Thursday, July 25, 2019

Michael Barrymore Interview on Death of Stuart Lubbock


Following a party in the early hours of 31 March 2001, a 31-year-old man, Stuart Lubbock, died at the home of Michael Barrymore. 

 Barrymore and two witnesses claimed to have found him floating  in Barrymore's swimming pool.

Recently, a team of analysts worked through this short interview, which took place years after the event. This form of contamination must be considered throughout. 

Can we know what happened, even after the passage of time, from Barrymore's words?

Analysis to follow...







Interviewer (Piers Morgan): Talk me through what happened that night, people were drinking, taking drugs…


Michael Barrymore: They were all having drinks, they said “oh can we go in the jacuzzi?” so I said yeah I gotta put the lights on cos otherwise you won’t see where you’re going and then I went out there and had a joint and as we walked out I looked down and there’s there’s Stuart err floating in the pool and whether he’s floating when you see that, it’s you know, it’s a very surreal thing to see. 

PM: And what went through your mind? 

MB: (mumbles) went into a bit of a shock… I just went oh Christ and you know he quite obviously wasn’t moving much. The first thing I did when I seen it was run back into the house and get help from Jonathan who I knew had lifeguard errr experience. They come out and started resuscitating him. I ran back... now this is something I want to clear up. I did not flee the house. I did not flee and suggest I was running away. I phoned Mike Brown my PA, my personal assistant and I said there’s been a problem at the house told him what had happened, it’s gonna be surrounded by press. Yes I should have stayed. I should’ve said no I I need to be here but we can all do should’ve’s after the event...and yes I should’ve. I didn’t. An I I wan..I I I’d like to I’d like to if you can bear with me, this is a copy of the letter, this letter, do you mind if I read it?

PM: Sure 

MB: And this is from the Crown Prosecution Service, I’ve never read this out or brought this out before cos (mumbles) The tenth of September two thousand and seven. There was no evidence upon which to charge any person either for the death of Stuart Lubbock or the injuries he sustained to his rectum. Michael Parker, me, has an alibi from three people in the period immediately prior to the discovery of Stuart in the pool. I therefore conclude that there is insufficient evidence against all three suspects for there to be proceedings concerning the death of Stuart Lubbock or relating to the injury. 

PM: The truth about this Michael isn’t it.. Is that we may never know…. the truth.
MB: Yes. 
PM: You were there. What do you take responsibility for? 
MB: I was responsible for allowing people to come back to my house and go out to the pool. You would assume they was capable of looking after themselves.
PM: I mean I understand how you feel and the passionate way that you defend yourself..I guess objectively…
MB (interrupts) If I  don’t defend myself I’ve got people going round making all sorts of allegations.
PM: I get it but what I would say is this, that you I guess you have to start don’t you? From the position that this young man, this  father of two kids…
MB (interrupts) Now  hang about I’m gettin to that you haven’t let me finish. That family deserves proper answers okay? No parent should have to bury their young. I had nothing to do with what happened to Stuart. I am innocent. I am not 99.9% in..innocent. I am 100% innocent and I am entitled to walk around with my head held high...for the rest of my life. 
PM: But let me ask you this Michael, how do you think Stuart died? 
MB: I think he drowned. 
PM: There are still some people for whatever reason that don’t believe it. What do you say to them? 
MB: I have to go around and live my life if they’ve got anything to say to me they can say it to me personally and I’ll give them an answer personally.
PM: Do you believe  there are people out there that know the answer?
BM: But I have to because there’s no answer anywhere else and yet all that’s happened over all these years is that is was convenient, you know an..and some of the journalism you put you showed one of the headlines there...gay orgy. How do you have a gay orgy with four girls and err five blokes three of who are straight ? How do you? 
PM: Stuart was found with various drugs in his body and you were asked directly if you had facilitated him taking drugs and you declined to answer. What was the truth about that? 
MB: Well I didn’t facilitate doing drugs but errm no I was advised that by my lawyers at the time. You don’t have to answer in a in a coroners court you can just (mumbles) say you know I didn’t. 
PM: But again with hindsight do you…
MB: I mean I yeah I guess I to..the.. you can see lots of things in hindsight...I’m not making excuses.
PM: No no but I’m saying the reason…
MB: I fucked up. What more do you want? I fucked up
PM: I get it 
MB: I’m sorry.
PM: Yeah 
MB: I couldn’t be more sorry 
PM: But Stuart will never get his life back. You will never get the comfort of this being resolved because it’s hard to see how it will be..
MB: And I have to live in hope that it somehow, somewhere, there will be an answer. I hope I hope it’s in whatever’s left in my life.

55 comments:

John said...

They were all having drinks, they said “oh can we go in the jacuzzi?” so I said yeah I gotta put the lights on cos otherwise you won’t see where you’re going and then I went out there and had a joint and as we walked out I looked down and there’s there’s Stuart err floating in the pool and whether he’s floating when you see that, it’s you know, it’s a very surreal thing to see.

Who is the second person that walked out with him,? considering he said it was only him who "gotta put the lights on". Yet he doesn't say he did put the lights on, so what was he doing with the person second person (We)

CeriB said...

Lights-sexual activity
sensitive as it is in a hina clause, he needs to give a reason for turning on the lights.
"They were all having drinks" - was the speaker not drinking? Is there another reason for not saying "we" at this point?
No reliable denial-I didn't kill him I was not involved in his death is absent
He is "100%"innocent. Even more sensitive as it is repeated (needs help) with a 100% qualifier-his innocence needs help.

