The submission to the Attorney-General calling for a fresh inquest into the killing of Stuart Lubbock

Today I have received notice from the Attorney-General that he has been asked by both the Essex Coroner and Essex Police for an extension of time in which to respond to my application, dated 10 June 2017, for a fresh inquest into the killing of Stuart Lubbock.

They have been granted until 31 August to file a reply.

If they both agree that s second Inquest is required, then fine.

If not, Terry Lubbock and I will have a further opportunity to state our case and respond to whatever is said by the Essex Coroner and Essex Police.

--------------------

In the meantime, Terry Lubbock has asked me to place on the public record a copy of his application. 

I am afraid that without sight of the Inquest transcript, which runs to several hundred pages, much of my submission will not make a lot of sense. 

The burden of my submission is that the Inquest wholly failed to establish as a fact at what time Michael Barrymore and/or his accomplices retracted the cover of the swimming pool.

It is our case that it was retracted only AFTER Stuart Lubbock was already dead after being killed by a violent sexual assault - and that it was only retracted in order to promote the wholly false scenario that Stuart had been swimming in the pool that night.

He did NOT. The evidence that he was in the pool came primarily from one of those later arrested on suspicion of murdering Stuart, and contradicted the evidence of other witnesses.

Moreover, Essex Police misled the entire Inquest by requiring P.C. Jones to state at the very start of the Inquest that Stuart HAD been seen swimming in the pool that night.

In addition, all four Pathologists in the case were told as a FACT that Stuart had been seen swimming in the poll that night.

ALL FOUR Pathologists were unable to see clear evidence of drowning, and as my submission below shows, most of them said the evidence CONTRADICTED drowning.

The submission is long, so I will have to break it up into several posts (sorry about some formatting issues I can't resolve):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------      
 



Application made by Terry Lubbock’s representative Anthony J S Bennett M.A.
10 June 2017




CONTENTS                                                                                                           Page No

Executive Summary                                                                                               

Introduction                                                                                                          

Developments since the Inquest                                                                          


C.1  The compilation of a dossier                                                                        


C.2  The investigation into the death of Stuart Lubbock re-opened  

C.3 A book on the case: ‘NOT AWIGHT: Getting Away with Murder’                       

C.4  Explanations for the condition in which Stuart Lubbock was found                

C.5  The arrest of Michael Barrymore, Jonathan Kenney and Justin Merritt on suspicion of murdering Stuart Lubbock, June
2007
   
C.6 The decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA)  that Stuart Lubbock had died as the result of a crime of violence
   
C.7  Findings of misconduct against Essex Police by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
                                     
C.8  New disclosures revealed in the trial of Michael Barrymore’s civil claim for £2.5 million compensation for ‘wrongful arrest’: Michael Parker [Barrymore] v Chief Constable of Essex Police [2017]                                              


D. Where Essex Police, the Coroner and the Inquest all went wrong                             

D.1 The police                                                                                                       

D.2  All the pathologists were seriously misled                                                 

D.3  The evidence of the Pathologists: Michal John Heath, Professor Milroy, Professor Jack Crane, Dr Ian Calder                                                                                    


E.  Day Three – Evidence from relatives and friends of Stuart Lubbock and from  Ambulance Service and Hospital Staff                                                      

F.  Day Four - The evidence of Toxicologist Professor Forrest                                   


G.  Days Four and Five: Witnesses at the ‘party’ at Michael Barrymore’s ho              
G.1  Kylie Merritt’s evidence                                                                                  
G.2  Justin Merritt’s evidence                                                                                
G.3  Michael Barrymore’s evidence                                                                       
G.4  Jonathan Kenney’s evidence                                                                          
G.5  James Futers’ evidence                                                                                   
G.6  Simon Shaw’s evidence                                                                                  
G.7  The evidence of Terry Brennan, Paramedic                                                 
G.8  The evidence of Angela Nagle, Nurse                                                               
G.9  The evidence of Stuart Nairn                                                                           
G.10 The evidence of Chief Superintendent Ian McNeill                                       


H. The Lady Coroner’s Summing-Up                                                                      


I.  The Verdict                                                                                                            


APPENDIX 1:  The weather on 31 March 2001                                                     
APPENDIX 2:  Newspaper articles in the News of the World                              



I make this submission on behalf of Stuart Lubbock’s father, Terry Lubbock.

A.          Executive Summary

The original inquest was defective in serious ways. 

The ‘Open’ verdict was contrary to overwhelming evidence that Stuart was killed by a violent sexual assault, and that those responsible covered up his death. 

At the start of the inquest, the Coroner’s Officer, P.C. Jones, made a false factual statement when he informed the inquest that, quote, “Stuart Lubbock was found in the pool at the premises”. 

