Michael Barrymore and Stuart Lubbock: Statement Analysis

This blog analyses an interview with Michael Barrymore, conducted by Stephen Nolan on Irish TV in 2013. It’s available on YouTube and worth watching for the in-house audience reaction. Although the ticker tape is running messages of support from Barrymore fans, the people in the audience look deeply uncomfortable.

Asked about his personality, who he was on stage, he contradicts himself so many times that it’s easy to lose track. I have transcribed and analysed the whole thing but here I concentrate on the parts that pertain to Stuart Lubbock’s death.

Michael Barrymore's words are in purple; Stephen Nolan's in red; Gerry McCann's in blue; John Ramsey's in brown.

Stephen Nolan

First, when asked about the fateful night, he tries to diminish his culpability by suggesting that the only thing he was guilty of was hospitality. He starts by saying:

I thought I was ok.

This is a strange thing to say as it implies that for some reason with this particular group of people he wasn’t ok.  He’s sort of shifted the onus onto them. As a group, or as individuals, they somehow rendered him ‘not ok’. But Nolan didn't ask if he was ok; this is just how he has chosen to start his account. With himself.

Lots of people have people back.

He remains adamant that nothing happened to Stuart Lubbock at his house, that his injuries were sustained elsewhere. He hopes that by taking the blame for this one thing (inviting people, some of whom he didn’t know, home), he can somehow dodge all the other accusations. And in a way he's right – if he hadn't asked these people back to his house, Stuart Lubbock would still be alive.

But who decided to ask Stuart Lubbock back and why? Why was a woman deputised to do this? Did she intend to come too? Why do you ask strangers back, what’s the purpose? I’ll leave you to figure this out. It’s not a completely random or the more the merrier type of thing as then Kevin Lubbock would have been asked as well. But anyway, the point is, no one is saying he’s not allowed to have people back – it’s him who’s decided that this is the crux of the matter in order to evade the real issue.

Serious Barrymore

Can I swear?

Asking about this he thinks gives him an air of responsibility – he doesn’t want to commit a minor infraction without the permission of the presenter.

I was pissed.

This gets a nervous giggle from the crowd. This is not good enough for Barrymore. He wants to make them laugh. He hopes that if he can connect with them, make them like him, he can get them back on-side.

That’s not swearing.

This signals his attempt to outdo himself.

I was off my tits.

More nervous laughter. He appreciates this and congratulates himself.

It’s getting better.

He means that he is finally swearing and it’s true that the audience seems to warm to him but only momentarily. He laughs and the people watching do too but they, unlike him, haven't forgotten that Stuart Lubbock died. He’s merely seeking to distract attention from this fact. This isn’t a laughing matter and coming on TV and making lame jokes cannot alter that. In fact, it's simply disrespectful when talking about that night. What these attempts at humour reveal is that he feels nothing for the victim or his family.

Nolan points out that he isn’t a normal person because of his fame and therefore should be more careful about who he takes home. In a sense, he’s accepted Barrymore’s deflection, that this was merely a case of unwise hospitality.

I was gone and one guy said I’ll be your security and went Yeah. Ok.

Omitting the personal pronoun as he does before 'went' is a marker of someone who doesn't want to admit agency and is trying to fudge the issue. And then it's very vague – 'one guy' is who? Why not give the man's name and why doesn't Nolan ask it? And is he suggesting he needed protection from his own guests and that this 'one guy' didn't give it?

And come back and do you know what I think deep down if I was being really honest here.

And why is he saying 'if I was being really honest here'? This suggests that he isn't being honest, just that it's possible that he might be at some stage..

Happy Barrymore

Then he adds:

And I’m comfortable enough here to be honest. 

Then hastily, when he realises this implies he hasn’t been comfortable enough to answer truthfully at other times, maybe any other time (let’s not forget he refused to answer some questions at the inquest), that this could be construed as an admission of mendacity, he follows it quickly with:

Not that I haven't been honest elsewhere.

But the cat is out of the bag. It’s been recorded, broadcast and can't be unsaid or unheard. What we take from this is he hasn't been honest elsewhere.

But sometimes you know with interviewers you close up because you get the thing oh where’s this going and I’m not … I do and I’ll be honest and say that to you now.

Hmm. Never trust anyone who has to continually assert they're honest (that's four times in quick succession). I'm still not sure what he actually means although Nolan says thank you. But, although he's volunteered honesty, he then starts to ramble about inconsequential stuff and you'd have to deduce that this is what he feels he can tell the truth about so is happy to hold forth about it.

But I think that sometimes you know it’s a bit of the London boy’s done well you know come from nothing no, you know, from family and showing off and a bit you know it’s a big house, it’s a nice sound system …

Nolan thinks this digression has gone on long enough as Barrymore has already spoken at length on the subject in the earlier part of the interview (not included here) and breaks in to ask:

What happened?

