’phone - and who ’phoned Barrymore - on the morning Stuart Lubbock died.

It is a mystery why neither Barrymore, nor any of the other party guests, apart from Kenney and Merritt, were not interviewed in much more depth about the obvious contradictions in their stories. If, as Barrymore told Bashir, he telephoned Browne before
he left 4 Beaumont Park Drive, why is there no statement from both Barrymore and Browne about what exactly was said in that ’phone call?

Yet Mike Browne was obviously able to conduct detailed discussions with Essex Police Press Office about the contents of a press release, even successfully insisting that there should - initially - be no mention that the death had occurred at Barrymore’s home. We have a sense of Essex Police in those early hours bending over backwards to ‘spin’ events from Barrymore’s and Browne’s point of view.

Barrymore concluded to Bashir: “It’s a terrible, tragic accident - and for that I’ll be sorry for that for the rest of my life. I accept my share of the blame for what happened in my house, of course I do. But I struggle every day to come to terms with it. When I think about Stuart’s family, they are the real victims”.

But Barrymore has also frequently told various media that he was not to blame at all - and has denied that drugs had anything to do with Stuart’s death, dismissing the issue as ‘irrelevant’.

Barrymore was at his friend Simon Shaw’s flat with a Woman Police Constable when her walkie-talkie went - and she subsequently announced that Stuart had been pronounced dead. This must have been around 8.30am to 9.00am.

According to Barrymore: “I just caved in emotionally and it was like some really bad film without a happy ending. I kept seeing his face. This was somebody I never knew, but it was my house. It was my pool and I felt responsible”.

Barrymore has often dwelt on ‘seeing Stuart’s face’ and ‘looking (or staring) into his eyes’. How he could have done so when Stuart was apparently six feet under the water in a dark pool is something neither police nor any TV outlet or newspaper has ever asked him.

At the time of the Bashir interview, Barrymore was reportedly off the bottle and, according to friends, ‘on suicide watch’. One friend noted: “Pals are taking it in turns to keep tabs on where he goes...and what he drinks”.

But Taylor and Nicholas tell a very different story in Barrymore: A Man Possessed
.

Here is their account of Barrymore partying the day after the programme was transmitted:

“Within twenty-four hours of wringing his hand in shame on TV, Michael went on a tour of London’s gay haunts with Dan Lichters. Dan Lichters was in fact P.C. Lichters, and they had been pictured out shopping together in Knightsbridge a few days earlier. Lichters was on the Robbery Squad at the time, but also a ‘Gay and Lesbian Liaison Officer’ in the Metropolitan Police. And his job was to carry out his ‘liaison’ duties ‘out of normal hours’. Maybe he was even ‘on duty’ whilst out partying with Barrymore. Lichters boasted that at one time he had been Britain’s youngest Police Officer.

"He told reporters at the time: “I’m gay. Any officer in London will tell you that I’m totally ‘out’ and make no secret of it. My relationship with him has absolutely no bearing on the police enquiries he has been involved in. I don’t want to say whether we’re just good friends or anything like that. I prefer to say nothing”.

In fact, Lichters being seen out arm-in-arm with Barrymore meant that Lichters had to be taken off the Robbery Squad, as he admitted: “Being publicly linked with Michael means that crooks around Camden and King’s Cross know who I am”.

That night - the day after the Bashir interview was transmitted, he ‘hit the town with the handsome 21-year-old’, said Taylor and Nicholas. Their account continues:

“They arrived at the Ku Bar in the West End shortly before 9pm. Michael was seen running his hand up and down Dan’s leg throughout the evening. Michael couldn’t resist playing to the gallery and even had the nerve to joke about his TV broadcast - complaining that it made him look podgy. The crowds around him roared with laughter when Michael announced: ‘See, I’m not really that fat! The cameras were lying’.

"Asked about his decision to go partying so soon after sharing his sorrow on screen, Michael brazened it out: ‘You can’t go on sulking on your own forever. I came out tonight to have a laugh. I needed to’. Shortly after 11pm, Michael and his party left the Ku Bar and headed to the nearby Heaven nightclub, where they stayed till 3am”.