What he should have said was that: “A number of witnesses claimed that he had been in the swimming pool that night”. 

A proper assessment of the evidence tends to suggest that Stuart Lubbock was never in the swimming pool that night. 

Essex Police failed to analyse the evidence properly and consequently misinformed the Lady Coroner and the inquest. 

Due to errors by both the police and the Lady Coroner, the four pathologists who gave opinions on the case were not told of the wholly contradictory and fabricated evidence of the witnesses who claimed that Stuart was in the swimming pool. As a result, and as explained in detail in this submission, they were not made aware of the probability that Stuart Lubbock was never in the swimming pool that night. Consequently, all their findings are flawed. 

The Lady Coroner so arranged the inquest that the pathologists’ evidence first BEFORE there was a proper opportunity to test the contradictory evidence about how Stuart was found. 

Since the inquest, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority REVERSED their previous decision not to award Terry Lubbock and his wife Criminal Injuries Compensation. In 2007, in response to my dossier of evidence they held that Stuart Lubbock WAS, on the balance pf probability, killed by a crime of violence. They then paid the maximum CICA payment possible to Terry Lubbock and his wife. 

Since the inquest, Michael Parker [Barrymore], Jonathan Kenney and Justin Merritt have all been arrested (June 2007) and investigated on suspicion of murdering Stuart.   Since the inquest, an Independent Police Complaints Commission, after receiving a dossier from me, published a report finding Essex Police guilty of misconduct, particularly over the exceptionally lax supervision of the crime scene, which included allowing Michael Barrymore’s Manager, Mike Brown, to record the evidentially  all-important, indeed crucial, pool temperature.        

My book ‘NOT AWIGHT: ‘Getting Away With Murder’ (enclosed with this application) - a detailed investigation into the killing of Stuart - explained in detail how the evidence suggests that:

[size=16]Stuart was never in the swimming pool that night[/size]

[size=16]He was killed by a violent sexual assault, probably between 4.30am and 5.00am that night[/size]

T[size=16]hose who killed him decided to create a fake ‘drowning scenario’[/size]

[size=16]They contacted Michael Barrymore’s Manager at around 5am who, according to an informant, advised the killers: “Clean everything up and I’ll be right over”[/size]

[size=16]Immediately before Justin Merritt contacted the Ambulance Service at 5.46am, the killers of Stuart laid out his body in a pair of shorts at the poolside, and poured quantities of water over his dead body to fake a drowning.   
 
The Lady Coroner should consider whether a jury should be empanelled for any fresh inquest in view of the misconduct findings against Essex Police, which could be taken to suggest that the killers were helped by the police to minimise (a) the possibility of any of Stuart’s killers being prosecuted for killing him and (b) the possibility of a homicide verdict at the inquest.         
                                   [/size]


B.         Introduction

The original Inquest into the death of Stuart Lubbock took place in September  2002. 

It reached the following verdicts:

[size=16]1 That the cause of Stuart Lubbock’s death was ‘unascertained’ and[/size]
[size=16]2 An ‘open’ verdict was recorded, a decision which effectively leaves the surviving family and the public not knowing what really happened.
In many cases an ‘open’ verdict is entirely reasonable as there simply is insufficient evidence to give any other of the range of possible verdicts.
But in this case, I think a serious injustice was done to Stuart Lubbock and his family by the ‘open’ verdict, and I shall proceed to explain why. [/size]


C.          Developments since the Inquest

First, I will explain what significant developments there have been since the Inquest, and what if anything has changed, either in terms of new evidence, or otherwise. 

At the very beginning of 2006, it was reported that Michael Barrymore was going to make a ‘comeback’ to his entertainment career via the medium of appearing on a TV reality show, Celebrity Big Brother, that month. Up until then, he had been living in New Zealand with a young male partner, Shaun Davis, having left England sometime after the death of Stuart Lubbock at his home in Roydon. Stuart’s father reacted to the news of his forthcoming appearance on Celebrity Big Brother by calling publicly for Michael Barrymore to fully explain what happened the night Stuart died. 

I was until recently living in Harlow, two miles from Terry Lubbock. I had followed the case in the Harlow newspapers for years. From these reports it was clear that Terry Lubbock remained distressed that the Inquest had not gone anywhere near to providing answers to what really happened to his son.  He wanted the truth. He wanted justice for his son. He did not appear to have any lawyer or adviser helping  him. On this occasion, I wrote to Terry Lubbock and offered to help him.      

As a first step to opening up the case once more, I helped Terry Lubbock to apply for a summons against Michael Barrymore in respect of a number of specific offences which Terry Lubbock considered had been committed that night by Michael Barrymore. At a hearing at Epping Magistrates Court on  January 2006, a Stipendiary Magistrate ordered me to serve Michael Barrymore, or his solicitors, with notice of the application. After it was duly served, the application was considered by another Stipendiary Magistrate at Southend Magistrates Court on 30 January 2006, but was refused. 