Barrymore repeats the question as if he has no idea what the man’s talking about, because the death of Stuart Lubbock is of so little consequence to him that he’s simply forgotten about it.

What happened?

Nolan has to remind him:
Stuart Lubbock was found dead in your swimming pool.

Oh yeah yeah yeah.

This is said very casually, in a rather offhand manner. He sounds like he's a little annoyed that he's been forced to return to the point. It’s almost disparaging and is possibly the most telling part of the whole interview, his attitude in these few words. It reminds me of John Ramsey's line about his daughter, JonBenet's murder: The real story here is not that a child was murdered; the real story here is the unjust way we were treated. Seriously? This man has no sense of perspective. And notice that Barrymore doesn't correct or quibble with Nolan's words 'found dead in your swimming pool', which suggests that this was the case although later he says something that contradicts this.

I was in the house and the others were in the pool.

Straight away he’s introduced the ‘others’. As in the Martin Bashir interview, no one asks who he means by this. Here he distances himself from them by failing to name them and claiming he was also physically distant – he was inside, the others were outside. It’s no coincidence that Stuart was found outside, where Barrymore wasn’t. He’s established that immediately.

They said Can they go in the pool? Can they swim in the pool?

Again ‘he’ is not part of them. And they are not named.

Aerial view of Barrymore's property

But it’s halfway through being built. Drew the top back. You’ve got a picture of it there. Drew the top back. The switch is over there on the left and that goes back to show the light underneath.

So here’s a lot of extraneous detail about where the switches are for the pool lights, etc. Why does he feel the need to include all this as it affects nothing? It’s done to delay him having to explain what happened or embark on an untruth. He hopes that the fact that he’s telling the truth about these patently insignificant things proves that he’s a fundamentally reliable witness. He’s saying Look – all these things are true. You can see them in the photograph (i.e. the photograph corroborates my version of events). These are things he can declare with certainty, that can be verified easily, so the public/police can therefore trust his words/him. But are we really that stupid?

It also has the effect of showing him to be a concerned host, an all-round good guy, putting the lights on so that all his guests can see what they’re doing. But which host would refuse to put the lights on? – it’s hardly an effort. I’m calling this whole charade a smokescreen of truth.

Some of them went out to there.

Them again, the mysterious them and they are there, i.e. not with Barrymore. In some versions, the timeline is different as guests go to the jacuzzi before going for a swim. Again though, this is something quite crucial that Barrymore is pretty sketchy on.

There were four girls there as well which the press very conveniently leave out.

He pauses here for emphasis, believing the presence of girls proves it wasn’t the much-touted gay orgy. But the girls might have been invited as 'beards' in order to reassure Stuart that he would be safe, might even hook up with one of the girls. If it had been Barrymore and eight men, he might not have been that keen. The girls don't get named because Barrymore was not interested in them at all.

Interior of house

And I went and had a joint with James and I can’t remember his name now. It doesn’t matter.

Why does he get to decide whether it matters or not? I would say it’s pretty important as this guy could be his alibi. There must be a reason for the failure to name him here as by the time of this interview he must know the man’s name. Why doesn’t Nolan query this?

And then we went back out.

To go back out, he would have needed to be out at some stage. And by 'we', who does he mean? Himself and James Futers? The man he can't remember the name of? All three of them? How much time has elapsed? In all the interviews, there seems to be a leap, from getting shorts for his guests to wear to finding Stuart in the pool.

He said Do you wanna go to the jacuzzi? I said Yeah ok.

Again, Nolan doesn’t ask who the ‘he’ is in this instance. Barrymore makes it seem like he’s just going along with what someone else suggests. More avoidance of agency.

Went out. The other lot had been out earlier.

‘Other lot’ is a weird choice of words; it's slightly derogatory. It would be these 'others' who had been with Stuart. Still no names. Anybody reminded of the 'Others' from Lost yet?

When we went outside, looked down and I didn’t even know Stuart’s name at the time. It was just another member of the party, right?

He thinks he can prove he wasn’t involved in anything if he claims not to know Stuart yet. But in fact, he's only admitted to not knowing his name, which is probably true. 

Look down and he’s there floating in the pool. Whether he’s down or at the top or whatever.

He’s casual, uninterested, vague but these details are crucial, as they would tell us whether Stuart was dead when he entered the pool or whether he drowned in the pool. And surely 'floating' means he was at the top? Why is Barrymore so unsure about this? We need to establish whether he was face down as the newspapers say or face up as Barrymore has said elsewhere. If he was face down, would Barrymore have recognised him? And what happened to 'we'? Now it seems like he was alone at this point. Notice he's missed out the personal pronoun again to fudge the issue. 

Jonathan Kenney

What did you do?

I run [sic]. What, me? The first thing I do is run back into the house and get the … Jonathan who I knew had [a] life-saving experience.

