Tuesday, July 30, 2019

Michael Barrymore: What Happened?


UK Celebrity Michael Barrymore was investigated in the death of a guest found floating in his pool. The guest, Stuart Lubbock, was found dead, with drugs in his system and anal injuries.  

Analysis of "what happened" based upon his interview with Piers Morgan t


Content Analysis seeks to go beyond deception detection to learn what took place and some psychological insight into the subject. This is the first steps of psycho-linguistic profiling which is used in identifying anonymous authors.  


I. The Interview Transcript 
II. Notes from the Analysts
III. Analysis Conclusion 

I. The Interview Transcript

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.



II. Notes from the Analysts 


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

PM not known for skillful interviews, introduces "drinking" and "drugs" rather than asking him, "what happened?" or "tell me what happened."

This is a mistake common in televised interviews where the Interviewer seeks his or her own attention, rather than the obtainment of information. 

Expected: the subject (Barrymore) can respond with "drinking and drugs" with reduced stress due to parroting.  

He immediately separates himself from the others. This is very important: 

Michael BarrymoreThey 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. 

Parroting was edited---. Where are the “drugs”? Removing words from parroting takes extra effort, making the information sensitive. 

Note:  there is no need to quote, yet he quotes “they”, of whom he had removed himself. 

They were all having drinks, they said

He removed himself from the others, and emphasized unnecessarily, their plurality with "all"-- yet when he went to communicative language, he assigns this to what "they" said; no one in particular.

He then moves into what police call "story telling" language-- or Narrative:

The first word he quotes "they" with is a pause: “oh” slows down the pace. 

What happened that night?

'A guest, Stuart, drowned' would be a direct answer. 

Instead, "what happened" begins after the parroting ("drinking") and tells us, in a subtle way, how the victim's body was found. We are able to gain insight into the subject's priority.  

The word 'oh' sounds like he said, "you know the jacuzzi is available" as if said by the subject, himself, by way of suggesting to his guests. "Oh" indicates an afterthought, similar to "by the way..."

The subject's priority is to set the stage, as if by chance (happenstance) indicative of  pre-planning. 

Question: This may indicate that our subject was, himself, in the jacuzzi earlier that night. 

At this point, he is in "narrative form"-- that is, he is telling a story which could be truthful or deceptive. This form may indicate that the subject is reliving the events of the night. 

This is the most significant portion of his statement.  


so I said yeah I gotta put the lights on 


He has now shown us that he has a need to explain why he answered them. 

Who is responsible for finding the body?  It must be "they" who were all drinking and who all said, "oh..." 

Lights in Statement Analysis 

Lights found in statement analysis often indicate sexual activity. An exception is if one asked, "did you turn on the lights?" or other contextual issues.

Here, it is not necessary for him to include it in his description yet he goes much further:

a. he slows down the pace
b. he sets a stage where one cannot see
c. he has a need to explain why lights were needed
d. he shows faux (needless) concern for his guests' wellbeing; they won't be able to see where they are going unless he turns the lights on.

Why is "lights" indicative of sexual activity?

It may be due to the psychological grasp of "energy" (lights, sun, electricity) and it is found in statements where sexual activity took place, which includes assaults, rapes, intimacy, etc.  In some cases, "I turned off the lights" indicating failed sexual activity. 

It is flagged for analysis when it is unnecessary to state.  This elevates its importance.  

"I opened the door, turned on the lights, and there she was" John Ramsey.  

There are a number of examples of this on the blog (also see youtube) where it is used unnecessarily and was part of the content analysis.  

"doors" are often linguistic signals of "hormonal consequence"--that is, memory from child hood that caused trauma, such as sexual abuse. It makes sense that the adult feels a need to add in the opening (or closing) of a door, yet perhaps not know why.  Sexual abuse of children can even predate their ability to speak; the body knows the trauma, yet the victim lacks the ability to articulate it. 

In Ramsey's case, analysis showed that he was a likely victim of childhood sexual abuse, and he had sexually abused his daughter. 



cos otherwise you won’t see where you’re going 

He possesses the need to 

1. Add that which needs no inclusion
2.  Explain why he referenced that which needs no inclusion 
3. Portray himself as helpful or, "the good guy", which reveals to the contrary.  