C.1  The compilation of a dossier

Thereafter, I spent months researching and analysing material on the death of Stuart Lubbock, mostly a set of witness statements from the Inquests and a transcript of the Inquest. 

By 1 August 2006 I was able to send the Chief Constable of Essex Police an 80-page dossier of analysis suggesting that a full re-investigation was needed. 

The main points of my submission in that dossier were these:
1 [size=16]That the witnesses’ evidence was reasonably consistent as to what happened that night up until around 4am or just after[/size]

2 [size=16]That thereafter there were major contradictions as between the accounts given by the eight witnesses of the evening’s events[/size]

3 [size=16]There were the most serious and irreconcilable contradictions in the evidence of those who claimed to have (a) seen Stuart swimming in the pool  (b) first discovered Stuart ‘floating’ in the pool and (c) rescued him from the pool.
Evidence about when the pool cover was electronically opened was vague and contradictory. The evidence was that the pool has not been used all winter and it must have been very cold (the outside temperature on the morning of 31 March was probably around 7degC (45degF). [Please see APPENDIX]. explicably and unbelievably, the Senior Investigating Officer appointed that night, Kevin Macey, allowed Michal Barrymore’s Manager, Mike Brown, to take the temperature of the pool, well after the police arrived. This decision was criticised in a subsequent Independent Police Complaints Commission report (see below). I formed the conclusion from these facts that the pool cover had not been opened for the purposes of allowing guests to swim but, instead, had been opened much later in the morning to cover up how Stuart Lubbock had been killed.[/size][size=16]Alongside this conclusion, and after carefully assessing all the witnesses’ evidence, I formed the view that Stuart Lubbock had never been in the swimming pool that night, and that all the tales of his having done so, having been found ‘floating’ in the pool and having been rescued etc., were blatant fabrications designed to create an alternative, superficially plausible, explanation for Stuart’s death. [/size]

[size=16]Two young women who were at Michael Barrymore’s home that night were not asked to give evidence at the Inquest. One of them referred in her witness statement to the other young woman having been in tears over a ‘rape’ that took place that evening.     [/size]


C.2  The investigation into the death of Stuart Lubbock re-opened
 

After submitting the dossier, Terry Lubbock and I were invited to meet with the police. In particular, we met with a Cold Case Reviewer, ‘Nobby’ Clark, and the new Senior Investigating Officer, Detective Chief Superintendent Gareth Wilson, and discussed the evidence with him. They both agreed that the contradictions over what happened were major, and promised to review them. 

On Saturday 2 December 2006, Detective Chief Superintendent Gareth Wilson announced that there would be a full re-investigation into the death of Stuart Lubbock. Days later, he met with myself and Terry Lubbock and said that he was deploying a team of 15 detectives on the case. We subsequently had regular contact with him.     

    

C.3  A book on the case: ‘NOT AWIGHT: Getting Away with Murder’

Terry Lubbock was keen that a book should be written on the case, which he hoped would be another milestone on the road to getting out the truth and providing justice for his son. I had begun working on this prior to December 2006 and a rough draft was ready by end of January. The News of the World was interested in publishing a serialisation of my book and ran two long extracts of it in December 2006 and February 2007 (see Appendix below). 

Every word in the articles had to be checked and rechecked for strict accuracy and of course for the reason that, if anything untrue or unjustified was written, Michael Barrymore might sue the newspaper. The articles are attached to this report. They suggested, with ample evidence, that Stuart Lubbock had never been in the swimming pool that night. Michael Barrymore did not sue. A copy of my book, the contents of which I stand by, is enclosed with this report and the evidence within it forms a significant part of our case for a second inquest. It was published in July 2007. 

C.4  Explanations for the condition in which Stuart Lubbock was found

As the Lady Coroner who conducted the Inquest (now the Senior Coroner for the area), or anyone else who considers this application for a second Inquest will be aware, the circumstances in which Stuart Lubbock was found by the Ambulance Service were as follows:

1 [size=16]The ambulance was called at 5.46am by Justin Merritt (some accounts say 5.50am) and the Ambulance Service arrived at 6.03am[/size]
2 [size=16]He was laid out by the side of the pool[/size]
3 [size=16]He was wet and there was quite a lot of water around him[/size]
4 [size=16]He had a lot of water in his system, e.g. in his lungs[/size]
5 [size=16]On the majority view of the pathologists, he had petechiae around his face and neck which strongly suggested that he had not drowned[/size]
6 [size=16]Despite claims that Stuart Lubbock had been lifted bodily out of the swimming pool by one or two men (the various accounts contradict each other), there were no marks indicating where Stuart’s body was held, or dragged against the side of the pool (which would surely, at a minimum, have left scratches or grazes[/size]
[size=16]7 [/size][size=16]He was dressed only in a pair of boxer shorts, which had a spot of blood on them[/size]
8 [size=16]There was unmistakable evidence that earlier in that morning he had suffered a serious sexual assault up his anus, causing marked lacerations.
 