The change of tenses and an increase in ums, ers and pauses show that these are things Barrymore is less certain of or knows are untrue. But why does he say 'get the'? This would seem to relate to an object rather than a person. And if Jonathan Kenney was the life-saver, why didn't he come out and jump in?

And the other guy Merritt came with him.
So now Justin Merritt has become 'the other guy', with the implication that Barrymore did not know him well. And who is meant by 'him'? Kenney?

And James and er, Futers jumped in cause I can’t swim, jumped in and pulled him up and the other guy jumped in as well.

Which other guy? Merritt? Jonathan? Or the guy he can’t remember the name of? Other reports have named Simon Shaw. And whether he can or can't swim is also disputed.

I didn’t see that but they jumped in to get him and I went to get (pauses). The other two, they came out. They started working on him.

Who are the other two? Why can’t he use people’s names? Again, what did he go to get? Why does he always stop short of saying it?

The other ones going round. I was starting to freak out. The girls started screaming when they saw he was just laying there. He wasn’t moving much.

I have no clue what 'The other ones going round' means. Justin Merritt has been labelled one of the others by Barrymore here and elsewhere. Has this been done deliberately to implicate him? Then if Stuart was moving a little, he could still have been alive at this point although (see below), it is more likely he was dead when Barrymore saw him.

Justin Merritt

And James said to me Come away. There’s nothing, no more you can do as the ambulance has been called, they’re working on him there. There’s no more we can do.

As we know now it was Justin Merritt who called the ambulance (see previous blog for analysis of the 999 call transcript). But when? Why is this missing from this account? And as I said in my previous blog, he was probably already dead because Merritt says ‘A geezer’s drowned in the pool’. You wouldn’t say ‘drowned’ of someone who was still alive.

[I’ve only recently read an interview with James Futers, one of the guests who jumped in to pull Stuart out, and he claims Stuart was lying at the bottom of the pool. This would explain why Barrymore says here and has said elsewhere ‘I looked down’. You would have to look down in order to see him if he was at the bottom of the pool.] We know now that, contrary to press reports, Stuart was face up not face down.

So how it was reported is that you ran away.

Not straight ...

He’s about to say ‘Not straight away’ i.e. he did.

… One, I didn’t run away. And first thing, they never report that I actually, the first thing that I did was go and get help.

Ok, confronted with this situation, who wouldn’t go for help? No one. Is he expecting us to believe that in some version of these events, he would have left Stuart floating in the pool? Does he expect kudos for calling for help? And the unsaid part is 'Then I ran away'. I think it could be more accurately described as 'fleeing the scene'.

But they choose not to report those things.

Different they here: the media. A quick whinge from Barrymore, rather similar to the John Ramsey quote.

They were working on him. I was standing there. And instead of going No. I should stay here, I went with the lads down the bottom of the drive to their flat.

You would expect him to be able to name the people living at the bottom of the drive. One was James Futers; the other Simon Shaw. But he calls them 'the lads' which is a friendlier term than 'the others'.

Mike Browne

As I went out, I didn’t ring my PR agent and say. I don’t have, I never had a PR agent. I don’t employ the likes of Max Clifford. Never have done.

Why is this so important to him? He’s trying to say he didn’t attempt to spin the story but whether he called a PR/PA makes no real difference.

I had a PA who was my personal assistant. I rang Mike. I said the guy’s in the pool. He’s on the side of the pool. The ambulance has been rang [sic]. If the police need me I’m in James’s place at the bottom of the drive.

Back to 'the guy'. Back to imprecise language. Is Stuart, sorry, 'the guy', in the pool when Barrymore makes the call or on the side of the pool? This is another point that needs clarification. If he was still in the pool, it would mean he called his PA before anyone called the emergency services.

It didn’t look good you leaving the scene.

Absolutely not. No no. It’s one of the worst things I could have done. And when it gets reported and the way it’s been reported over the years as it has been done (he’s flustered here and losing his way), it can’t look right, can it? It can’t look right at all.

So he’s happy to admit that this was the wrong thing to do and that it made him look guilty but hastens to add:

But that doesn’t make me guilty of something that never happened in the first place.

He gets a bit tripped up here – he wants to assert the fact that he’s not guilty (of something/anything) then remembers his story is that Stuart was not injured at his house so has to add that the ‘something’ didn’t happen at all. And if nothing ‘happened in the first place’, why would he feel the need to run away? But Stuart is dead, something did happen. The post-mortems tell us what. More on the post-mortems here.

They wanted it to fit the way they wanted it to fit. Instead of what the facts were.

This is the press you’re talking about.

Yes, Barrymore has gone back to his bugbear, the press and got away from talking about Stuart.

You know the audience are going to be asking: Did he do it?

Absolutely not. No way. No way did I do it.

Well, this is a very assertive denial but it also admits that someone, if not Barrymore himself, did do it. I think it would be more normal to say I didn’t do anything to him.

