The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

EXCLUSIVE (Mirror, 8 Feb 2020) Terry Lubbock demands new Inquest  (copy of application added)  Mm11

EXCLUSIVE (Mirror, 8 Feb 2020) Terry Lubbock demands new Inquest  (copy of application added)  Regist10

EXCLUSIVE (Mirror, 8 Feb 2020) Terry Lubbock demands new Inquest (copy of application added)

View previous topic View next topic Go down

EXCLUSIVE (Mirror, 8 Feb 2020) Terry Lubbock demands new Inquest  (copy of application added)  Empty EXCLUSIVE (Mirror, 8 Feb 2020) Terry Lubbock demands new Inquest (copy of application added)

Post by Tony Bennett on 09.02.20 9:49

Daily Mirror   8 February 2020
 
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/stuart-lubbock-dad-pleads-new-21459192

Stuart Lubbock dad pleads for new inquest into son's death at Barrymore's house


EXCLUSIVE: Heartbroken Terry Lubbock wants a fresh investigation in to the mysterious death of his son, almost twenty years after an inquest recorded an open verdict
 
BY  Jon Austin
21:28, 8 FEB 2020



------

MICHAEL BARRYMORE SPEAKS OUT OVER CHANNEL 4 DOCUMENTARY ON THE DEATH OF STUART LUBBOCK (VIDEO where he denies knowing anything about how Stuart was raped to death) 


The father of the man found dead at Michael Barrymore’s home has asked the Attorney General to order a second inquest into the case.
 
His plea comes after the detective re-investigating the unsolved case told a police press conference: “I believe very much that Stuart Lubbock was raped and murdered.”
 
Father-of-two Mr Lubbock, 31, was a party guest at the TV star’s house in Roydon, Essex.
 
A post mortem examination after his body was found in the star’s pool in the early hours of March 31, 2001, revealed he had significant injuries.
 
His inquest in 2002 recorded an open verdict.
 ELATED ARTICLES
To approve another hearing, Attorney General Geoffrey Cox must be satisfied there is significant new evidence unavailable to the first one.
 
An application on behalf of the victim’s dad Terry was sent to Mr Cox last Thursday, the day Channel 4 aired Barrymore: The Body in the Pool.  [see below - TB]
 
Before the programme Det Ch Insp Stephen Jennings, now heading the investigation, told the press conference: “One or more of the eight people at this party are responsible for Stuart’s death.”


========================================================================= 


Here is a copy of my application sent to the Attorney-General Geoffrey Cox Q.C. on Friday:


From: Anthony J S Bennett, M.A.                              
 
Rt Hon. Geoffrey Cox QC PC MP,                              Thursday 6 February 2020
Attorney-General,
5-8 The Sanctuary
LONDON
SW1P  3JS
 
For the attention of the Solicitor-General, The Rt Hon Michael Ellis QC MP
AND Kate Anderson
 
APPLICATION FOR FIAT FOR FRESH INQUEST:
DEATH OF STUART LUBBOCK, 31 March 2001
 
Kate.anderson@attorneygeneral.gov.uk
Dear Mr Cox Wright Mr Jeremy Wright Q.C., M.P. 
 
re: Request for Fresh Inquest into the killing of Stuart Lubbock, 31 March 2001 (Original Inquest heard by Essex Coroner, Mrs Caroline Beasley-Murray)
Section 13 Coroners Act 1988
 
I refer to my previous application dated 27 June 2017 addressed to your predecessor Mr Jeremy Wright Q.C., M.P. 
 
Again, on behalf of Terry Lubbock, I would like to thank your predecessor and his staff, especially Kate Anderson, for their kind and detailed attention to Mr Lubbock’s previous application. I attach a copy of my letter of 27 June 2017 sent to the Attorney-General, and the document that accompanied it, titled “The killing of Stuart Lubbock, 31 March 2001: The case for a new Inquest”, dated 10 June 2017.
 
Unfortunately your predecessor felt unable to agree to opening a new Inquest on the ground that there was insufficient ‘new material to justify doing so. This  was despite what we consider was an overwhelming case we made on the evidence for quashing the previous ‘open’ verdict.
 
You will be aware that this is a sensitive and very controversial case about  which many commentators and large swathes of the general public do not consider that justice has been done to Stuart Lubbock and his family. If there is an overwhelming probability that a man has probably been murdered – and in addition there are very strong grounds to believe that an elaborate cover-up of what really happened that night has taken place - yet an ‘open verdict ‘is allowed to stand, then clearly justice has not been done.
 
Your predecessor required ‘new material’ or a ‘change in circumstances’ before he would consider a fiat for a new Inquest.
 