It is suggested that the explanation that best fits the above facts (and others, see below), is as follows.[/size]

A [size=16]Sometime after 4am, with the most likely time in my view being around 4.30am-4.45am, Stuart Lubbock was killed as the result of an exceptionally violent and brutal sexual assault.[/size]
B [size=16]He was never in the swimming pool that night.[/size]
C [size=16]It does not matter, in a sense, whether he died as the result of a heart attack/heart failure, or asphyxiation, or another cause of death related to the sexual assault; it is overwhelming probable, I suggest, that the sexual assault killed him, and that that is why there needed to be a hastily-arranged ‘cover-story’, namely: “He went swimming and drowned”.[/size]
D [size=16]After the sexual assault and it was realised that he was dead, those who killed him did the following:[/size]

i   [size=16]Electronically drew back the cover of the pool to promote the ‘drowning’ scenario [/size]
ii   [size=16]Cranked up the heating system to warm up the water[/size]
iii   [size=16]Dressed Stuart Lubbock in his boxer shorts[/size]
iv   [size=16]Carried Stuart Lubbock out to the side of the swimming pool[/size]
v   [size=16]Forced some water down his throat, again to promote the ‘drowning’ scenario
 
When all this had been done, they threw a few buckets of water over him and called the Essex Ambulance Service.       
 [/size]


C.5  The arrest of Michael Barrymore, Jonathan Kenney and Justin Merritt on suspicion of murdering Stuart Lubbock, June 2007

On   June 2007, Michael Barrymore, Jonathan Kenney and Justin Merritt were arrested on suspicion of murdering Stuart Lubbock. Michael Barrymore was questioned for two days. All three were bailed pending further enquiries. Some while later, the police announced that the Crown Prosecution Service had formed the view that there was ‘insufficient evidence’ to lay murder charges, or any other charge, against any of the three individuals.

 

C.6  The decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) that Stuart Lubbock had died as the result of a crime of violence 

Early in 2007, I asked Terry Lubbock whether he and his wife (from whom he was divorced) had ever made an application to the CICA for compensation. He told me that his previous solicitor Mr Gowen had done so but failed. I explained that the matter could be re-opened, as I believed from my investigations and despite the ‘Open’ verdict of the Inquest that there was sufficient evidence that he had died from a crime of violence.    

 

I assisted him to apply, and submitted a revised dossier to the CICA. They agreed that Stuart had died from a crime of violence and paid Terry Lubbock and his wife the tariff payment for the parents of a son killed (on the balance of probabilities), namely £5,500 each and £1,300 funeral expenses. 

 

C.7  Findings of misconduct against Essex Police by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

 

I suggested to Terry Lubbock that there were grounds to suspect Essex Police of misconduct in the way they carried out their investigation of Stuart’s death.

I warned him, however, that the IPCC did not normally entertain claims made more than one year after the events complained about.   

The IPCC did agree to conduct an investigation into Essex Police and did find  misconduct. On the basis of my investigations, however, I think that the Senior Investigating Officer, Kevin Macey was open to much more serious criticisms of his actions. 

The IPCC report can be read at this link and is not attached:

 

[PDF]  IPCC independent investigation into complaints relating to the ...

https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/.../lubbock_report.pdf

Cached

Similar

Apr 1, 2001 - into complaints relating to the investigation carried out by Essex. Police in 2001/02 into the death of. Stuart Lubbock. IPCC reference: 2007/ ...

 


The IPCC criticisms focused on significant failures of crime scene management and on the loss of the pool thermometer used to measure the temperature of the swimming pool.      

(To be continued later)

Hi Tony
Wishing you and Stuart Lubbock's family all the best with this.

Have to wait for payday  but was wondering if you have any books left?

dartinghero wrote:Hi Tony
Wishing you and Stuart Lubbock's family all the best with this.

Have to wait for payday  but was wondering if you have any books left?

@ dartinghero

Thank you very much.

Yes I do have some books left.

I am selling them for £5 each, including postage etc. that's £7.50.

If you email me please at ajsbennett@btinternet.com or send me a 'pm' I will send you further details.

Tony

I fear that Tony's submission will be seriously undermined by the news that today Barrymore has received a compensation payout for wrongful arrest.

The wheels of justice never cease to be turned in the wrong direction shoved by the shoulder of the Establishment.