Then there’s an immediate turnaround, very similar to Gerry McCann’s (in blue), when asked if he killed Madeleine:

No. And that’s an emphatic no and if I did …

See Peter Hyatt on this.

Here’s Barrymore:

And if I did I, you know, I'd have put my hands up 10 years ago …

Let’s break it down.

And if I did …

So what we have here is him immediately qualifying his denial: ‘No way did I do it … and if I did’, in fact actually positing that he did do it. Why would he even say this, why speculate about what he would have done if he’d killed Stuart? If you were totally innocent, you would simply say ‘No’. So, is this an acknowledgement, if not of his own guilt, of the guilt of someone at the house? Then again break it down further and we have:

I did …

Embedded confession?

I you know …

A little bit of a delay while he thinks how to respond, possibly realising he shouldn’t have started a sentence with ‘And if I did’ …

… I'd have put my hands up 10 years ago

He’s implying that he’s an honest Joe (when he feels comfortable enough, remember) so would have owned up at the time. Then he blusters, in a similar way to Gerry McCann’s:
Find the body.

While I’m here, who is heartless enough to call their own child ‘the body’? And why challenge the police to find the body?

There’s no evidence there. Find the evidence.

See how similar this is. Barrymore knows that his friends, his PA, have all been involved in damage control, removing anything suspicious. But why make this challenge at all? There’s a bit of 'duper’s delight' going on here, very similar to that evinced by Gerry McCann. I’m cleverer than the police – they won't find anything on me. Once more, if he were innocent, he wouldn’t feel the need to mention evidence. He would simply be horrified to be accused. He would want to answer questions at the inquest as, if he didn’t do anything, his cooperation would help clear his name.

Reeva Steenkamp  and Oscar Pistorius

The police did fail to secure the scene, which happens with many of these cases when they’ve believed what they’ve been told by those on site, e.g. JonBenet Ramsey and Reeva Steenkamp, covered in my other blogs.

Nothing happened to the guy there.

Barrymore goes back to ‘the guy’. He’s no longer worthy of a name. Now he’s suggesting that something could have happened to him elsewhere and we know he’s trying to implicate emergency responders or hospital staff.

He mentions the headline: You are a murderer. And asks:

How do you get round that?

He wants to ‘get round’ this but can't think of a way because there is no way round it if you did it.

And then:

How do you show remorse?

You wouldn’t use the word remorse if you weren’t guilty in some way. You would probably say ‘regret’. And ‘show remorse’ suggests an element of acting or demonstrating. It’s important to him that the public recognise he’s showing remorse.

How do you apologise for things you haven't done?

He seems to believe there is a need to apologise but also reiterates that he hasn’t done anything. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, this is possibly an attempt to evince compassion for Stuart’s family.

Terry Lubbock

Then he descends into a bit of a whinge fest, bemoaning his lot.

All the crap that I’ve had to deal with.

This again is disrespectful to Stuart Lubbock and his family. He’s saying that Stuart’s death and the resulting suspicion are just some more crap that he, Barrymore, has had to deal with, as if he shouldn’t have to answer for that. It shows that disturbing lack of perspective I’ve talked about elsewhere. His troubles cannot really compete with what Stuart Lubbock suffered or what his family is suffering.

All the things that happened.

Again this suggests he had no agency, no responsibility – things just happened. See Oscar Pistorius: ‘the night the incident happened’; ‘the gun went off’.

Then finally:

All the mistakes that I made.

This is a partial acceptance of blame but it would be fascinating to find out what he considers ‘mistakes’ in this situation. Is he still only acknowledging he was perhaps too generous a host? The other thing is that it could be seen as diminishing Stuart Lubbock’s death to nothing but a mistake.

I’ve got to look at my part in it as well.

What part is he going to own up to? He doesn’t say. So we’re left with his belief that the only thing he did wrong was invite people back and of course we’d have to be crazy to think this inviting people back was anything he should feel guilty about, that it really was wrong. But exactly how has he looked at his part in it?*

So, although none of this is proof that Michael Barrymore had any part in causing the injuries that Stuart Lubbock suffered (defined by the judge who dismissed Barrymore's damages claim against the police as 'a violent assault, anal rape of a straight man'), it certainly raises questions about whether he is telling the truth as his statements reveal several markers of deceit, narcissism, reluctance, evasion, a refusal to be exact and a lack of empathy for everyone but himself, similar to traits shown by Oscar Pistorius. The problem is that he has never been properly called to account, never been required to fill in any of the gaps or explain any of the inconsistencies in his story, never really been properly interrogated. The police need to look at these interviews and ask the right questions. This has to happen (and if Barrymore is innocent he should willingly comply) if we are ever to learn the truth and Stuart Lubbock ever to find justice. My heart bleeds for Terry and Kevin Lubbock.

Always remember the victims

Justice4Stuart

RIP Stuart Lubbock

*For a case that seems similar, see Joey Comunale.