I consider that we now have that – on account of a recent statement by Essex Police.
 
Up to now, all the authorities have proceeded on the assumption that Stuart Lubbock’s body was ‘found floating in Michael Barrymore’s swimming pool’. This was on the evidence of six witnesses: Michael Barymore, Jonathan Kenney, Justin Merritt, Kylie Merritt, James Futers and Simon Shaw. I have explained in detail in our previous application that there is overwhelming evidence that none of those witnesses told the truth about the circumstances  of how Stuart died that night and in particular about him - allegedly - being ‘found in the pool’.
 
The Inquest in September 2002 began with P.C. Jones of Essex Police informing the court and the Inquest jury: “Stuart Lubbock was found in the pool at the premises”. We have asserted since 2007 that this statement was factually inaccurate and misled the entire Inquest. It also completely misled the four pathologist witnesses who gave evidence at the  Inquest. This is manifest from their written reports. They had also all been told by Essex Police at a special briefing that Stuart had been ‘found in the pool’. Essex Police failed to give them any indication whatsoever that the witness statements by the six men might be untrue.
 
NEW MATERIAL THAT JUSTFIES A FIAT FOR A SECOND INQUEST
 
This week, Essex Police made a number of significant statements about the death of Stuart Lubbock, in advance of a Channel 4 programme: “Barrymore; The Body in the Pool”, to be shown tonight.  There was an official statement published on their website, a copy of which I attach. An officer, Detective Chief Inspector Stephen Jennings, has also made a series of statements verbally, at a press conference on 4 February or on other occasions to the media. These include:
 
“A post-mortem examination found Stuart had suffered horrific anal injuries which experts believe were the result of a serious sexual assault that happened prior to Stuart’s death”.
 
“…the rape of Stuart Lubbock”
 
“Stuart ended up being violently sexually assaulted and murdered
 
“A reward of £20,000 will be available for information given to Crimestoppers and not the police. To be eligible for the reward, the information must lead to arrest and conviction of the person or people responsible for the rape and murder of Stuart Lubbock”.
 
“If you have information about Stuart’s rape and murder…”
 
“This case has always been about the sexual assault and death of Stuart Lubbock”.
 
In 2002 at the original Inquest, it was NOT the police’s case that Stuart Lubbock was murdered. They failed to call the only witness (a 20-year-old woman) who used the word ‘rape’ in her statement. For the police to be so clear that this was ‘murder’, yet for the Attorney-General to refuse to agree to a second Inquest, would see, like an outrageous injustice to Mr Lubbock and his family.
 
But of even greater significance, Essex Police have now acknowledged what we were trying, so loudly, to say back in 2006 and 2007, namely that Stuart was was dead before any question of him being allegedly ‘found’ in the swimming  pool. It comes in this frank admission by DCI Jennings:
 
(from the Daily Mail, 5 February 2020, p. 15)
 
“Mr Jennings admitted that police failed to secure the scene for forensic tests at the time of the death on March 31, 2001, as they wrongly assumed he had drowned after taking a cocktail of drink and drugs. He also said that a handle from an outhouse and a pool thermometer had gone missing. When asked what he thought happened to them, he replied: ‘They’ve been removed to hide evidence. Stuart was assaulted, quite possibly in the Jacuzzi, and then either died in the Jacuzzi  or went unconscious, and then, to make it look like a drowning, was thrown in the swimming pool’.”
 
He admits the police we ‘wrong’ to assume drowning. This changes everything.
 
He admits that Stuart was assaulted before, allegedly, being ‘thrown in the swimming pool’. Again, that changes everything. If he was dead before being ‘thrown in’, then he wasn’t dead by being drowned and it is clear that the Inquest and the pathologist were gross misled by Essex Police back in 2001-2.  
 
I would make one further observation about DCI Jennings’ bizarre claim that Stuart’s dead body was thrown into the pool after he was dead, only to be taken out again afterwards by those who obviously faked the ‘drowning’. Why would they do that? Surely by far the most obvious explanation is the very one we gave 13 year ago, namely that after he died, Stuart’s body was cleaned up, placed by the side of the pool, and a quantity of water thrown over him to make it look like a drowning.
 
I should be glad if you would now begin the process of examining this new evidence and please let me know what additional supporting evidence you may require.
 
I anticipate that the police will be able to provide you with an account of their changed hypothesis on the circumstances of Stuart’s death  without delay.
 
Yours sincerely
 
 
Anthony Bennett
For Terry Lubbock
 
ENCS:  

____________________

Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

Amelie Mcann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".  

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15833
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 72
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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