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:I fear that Tony's submission will be seriously undermined by the news that today Barrymore has received a compensation payout for wrongful arrest.

The wheels of justice never cease to be turned in the wrong direction shoved by the shoulder of the Establishment.

STATEMENT BY TERRY LUBBOCK 01279 426975 AND TONY BENNETT 07835 716537 ISSUED THIS MORNING

The narrow question of whether Essex Police had a lawful basis for arresting Michael Barrymore has been decided in Barrymore's favour, because the police could not prove they had a lawful basis for the arrest (see BBC report below).

I understand your sentiment @Rogue-a-Tory but I am confident that there should be a second inquest - based essentially on this: that in the submission of myself and Terry Lubbock, there is overwhelming evidence that Stuart Lubbock's death was caused by a savage assault on him by one or more persons (Jonathan Kenney and Justin Merritt were also arrested on suspicion of murder alongside Barrymore). The 'open verdict' on the cause of Stuart's death was therefore wrong.

Following today's verdict, Terry Lubbock and I will be taking the following action:

1. A letter will be sent to the Chief Constable of Essex setting out details of why an immediate review of the case is necessary, and

2. A complaint will be made to any of the print and TV media which have made this statement (see below):  "Stuart Lubbock was found dead in Michael Barrymore's swimming pool in 2001".   We maintain, as Essex Police agreed way back in 2006, that the wording should be: "According to some of the witnesses, Stuart Lubbock was found dead in Michael Barrymore's swimming pool in 2001". 


So our campaign continues...

--------    

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40972546


Michael Barrymore to get damages over rape and murder arrest


•4 minutes ago 

•From the section England 

•Share this with Facebook  

•Share this with Twitter  

•Share this with Messenger  

 

The entertainer Michael Barrymore is to get "more than nominal damages" after claiming his wrongful arrest by police destroyed his career. 

The 65-year-old was detained ten years ago on suspicion of the rape and murder of Stuart Lubbock in Essex. 

Mr Barrymore, who was not present for the High Court decision, values his claim at more than £2.4m. 

Essex Police said there were still "unanswered" questions over Mr Lubbock's death.

Michael Barrymore: How the British TV king lost his crown 

A figure for the damages to be paid to Mr Barrymore - whose real name is Michael Parker - is yet to be set.

Stuart Lubbock 

Stuart Lubbock was found dead in Michael Barrymore's swimming pool in 2001. 

Stuart Lubbock's body was found in the swimming pool after a party at Mr Barrymore's home in Roydon, Essex, in 2001. 

Drugs and alcohol had been consumed at the party.  

A post-mortem examination later revealed Mr Lubbock had suffered serious anal injuries.

In 2002, an open verdict was recorded at the inquest into his death. 

Mr Barrymore was arrested in 2007 in connection with the 31-year-old's death. 

Mr Justice Stuart-Smith, sitting in London on Friday, ruled against the force, which had argued Mr Barrymore should only receive a nominal payout. 

The judge did not decide on the sum to be awarded, as his ruling dealt only with the preliminary issue of the level of damages to be awarded to Mr Barrymore. 

Enquiries into how Stuart Lubbock died




 

Essex Police admitted its arresting officer did not have reasonable grounds to suspect that Mr Barrymore was guilty.

But Mr Justice Stuart-Smith ruled the defendant - the Chief Constable of Essex Police, Stephen Kavanagh - "has failed to prove that, if not arrested unlawfully as he was, Mr Parker could and would have been arrested lawfully".

He added: "Mr Parker is entitled to recover more than nominal damages." 

In a statement issued after the hearing, Essex Police said: 

"Today's judgement must not overshadow the questions which are still unanswered for Mr Lubbock's family and friends. 

"Sixteen years on they still need to know what happened to Stuart on that night, how he was injured, and who is responsible for his death. 

"A small number of people know the answers to those questions and over the years loyalties change and somebody may want to help us at this time."




.

Keep going Tony, this is an appalling case.  So grateful for your efforts.  It means a lot to know that someone is trying for justice.

Hi Mr Tony Bennett,as has been seen in the eyes of the Law,by Mr Justice Stuart Smith,that the Chief Constable of Essex Police,Stephen Kavangh,"Has failed to prove,that,if not arrested unlawfully,as he was,Mr( Parker)Barrymore,could and would have been arrested lawfully "?
So once again you can see how the Police had failed in their duty of care to properly undertake how Mr Barrymore was arrested?
Once again if you have money to employ the Best Barristers and then prove to a Court under that process,that the,Essex Police had failed in their duties to follow the necessary guidelines during the Arrest Procedure?
I think evidence of this Nature can only serve to strengthen Mr Lubbock(SNR)case against the Essex Police Force of incompetence?
Back to the IPCC Mr Kavangh?