Michael Barrymore and the Tragic Death of Stuart Lubbock Part 3: The Post-mortems

My heart breaks for Terry Lubbock

As promised, more investigative discussion on the mystery surrounding the death of Stuart Lubbock, this time focusing on the four post-mortems, using statement analysis and logic. This is my third blog on the case. The first one covers the 999 call made by Justin Merritt. The second lays out the basics of the night Stuart Lubbock died.

Dr Heath’s words are in blue.

Professor Chris Milroy’s are in red.

Dr Calder’s are in green.

Professor Crane’s are in purple.

Dr Michael Heath

POST-MORTEM 1: Dr Michael Heath

This takes place at 16.40 on 31 March 2001, the day Stuart's body was discovered. Dr Heath's work in another case has been discredited. Link here.

A person has been found in a swimming pool and he’s dead. We now need to know what the cause of death is. My conclusion was that there was no third party involved in the death. Therefore I concluded that, as there was fluid in the air passages, fluid in the lungs ...

Ok, let’s Hyatt it, i.e. break the passage down.

A person has been found in a swimming pool and he’s dead.

So far, so good although we only have the party-goers’ words that Stuart was found in the pool. This sentence presupposes that the person was dead at the time he was discovered in the pool otherwise the pathologist might say ‘A person has been found in a swimming pool and later died’. This fact cannot be verified from witness reports and statements from Michael Barrymore himself as they are all inconsistent, with James Futers saying that Stuart Lubbock was still breathing when he was pulled out of the pool but Justin Merritt asserting ‘A geezer’s drowned in the pool’, which assumes death had already occurred (see 999 call analysis). The pathologist did not attend the scene. So, has he made an assumption based on what he’s been told? Yes, he might very well assume that if someone is found unconscious in a swimming pool, drowning is the cause of death. However, it’s not his job to make assumptions. It’s his job to look at the facts, at the evidence in and on Stuart’s body.

We now need to know what the cause of death is.

He states this as the primary purpose of the post-mortem. It seems reasonable but he then goes onto:

My conclusion was that there was no third party involved in the death.

So before determining cause of death, he’s jumped to a conclusion about who was involved. But, first, as he said himself, he needs to ascertain cause of death. Then this should lead him to an answer on the question of whether anyone else was involved. But Dr Heath seems to have got this backward. He’s decided that no one else was involved and then:

Therefore, I concluded that ...

Do you see what I’m getting at? His conclusion is based on something he hasn’t yet proved. It’s based on a belief he hasn’t backed up. This ‘therefore’ is rather worrying as it shows he’s not a logical thinker.

View of the pool at Barrymore's

… as there was fluid in the air passages, fluid in the lungs.

This is expressed as secondary to his first conclusion, when it should be his primary focus. Although this finding could be indicative of drowning, none of the other usual signs are found or mentioned in this post-mortem. He seems to have accepted an account of the situation and then looked for evidence to prove it, in other words, he’s entered into the whole process with a predisposition based on what the police told him and working it backwards, what the witnesses told the police.

Small abrasions that’d [he] got when Stuart was removed from the pool.

These ‘small abrasions’ are described by the next pathologist as horrific injuries. Do we assume that this pathologist did not look closely at Stuart’s body so did not notice any of the more serious injuries? Or do we assume that these injuries weren’t there at the first post-mortem? As to the latter, more later.

When I went through the whole post-mortem with the police.

Going through it with the police suggests that the police had some input into the findings or were consulted in some way but it is possible this merely means that he explained it to them.

It was my opinion that no third party was involved in the death.

This seems to lead from his conversation with the police. It is not my intention to imply that the police put pressure on the doctor to come to a particular conclusion. They were working under the assumption that, as they’d been told, a man had drowned in a swimming pool, that it was a terrible accident. But again the first statement does not lead to the second. There’s no cause and effect here.

As a result of that it was my opinion that this was a case of immersion. Drowning.

Again, this is backward. He’s saying that once he’d concluded that no third party was involved, he believed this to be proof that Stuart drowned. But why? And he doesn’t go through how he determined there was no third party involvement, i.e. We don’t get to see his workings out. It simply doesn’t follow. He could have died of a heart attack or a stroke without the input of a third party. The two aren’t necessarily related at all. Was he told to overlook the other injuries or was he just not very thorough?

Professor Chris Milroy

POST-MORTEM 2: Professor Chris Milroy

Chris Milroy, professor of forensic medicine at the University of Sheffield conducts the second post-mortem and says water can hamper investigations. He requests another post-mortem, to make sure the cause of death is correct because:

There were some findings that were clearly abnormal.

He means with a typical drowning.

He explains:

There’s petechiae, which would be evidence of choking or strangling and wouldn’t be found in drowning.

So then someone needs to investigate further to ascertain what actually happened. Choking or strangling might be used as a means of enhancing sexual gratification or could even be the cause of death. I’m not sure but I believe that suffocation might also produce petechiae. Was it a sexual game that went tragically wrong? It seems unlikely that Stuart would have willingly engaged in this.