ITV bosses were furious with Barrymore when they found out about his partying that night. This account from Taylor and Nicholas tends to prove that Barrymore’s interview with Bashir on Tonight with Trevor McDonald
was a meaningless act. He was not sorry at all. He simply hoped the Bashir interview would lead to offers of further work coming in after they were beginning to dry up.

Meanwhile, TheSun
on 30 October had claimed: “A post-mortem revealed that Stuart had had violent gay sex with at least two men”. After combing through all the documents, we can find no evidence to support that claim. A violent attack which injured his anus, certainly - but there was nothing we can find in the four pathology reports that went so far as suggesting that Stuart ‘had violent gay sex with two gay men’.



SNIPPED AT THIS POINT - MORE ANOTHER TIME

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The killing of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's home on 1 April 2001 - Discussion on what really happened

Post by Spaniel on 11.08.12 20:26

Barrymore was of dubious taste on his way down for a long time. His total downfall for me however as an entertainer, was when he embarrassed a lady of mature years on stage by lifting her clothes.

Anything after that confirmed his crassness.

I hope we never see him on our television screens ever again.

Spaniel

Posts : 743
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The killing of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's home on 1 April 2001 - Discussion on what really happened

Post by aquarius2 on 11.08.12 20:40

@Spaniel wrote:Barrymore was of dubious taste on his way down for a long time. His total downfall for me however as an entertainer, was when he embarrassed a lady of mature years on stage by lifting her clothes.

Anything after that confirmed his crassness.

I hope we never see him on our television screens ever again.

Yes I totally agree, this pathetic man was always an ugly narcissist ever ready to take cheap laughs or easy advantage from anyone his inflated-ego led him to believe was beneath him. Let's not forget the way he behaved towards (a then unknown) 25 year-old Susan Boyle at an audition way back in 1995;



Good to know that sometimes, fate does give people their just desserts.
Who is the star now Michael?

aquarius2

Posts : 23
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-07-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The killing of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's home on 1 April 2001 - Discussion on what really happened

Post by monkey mind on 11.08.12 21:19

"Meanwhile, TheSun on 30 October had claimed: “A post-mortem revealed that Stuart had had violent gay sex with at least two men”. After combing through all the documents, we can find no evidence to support that claim. A violent attack which injured his anus, certainly - but there was nothing we can find in the four pathology reports that went so far as suggesting that Stuart ‘had violent gay sex with two gay men’."

A remarkably incisive observation. Says so much.


monkey mind

Posts : 616
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-12-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The killing of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's home on 1 April 2001 - Discussion on what really happened

Post by Guest on 12.08.12 12:13

I've just watched the clip with Susan Boyle and what is stomach-churning for me is that people in the audience were laughing at Michael's behaviour as if it was funny and acceptable. I never found him in the least entertaining with his penchant for humiliating people.

I did seem to be very much in the minority when he was at the height of his career as I couldn't stand to watch him. I never could understand how anyone found Morecambe and Wise funny either, though I'm sure they were nice people.

I don't suppose that he'll ever be honest now about what happened in his home in 2001.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Bunch of liars, the lot of them

Post by Tony Bennett on 12.08.12 12:58

Jean wrote:I don't suppose that he'll ever be honest now about what happened in his home in 2001.
No chance, except perhaps on his death bed. He maintained, as I explain in the book, that he and two local lads, Futers and Shaw, were smoking a joint inside his mansion when 'it' [= the drowning of Stuart Lubbock] happened. Except that, again, as I show in the book, not ony did Stuart Lubbock not drown - he was almost certainly never even in the pool that night, though he was in the nearby hot jacuzzi.

Barrymore told police that he was the first to find Lubbock, six feet down, face up.

The problem is that, when questioned, two others - Kenney and Shaw - said the same! Except also that they said he was 'floating on the top of the pool, face down'.