Even more help needed as he has to tell us what his innocence entitles him to do as if we didn't know.

Why did he call his PA rather than 999? His concern is for the press and what they'll say, rather than getting help for the victim.
I didn't hear much genuine unprompted empathy for the family. He even referred to the body as "it."
Why "whether" he is floating when you see that?
Reading out the CPS letter suggests his innocence needs even more help.

Anonymous said...

He says "I'm sorry". To me that says it all. He is deceptive. He is involved in this death. Even though I don't know how. (Lights = sexual activity? Didn't know that one. Any explanation possible, please? I know "doors", bathroom or brushing teeth, but not lights or lights on. Thank you )

John said...

If it is true that to use the jacuzzi the "lights" had to be on and he (possibly two of them [we]) went to turn on the "lights" in context "lights" maybe appropriate. It's when its unnecessarily used, as in. I went to bed and turned off the lights, most do this (turn off "lights") it is need to add this seemly unnecessarily information (turned off light) that would need further exploration for possible sexual activity.

Lights are sometimes linked with sexual activity, some positive and some not so (lights off), including failed relationship (turning off the lights)

Anonymous said...

As soon as in the first sentence Michael mentions turning on the light. Is this an introduction of sexual activity? Having drinks is also important (mentioned almost immediately).

“I looked down and there’s there’s Stuart err floating in the pool and whether he’s floating when you see that, it’s you know, it’s a very surreal thing to see.

Michael’s switching to present tense here (and stuttering and hesitating: “there’s” 2x/”err”). Why? Does he not speak from experiential memory? Also: “you see”/”you know”. Why speak in third person? Did Michael not see it? Did it not happen? The word “floating” is repeated. If Stuart was not floating in the pool, was he perhaps drugged? Floating is a synonym for “drugged” (see thesaurus.com). “surreal thing to see” -> where they hallucinating?

(mumbles) went into a bit of a shock… I just went oh Christ and you know he quite obviously wasn’t moving much. The first thing I did when I seen it was run back into the house and get help from Jonathan who I knew had lifeguard errr experience. They come out and started resuscitating him. I ran back... now this is something I want to clear up. I did not flee the house. I did not flee and suggest I was running away.

Who went into a bit of a shock? Was it Michael? Or rather Stuart (e.g. because of an overdose)? Michael “just” went “oh Christ”. Does the use of “just” mean he is leaving something out (is he thinking of something else)? Also: invoking deity. And: the words “wasn’t moving much” raise the question whether Stuart was still moving a little bit. Michael doesn’t say anywhere that Stuart was taken out of the pool. Was Stuart not in the pool? Also: strange reaction to walk into the house upon (supposedly) seeing Stuart floating in the pool. Wouldn’t the first instinct be to jump into the pool and get Stuart out of it? Michael is over emphasizing that he didn’t flee. Also: does he contradict this by saying “suggest I was running away”?

”I phoned Mike Brown my PA, my personal assistant and I said there’s been a problem at the house told him what had happened, it’s gonna be surrounded by press. Yes I should have stayed. I should’ve said no I I need to be here but we can all do should’ve’s after the event...and yes I should’ve. I didn’t. An I I wan..I I I’d like to I’d like to if you can bear with me, this is a copy of the letter, this letter, do you mind if I read it?”

Maybe a bit nitpicky but: why did Michael say “there’s been a problem at the house”. Wasn’t the problem at (in) the pool? Also: Michael told his PA “what had happened”. How so? I thought it was a mystery what happened. And: “after the event” -> what event? I thought they found Stuart in the pool. Does that qualify as “event”? I would rather call it a discovery. Why does Michael stutter on “I” when he introduces the letter? Indeed: quite telling that his first concern seems to have been the press.

”I was responsible for allowing people to come back to my house and go out to the pool. You would assume they was capable of looking after themselves.

Why does Michael say “they was” instead of “they were”? Is he thinking of a particular person? Stuart? Does Michael blame the victim?

cont.

Autumn

Anonymous said...

”I had nothing to do with what happened to Stuart. I am innocent. I am not 99.9% in..innocent. I am 100% innocent and I am entitled to walk around with my head held high...for the rest of my life. ”

Overkill on the assertion of innocence. Also: “I am not 99.9% in..innocent” seems a strange statement. Why interject it? Did Michael subconsciously feel the need to tell us he is “not (…) in..innocent”? Why the stutter? He also doesn’t answer the specific allegation: “I had nothing to do with what happened to Stuart” is to not say “I didn’t kill Stuart”. So not a reliable denial. “I am entitled to walk around with my head held high…”-> most people walk around with their head held high -> this doesn’t mean Michael didn’t caused the death of Stuart. “For the rest of my life” -> can Michael hold his head high for the first part of his life though (up until Stuart’s death)?

”But I have to because there’s no answer anywhere else and yet all that’s happened over all these years is that is was convenient, you know an..and some of the journalism you put you showed one of the headlines there...gay orgy. How do you have a gay orgy with four girls and err five blokes three of who are straight ? How do you?

If “there’s no answer anywhere else”, does Michael have the answer? Repetition of “gay orgy”. Is that where the answer lies? Michael asks “How do you have a gay orgy (…)? How do you?” but he doesn’t deny there was a gay orgy. Also, as Piers Morgan suggests, perhaps they had a gay orgy with “straight blokes” by making them take drugs?

Well I didn’t facilitate doing drugs but errm no I was advised that by my lawyers at the time. You don’t have to answer in a in a coroners court you can just (mumbles) say you know I didn’t.