POST-MORTEM 3: Dr Ian Calder, an expert in drowning

The reason for the third post-mortem is given as:

They wanted to be sure that this was actually a drowning.

This shows that the police had misgivings about the result of the first post-mortem.

His first observation is that:

Stuart’s lungs did not show the classic appearance of drowning.

Dr Calder is concentrating on the body and what it reveals. By ‘classic appearance’, he means the typical signs of drowning weren’t present. He elaborates very specifically about what he would expect to find but didn't:

Stuart's lungs were pretty heavy. Much heavier than I expected.
Sometimes people inhale their stomach contents but there was no stomach contents inhaled.
No typical froth in the lungs.

This evidence makes him suspicious about the cause of death. He's doing it the right way, examining the body and basing his assertions on that.
It didn’t add up to a classical drowning.

Then he speculates:
What makes a perfectly fit and healthy man drown?

This is really a rhetorical question as he doesn’t believe Stuart did drown. Stuart did have MDMA and cocaine in his bloodstream (we learn from the toxicity report) but we also know from witnesses that he was swimming and dive-bombing into the pool at one point so was fine then. One thing that is unclear to me is whether the drugs, together with the alcohol in his system, would have affected his ability to remain conscious.

Dr Calder's diagram, from Channel 4 show

As I was watching the documentary, I paused the video to examine Calder’s drawing of Stuart’s body. I was able to enlarge it to read the annotation. What I saw in this drawing appalled me and I’m surprised that no one seems to have mentioned it. There’s an arrow pointing to Stuart Lubbock’s groin with the label ‘Incontinence pad’. Who would have put this there if he’d merely drowned? Where did it come from? Was it a sick joke? Did someone put it there to soak up the blood? Why would he be wearing such a thing in a swimming pool? Was it inside his underwear? This strongly suggests a third party was involved either before or after Stuart died. Or is it possible that someone put it there between the two post-mortems? 

It was apparent there was a lot of blood on the cloth that he’d been wrapped in.

No one explains where the cloth came from and why it had blood on it. Why didn’t the first post-mortem comment on this? Was the cloth put there afterwards?

And that was around the pelvic region and that showed that there was extensive haemorrhage from the region of the anus. There was clear dilation of the anal canal. There were clear injuries and abrasions around the anus. They included bruising. They included tearing of the anal wall. I would describe the injuries to the anus as horrific.

What really amazes me about this is how the first pathologist either didn’t see all this or didn’t deem it relevant. Unlike Heath, Calder’s findings all follow logically. He hasn’t at this point speculated on how Stuart might have sustained these injuries although I don't think you need to be an expert to conclude that he wouldn’t have inflicted them on himself.

Despite Dr Calder’s report, no criminal charges are brought against anyone who was at the house although logic tells us that someone there caused these horrific injuries.

POST-MORTEM 4: Professor Jack Crane

The assumption he had drowned in the swimming pool and circumstances in my view (uncertain re cause of death) was [sic] based on rather tenuous, flimsy evidence. Where we were agreed was Stuart had been the victim of a serious sexual assault. Photos show the widening of the anal canal and lacerations highly suggestive that some large object had been forcibly inserted in the anus.

So, first off, Professor Crane refutes the drowning conclusion of Dr Heath. He agrees with Dr Calder that Stuart had been sexually assaulted. This is the first mention of the photos and I would hope that Stuart Lubbock’s relatives have been shown these, distressing as they might be. I would like to see them myself.

The jacuzzi, showing pool thermometer in situ

A bottle or a dildo that sort of thing could have caused those sort of injuries.

Of the pool thermometer, an item witnessed in the crime scene photos but later missing, he says:

An object like this could have produced the injuries I identified on Stuart's anus. If that had been passed into the anal canal a number of times.

In case we’re in any doubt:

I could not contemplate any circumstances where this was a consensual act.

Do you think that Stuart was raped?

I think that's a very likely scenario.

This young man had suffered a very serious and very violent sexual assault.

This really couldn't be clearer.

And this sudden assault could have caused him to have a cardiac arrest.

What I’m not sure about is whether the post-mortem would reveal that Stuart had suffered a heart attack or would be able to categorise this as cause of death.

So, what can we conclude from this? It would make sense to assume that the three pathologists who concur are correct and that Dr Heath, for some reason, didn't notice or chose not to notice Stuart's injuries. If we accept that Stuart sustained these injuries at Barrymore's house, we need someone at the party to tell us what they know, to break ranks in order to gain justice for Stuart and to provide answers and some sort of closure for his poor father. It isn't only a question of hiding something. People are lying or at the very least lying by omission.

At the inquest, Barrymore insisted that he did not know how the injuries were sustained and was adamant that they could not have happened at his home. He declined to answer some of the questions put to him.