Just been on Anglia News Michael Barrymore has won his case for a hefty pay out.

It really is time for a massive shake up in our public authorities.   Incompetence seems to be the name of the game so many times and yet still nothing changes.
Sickening to think that Barrymore could get a hefty sum.   Sickening.

Today's Harlow Star, 21 September 2017:




Both Essex Police and HM Coroner have now replied to Terry Lubbock's application.

The Essex Police submission fully acknowledges that Stuart Lubbock suffered a serious sexual assault that night to which he could not possibly have consented. But the Crown Prosecution Service say there is 'insufficient' evidence to charge any individual.

Essex Police are now reviewing the whole case in the light of evidence which has emerged during the civil action by Michael Barrymore against the police.  

It is fair to say that HM Coroner is not yet persuaded that there is a case for a new inquest.

The Attorney-General will make the final decision. I have been given a few weeks to reply to the observations of HM Coroner and the police.

Keep fighting Tony & Mr Lubbock.  

BTW what evidence has emerged? Has somebody's story changed?

Dear oh dear, I wonder how much it's going to cost Essex police to review the whole case?

Why didn't they just do the job properly in the first place? I guess they didn't reckon on you coming along!

Do you have any idea how much they've spent so far trying to cover up Stuart's death, Tony?

Tony Bennett wrote:Today's Harlow Star, 21 September 2017:




Both Essex Police and HM Coroner have now replied to Terry Lubbock's application.

The Essex Police submission fully acknowledges that Stuart Lubbock suffered a serious sexual assault that night to which he could not possibly have consented. But the Crown Prosecution Service say there is 'insufficient' evidence to charge any individual.

Essex Police are now reviewing the whole case in the light of evidence which has emerged during the civil action by Michael Barrymore against the police.  

It is fair to say that HM Coroner is not yet persuaded that there is a case for a new inquest.

The Attorney-General will make the final decision. I have been given a few weeks to reply to the observations of HM Coroner and the police.

Well done Tony, amazing work.  Appreciate your not supposed to be here but really appreciate some positive news

Well done Tony.   IMO you deserve a gong for all the work you do trying to get justice for those who are unable to afford top flight lawyers.  I know I have said it before and I will probably say it again but keep going, you have come a long way in this case.   BRAVO.

I wonder if when the whole case is reviewed it will start at the beginning or take the peeling back an onion approach?

Will be very interesting to see what happens.

plebgate wrote:I wonder if when the whole case is reviewed it will start at the beginning or take the peeling back an onion approach?

Will be very interesting to see what happens.

I wonder if the review will become Operation CementMixer and take endless years and endless requests to the Home Office for funding to the tune of £millions - to avoid having to answer awkward questions?

I wonder if Operation CementMixer will be very narrowly focused, away from any suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of Barrymore?

Suppose that EssexPol have to pay a substantial amount
but THEN a second inquest shows that Barrymore has some serious questions to answer.
Do we not believe that Essex would seek to claw back every ha’penny - with interest ?

I realise the most recent decision hinges on a technical point of law - that the arresting officer has to have reasonable grounds - and in this case another officer had the grounds -
but I suspect they might have a go,  
As well as making a lawful arrest !

PeterMac

UPDATE

Decision in the case of Michael Parker (a.k.a. Barrymore) v Chief Constable of Essex Police due on Wednesday (4 Oct)

I've had a rather cheery call from Terry Lubbock who told me, basically, three things:

1. Essex Police have told him that the judge will deliver a verdict on how much compensation Michael Barrymore is to be awarded for the alleged wrongful arrest
2. Two Essex Police Officers will personally take him to the High Court hearing, and
3. The lady Police Liaison Officer who told him this news gve him a hug and a big kiss (!).

No wonder he was quite upbeat!

On the progress of  the application for a second Inquest

I have now had replies both from the Police and from the original Coroner to our submission. I hope to have until 4 November to make our response.

The argument centres around the conduct of the Inquest. The Inquest was told point blank at the very start of the Inquest (by Essex Police) that Stuart had been seen swimming in Barrymore's heated outdoor pool. Hence all the headlines: 'Pool death'.  The accounts of his swimming in the pool were improbable and full of inconsistencies.

Apart from all other evidential considerations:

* The pool had been closed all winter
* It was a cold dark night in March
* Even if the pool cover had been opened when Barrymore said it was, it would have taken an age to warm up from near-freezing. 

In addition, all the four pathologists in the case were told by the Police and the Coroner that it was a FACT that Stuart had been in the pool, so all were obliged to consider drowning as a possible cause of death.