This is done while he slows down the pace of the statement, building a narrative of "surprise" for the people in the statement that he separated himself from.  

This is a very unusually sensitive point for him. 

We then add in the element of sex (sexual homicide) due to the inclusion  above, to the overall narrative he lets unfold in "story" form. 

The "story" should suggest to the reader what analysts recognize immediately --- the need to portray something should cause us to consider the opposite. 

After all these years, he needs to portray the finding of the victim as a surprise, accidental finding, unknown entity, etc, tells us to the contrary.  

Even school children recognize "once upon a time, on a day that was just like every other..." something unusual is about to happen, 



and then I went out there 

a. "and then" skips over time 
b.  since they need lights, this is unnecessary 
c.  "I went out there" is reliable 




and  had a joint 

He was asked about drinking and drugs; he voided "drugs" and now offers the lesser, "joint"-- with "a" (single). 

This does not mean that he had only one, or that he did not drink nor use other drugs.  It means, simply, at this time, he had a "joint"...

In anything he could tell the interviewer, as he slows down the pace (avoiding the stressful finding of the victim) he allows for some form of chemical assistance to handle that which was about to unfold. 


and as we walked out 

He, himself went out, but now it is "we"--- he is joined to the others so that whatever next takes place, he is not alone, but unified in however "they" respond. Pronouns are the bedrock of lie detection. 



I looked down 

often a signal of shame/guilt
unnecessary language 

He could have said they walked out and saw Stuart in the pool.  Instead, he, himself, "looked down."  The language is unnecessary---that is, it is only unnecessary for us, but not for him.  

"I saw Stuart"
or 

"we saw Stuart"

Now go back to John Ramsey's statement. 

"I opened the door, turned on the light..." with "door" and "lights" consistent with sexual abuse, yet, notice how he finished his statement in passivity:


"I opened the door, turned on the light, and there she was.

He used the passive voice --this is a psychological term to describe an "entrance" of thought where one seeks to distance self from an event. 

and there’s there’s Stuart 


He halts on the passivity of "there's" with repetition 

and, a single traumatic event, well processed and linguistically familiar after all these years, not only halts on "there's", but causes him to have a need to pause to get more time to carefully choose his words. 

"there's there's Stuart, err, floating..."

Having replayed this scene in his memory for many years, the contextualization is a slowed down pace, in narrative or story telling form.  

It is requiring greater effort than needed for processing language. 



err floating in the pool and whether he’s floating when you see that, it’s you know,


pause sensitivity – “there’s there’s” (passive, similar to John Ramsey) and “err” (pause) – tension regarding “floating”

*blames victim for “floating” explored 

Linguistic Disposition:

This is a tool of statement analysis that will allow the subject to tell us his perspective on the victim.  There is an expectation of the Linguistic Disposition towards a victim by a de facto innocent subject who will view the victim with pity.  This is always context dependent. 

In the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, for example, the Linguistic Disposition's expectation from actual innocent parents is:

1. The victim's current status (jeopardy)
2. The victim is the priority 

3. The victim's current needs (food, medicine, favorite toy, etc) that are supplied by parents is suddenly taken from them, leaving them frustrated, pleading, perseverating, etc, upon what Madeleine would be in need of. This can include well known hugs, embraces, teddy bears, and other unique parental affections.  

This is a "positive linguistic disposition" and it is expected.  

In the language of the McCanns, it was a "neutral linguistic disposition" which did not address Madeleine's needs (parental impotency = frustration) and the priority was upon their own survival.  As "neutral", it was "extremely negative" due to the context of claiming she was "taken."  


As an innocent victim of drowning, we expect the subject to be not only positive, but with the passage of years, to use 'angelic-like' language---where the deceased's faults do not enter the language, but how wonderful the person was. This includes 'waxing nostalgic' about someone hardly known, or even unmet. 

We also expect that the subject (Barrymore) will have long considered the suffering of the victim's family and be cognizant of the public interview. 

Content: 

The subject appears to be describing two times he saw Stuart. Another time (“whether”) Stewart wasn’t floating. 


 it’s a very surreal thing to see. 

The subject deliberately set up the "discovery" of the body. 