The words “but errm” diminish what comes before. Why did Michael’s lawyers have to advise him to say he didn’t facilitate doing drugs? Couldn’t he come up with that himself? If not, why not? Because it was a lie? According to Michael “ you can just (…) say you know I didn’t” and he qualifies this as “don’t have to answer”. If “I didn’t” is not the answer to the question whether Michael facilitated doing drugs, the only possible (true) answer to this question is “I did”. Also: use of “you” -> “you” can say that “you” didn’t facilitate doing drugs, but can Michael say the same for himself?

I fucked up. What more do you want? I fucked up.

“fucked up” (twice) -> is Michael alluding to sexual activity between him and Stuart?

I’m sorry.
I couldn’t be more sorry

Why does Michael feel so sorry if he (1) merely found Stuart drowned in his pool, (2) didn’t facilitate doing drugs and (3) assumed Stuart was capable of looking after himself?

”And I have to live in hope that it somehow, somewhere, there will be an answer. I hope I hope it’s in whatever’s left in my life.”

Michael “has to” live in hope. But does he?

Autumn

Cassie said...

I need immediate analysis in terms of what is priority in this dr Phil clip re: Delphi killer.

Cassie said...

Here is the clip.

Please give feedback re: why Doug Carter is not answering question & what are his priorities in the non-answer he does provide based on his statement:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mm-oNy9s4Q4nt.

Cassie said...

The Delphi case is being discussed with profilers—I will pass along feedback.

CeriB said...

There is a really good explanation of it in the analysis on this site of the Jonbenet Ramsey death. You'll find it if you Google.

John Mc Gowan said...

OT:

I saw this on Peter's (i hope you don't mind me posting it here. Please delete if so) FB, Posted by (Danny Fish [thanks]) and thought i would bring it over here to see what others make of it. VT

I don't know whom it is who's speaking. (BBC News) He is talking about Boris Johnson before he became Prime Minister (UK). Although this is just a small snippet, i think he is talking about Boris Johnson's chances of becoming PM. He goes on to say this. I found it quite alarming.

Watch the other panelist when he say this.

It sounds like he begins with "strong favorite" then goes on to say.

"And he's going to have a very large majority. And it was probably absolutely guaranteed that to be so "unless, some extraordinary event occurred and hasn't occurred and is unlikely to occur, i mean he probably found in bed with three small boys frankly or something like that to stop him being named leader. so he"..."

Note of caution:

Is he using language (part) from another panel member or has he heard rumors of this.


"unless some extraordinary event occurred"

What is is definition of "event"? We don't have to wait long to find out.

"And hasn't occurred"

The rule of the Negative. what is said in the negative” is hightenend in importance.


"and is unlikely to occur"


Not probable or likely to happen.

"Occur" x3 any repetition shows sensitivity.


"he probably found in bed with three small boys frankly or something like that

"Probably"

Definition -"Almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell".

"probably found

Is to discover, locate.

"in bed"

Specific location.


"With three small boys frankly or something like that"

This disturbs me.

Note, not one, no two, but three. A specific number.

"small boys"

Note. Not "boys," but "small boys"

What is his age range definition of "small boys"?


"he probably found in bed with three small boys frankly or something like that


"Frankly"

To be honest and or truthful

"or something like that"


Something like what?


Conclusion.

If Boris Johnson has NOT had accusations labeled at him in public or behind the scenes, and the speaker is not parroting or relaying heard, i would be very concerned about the him using this type of language and look into him.

To add, and a note of caution, i don't know what prompted him (if anything) to speak this way.


Vt Clip:

Scroll down.

https://www.facebook.com/peter.hyatt.9?epa=SEARCH_BOX

John Mc Gowan said...

^^ "Words don't come from a vacuum"

Habundia said...

 Anonymous said...

He says "I'm sorry". To me that says it all. He is deceptive. He is involved in this death. Even though I don't know how. (Lights = sexual activity? Didn't know that one. Any explanation possible, please? I know "doors", bathroom or brushing teeth, but not lights or lights on. Thank you )

July 25, 2019 at 2:40 PM

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2016/08/jonbenet-ramsey-analysis-of-statements.html
"Statement Analysis shows the connection to "lights" within statements and sexual activity, and "doors" to childhood sexual abuse."
You can do a search on "lights" on this blog and there will turn up different topics about this.

Habundia said...

If it is true that to use the jacuzzi the "lights" had to be on and he (possibly two of them [we]) went to turn on the "lights" in context "lights" maybe appropriate. It's when its unnecessarily used, as in. I went to bed and turned off the lights, most do this (turn off "lights") it is need to add this seemly unnecessarily information (turned off light) that would need further exploration for possible sexual activity.

Lights are sometimes linked with sexual activity, some positive and some not so (lights off), including failed relationship (turning off the lights)

July 25, 2019 at 3:30 PM

He doesn't turn the lights on, he said that he said "so I said yeah I gotta put the lights on cos otherwise you won’t see where you’re going". Wouldn't that be 'unnecessary ' information? Wouldn't it be 'normal' when it is dark you need some light to see where you're going?
Especially in this case where it was concluded the victim had injuries to his rectum. Those dont occure by just swimming or chilling in a 'jacuzzi or pool's would you think?

Habundia said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cassie said...

Can someone please give a brief analysis off that very short clip. TIA.

cassie said...

His response to Phil's question is shady as hell.

Hey Jude, what do you think about that clip?

Hey Jude said...