Actually, only one of them did so - the now-discredited Home Office Pathologist, Dr Michael John Heath, who by the way resigned as a Home Office Pathologist just six days after, in early 2006, I applied for a summons to be issued against Barrymore alleging a number of
criminal offences. The other three all gave the likely cause of death as a combination of (a) violent sexual assault (b) asphyxiation (NOT drowning) and (c) a heart attack.

Once you remove the so-called 'fact' of Stuart ever having been in that swimming pool, then the likelihood of his having died as the result of an extremely violent penetration of his anus becomes overwhelming.

It can then be seen how ludicrous and unjust to Stuart and his surviving relatives was the Coroner's 'open' verdict.

Just to answer points on the thread:

@MRNOODLES

I set out in the OP these new points which have all arisen since the Inquest in 2002:

1  The compilation of a dossier                                                                        

2  The investigation into the death of Stuart Lubbock re-opened  

3 A book on the case: ‘NOT AWIGHT: Getting Away with Murder’                       

4  Explanations for the condition in which Stuart Lubbock was found                

5  The arrest of Michael Barrymore, Jonathan Kenney and Justin Merritt on suspicion of murdering Stuart Lubbock, June 2007
  
6 The decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA)  that Stuart Lubbock had died as the result of a crime of violence
   
7  Findings of misconduct against Essex Police by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
                                     
8  New disclosures revealed in the trial of Michael Barrymore’s civil claim for £2.5 million compensation for ‘wrongful arrest’: Michael Parker [Barrymore] v Chief Constable of Essex Police [2017].

In addition I am awaiting sight of the full transcript of the recent proceedings in Parker v Essex Police, which reveals some new material that was never before the original Inquest, e.g.

A. News from a source that two witnesses were paid off to lie about what happened that night
B. News from another source that Mike Brown (Barrymore's Manager) had told witnesses to 'clean up' and he would arrive shortly to direct what should be done.

In addition I am now aware of a FIFTH Pathology report, commissioned from Dr Nathaniel Cary, who was firmer than all the other Pathologists in suggesting that the violent sexual assault on Stuart, which he says 'undoubtedly took place', was the most likely cause of Stuart's death.

@ GetemGoncalo

At the time of the Inquest, the cost of the investigation into Stuart Lubbock's death was said by the police to be £8 million. It will be a lot higher than that now.

I would estimate that, taking into account two separate IPCC enquiries, which together upheld 29 misconduct complaints by Les Balkwell against 10 Essex Police Officers, the cost to the police of the Lee Balkwell cover-up exceeds that of the cost of the Stuart Lubbock investigation.

@ sar  

Quite true, I have decided not to comment on what really happened to Madeleine, but the forum-owner has graciously allowed me to contribute updates on the Lubbock and Balkwell cases and on other non-Madeleine matters if I wish.

Thanks for the update Tony, interesting further information as sad as it is.  I wish you and Mr. Lubbock all the very best in your endeavours to obtain Justice for Stuart.

Can you wonder why the British public have lost a lot of confidence/trust in our police & justice system?  

Looking forward to your next update.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

It's a shame the police don't just do the job properly in the first place so that re-investigations/enquiries/complaints etc don't become necessary. Such a waste of taxpayers money. It just makes the police look very untrustworthy.

REMINDER ABOUT THE SHEER SCALE OF POLICE CORRUPTION:

'2000 police officers' are implicated in corruption - The Independent

www.independent.co.uk › News › UK › Home News

1. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/new-investigation-after-2000-police-officers-are-implicated-in-corruption-9802832.html+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Cached
   
2. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/new-investigation-after-2000-police-officers-are-implicated-in-corruption-9802832.html+operation+tiberius+2,000+corrupt+officers&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjF3IOL9M3WAhXsCcAKHUfPAmEQHwg0MAE" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Similar
   

Oct 17, 2014 - Police corruption is to be investigated by a powerful committee of MPs ... on police criminality relating to Operation Tiberius – yet none of the ...

At least 2,000 police officers suspected of corruption says Home Office ...

www.dailymail.co.uk/.../at-2-000-corrupt-police-officers-suspected-tipping-criminals-...

1. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798182/at-2-000-corrupt-police-officers-suspected-tipping-criminals-stealing-fabricating-evidence-using-power-money-sex-says-home-office-report.html+operation+tiberius+2,000+corrupt+officers&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjF3IOL9M3WAhXsCcAKHUfPAmEQHwhCMAM" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Similar
   

Oct 18, 2014 - Up to 2,000 corrupt police officers suspected of 'tipping off criminals, ... as part of Operation Tiberius, an investigation into police corruption, ...

======

Now, refresh my memory about the last time you heard either Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn or Vince Cable speak out about the scale of police corruption in the U.K.

You can't remember?

Well neither can I.

Never happens, does it?

The simple answer is "No!"