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The killing of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's home on 1 April 2001 - Discussion on what really happened

Post by PeterMac on 12.08.12 14:03

Drowned people float face down. The reason is that the buoyancy comes from the remaining air in the lungs, everything else is slightly denser than water, and sinks.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The killing of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's home on 1 April 2001 - Discussion on what really happened

Post by Gillyspot on 12.08.12 14:51

Jean wrote:I've just watched the clip with Susan Boyle and what is stomach-churning for me is that people in the audience were laughing at Michael's behaviour as if it was funny and acceptable. I never found him in the least entertaining with his penchant for humiliating people.

I did seem to be very much in the minority when he was at the height of his career as I couldn't stand to watch him. I never could understand how anyone found Morecambe and Wise funny either, though I'm sure they were nice people.

I don't suppose that he'll ever be honest now about what happened in his home in 2001.

Jean I agree with you totally. Barrymore has always made my skin crawl with his abuse of "nobodies" & this abuse of Susan Boyle is another instance of that - The crowds laughter made me think of the Romans feeding the Christians to the lions as the crowd roared. Ughh

I do recall the case & feel very sorry for Stuart's dad who fought hard but failed to get the truth revealed in his sons death. The UK media had a field day trying to dig up anything to do with Stuart's life but I could never see that he had done anything wrong.

____________________
Kate McCann "I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances"

Gillyspot

Posts : 1470
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-06-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

As happens when you make things up

Post by Tony Bennett on 12.08.12 14:59

@PeterMac wrote:Drowned people float face down. The reason is that the buoyancy comes from the remaining air in the lungs, everything else is slightly denser than water, and sinks.
My analysis of Michael Barrymore's statements about how (he says) he found Stuart Lubbock, on pages 334-337 of my book:


Michael Barrymore's accounts

Michael Barrymore has always proclaimed that it was he, having been inspired to take an early morning dip in his jacuzzi or swimming pool, that was the first to discover Stuart Lubbock in his pool - and sound the alarm.

So let us put his various accounts under the microscope. His first account comes in a very short statement he gave to the police on 31 March and runs as follows:

“I stayed in the house. I do not know how much time had passed, but I decided to go into the jacuzzi [NOTE: he does not say the swimming pool]. I went out into the pool area, the garden patio was empty. I looked into the pool and saw a young male floating in the pool face upwards. I ran into the house and called for Jonathan who I know to be a trained life-saver. Jonathan ran out and I saw him pull the male from the pool…”

Let us now see how in just how many ways Barrymore’s account differs from the others we have looked at so far. There are at least five main points.

First, in this initial Barrymore version, he claims that it was he who found Stuart Lubbock, not anyone else. James Futers claimed that he and Simon Shaw together found the body. But - as was picked up by the Coroner and by the Lubbocks’ barrister, he makes no mention at all of either Futers or Shaw being with him.

How he was to change that story as time progressed!

The Daily Mail report on 4 September 2001 said: “Both men [Shaw and Futers] contradicted Barrymore, who on Thursday insisted he was the first person to spot the body in the pool. Mr Shaw said: ‘Mr Barrymore was not there when we found the body’”. As time went on, the stories of the three men were to converge somewhat. But it is apparent that their original accounts were wholly contradictory – incapable of being reconciled.

Barrymore even emphasises that it was he alone, and that there is no Futers and Shaw: “The garden patio was empty”. If the account of Futers and Shaw that all three of them got changed and all three decided to visit the jacuzzi was true, surely Barrymore would mention this when he first talks to the police? But he does not.

Third, Barrymore says explicitly: ‘floating in the pool face upwards’. He makes no mention of Stuart being found at the bottom of the pool, as is claimed by Futers and Shaw and as Barrymore states later. The natural interpretation of this account is that Stuart Lubbock’s body was floating on top of the swimming pool.

Fourth, Barrymore says he finds Stuart floating face upwards whilst Kenney says he was floating face downwards.