I haven’t seen it yet, Cassie - will catch up shortly.



Michael Barrymore:

“They were all having drinks, they said “oh can we go in the jacuzzi?” so I said yeah I gotta put the lights on cos otherwise you won’t see where you’re going and then I went out there and had a joint and as we walked out I looked down and there’s there’s Stuart err floating in the pool and whether he’s floating when you see that, it’s you know, it’s a very surreal thing to see.”

So, when did he first see Stuart in the pool? He says he had a joint, after which “I looked down and there’s there’s Stuart err floating in the pool”. “I looked down” is different than “I saw”. Had he already seen Stuart in the pool, and then smoked a joint? It’s a confusing sentence as the listener doesn’t know the layout or proximity of the jacuzzi to the pool.

“....and whether he’s floating” - he’s not convinced that Stuart was floating.

“...when you see that” - when did he see “that”? He doesn’t say that he did, rather uses the distancing “you”.

- “it’s you know, it’s a very surreal thing to see.”

Surreal is not seeming real, or dreamlike. “surreal” or dreamlike, rather than a nightmarish discovery.

I’d ask him if he’d seen Stuart there before he smoked the joint.

Could it be that he smoked the joint to calm himself because, when he tuned on the lights, he had seen Stuart “err err floating in the pool.”? Does he use “surreal” because maybe he had seen Stuart, or what happened to him, but couldn’t comprehend that it was real? I might have gone with that, except it is “very surreal” to him, which emphasis is a need to persuade?

Does he smoke a joint to be able to later account for his actions or inaction - he was high, it was all surreal?

I just went oh Christ and you know he quite obviously wasn’t moving much.”
Why does he need to say “quite obviously” - is that a need to persuade that Stuart wasn’t moving much?

“The first thing I did when I seen it “. - possibly not the first thing. Stuart is “it”.

——

Stuart is “a problem at the house”.

——


“No parent should have to bury their young.”
“their young” is more often used of animals.

He shows little regard for Stuart.

——

Was the reason for going out to the jacuzzi, putting on the lights, smoking a joint, to “discover” Stuart “err err floating” in the pool? He “looked down” rather than, say, looked down and saw Stuart. Did he already know he would see Stuart in the pool?





Hey Jude said...

Cassie, I think he is constrained in what he’s able to say about the investigation, and his priority is in that which he repeats, “Trust who we are.”

—-

Libby’s sister, Kelsi, has made a YouTube channel on which she makes live videos, one of which is the lengthy “Debunking Rumours”. You can see how in a small community, gossip and suspicion can run high.

Anonymous said...


“The first thing I did when I seen it “. - possibly not the first thing. Stuart is “it”.

——

Stuart is “a problem at the house”.

——


“No parent should have to bury their young.”
“their young” is more often used of animals.

He shows little regard for Stuart.


Great points, Hey Jude, thanks.

Habundia said...

Part 1

They were all having drinks, they said “oh can we go in the jacuzzi?” so I said yeah I gotta put the lights on cos otherwise you won’t see where you’re going and then I went out there and had a joint and as we walked out I looked down and there’s there’s Stuart err floating in the pool and whether he’s floating when you see that, it’s you know, it’s a very surreal thing to see.

Who is they? They were all having drinks (he does not say they were drinking, they 'all having' drinks.
The jacuzzi became 'a pool' when he saw the victim 'errr floating', it was a jacuzzi when 'they said' (not ask?) 'can we go in?'
'I went out there' ....where is there? He doesn't say he 'put the lights on' (reasoning for why have to put the lights on) possibility of sexual activity? unnecessary information, it's 'in the early hours' of course you need some light to see where you're going especially when water is around)
'I had a joint' wWhat's the need for this info? Does he need an 'alibi' so people would focus on him having a joint instead of what happened at 'the house'? He used drugs he didn't say they used it (they were all having a drink, so why did he had a joint and they all were having a drink?)
'Joint', I've used that term on different occasions while talking with others, different then Dutch. In Dutch this term is often used, I am not sure if this counts for UK too, or could it be his age? Using a 'dated' word, not longer used by younger generations? I seldomly came across English speaking people who called it a 'joint' there are many different words for 'a joint', I forgot most of them names. He called it a joint.
'I looked down'
Would the victim not have been visible when walking to the pool? Looking down means to me you are right next to the pool to look down. You wouldn't be standing from a distance. Why didn't he looked 'in' to 'the pool' (no jacuzzi anymore)
To me there are differences between a jacuzzi and a pool, they are not the same. Jucuzzi's often have benches on which people can sit to relax, swimming wouldn't be really possible (floating would), yet a pool is quite larger and made to swim in, there are no benches in it. So how did this jacuzzi/pool thing looked like? And what was it sold as?

The intro said he and two witnesses said to have found the victim. Yet he tells us 'I went out', and 'we walked out' (can't be both truth)
Why did he "went out" and did "we walked out"? What changed? Who's we? The two witnesses that said they and MB found him floating? (It would be interesting to compare the statements of those two witnesses with this one. What's would be different?
He stutters when saying he sees the victim (it could be caused by shock of finding a 'floating' person in his jaccuzi/pool, it also could be because of anxiety of what to say...? Or other reason. (I assume because don't know the man, that he doesn't stutter by nature, he didn't till now in the statement, when he 'sees Stuart, no last name, floating in 'the pool'

Habundia said...