The coroner can come to no conclusion while people are not saying what they know.

She has to render an open verdict. More on the inquest later.

Justice4Stuart

My heart goes out to Terry Lubbock, Stuart's father.

Always remember the victim

Stuart Lubbock, RIP

Michael Barrymore and the Tragic Death of Stuart Lubbock Part 1: The 999 Call

Stuart Lubbock

Published to coincide with the anniversary of Stuart Lubbock's death. Let's find out the truth.

This blog series was prompted by the recent Channel 4 documentary Michael Barrymore: The Body in the Pool. First of all I'm a little appalled by the title. It uses the TV star's name (to draw viewers, that's acceptable) but the victim is just 'the body'. This is disrespectful and callous. Stuart Lubbock was a person. He mattered and he had a name. It diminishes him to call him ‘the body’. At least have the courtesy to use his name as well as Michael Barrymore's. As in my previous crime blogs, it analyses the language used by those connected in some way to Stuart's death.

My intention with this blog is to analyse some of the statements made by those involved in the incident, starting with the 999 call. I'm not apportioning blame, just pointing out how what people say (and the words they use) and choose not to say can reveal underlying attitudes and intentions. As so much has been published, said and broadcast on this case, I have a lot to consider so will publish the blog in sections. The second part is mainly background, who was there, etc. and you can find it here. The third part covers the four post-mortems and can be read here.

Justin Merritt

The 999 call 31 March 2001 5.48 a.m.

The caller, Justin Merritt's words are in blue, any other quotes in purple.

When the caller is asked for the address, he has to be prompted by someone else (but who? Michael Barrymore?) on every line, from the house number to the town, which suggests that he either doesn’t know the place well or is unsure what he’s allowed to say and is waiting for a cue. Perhaps he's more biddable than the other guests. This kind of prompting puts me in mind of Patsy Ramsey’s 911 call over JonBenet.*

*If you haven't heard of the JonBenet Ramsey case, See my blog for more on the strange words of John and Patsy Ramsey.

The Barrymore 999 call goes like this. Asked for the address:

Someone in the background says Number 4.

Number 4

Someone in the background says Beaumont Park Drive.

Beaumont Park Drive

Someone in the background says Roydon.

Roydon

Someone in the background says Essex.
Essex

This begins with an attempt to establish a narrative, similar to Kate McCann’s cry on the night Madeleine disappeared. She is variously described as saying: Someone’s taken her! They've taken Madeleine! and The fucking bastards have taken her!

What this does is put into everyone's minds the idea that a) Madeleine's been abducted b) A third party is involved in the abduction, perhaps more than one person c) Kate and Gerry are not involved. 

It's also similar to Patsy Ramsey's assertion, the first thing she says on her 911 call:

We have a kidnapping.

This is such a strange way to put it. It sounds as if John said to Patsy, 'We need to call the police' and Patsy asked 'Well, what shall we tell them?' and he said: 'That it's a kidnapping'.

The pool at Barrymore's property, hot tub in foreground

Back to Barrymore, the call continues.

A geezer’s drowned in the pool.

This sentence has several effects:

1. It sets up the drowning/accident idea, so establishing the narrative as mentioned above, what the caller/prompter wants us to believe.
2. It distances the caller from the person in the pool. He doesn’t name the victim (a bit like the Channel 4 documentary) and acts like it’s someone random, whom no one there knows, who's turned up and drowned in the pool although by the time the call was made, you'd have to assume that the caller and the rest of the group know it's Stuart Lubbock but possibly I'm doing them a disservice, perhaps they didn't know his name at this stage.
3. The use of ‘geezer’ is almost derogatory, akin to ‘Oh no! Some geezer’s only gone and drowned in the pool!’ Plus it has the effect of making light of the rest of the sentence.
4. From this and the sentence that follows we know that the person in the pool is already dead, has died before this call was made. Why? Because you wouldn't use 'drowned' of someone who was still alive. Drowned is an ending, it's final. We don't know whether he was dead when he was put in the pool. 

When the emergency operator questions him, the caller rephrases the statement slightly.

A fella’s drowned in the pool?

He uses ‘fella’ instead of ‘geezer’, but the word has the same connotations though is perhaps slightly less dismissive. This time, however, his intonation goes up at the end; it’s said as a question, as if now the caller himself doesn’t really believe what he’s saying.

Asked: Are they still in the water?

No. We've got them out.
We're not told who the 'We' is.

Not sure of the order here but we hear at one point:
Fucking hell.
Asked: Have you done resuscitation?
Did resuscitation. It ain't workin'. Don't know how long he's been there.
And the tone of that last sentence also implies that he doesn't care. The caller's affect is distinctly matter-of-fact, unbothered. This account is at odds with that of James Futers in which he claims Stuart was still breathing when pulled out of the pool. And it suggests that Stuart could have been in the pool, unconscious or dead for a while without anyone noticing.