Fifth, and here we have yet another absolutely blatant contradiction with other accounts, we have this plain statement: “I saw Jonathan pull the male from the pool”. Barrymore’s remarkable claim to the Police when he talks to them on 31 March 2001 is that Kenney has pulled 12-stone Stuart out of the pool all on his own! Yet Barrymore claims he has always told police the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and of course earlier that day Essex Police were positively gushing with statements about how ‘helpful’ Barrymore and his PA Mike Browne had been to them.

Not even Kenney himself ever had the audacity to claim that he pulled Stuart out alone. And, of course, Futers and Shaw say it was they who pulled Stuart out.

Each witness we examine is seen to tell a wholly different story. And most of the witnesses change the stories as time goes on. Barrymore is no different.

Now we are in a position perhaps take this all a stage further. What do the witnesses see as Barrymore sounds the alarm? What happens?
According to Claire Jones and Kelly Campbell, they see Kenney and Kylie Merritt providing CPS to Stuart on the far side of the pool. Justin is seen on a mobile ’phone.


What of Barrymore, Futers and Shaw? Already, they are nowhere to be seen. In fact, there is no sighting by any other witness of any of the three of them around the pool at all. If they did ever change into shorts, it appears they are all still in the house, or have run back in the house, and are getting changed. There are seen briefly by some of the others in the house shortly after this. But no-one says that either Futers or Shaw is wet.

Did the witnesses confer after Stuart’s death? Barrymore and Kenney, as we shall see, had been whisked off by Barrymore’s PA Mike Browne to The Priory Clinic at Marchwood, Southampton. There would be plenty of time for Barrymore, Kenney and Browne to concoct an agreed version of what happened. We think that to some extent this may well have occurred, though Barrymore and Kenney were soon not talking to each other.

We think it virtually certain that Futers and Shaw conferred with each other within 24 hours to agree their accounts of the ‘rescue’ and in turn we have seen evidence that they conferred with Barrymore, with Futers twice meeting Barrymore in August 2001, apparently to discuss Barrymore’s worries that Futers’ story of certain matters didn’t tally with his.

But if there were these consultations between these lying witnesses, they still did not between them produce anything like a believable account of how Stuart was found in the swimming pool.

In Barrymore’s second statement to the police, made in writing on 30 May, and in other pronouncements since then to the press and TV, he has always tenaciously maintained that he was the first to see Stuart and that he found him ‘lying face up in the deep end’ and ‘floating at the bottom of the pool’ - that peculiar phrase which no-one can make any sense of.

Had he perhaps been told, by then, by his long-standing friends Futers and Shaw, that they had claimed in their Police statements to have rescued Stuart’s body from the bottom of the pool? If so, he had to get his thinking cap on quickly to match his earlier expression ‘floating in the pool’ with Futers’ and Shaw’s description of how they found him ‘lying on the bottom’.

No doubt Barrymore had legal help.

Hence Barrymore’s contrived expression: 'floating at the bottom’.

We’ve spoken to countless people about how they would describe an item they could see at the bottom of a pool. Everyone we have spoken to says ‘lying on the bottom’. Not one says: ‘floating on the bottom’.

It’s another vital clue to the hoax being perpetrated by the witnesses.

Barrymore said at the outset that he was on his own when he found Stuart and has, ever since, said he was the first to do so. But at the Coroner’s Inquest, and on occasions when he has been forced to discuss Stuart Lubbock’s death in T.V. interviews, he has given a rather garbled account of how ‘James and Simon were there as well’ - though when pressed on the detail, as we saw at the Inquest, his recollection is hazy and confused.

As happens when you make things up.



Postscript: When, less than one month before my book was due out - in June 2007 - Essex Police arrested Michael Barrymore, bundling him into a police van as he was walking in the morning along the north London section of the Regents Canal, he was staying at the home of one of the UK's great entertainment promoters, Bill Kenright. As coincidence would have it, at the very same time that Barrymore was staying at Kenright's London home, Kenwright - who is also Chairman of Everton Football Club - was mobiilising a major Everton F.C. campaign to promote awareness of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The killing of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's home on 1 April 2001 - Discussion on what really happened

Post by Gillyspot on 12.08.12 15:03

Thanks Tony,
I hadn't read that before. Poor Stuart who is another who hasn't received justice. sad

____________________
Kate McCann "I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances"

Gillyspot

Posts : 1470
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-06-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The killing of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's home on 1 April 2001 - Discussion on what really happened

Post by Guest on 12.08.12 15:57

Tony - is there a possibility that there were other guests at this party whose attendance would have been embarrassing had details of their presence emerged? I am specifically thinking of members of the police force given your earlier post.