Part 2

MB: (mumbles) went into a bit of a shock… I just went oh Christ and you know he quite obviously wasn’t moving much. The first thing I did when I seen it was run back into the house and get help from Jonathan who I knew had lifeguard errr experience.

'... (he doesn't use I, or did he but wasnt clear speaking, mubles) went into 'a bit of' a shock. Why only a bit? I would be in shock if I had found one of my guests floating in my jacuzzi, so why was this for him not more then 'a bit of a shock' (instead of in shock?), does he know more?
'Quite obviously'(how would we know? Quite = extra word), 'wasn't moving much' (was he still alive? If not he wasn't moving at all)

'The first thing (what's second?) I did when I seen it." (disrespectful way of referring to the victim, while calling him 'Stuart ' when seeing him floating in the pool. (he sees the victim, he didn't say he found the victim. He does take ownership of what he first did (while he possibly, because of mumbled words, did not when he 'went into a bit of a shock. If a floating body in your pool doesn't shock you, more than a bit what does?

'was run back into the house'
Run back to the house? Are you f'ing (pardon my language) kidding me? Wouldn't be the first thing you getting the victim out of the water immediately? Why not scream, while trying to do that? And those two witnesses where are they at this point, weren'tthey with MB when he sees the victim? Is Johnatan (again no last name) one of those two witnesses? And where's the other? MB doesn't tells us. If Johnatan is one of them, why then would he have to 'run back to the house's, if he already was present. This makes you think Johnatan isn't one of those two witnesses. So then who are they? We don't know.

Cont.

Habundia said...

Part 3

They come out and started resuscitating him. I ran back... now this is something I want to clear up. I did not flee the house. I did not flee and suggest I was running away. I phoned Mike Brown my PA, my personal assistant and I said there’s been a problem at the house told him what had happened, it’s gonna be surrounded by press. Yes I should have stayed. I should’ve said no I I need to be here but we can all do should’ve’s after the event...and yes I should’ve. I didn’t. An I I wan..I I I’d like to I’d like to if you can bear with me, this is a copy of the letter, this letter, do you mind if I read it?

This part has so many red flags to me.
Concern for himself, not the victim to start with.
Did Johnatan duplicate while having a drink? /s
Who's they who resuscitated the victim? Are those the two witnesses? Then they wouldn't have found the victim with MB because if he ran back to the house and they come out they wouldn't have been present when MB sees the victim. If he already had ran back then how did he ran back again, were did he 'ran back to'? Missing information.
How far away is the jacuzzi/pool from the house? Had he walked/ran with them to the victim, what did he say to them the 'come out' (comming out is also a term homosexuals use when they tell others for the first time about their sexuality)
He didn't flee the house (so he didnt ran back to the house? Where did he ran to?
Then it's all about his image, the press will be all over.
He called his pa. who gets a full introduction, first and second name. He tells him what had happened. Does he know? What did he say had happened?
'It's gonna be surrounded by press' (what about EMT? Police? Fire department maybe?)
No press is on his mind, not the victim.

'I should have said no'
A lot of stutter occurs again
To who should he have said no? Where did he go? If he ran back but flee the house? As he tells us 'he had to be here'. But he's excusing himself for not staying (though not fleeing), so where did he go to? He doesn't say.
'If you can bear with me'.....that's not a positive thing I think.
What's this letter about? Wherefore was it written? Which purpose?
We have to wait and see if this letter tells us more, MB doesn't.

Cont.

Habundia said...

Part 4

MB: And this is from the Crown Prosecution Service, I’ve never read this out or brought this out before cos (mumbles) The tenth of September two thousand and seven. There was no evidence upon which to charge any person either for the death of Stuart Lubbock or the injuries he sustained to his rectum. Michael Parker, me, has an alibi from three people in the period immediately prior to the discovery of Stuart in the pool. I therefore conclude that there is insufficient evidence against all three suspects for there to be proceedings concerning the death of Stuart Lubbock or relating to the injury.

We now learn this letter to be from CPS.
'There was no evidence upon which to charge any person either for the death of Stuart Lubbock or the injuries he sustained to his rectum.' , that's not to say his death to be accidental.....there was no evidence upon which to charge.
'Michael Parker, me'.
He shows to add in words which probably not in the letter. I don't think CPS would write 'me' in their letter referring to Michael Parker. Did PM see the letter to read it himself?
Why does the intro say Michael Barrymore yet this letter say Michael Parker? (I don't know this person, never heard of him before, so I am confused about this difference-change in name)

Michael Parker has an alibi from 3 people (3!? Liars number? The intro said two witnesses, and now 3 for alibi.
So who are those? Are they similar or all different people.That the letter doesn't say? What's that alibi? The letter doesn't say.

'I therefore conclude' (CPS wrote it, yet it do in I form, so who 'I'? 'there is insufficient evidence against all 3 suspects (again the number 3)
The only name mentioned in this letter are his and the victims. If they (CPS) did write him about '3 suspects' who the will not proceed to charge, then why aren't their names written in it?
Why would they tell a number if they were not naming people?

The red flags continue.....I still haven't read him saying 'I didnt kill Stuart'

Cont.

Cassie said...

Hey Jude,

They are withholding so much info that if released to the public would be invaluable in helping them catch the killer. I am talking to profilers who are perplexed as to why they are not releasing useful info.