The subject is promoting the scene (staging) to appear happenstance before the others. He is “setting the stage” (consistent with narrative or “story telling” language above, “oh…?” 

Verb tense suggests the continued ‘rehearsal’ being very sensitive, as if reliving what happened…

Is our subject “floating” a story to see if it will be believed? (“you know” and “surreal”) 
Is “floating” a reference to being intoxicated? Beyond consent? 


Surreal” --- Is the staging though maybe something that he just does because he is used to doing so with this job?


and whether he’s floating”---the subject likely saw Stuart in a different body posture prior to what “you’ would “see”--- this is why he goes between two (or more?) positions allowed with "whether."

Consider this in context with the need for happenstance and the "lights" he had to not only turn on, but explain why he had to turn them on.  



PM: And what went through your mind? 

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

a.    Depersonalizing the victim again.  Expected is positive LD with “angelic” like features. Instead, he is negative, shifting blame, distancing self 
b.    “he…wasn’t moving much” --- was this from the drugs, or didn’t put up “much”
 resistance or fight?  This may be him reliving what happened. Consider "lights" with possible rape of the victim. *see notes
c.    Does the subject wish us to interpret that Stuart was alive, “moving” but the subject left him to get a lifeguard? We do not interpret his words. With "lights", we believe he turned them on (non interpretive)---we question why such is in the language: why the subject needed to include. 
d.    He is slowing down the pace before he gets help.
e.    He needs to explain why (unnecessary) he chose “Jonathan” to help?
f.     Where were the others? Who was with him? Why separation? 
g.    No attempt to save “it” by the subject. This is to depersonalize the victim. Whether spoken immediately or years later, this is an extreme negative linguistic disposition that comes from guilt/contempt---that is, blaming the victim for the subject's own predicament, 
h.   Priority:  The subject is the most important person here.  
i.     The first thing I did…” is also unnecessary.  We would not think he stopped to do unrelated things.  We do not know why he did not jump in immediately. The need to persuade is that he is (again) the “good guy” and he is most helpful. This follows after what “you” would see, and the use of “it” rather than Stuart. 

With "the first thing I did", we know the subject is likely thinking of the "second" or "third" thing he did. We get the answer shortly.

j.     The language may suggest some disagreement regarding sexuality, further bearing weight of rape?  (discussion of advanced analysis) 

k.    a bit” should be taken in context of “shock”, “surreal” and the distancing language of universal experience (“you”)== incongruence noted.  This, if true, is consistent with careful staging of the crime scene and a portrayal of “happenstance” with others present. 

l.     The need to explain “why” he got Jonathan is very sensitive to him. Is this his reason why he did not pull Stuart (“it”) out?

m.  The depersonalization of the victim indicates that the subject had already processed Stuart’s death.  There is no “shock, denial…” at Stuart floating.  The passivity used there also suggests a handling of the body prior to showing everyone.  
n.    The priority continues to be Michael Barrymore, himself. See the above red coloring of “I just”, “I seen it” (we believe him) and “I knew”—
o.    He did not say “I called Jonathan” but “I knew”—this is an acute need to be seen as the “good guy”—something that those with guilt indicate. 
p.    There is yet to be any concern for the victim.  
q.    Deity noted 
r. His need to tell us why he did not jump in and save the "moving" Stuart is "err" (pause) "lifeguard experience"-- 



They come out and started resuscitating him.

a.    Present tense
b.    Issues or dialog on homosexuality among them? 
c.    Could “come out” be part of “surreal” and be part of a “stage or movie production”? 


The linguistic disposition towards the victim continues as  negative.
The LD towards self is positive: 


 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

“there’s been a problem at the house” is consistent with turning Stuart into “it” as well as the deceptive use of passivity. 

He didn't flee from the "house"
He didn't feel and "suggest"

"there's been a problem at the house" is to give insight into Michael Barrymore's soul--- after all the years, it was not a poor man who drowned in his pool, but Stuart was a "problem"--- this is a level of contempt for the victim that mirrors sociopathic like absence of human empathy.  It gets worse when we consider the context of this interview. 

This is calloused indifference towards the victim, yet concern for self and the inconvenience of what took place at “the house.” 