Hi Mr Tony Bennett,keep up the tremendous work on behalf of Mr Lubbock Snr over the Death of his Son,Stuart.
In regard to Operation Tiberius,in an Independent article dated 10 January 2014,the Assistant Commander was Cressida Dick.
Oily Keith Vaz had written to Sir Bernard Hogan Howe as Head of the Home Affairs Committee,to ascertain how"Operation Tiberius"was proceeding to root out the corruption within the Metropolitan Police Service,a retired Police Officer commented that the Metropolitan Police Service was as corrupt as it always had been and Three years have passed by,but No UK Police Officers are Labouring away in any Prisons throughout the UK,so it is safe to assume,Corruption is still rife within that Organisation,I wonder if Operation Grange will be sent to the IPCC for an Investigation,but then be given a clean bill of health?
In 1993 Operation Othania had began to investigate the Metropolitan Police Service,but in 2001-2003,Lord Stevens failed to retain the documentation,which alluded to Police Officers corruption?
That during the initial investigation a Police Officer,Mr John Ellison had connections to the Stephen Lawrence Murder and the Unsolved Murder of Mr Daniel Morgan 10 March 1987,Mr Stevens had stated to MP's that there was No Connection of Mr Ellison of both Murders,which has now been proven a Not True,which then questions a certain death in a Paris Tunnel,that Lord Stevens had investigated,alongside what he had told the McPhearson Inquiry?
Just another day with the boys and girls in Blue?

Just caught up with the thread. Thank you Tony for your reply.

Disappointing for Mr. Lubbock, who has been brave and tenacious over the years.  I hope he has support to come to terms with this development.

Bravo to TB for all his work on the case.

Yes, Tony's been away all week, so not good news for him to come back to.

I feel so sad for Terry Lubbock that he hasn't, so far, got justice for his son in all these years, and the toll it's taken on him must be immense.

But it's a prime example of how the police and justice system will do whatever needs to be done to cover up a murder despite evidence.

Yes, Terry Lubbock was bitterly disappointed to learn of the Attorney-General's decision, which I am now able to reproduce below:









I am pleased to report that Terry Lubbock is already coming to terms with his disappointing news ,and we are already planning some new action - not seeking a fresh inquest - which I may be able to report on here in due course.

I would like to thank @Ladyinred for her kind comments above but most especially on this occasion thank Jill who has kindly allowed me over the years to report all the ups and downs in the struggles of Terry Lubbock and Les Balkwell for justice.

The agony of this case is knowing that Stuart Lubbock was definitely killed by a violent sexual assault by two or more people, yet the Coroner and the Attorney-General say this can't be proved.

And also we can be certain that a minimum of six, and probably all eight of those who visited Michael Barrymore's home that fateful night, and of course Barrymore himself, know fine well what caused Stuart's death. They then successfully conspired, with the help of Essex Police after the event, to cover up his gruesome death by a tissue of lies about an alleged drowning.

The entire original inquest, and all the pathologists, were misled by the conspirators into believing that Stuart Lubbock went to swim that night in an ice cold pool that had not been opened all winter. It was a classic case of 'muddying the waters'. I can all but prove that only after Stuart's death did Barrymore open the pool cover and pretend that he had drowned. And to cap it all, the officer in charge of the case, Kevin Macey, allowed Barrymore's personal manager, Mike Browne, to remain within the crime scene and take the temperature of the pool - which to this day I say was faked.

Now, to add insult to injury, as per this Daily Mail report this week, Barrymore is trying to claim £20 million 'damages' for 'lost earnings' because, he says, of the police wrongly arresting him on suspicion of murder:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5320947/Michael-Barrymore-sue-police-20m-lost-earnings.html  Michael Barrymore to sue police for £20 million lost earnings


In a world where justice always prevailed, those who killed Stuart would have got life or have been hanged for murdering Stuart, and the conspirators handed down the stiffest penalties available for 'perverting the course of justice'. Instead, Essex Police might have to end up paying Barrymore £20 million - at taxpayers' expense.

It is a gross perversion of justice

If in any small way I may have contributed to Barrymore's loss of earnings, then...hooray! - I would regard it as a feather in my cap





.

Hi Mr Bennett,perhaps when and if Mr Barrymore(strikes it Lucky, £20 Million compensation)Mr Lubbock Snr should seek redress in a civil case,at least having Mr Barrymore to explain his actions?

willowthewisp wrote:Hi Mr Bennett,perhaps when and if Mr Barrymore(strikes it Lucky, £20 Million compensation)Mr Lubbock Snr should seek redress in a civil case,at least having Mr Barrymore to explain his actions?

Hi willow good to see you posting again.   Now there's a good thought awright.

Look forward to hearing more from Tony soon