I see the police superintendant’s priority is NOT to catch the killer. Rather, ingratiate himself to Phil’s worldwide audience, convince public that Delphi is “normal” (“anywhere America”), convince public that they can be trusted.
It has shades of DeOrr Kuntz’s fathers ingratiation/praising elements.
Ive told the profilers I think the killer is a cop. And that I believe he also killed Lyric & Elizabeth. He is getting pairs of girls to “obey” him and that tells me he is dressed as an authority figure.
I get huge red flags from the all the police suoerintendant’s speeches and I am surprised you don’t bc SA tells us we should.

Cassie said...

Look at his body language...practically squirming...rocking side to side.

Hey Jude said...

I thought maybe he had a bit of a crush on Dr Phil, and as he couldn’t really say much about the investigation, rambled somewhat, while making his main point, that people should “trust who we are”.

Weren’t you claiming, a few weeks ago, that Andrew Freund’s father was the Delphi killer?

Hey Jude said...

Habundia - yes, “joint” is an expression used by Michael’s generation; to “have” drinks, and “had a joint” are UK expressions, too. The jacuzzi is not the pool - you can take drinks into a jacuzzi - they were having drinks.

MB’s “looked down” makes me wonder if he wasn’t upstairs in his house when he first saw Stuart in the pool. Or, if the jacuzzi was on a deck above ground level, with a balcony over which MB looked? Could he have seen him in the pool before the lights were turned on?

Maybe Stuart went outside after he’d had some drinks and fell into the pool and drowned because the outside lights weren’t on? MB thought his guests should have been able to look after themselves, but maybe not so easy in the dark. Maybe negligence and an accident

How close to the pool was the jacuzzi? Did the guests go into the jacuzzi? Was the pool visible from the jacuzzi? There’s a lot of missing information. MB separates himself from the group while turning on the lights and having a joint? Who discovered Stuart - how long after the lights were turned on before the group went outside? It takes a while to smoke a joint. I don’t understand the timeline.

“Walked out” from where? Body posture, increase in tension. Why an increase in tension, if at that point, he did not know Stuart was in the pool?





Cassie said...

Hey Jude, That is ridiculous about him having a crush on Phil.

I don’t know why you are refusing to use SA & body language analysis.

He went out of his way to NOT say anything that could help catch the killer.

His body language is the same in the press conference video.

I said Freund’s father sounded like the “Down the Hill” voice.

The guys who were on the Green River task force think it is perplexing they are withholding so much info that could actually help find the killer.

Please look at this video, the body language, the cliches, the faux intimidation aimed at the killer, his words....

Cassie said...

First, listen to this garbage coming out of his mouth
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wjmqo2kOqDQ

Cassie said...

Here is the 10 min snippet from press conference. Listen carefully.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WfJQINVMWPE

Something is off.

Cassie said...

Doug’s voice REALLY sounds like the “Down the hill voice”.

Every fiber of my being is telling me a cop did the killings.
The hair on my neck stands up when I watch Doug speaking & use SA to see he is being deceptive & he is covering something up. Watch the videos. You’ll see.

Cassie said...

Oh wow Doug was involved with "solving" Amanda Blackburn case too?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhM5EhLq2HM

Habundia said...

Hey jude thanks for your response.
I do wonder based on what do you conclude 'the pool' and 'the jacuzzi ' to be two different things in this story? I don't say they aren't. I dont seem to find anything that could corroborate this thinking?
But if they are both present (jacuzzi and pool) then it would be interesting to know how far those were apart from each other.
Also how convenient would it be someone having rectum injuries ending up 'accidentally' in a pool, drowned? Drowning doesn't cause rectum injuries.
I dont read anything that would make me think this was an accident. 'There wasn't sufficient evidence to charge', that doesn't say 'accidental', if it was accidental the coroner would have put that in the autopsy report and cops would have called it accidental, not 'insufficient evidence to charge'. If it wasn't mentioned that the victim had rectum injuries I could have believed this to be accidental, but because of his injuries (and the fact he was focused on the headline 'gay orgy') I can't. As the police didn't think either as they would have said that if they thought it to be accidental.
Micheal doesn't call it accidental either, he told his PA what happened.....did he tell him it was accidental?

Hey Jude said...

Cassie, you are trolling...

——
Habundia, a jacuzzi is different to a pool - plus they were having drinks (in the process of) - you can’t take drinks into a pool. He said they asked to go into the jacuzzi, and that he smoked a joint, then “walked out” (away from the jacuzzi? - or maybe out of the house?), looked down and “there there was Stuart err floating in the pool” - the jacuzzi and pool are different things, rather than a change in language. It doesn’t sound as if jacuzzi and pool are in the same place because he “looked down” and there was Stuart. If Stuart was floating, and if the jacuzzi was on the same level as the pool, why would he have needed to look down to see Stuart, rather than just look, or look across? We walked out” - he was walking or standing, when he “looked down”. He wouldn’t need to look down from a standing position if Stuart was floating, he would just need to look. Either Michael was above ground level, or Stuart was beneath the water?

He doesn’t say where the switches were for the pool lights, but maybe they were inside the house. Where was everyone during the time he had a joint? Were they in the jacuzzi, or still in the house? He doesn’t say - he doesn’t say they actually went into the jacuzzi, only that they had asked, and he had said he had to put the lights on so they could see where the were going, not that he did put them on.

It doesn’t make much sense - unless the jacuzzi was in an enclosed area (from which to walk out after he had his joint) above the pool, maybe on a deck above ground level, with balcony (over which to look down into the pool). Otherwise there is a lot of missing time between his saying he had to put the lights on, and his looking down and there was Stuart floating. How could he or anyone else not see Stuart, if he had put on the lights, unless the jacuzzi was away from the pool, or if near the pool, they hadn’t gone out to use it, after all? What were his guests doing after the time he said he had to turn on the lights? He had a joint, which takes time. Did he turn on the lights, and did they go into the jacuzzi? Or did he have a joint while they continued having drinks, and waited for the lights?