Celebrity likely looking to others to “clean up” his mess or take care of his "problem"? 

We should believe that he did not flee “the house”, but consider he fled “it”, (Stuart is an "it" in his verbalized perception of reality and is consistent with the extreme neg. LD) and/or he fled “the problem at the house.” 

Consider embedded admission “I was running away” --- consistent with wanting Jonathan (delay) to tend to the victim, as well as calling his personal assistant. 


___ told him what had happened,

The dropped pronoun removes himself, psychologically, from this sentence. It breaks an instinctive strong pronoun pattern of  use prior to it. 

Note with this missing pronoun of “…told him what had happened”—at this point, how does he know what happened? Is not Jonathan “starting” to resuscitate the victim? He know “what happened” but could not put himself in this sentence.  



 it’s gonna be surrounded by press.

“surrounded” –the subject, at the time of Stuart’s death, is concerned with himself and his career; not about Stuart. 

 Yes I should have stayed. I should’ve said no I I need to be here but

Personality --- the subject continues to blame others---here, the personal assistant on the phone. He should have told him “no”—personality trait; not a panic (timing of interview) 

  We saw this earlier in his shifting of responsibility to the victim who was floating in his pool, causing a problem in the house. 

Stuttering on pronoun “I” with acute increase in anxiety. 

Consider also, on a deeper psychological level, if he had debated within himself about what he did to the guest in his home---should he have listened to "no" earlier that night?

Next, he will not, psychologically, be alone with this: 


 we can all do should’ve’s after the event...


yet faced with being alone, he self censors: 


and yes should’ve. I didn’t. 

He stops his sentences that begin with the pronoun "I" and moves into anxiety: 

And 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?

We use the pronoun "I" millions of times. When a non stutter begins to stutter on the pronoun "I", it is stress moving to anxiety and can reach a point of utter breakdown., 


Personal Responsibility insight: 

Note: his Personal Assistant “asked” him to leave the house?

The guests “asked” him to use the jacuzzi?

Does the subject reveal that others need to ask him permission for things? This is most unlike privilege. Celebrities are used to people doing exactly what they tell them to do.  

Psychological underpinning: 

    Did Stuart deny him? Did Stuart say "no, I am not gay"? 

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 priorto 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.

Why would an interview assert this? 


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.

 He is asked to take responsibility which he begins only about the invitation, but immediately blames the others. 


This is depraved indifference, contempt for, and blaming of the victim. 

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.

Note:  Stuart is dead. His kids do not have a father but the subject is worried about what “people” are going to say…Stuart's family, friends and loved ones may be watching this interview. 

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 andI am entitledto walk around with my head held high...for the rest of my life. 


“I am entitled” is his personality; even when faced with the consequences for the victim’s family.  

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? 

Here we expect a reliable denial.  "I didn't kill Stuart. I am sorry for your loss..." 

He is incapable of offering solace (+LD) towards anyone but himself. 

MB: 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? 

Note the rhetorical question within the answer is a form of deceptive avoidance. It is revelatory in analysis, beyond the scope of a blog entry; suffice for now; he is likely thinking of the victim, who is the reason for this interview.  It is likely that Stuart was not homosexual and likely he articulated this to Michael Barrymore. 



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? 


"I didn't give Stuart drugs" would be a strong denial. Note Morgan uses Stuart's name. 

Here is the deceptive answer: 

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. 

It is not Barrymore's moral failure for lying; the lawyers advised him to say he didn't know. This is personalty driven. 


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.

Self censoring is necessary by him.
PM: No no but I’m saying the reason…

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

he moves to profanity in the use of sexual language.  I believe him. the analysts believed him. Consider this in context of deception and sexual activity in discussion about a death.  


PM: I get it 
MB: I’m sorry.

For what?  For inviting people to his home? 

The subject shows no human empathy for the victim or anyone other than himself. 



PM: Yeah 
MB: I couldn’t be more sorry 

Does he not possess the ability? 

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..

Morgan is concurred about the victim. It is likely Morgan recognized, even at a rudimentary level, the deception.  Barrymore cares not that Stuart lost his life, this is about him: 

MB: AndIhave 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.

“there will be an answer” removes all humans from bringing an answer. 