I am trying to think of why this case developed as it did. Michael Barrymore may have been a well known entertainer but surely that in itself would not have been the reason to protect him.

Or is this a case of large amounts of money changing hands to silence witnesses, with the police subsequently unable to pinpoint the truth?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The killing of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's home on 1 April 2001 - Discussion on what really happened

Post by Gillyspot on 12.08.12 16:02

IMO Jimmy Saville got away with an awful lot & BBC allegedly covered it up to protect him so, I can believe that there was no one else involved sad

____________________
Kate McCann "I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances"

Gillyspot

Posts : 1470
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-06-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A 10th party-goer?

Post by Tony Bennett on 12.08.12 20:22

@alison wrote:Tony - is there a possibility that there were other guests at this party whose attendance would have been embarrassing had details of their presence emerged? I am specifically thinking of members of the police force given your earlier post.

I am trying to think of why this case developed as it did. Michael Barrymore may have been a well known entertainer but surely that in itself would not have been the reason to protect him.

Or is this a case of large amounts of money changing hands to silence witnesses, with the police subsequently unable to pinpoint the truth?
Hallo alison,

Many rumours circulated about a possible 10th person at that so-called 'party', and the mention of a police officer came up a few times.

However, the nearest any of those at the party came to admitting that there might have been a 10th person there was one witness who said she went into a room and said she saw four men, while others said 'three'.

I honestly think now that if a 10th person was there, especially someone of any significance, it would have leaked out some way by now.

Barrymore had many 'contacts'. Thousands in the rather murky 'celebrity' world. Not least, Princess Diana - they visited each other regularly - and cried on each other's shoulders. Barrymore knew many police officers. I personally think it significant that Barrymore's manager, who I visited in my investigations - Mike Browne - lived at 51 London Road, Brentwood - bang opposite the Essex Police Major Investigations Team for the area.

He played a major, major role in the cover-up. The police allowed him to measure the temperature of the swimming pool water, a key piece of forensic evidence. It was 'key' to Barrymore's account of events that he demonstrate that the swimming pool had been opened up (electronically) at the start of the night's events.

All the indications, however, that I found, showed that it was probably opened up AFTER the young man was killed in a drugs- and drink-fuelled, violent, sexual assault on him.

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The killing of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's home on 1 April 2001 - Discussion on what really happened

Post by Guest on 28.05.14 17:45

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-05-28/michael-barrymore-to-discuss-pool-death-on-jeremy-kyle/

Possibly an interesting encounter bearing in mind Jeremy Kyle's habit of accusing his guests of lying!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The killing of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's home on 1 April 2001 - Discussion on what really happened

Post by plebgate on 28.05.14 17:53

Why are they bringing this man back on tv?     He always comes across to me as he wants the whole world to feel sorry for him, poor me.

I will not watch Barrymore on tv.   Can't stand him.

plebgate

Posts : 5445
Reputation : 1160
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The killing of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's home on 1 April 2001 - Discussion on what really happened

Post by aiyoyo on 28.05.14 17:55

Because he needs the money.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The killing of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's home on 1 April 2001 - Discussion on what really happened

Post by plebgate on 28.05.14 18:01

Probably does need the money, he's been working part-time in a garden centre apparently so prob. minimum wage there.   

George "The Cat" Galloway said something like poor me, poor me, pour me another drink to Barrymore when they were on the Big brother show.  Not fussed on Galloway either (surprise surprise), but he didn't take any of Barrymore's bleating.

plebgate

Posts : 5445
Reputation : 1160
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The killing of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's home on 1 April 2001 - Discussion on what really happened

Post by aiyoyo on 28.05.14 18:16

The same Galloway who believes the McCanns are guilty as sin ?