Anonymous said...

Habundia and Hey Jude,

If you google "Michael Barrymore house" and click on "images" you'll see aerial photos of the house. The jacuzzi is on one of the corners of the swimming pool. I find the "looked down" part strange as well. The edge of the jacuzzi seems to be somewhat higher than the pool (see close up photo in this article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4537836/Michael-Barrymore-s-guest-raped-murdered.html ). So perhaps if Michael was in the jacuzzi he would have to stand up and look over the edge to see Stuart. However, he implies he was in the house and not in the jacuzzi (he says he ran "back into the house") .

Autumn

Anonymous said...

One of the "two witnesses" mentioned by Michael Barrymore - Simon Shaw - has stated that they discovered Stuart lying at the bottom of the pool. See this article:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/sep/13/broadcasting.uknews1

In that case Stuart was not "floating" and that might explain the "looked down". Shaw says he took Stuart out of the pool and another partygoer tried to resuscitate him. Interestingly, Shaw then says he saw Stuart "appearing to be breathing" and "being sick" which made him believe he would "be all right".

Autumn

Hey Jude said...

Autumn, well, there is no upstairs to that house, so it’s safe to say MB couldn’t have looked down from an upstairs window.

He wasn’t in the jacuzzi If, as he said, he looked down as he walked out - he was walking or standing when he looked down. It’s interesting the jacuzzi is right next to the pool, because if Michael wasn’t looking down from a balcony or an upstairs window, which evidently he was not, he was looking down into the bottom of the pool?

As he said he saw Stuart floating, is it possible he did first see him floating, but for whatever reason, didn’t raise the alarm then, but rather went and smoked a joint, then walked out and looked down and saw that Stuart had sunk to the bottom of the pool?

Alcohol and drugs might have effected all their recall and reactions. It sounds like Stuart had quite a bit to drink, too.

Habundia said...

https://images.app.goo.gl/rZ8HFv1dbZfMEipu5 (picture of the house)

I didn't know there were a pool and jaccuzi, the picture shows
Where did guest stay while drinking? Where in the pool was the victim?
Which route had he taken? And his guest?

Nothing is said about what time Stuart was last seen by all present. Wasn't he excused for some reason? How much time had pass?
He was found in the pool and nobody seems to be speaking about when they last saw him.
Wouldn't you be wondering what happened after you last saw the victim?


Hey Jude said...

Yes, Cassie, I shouldn’t have said that, more something like maybe he was a little starstruck, along with not being able to say much of what the audience and viewers wanted to hear. We are looking at MB, not the Delphi case, but yes, I don’t have the brains to analyse Chief Sup.

Hey Jude said...

- Or to analyse MB. This evening I listened to two Tony Bennet videos on the case on YouTube, so that, with the picture and what the other witness said, is just too much extraneous information, so I have to give up on the interview now. I’m so put off by MB’s attitude and flippancy, as though he’d be happy to use Stuart’s death for a laugh if he could get away with it, it’s quite difficult to like him. I don’t think he killed Stuart, or necessarily that anyone intended his death or killed him - I can’t back that up with analysis. It would be interesting to see their original statements.

Hey Jude said...

It’s not necessary to know the answers to all our questions in order to know what happened - a few of MB’s words might tell it. I’m looking forward to the analysis.

Anonymous said...

For anyone who still wants to analyse this case: below is a link to another interview with Michael Barrymore in which he gives additional information and issues a denial (as from 13:45):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fA1DbGrXoo

The interviewer asks Michael Barrymore if he "did do it". His answer is (at 19:41):

“Well, absolutely not. No way. No way did I do it. And if I did, you know, I would have put my hands up ten years ago … or eleven years, whatever it’s now. I, I, I, I couldn’t, eh ,I mean, you know… I haven’t spoken about this properly like this properly [probably?] really at all to be quite honest. And I, I, I, I, I. I do find it difficult to talk about. Not because I’m guilty… of anything. But because I didn’t do anything. I did a stupid thing. I walked away from the scene. But I’d already gone in and got help to bring him out. Nothing happened to the guy there.”

Hmmm.... trying hard to persuade ("absolutely", "no way", "no way") and allowing for the possibility that he did it ("if I did do it") and maybe even embedded confessions ("did I do it" / "Not because I'm guilty"). In addition, he tries to distance himself from Stuart ("the guy" -> elsewhere he says he didn't even know Stuart’s name). If, as Michael says, nothing happened to Stuart "there" then where exactly did something happen to Stuart? A lot of stutter on "I". He says he hasn’t spoken properly about it “to be quite honest”. Does this mean he isn’t quite honest in previous parts of his denial? Also: what exactly prevents him from speaking properly about "this" (this is pulling it close)? He says it’s because he walked away from the scene. If, as he says, he’s innocent and merely discovered and got help for Stuart, why would the fact that he subsequently walked away traumatize him to the point that he cannot talk about what happened that night? Or is it something more ugly that prevents him from talking "properly"? Also: "or whatever it's now" -> sounds a bit disrespectful i.m.o.

There are several other interesting statements in this interview (e.g. he repeatedly suggests people think he “got away with it”).

Autumn

Pablo said...