Note the self focus and self pity: “in whatever’s left of my life”

The “answer” is limited to the subject’s lifetime. 


Analysis Conclusion

The subject has guilty knowledge of the death of Stuart. This is readily discerned in the deception. 

What happened that night? 


The subject is narcissistic, high minded; no remorse and lacks basic human empathy.

Specific Questions regarding "guilty knowledge" posed to the analysts.  All answers were unanimous. 


Question: Did the subject rape the victim?

Analysts:  yes

Question: Did the victim drown by accident OR did the subject cause the death?

Analysts: The subject caused his death --- the level of intensity of depersonalization suggests an "unclose" and "rage" (likely at rejection) from a narcissist who, even after years, cannot even mimic the language of human empathy. The lack self awareness is acute. 

Question: Did the subject likely use drugs to overcome/chemically restrain the victim?

Answer:  Yes 


The subject continues, years later, to show contempt for his victim. This is a form of linguistic justification.  

In Barrymore's perception of reality, Stuart is to blame. The tension within the language, taken in context of the entire analysis, leads to a sexual homicide likely fueled by the number one trigger:

humiliation. 



The “good guy” is before us, while the “bad guy” gets no pity from the subject. The subject’s image takes priority over what new pain he would inflict upon the victim’s family.

Stuart, robbed of his voice by Barrymore, and without justice for his family, may still speak to us, even through the deception of Michael Barrymore. 

*************************************************


  If you wish to study deception detection, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services

Please peruse the blog as well as youtube for examples and further detail on the "Complete Statement Analysis Course.

We offer at training in your home, at your own pace, as well as seminars for law enforcement, business, private sector and others seeking to learn to discern between truth and falsehood. 

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Look at Michael Barrymore's gestures (body language) when he talks about discovering Stuart floating in the pool. See here (at 5:05): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lxiJ3q-hYQ. It is as if he is holding Stuart between his hands and looking down on him while he says:
”(…) went into a bit of a shock… I just went oh Christ and you know he quite obviously wasn’t moving much.”

Did Stuart lose consciousness (e.g. because of drugs and/or drowning and/or injuries) while Michael raped him in the Jacuzzi and did Michael literally see Stuart floating between his hands? I say Jacuzzi and not pool because Michael claims he cannot swim (something his ex-wife disputed). He says he then ran back into the house and got help from Jonathan. Jonathan Kenney was Michael’s boyfriend at the time and reportedly the only other gay man at the party. What kind of “help” did Jonathan – who had “lifeguard errr experience” – provide?

Witnesses saw Michael rummaging through drawers and carrying something under his arm while leaving the house before the police arrived. One of the pieces of evidence that went missing after Stuart’s death was a pool thermometer. There’s a photograph of it lying on the edge of the Jacuzzi in this article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4541832/Michael-Barrymore-paid-witnesses-not-evidence.html . It has been speculated (by police law barrister John Beggs) that it was used to rape Stuart.

Autumn

Jen said...

Brilliant work. I need to keep moving forward!

Anonymous said...

Stuart was alledgedly found with not only injuries but with severe, internal injuries. This suggests not only rape but rape with "something", maybe even leading to shock.

Autumn said...

Anonymous, yes, that was also what was suggested by a pathologist (Jack Crane) during an inquest. Indeed that may be why MB says "went into a bit of a shock". Another pathologist, Michael Heath, said that Stuart had suffered the injuries shortly before he died and that getting around would have been excruciatingly painful. So Stuart would have had trouble walking. In that case, it seems unlikely that he got in the pool by himself (if he wasn't already in there when the injuries were inflicted). Both pathologists thought the injuries were indicative of a serious sexual assault. Also: Stuart was found with his underwear on and the pathologists agreed that it’s highly unlikely he had been able to put on his own underwear after the sexual assault.

MB, on the other hand, asserts that the injuries occurred after Stuart left his home. A duty nurse performed 14 rectal thermometer insertions on Stuart and has told MB’s lawyers he saw no evidence of any anal injuries (strange how "thermometer" pops up again in this case -> also: I doubt the nurse checked for internal injuries (?)). MB also says that one of the police officers said that he, when he was younger, jumped into a pool and had sustained exactly the same injuries. To me these explanations seem pretty desperate. MB seems to throw everything at the wall to see if it sticks.

Lars Bak said...

Thank you for the update, Autumn. This did puzzle me a bit:

" 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."

Somebody "went into a bit of a shock…" was the first that went through his mind. But someone being shocked doesn't think "I'm being shocked right now", do they? I think he may be talking about Stuart. And it is immediatly followed by how he himself went, almost in contrast, starting with "I": "I just went..."

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the update, Autumn. This did puzzle me a bit:

" 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."

Somebody "went into a bit of a shock…" was the first that went through his mind. But someone being shocked doesn't think "I'm being shocked right now", do they? I think he may be talking about Stuart. And it is immediatly followed by how he himself went, almost in contrast, starting with "I": "I just went..."

Willow said...

OT. AI has been used in writing and media for tens of years.
Today AI-created computer programs comments dupe real people to engage in discussions with AI n Youtube and on blogs.
Is it possible to develop SA to detect deception of AI posing as a person, a commenter?
Twenty years ago there was a pilot study where sports journalists were replaced by Ai-written reports of actual games. The readers didn't notice the difference.
Without knowing we are communicating online with Ai-created algorithms appearing as commenters.
A normal human gets quickly bored with Ai's style and retreats from the interaction.
The programmed AI-entities don't get bored, they continue communicating with each other, quoting themself and flooding the available spaces.

Autumn said...

Lars, I agree and it's emphasized by the word "just": MB didn't "go into shock" he "just" (as in: merely) went oh Christ. And i.m.o. the words "oh Christ" seem more like an expression of annoyance than of real shock and horror over Stuart's state.

Lars Bak said...

Exactly, Autum. And furthermore "going into shock" is a process, normally used to describe shocks for physiological reasons, whereas the "popular sense" of being shocked is sudden: "I was shocked".

M said...

Quoting what

Willow said...

OT. AI has been used in writing and media for tens of years.
Today AI-created computer programs comments dupe real people to engage in discussions with AI n Youtube and on blogs.
Is it possible to develop SA to detect deception of AI posing as a person, a commenter?
Twenty years ago there was a pilot study where sports journalists were replaced by Ai-written reports of actual games. The readers didn't notice the difference.
Without knowing we are communicating online with Ai-created algorithms appearing as commenters.
A normal human gets quickly bored with Ai's style and retreats from the interaction.
The programmed AI-entities don't get bored, they continue communicating with each other, quoting themself and flooding the available spaces.



Thanks for your comment.

This is very interesting about the use of AI, though it has been used for decades as you say, it is not discussed much and I had not given it much thought.

I did see a video just recently of how an AI-created "customer" was able to dupe a (in this case unscrupulous)human telemarketer for a long time, leading him to spend useless time on the line with a machine and getting a sort of revenge on telemarketers. So it was a tables-turned case.

But the fact that comments can be generated automatically, that could be applied to many cases, like PR manipulation for example, for political or other motives. A good thing to keep in mind.

It would be interesting if SA could help detect.

John Mc Gowan said...

OT:

Hate Hoax

No transcript. Contains two clips of her alleging a racist verbal attack.

Snipped:

Georgia State Rep. and Minority Leader Erica Thomas (D) took to Twitter on Saturday, saying a white man called her “a lazy SOB” and that she needed to go back to where she came from because she had too many items in the express lane at the local Publix.

Unsurprisingly, it appears her nauseating performance was a lie.

There really was an argument over Thomas’s inappropriate use of an express lane, but from there her story is evidently fiction.

Thomas confirmed that she is not to be believed by changing her story, making the allegations vaguer. But like Jussie Smollett, she doggedly continues to insist that she was oppressed by racism.

Oh shocking. He didn’t tell her to go back to where she came from. The truth is finally emerging.

https://moonbattery.com/erica-thomas-joins-hate-hoax-list/

Autumn said...

One of the pathologists said Stuart’s severe internal injuries were caused by a hard, “fist-sized” object being forced into him. Does MB unwittingly confirm this in the following sentence (from his denial, see previous blog post)?

And if I did, you know, I would have put my hands up ten years ago … or eleven years, whatever it’s now.”

Lars Bak said...

Interesting. That suggests that Barrymore is the actual perpetrator although the police couldn't prove it; but in Barrymore's letter they only deal with "the period immediately prior to the discovery of Stuart" where Barrymore put lights on and had a joint. This raises the question "What happened in the dark?" Why was the light off in the first place - apparently it was so dark that it was not possible to safely walk to the jacuzzi (from where?).

sonjay said...

I was struck by how vague and seemingingly contradictory Barrymore was in his description of what happened. His narrative didn't flow. The listener or reader can't get a clear picture of what happened because he's so unclear.

Just this one sentence alone: "I went out there and had a joint and as we walked out I looked down" is a problem. He went out there -- so, he's out there now. But he didn't see Lubbock when he went out there. Instead, he had a joint. That's followed by "as we walked out" -- but he can't walk out because he's already out there. Also, in that one single sentence he changed from the singular "I" went out there to the plural "we" walked out. One might almost think he went out there by himself, had a joint, then went back into the house and walked out again in the company of other people.

Then, he says "I looked down." If "we" walked out there, didn't "we" look down? Apparently, even though "we" walked out there, Barrymore was the only person who looked down & saw Lubbock.

Of course, the people who may or may not have walked out there with him are not identified, making it impossible to discern if he really means to say that he walked out there alone or in the company of others.

Then, after seeing Lubbock in either the pool or the jacuzzi (it's not clear which he's referring to), he ran back into the house to get Jonathon, and some mysterious unnamed "they" (presumably including Jonathon) went out to help Lubbock.

I'm not sure if he ever did turn on the lights out there.

Meanwhile, Barrymore said, "This is something I want to clear up. I did not flee the house." When I first read this, I thought he meant that, contrary to popular belief, he didn't leave the house, that he stayed at the house and called his assistant from there. But a couple of sentences later, it seems that he did indeed leave the house, when he says "I should have stayed." So, he did in fact flee the house. I think he means to take issue with the interpretation of his actions as "fleeing" -- but he doesn't say that, so I can't say it for him. What he actually says is "I didn't flee the house" and "I should have stayed."

And he was just being deliberately obtuse here:
PM: How do you think Stuart died?
MB: I think he drowned.

The cause of death was found to be drowning. Yes, Lubbock drowned. But that wasn't what PM was asking. Barrymore's glib answer "he drowned" doesn't address the anal injuries nor how he happened to drown in Barrymore's jacuzzi or pool.

It seems to me that his description of what happened that night is so convoluted and out of order and self-contradictory, that Barrymore is not speaking from experiential memory. Even after all this time, he's making up a narrative to paint himself as innocent, but he just can't get the details in the right order.

Hey Jude said...

I understood that Barrymore’s negative LD towards Stuart was because he is self-pitying, and so he blames Stuart, and his death, for ruining his career, but I didn’t see it was also more than that, and that he had raped Stuart. I was tending more towards MB attempting to cover up that Stuart had been assaulted, possibly by Jonathan, and put into the pool, in the hope it would be considered an accidental drowning. MB had his career and lifestyle to lose, so logically, it would seem more likely that others, not having those cares, did it, and he and they staged a cover up, and that Stuart’s death, the circumstances, and the consequences, makes MB enduringly angry and self-pitying. Those were thoughts rather than analysis.

The analysis has helped me better understand why MB speaks in such negative terms of Stuart, seemingly without any awareness, or consideration of Stuart’s family - it sounds as if he hates him, though almost a stranger to him. Overall, the analysis has surprised me, which probably goes with not giving due attention to the lights - they were so early on, too.

Nadine Lumley said...

This was an amazing blog post. ... thank you so much for sharing. One of the top ten on yr entire blog archieve here. It's chilling. Scary imho.

This uggggg spooky.....

The “answer” is limited to the subject’s lifetime. 

.

Anonymous said...

He also unwittingly makes it clear that it was not a gay orgy because there were only 2 gay people there. This narrows down any homosexual assault to just 2 people. If the other person was Jonathon then the question can be reduced to whether Jonathon was in the house for the duration? If so then only one person is left. Is the "we" in his statement Stuart? Did MB go out to the jacuzzi with SL on some pretence but with the intention of engaging in sexual activity?