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The killing of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's home on 1 April 2001 - Discussion on what really happened

Post by plebgate on 28.05.14 18:21

Had forgotten "The Cat's" comments re. Mr. & Mrs.

Link for those who have not seen what he had to say before.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/this-would-have-to-be-mother-of-all-injustices-955628

plebgate

Posts : 5445
Reputation : 1160
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The killing of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's home on 1 April 2001 - Discussion on what really happened

Post by aiyoyo on 28.05.14 18:35

The McCanns have either been the victims of a cataclysmic historic injustice, almost unprecedented, or they have been complicit in a scheme so duplicitous, so evil, so foul that Shakespeare himself could not have written it.

Galloway is legendary for his oratorial skills. Clarence-pink-puke needs some lessons from this CAT to improve his chance for Brighton.


aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The killing of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's home on 1 April 2001 - Discussion on what really happened

Post by plebgate on 28.05.14 18:42

@aiyoyo wrote:
The McCanns have either been the victims of a cataclysmic historic injustice, almost unprecedented, or they have been complicit in a scheme so duplicitous, so evil, so foul that Shakespeare himself could not have written it.

Galloway is legendary for his oratorial skills. Clarence-pink-puke needs some lessons from this CAT to improve his chance for Brighton.

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................


My response to pink highlights  -  big grin 


plebgate

Posts : 5445
Reputation : 1160
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The killing of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's home on 1 April 2001 - Discussion on what really happened

Post by Tony Bennett on 28.05.14 18:49

I wonder if Barrymore will be able to explain all these contradictions to Kyle - from my book on the case, pp. 225-228. I think hobs coud have some fun with Barrymore's answers:

++++++++++++++++

QUOTE: 'NOT AWIGHT: Getting Away With Murder'
  
The Coroner moves on to the crucial issue of how and when Stuart was found. Barrymore says:

“I was the first to see him. Well, I say I was, I mean, Simon and James were right beside me. We decided - it seemed like all the others had been out and been in the pool, and they were all back in different places, drying off or wherever [sic]. I said: ‘Shall we try the jacuzzi?’, to which they agreed. So I put some shorts on. As you walk out to the pool, it is the deep end here onwards [points to Plan], rather than, you know, that way round. The steps were at the other end, where the jacuzzi is. As I was walking along, as I looked down, I saw Stuart. I said ‘floating’, that was my explanation, but he seemed to be lying towards the bottom of the pool, face up. I can’t swim. So, Simon and James jumped in and got in. I ran back into the house, turned right, found Jonathan, who I knew had life-saving experience, and screamed out: ‘Good God. There’s somebody in the pool’. By the time I got back out there, he had been brought up; he [Barrymore doesn’t actually say who] had managed to get him on to the side of the pool”.

This is Barrymore’s evidence on oath to the Coroner’s Court. As we shall examine in more detail later, there are many problems with this account. Here are some of the main ones:

*  Shaw initially claimed he found Stuart first, completely on his own. He was blatantly lying. Why?

Then Shaw changed his story to coincide with the account of Futers. The two of them then claimed that they both found Stuart first and that Barrymore was not there

Shaw maintains that he was the first to spot Stuart at the bottom of the pool and told Futers

Barrymore initially told police that it was he had spotted Stuart first, ‘floating in the pool’. Later he had to change this to the strange description: ‘floating at the bottom’. Here he changes his story again to ‘lying towards the bottom’

Jonathan Kenney in his statement said that he found Stuart floating ‘face down’ on the top of the pool

Shaw and Futers say that only Shaw jumped in. Barrymore says that both did

* When Kenney rushed out after Barrymore sounded the alarm, Stuart was said (by himself and others) to be already on the po olside. Even if the account by Shaw of how he dived in to get Stuart out is true (we will attempt to prove later that it is false), there was no time for him to have performed that feat in the few seconds before Kenney arrived at the poolside.