Then he adds information, an attempt to insert at least something that's actually true.

There’s a party going on and someone’s just gone out and found him.

Again, the victim is still not named although by this time you would have hoped/expected that they'd worked out who it was. The mysterious ‘someone’ we now know was Michael Barrymore and you'd have to assume that the caller knows it was Barrymore but opts not to name him but for a different reason: to try to keep him out of the picture for as long as possible.

Jonathan Kenney

In relation to this, I've just learnt that in Jonathan Kenney's first statement to police, he lied, saying that Michael Barrymore wasn't at the house on the night Stuart Lubbock died, presumably in an attempt to protect Barrymore. But it also reveals that the truth is not an imperative here.

Then the caller ad-libs with extraneous information that has no bearing on the situation at all. As before, this unwarranted outburst of information is possibly something that the caller knows is true so he wants to get it in, to prove himself reliable, normal, straight. 

I tell you what, mate, the first time I’ve been out in four f****** years, I have me kids every weekend, and f****** hell.

Who cares? How is this relevant? And the expletives make it even less appropriate.

So, let's break it down as Peter Hyatt might.

I tell you what, mate.

The purpose of the language used in this diatribe is to align the caller with the operator and establish a rapport, a chumminess. The 'I tell you what' is informal and invites the operator to listen to him as he relates a 'story' and trust what he says because we're all mates here, the same sort of people.

The first time I’ve been out in four f****** years.

This is said to alert the operator to the fact that the caller is not at a party every night, that this is unusual for him. It shows a callous disregard for the victim and even an unspoken attempt to blame him for the fact that the caller’s night out has been ruined and thus also reveals a disturbing lack of perspective. The person in the pool is dead.

Aerial view of Barrymore's property

I have me kids every weekend.

This is an attempt to ensure that the emergency operator realises that the caller is a family man, he has children, who he cares about so has with him every weekend but it also implies that he expects kudos for this. What he's trying to say is: if there was a gay orgy, he wasn’t involved. And moreover, we have to assume that the caller was chosen to make the call because he was married and had children, to steer the emergency services away from the idea that there was anything untoward going on. What we see is that the caller has no sympathy for the dead ‘geezer’. Even if you didn’t know him well, you would have to think this was a tragic end to his night, that perhaps should take precedence over your momentary disappointment. 

... and f****** hell.
More of the same. Said to show shock but comes across as self-involved somehow.

You don’t expect it, do you?

No you wouldn't. Unfortunately this still comes across as uncaring, just a casual aside. There's no empathy.

F****** hell. I think the geezer’s dead, mate.

The inclusion of 'Fucking hell' is supposed to imply surprise although we already know that Stuart is dead and so does the caller. We know this from his first sentence: 'A geezer's drowned in the pool'. The inclusion of ‘mate’ is another attempt to involve the operator in the situation, to make it seem like we're all in the same boat. Still, it’s just a ‘geezer’ to him, no one worth naming. He's a bit like Channel 4 in this.

Along with this, we need to consider:

1. The decidedly offhand tone of the caller throughout. He doesn't sound in a panic or overly concerned, only rising to annoyance when talking about himself and his night out. He positions Stuart as a bit of party pooper whose death is only significant to him inasmuch as it's ruined his fun. This doesn't mean he's necessarily guilty of anything but it also demonstrates how little he cares. He is later reported as being in the jacuzzi with Jonathan Kenney while Stuart was dive-bombing into the pool. This puts them both at the scene at one point, if we're to believe Stuart really drowned. Did no one notice that Stuart was in trouble?
2. What is missing from the content of this call. He hasn't panicked. He hasn't asked for advice on what to do. He hasn't said anyone is attempting CPR. To me, this means that Stuart is dead and beyond advice or resuscitation.

Michael Barrymore

Conclusion

So, we gather from the 999 call that the caller drew the short straw (no one could have wanted to perform this difficult task), probably because he was a family man. His statements show that he doesn't really feel any responsibility himself for what happened.

What we also know is that Michael Barrymore is not mentioned at all, probably because it was hoped that he could be spirited away without anyone knowing.

Later it becomes apparent that Barrymore's PA, Michael Browne, was called after Barrymore had fled the scene. It would be interesting to find out whether he was called before or after the 999 call. Did Barrymore consider his own career and reputation ahead of the need to involve the emergency services? I'm told he did call afterwards. If not, it would be similar to when Oscar Pistorius killed Reeva Steenkamp and called his estate manager and friend, Johan Stander, before calling for an ambulance. See my blog on the Pistorius trial. Damage limitation has to be achieved before the police arrive. I will consider further echoes of the Pistorius case and the JonBenet Ramsey case in the blogs that follow.

And of course, most importantly, it has accomplished its prime goal of establishing the narrative: A man has drowned in the swimming pool.

Justice4Stuart
Always remember the victim.

Stuart Lubbock, Rest in Peace.

Stuart Lubbock, also a father