I also wonder if his reference to holding his head up high may be some indirect reference to the night itself - did he or someone hold Stuart’s head up high if he had drowned or in an attempt to resuscitate him. It obviously has its literal meaning but given the alleged account this turn of phrase could be significant

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Pablo, interacting observation. Peter

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Autumn, good find!

“Well, absolutely not. No way. No way did I do it. And if I did, you know, I would have put my hands up ten years ago … or eleven years, whatever it’s now. I, I, I, I couldn’t, eh ,I mean, you know… I haven’t spoken about this properly like this properly [probably?] really at all to be quite honest. And I, I, I, I, I. I do find it difficult to talk about. Not because I’m guilty… of anything. But because I didn’t do anything. I did a stupid thing. I walked away from the scene. But I’d already gone in and got help to bring him out. Nothing happened to the guy there.”


I wonder if he raped him in another room.

Peter

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Peter. Yes, I too think the rape happened in a space separate from the other guests. Or at least separate from most of the other guests. According to a police intelligence report Michael paid off two witnesses not to give evidence and there was deep bruising on both Stuart’s shoulders suggesting he was held down (by (an)other person(s)?) while it happened. Maybe Stuart was raped in another room or in the Jacuzzi (Michael brings up the Jacuzzi in the first sentence along with turning on the lights). Maybe the fact that the Jacuzzi is visible from almost every room in the house makes it a less likely crime scene, though? Tests reportedly showed that Stuart died from immersion in the pool. Maybe Michael (or one of the other men?) held Stuart’s head down in the water during the rape. Or maybe Stuart was raped in the house and fell/was thrown in the pool afterwards. In this respect I think the following statement from the Nolan interview is interesting:

(15:30) ”So, I was in the, eh, yeah, I was in the house and the others went out, eh, they said can they go in the pool, can they swim in the pool. I said [yeah,eh] but, I, it’s halfway through being built. Put the, threw the, eh, top back, [[…] switch over there], I threw the top back, the switch is over there on the left and that goes back to show the light up from underneath. Some of them went out to there, the four girls as well, which the press very conveniently leave out…….Ehm, and, I went and had a joint with, ehm…. James and, I can’t remember his name now, it doesn’t matter and then we went back [I] said do you want to go to the Jacuzzi? [They] said yeah, okay. Went out and the other lot had been out earlier. When we went outside, looked down and I didn’t even know Stuart’s name at the time. Just, just, [he was] just another member of the party, right? Looked down and he’s there floatin’ in the pool. Whether he’s down or at the top or whatever.

If I understand correctly, there was a top (cover) over the pool which was removed relatively shortly before Stuart was found. That makes it perhaps less likely that he stumbled into the pool by himself (depending on the sort of cover)? Michael repeatedly says “in the pool” (2x) and “threw (…) back”(2x). Why is it so important to him that he threw “the, eh, top” back? Did he perhaps throw Stuart back in the pool? And/or did he “look(...) down” (2x) while Stuart was floating to the bottom? I think Michael saw Stuart both floating at the top and lying at the bottom (“Whether he’s down or at the top or whatever”). And what does (the repeated reference to) the light switch have to do with it all. Could this – like opening and closing of door - perhaps allude to childhood sexual abuse especially in combination with throw back of top/cover? Michael says Stuart was “just, just, (…) just another member of the party” -> this means he was anything but ("it was a day like any other”-kind of phrase).

Autumn

Mike Dammann said...

Just a couple of things I do not yet see covered by other comments (many good ones here):

"I just went oh Christ and you know he quite obviously wasn’t moving much. "

"much" is out of place indicating experiential memory from before "finding". Was he moving a little bit when found dead? Of course not. HE likely speaks of when death took place and lack of moving indicated death or dying. Cynical tone indicates lack of fear of prosecution. Being "above the law". It must be considered throughout his statements to know angle of approach.

"The first thing I did when I seen it was run back into the house and get help from Jonathan who I knew had lifeguard errr experience. "

"the first thing" is unnecessary showing attempt to cover what action was actually first.

Mike Dammann said...

"and whether he’s floating when you see that, it’s you know, it’s a very surreal thing to see."

experiential memory going in present despite qualifying reality with "whether"

Anonymous said...

"You would assume they was capable of looking after themselves."

It is interesting that he speaks hypothetically here; I would expect "I assumed...". And does "they was" conceal the gender of a single person as someone else has noticed?

While saying it he shakes his head, indicating that he is not in agreement with what he says

Was Barrymore well aware that Stuart was incapable of looking after himself?

Nadine Lumley said...

....found in bed with three small boys frankly

-->> .... with three small boy's FRANKS...

...aka penises.

😨

Nadine Lumley said...

A coomon phrase is that animal parents sometimes eat their young, out of cruelty or hunger or the children are just weak.

I'm hearing a lot of floating and round and round. Was body swirling around in the jacuzzi like a toilet flush?

.

Nadine Lumley said...

I just went oh Christ and you know he quite obviously wasn’t moving much.

The above sounds like victim blaming. Like OH CHRIST the kids knocked a lamp over, ffs!

Lifeguard err experience?
Sounds like someone homo gay screwed a lifeguard, no?

.

Nadine Lumley said...

it’s gonna be surrounded by press?
Body alive and or dead was surrounded by pressing flesh? Or surrounded by flesh pressing?


Bear with me?
Bear is a gay term for older hairy fat gay man. Was there a fat older hairy gay man around?

Or bear is bear naked flesh.

.

Nadine Lumley said...

Just, just, [he was] just another member?

Member is another word for penis that I feel is common in the gay world.

.