Later, Mr Gowen picks up some of these points.

    Gowen: “Are you saying that you alone were the fist person to find Stuart in the swimming pool. Or that you were with others?”

    Barrymore: “I was with James and Simon, as we walked out, we could have all looked at the same time. I could have said: ‘Oh s___’. You know, from there, the nightmare began”.

    Gowen: “You see, you give the distinct impression - and it is not a criticism of you - in statements you make to the police that you were alone when you found him in the pool?”

    Barrymore: “I couldn’t have been alone when I found him in the pool, because Simon and James have already jumped in and rescued him, could I?”

    Gowen: “You said in your statement: ‘Having got changed, I then left the bedroom, I walked through the kitchen door, and I entered into the patio”.

    Barrymore: “Well, my assumption was they were following me”.

    Gowen: “You said - in your statement of 30 May - ‘I went out to the jacuzzi, I glanced at the pool, which was underlit by floodlights. I immediately noticed there appeared to be a body’. It does not give the impression, at least at that stage, that you were with anybody else”.

    Barrymore: “Well, I assumed they were behind me, and they must have been, because they jumped straight into the pool”.

    Gowen: “You talk about, in the singular: ‘I walked out the house, I walked past, I looked down, I was shocked. I turned round and I immediately ran back into the house’”.

    Barrymore: “Well, my recollection is that James and Simon were there, because they jumped in while I ran and got more help”.

    Gowen: “Did you see that in fact happen?”

    Barrymore: “What?”

    Gowen: “Somebody diving in?”

    Barymore: “Yes. James or Simon. I can’t tell you which one. We were standing at the deep end”.

    Gowen: “You are sure about that, are you? Because you said to the police: ‘Jonathan was pushing on his chest. The girls were crowding round him. James said that his friends had dived in to get him, but this happened before I came out, after telling Jonathan’. Were you aware of people diving in; did you see it?”

    Barrymore: “Well, I didn’t stand around to wait to see them dive in. They were going to go and get him. I went to get some extra help. I wouldn’t stand to wait to see somebody dive in and then go and run for help, would I?”

    Gowen: “Your evidence was based on the fact that you had seen them dive in. If you tell me now that you probably did not see them dive in, were you with them or not?”

    Barrymore: “Yes, I was with them. The last I saw, they left the side of the pool to dive into the pool. I didn’t stand around waiting for them to enter the pool or wait for a splash to establish that they had actually entered the pool”.


The prime conclusion of my book was that the account of Stuart Lubbock being found 'floating in the pool' was wholly fabricated and that in fact Stuart Lubock was never in the swimming pool that night

It was a cerefully crafted hoax - and it pains me to this day to see Stuart Lubbock still described as 'the boy who died in Barrymore's swimming pool'.

He didn't - he was the victim of an exceptionally brutal sexual attack, and the 'swimming pool' claim was fabricated.

Barrymore switched on the electric switch to open the electronically-operated swimming pool cover (for the first time that winter) only after Stuart Lubbock was murdered. 

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The killing of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's home on 1 April 2001 - Discussion on what really happened

Post by Guest on 09.06.14 23:04

https://www.itv.com/itvplayer/celebrity-jeremy-kyle

For anyone brave enough to watch - though it can't be worse than anything the McCanns have appeared on.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The killing of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's home on 1 April 2001 - Discussion on what really happened

Post by aiyoyo on 09.06.14 23:13

Have to sign up to watch, so can't be arsed, sorry, unless it is on youtube.

Thank you Tony for the updates.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The killing of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's home on 1 April 2001 - Discussion on what really happened

Post by sar on 10.06.14 1:24

so sad for Stuart Lubbock and his family.  Barrymore and his cronies make me feel ill.  Hope he gets what he deserves.  Another cover up of our "beloved" british celebrities!  "Household Names" & "National Treasures", onces.  Notice the Royals are never far away, patting them on the back,  wonder why?

sar

Posts : 460
Reputation : 139
Join date : 2013-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum