Michael Barrymore - death in the pool

1
The whole thing makes me so upset and angry- not only at Barrymore/ the rapist(s) but also the police for their duck ups.

I have to be honest- the fact that Barrymore fled, acted odd and tried to deflect blame for Stuart’s injuries onto other ridiculous things like the hospital he was taken to, makes me think he was probably involved in the rape.

because let’s face it- if that happened in your house and a guy ended up dead, if you were innocent you would be outraged, and be doing everything you could to aid justice. He has done everything but.
 
Silverback said:
The whole thing makes me so upset and angry- not only at Barrymore/ the rapist(s) but also the police for their duck ups.

I have to be honest- the fact that Barrymore fled, acted odd and tried to deflect blame for Stuart’s injuries onto other ridiculous things like the hospital he was taken to, makes me think he was probably involved in the rape.

because let’s face it- if that happened in your house and a guy ended up dead, if you were innocent you would be outraged, and be doing everything you could to aid justice. He has done everything but.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. He had no loyalty to the other people present, he didn't know them so why wouldn't he want to move heaven and earth to reveal the truth, unless, of course, the truth is that he was involved?

I really think the police didn't care initially, I think they just assumed Stuart was gay and involved in some sordid, drug-fuelled orgy so he was "asking for it". I think it was only when they realised the extent of the injuries and that Stuart was a straight, father-of-two, that they started to take it seriously at all. And by then it was too late for the forensic evidence.

It's always angered me that more was made of Stuart's perceived sexuality than of the fact he was brutally raped and murdered. I saw some radio host saying that he believes the root of the problem is that Terry Lubbock can't accept his son was gay and this is why he won't let it go-no, his issue is that his son was brutalised and murdered and no-one has been held responsible for this evil act!
 
Catsontoast said:
Absolutely. He had no loyalty to the other people present, he didn't know them so why wouldn't he want to move heaven and earth to reveal the truth, unless, of course, the truth is that he was involved?

I really think the police didn't care initially, I think they just assumed Stuart was gay and involved in some sordid, drug-fuelled orgy so he was "asking for it". I think it was only when they realised the extent of the injuries and that Stuart was a straight, father-of-two, that they started to take it seriously at all. And by then it was too late for the forensic evidence.

It's always angered me that more was made of Stuart's perceived sexuality than of the fact he was brutally raped and murdered. I saw some radio host saying that he believes the root of the problem is that Terry Lubbock can't accept his son was gay and this is why he won't let it go-no, his issue is that his son was brutalised and murdered and no-one has been held responsible for this evil act!
Click to expand...
Yes I think this is exactly it. It was a bit' Well, if you will go to a gay orgy with celebs, what do you expect?' attitude from the police and the media. They let people wander around the crime scene taking evidence away. So what if he was gay and closeted? Its like saying straight women should accept being raped because they would have sex with a man anyway. ( which is basically what the authorities and the media do say, but that's another story)
 
Vanillaco said:
Yes I think this is exactly it. It was a bit' Well, if you will go to a gay orgy with celebs, what do you expect?' attitude from the police and the media. They let people wander around the crime scene taking evidence away. So what if he was gay and closeted? Its like saying straight women should accept being raped because they would have sex with a man anyway. ( which is basically what the authorities and the media do say, but that's another story)
Click to expand...

You've hit the nail on the head - it always comes back to prejudice and victim blaming.

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen people questioning why, if Stuart really was straight, would he go to a party at a gay man's house and it riles me up every time!

I honestly believe he was starstruck and, I think he, in common with two of the young women who were also there that night, by their own admission, wanted to see Barrymore's house to "see how the other half live". Barrymore was rich and famous, he lived in a large, gated property with a swimming pool while Stuart Lubbock was a factory worker from a council estate. It would have felt like another world to him, not to mention how he could show off about having been there and being on good terms with a such a well-known celebrity.
I also think Stuart was drunk, he had taken Ecstasy, he was having a good time and he was keen for the night out to continue. It was a gathering of six men and three women and, to my knowledge, only two of those men were openly gay and I really don't think the sexual orientation of any of the guests was at the forefront of Stuart's mind when he agreed to join them.

However, even if he had been gay or bisexual or was simply wanting to experiment, that did not mean he in any way deserved his fate like some people seem to suggest.

And equally, just because Barrymore was gay, it didn't mean that any man should have naturally feared him and his lifestyle.

The way this case was initially handled and reported upon was atrocious and personally I don't care if Stuart Lubbock actively went to that house for sex, he did not deserve to be violated and killed and then his death be covered up so that his family still don't have answers 20 years later.
 
If Barrymore does know more than he has 'let on', I honestly don't know how he can even think about his own 'lost' career. Having said that, a narcissist can often create an 'alternative' version of events to fit their world view, so he probably even believes his own version(s?) of what happened, even if it's miles away from the truth. Sorry, I just cannot believe that he has revealed everything he knows about Stuart Lubbock's fate that night. It's also amazing how eight sets of memories, addled by substances as they may have been, 'cannot recall' anything substantial regarding the sequence of events. As for the 'police investigation' of the time, words fail.
 
dorydaryl said:
If Barrymore does know more than he has 'let on', I honestly don't know how he can even think about his own 'lost' career. Having said that, a narcissist can often create an 'alternative' version of events to fit their world view, so he probably even believes his own version(s?) of what happened, even if it's miles away from the truth. Sorry, I just cannot believe that he has revealed everything he knows about Stuart Lubbock's fate that night. It's also amazing how eight sets of memories, addled by substances as they may have been, 'cannot recall' anything substantial regarding the sequence of events. As for the 'police investigation' of the time, words fail.
Click to expand...

By his own admission he knows more than he has let on.

In 2006 he did an interview with Piers Morgan for GQ Magazine and was asked if he knew of anyone who was hiding secrets about Stuart Lubbock's death.

Barrymore replied: "Yes. But I'm not going to say their names. I just hope they are brave enough to come forward one day."

When Essex police took the decision to arrest Barrymore along with two others in 2007 they took a statement from Piers Morgan and
"According to Mr Morgan in his statement dated 5 March 2007, [Michael Barrymore] indicated he believed there were people at large who were hiding information about the case, and that he knew who they were."

Yet since then he has gone on TV again, again with Piers Morgan on Life Stories and on GMTV (with his solicitor at his side) and reverted back to saying there is nothing to tell, that is was an accident, no-one is to blame and nobody is hiding anything.
 
At the time of The Body in The Pool documentary Barrymore posted a video on his Twitter reading a "statement" directing people to the Piers Morgan interview where he claimed no stone was left unturned.

Really didn't sit well with me that Barrymore's defense at the time was sending people to an edited fluff piece which paints him in a good light, despite him stating in said interview that he's willing to sit down and discuss the matter with anyone - appart from at the coroner's court because hindsight blah blah blah.

The man is a walking contradiction.
 
Vulnavia said:
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t...ymore-had-an-emergency-operation-on-his-penis

“Parker”
Click to expand...
I'd look into the background of that Tony Bennett fellow who wrote the post if you haven't already. I know he is citing court documents but he himself is not what I'd call a reliable source.

Catsontoast said:
You've hit the nail on the head - it always comes back to prejudice and victim blaming.

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen people questioning why, if Stuart really was straight, would he go to a party at a gay man's house and it riles me up every time!

I honestly believe he was starstruck and, I think he, in common with two of the young women who were also there that night, by their own admission, wanted to see Barrymore's house to "see how the other half live". Barrymore was rich and famous, he lived in a large, gated property with a swimming pool while Stuart Lubbock was a factory worker from a council estate. It would have felt like another world to him, not to mention how he could show off about having been there and being on good terms with a such a well-known celebrity.
I also think Stuart was drunk, he had taken Ecstasy, he was having a good time and he was keen for the night out to continue. It was a gathering of six men and three women and, to my knowledge, only two of those men were openly gay and I really don't think the sexual orientation of any of the guests was at the forefront of Stuart's mind when he agreed to join them.

However, even if he had been gay or bisexual or was simply wanting to experiment, that did not mean he in any way deserved his fate like some people seem to suggest.

And equally, just because Barrymore was gay, it didn't mean that any man should have naturally feared him and his lifestyle.

The way this case was initially handled and reported upon was atrocious and personally I don't care if Stuart Lubbock actively went to that house for sex, he did not deserve to be violated and killed and then his death be covered up so that his family still don't have answers 20 years later.
Click to expand...

Yes, I find that line of argument baffling. When I was younger and went out drinking and clubbing a lot I had lots of gay friends/gay housemates etc. There were often after parties with a whole mix of people there, gay and straight, both genders, much like this one seems to have been. The idea that you'd only go back to a gay guys house if you were looking for sex is a very odd one to me. And as others have said, how whether or not he was looking for sex is remotely relevant to his rape and murder is beyond me. The press at that time covered the whole thing in a hugely homophobic way, but I find it strange hearing similar sentiments expressed in 2021.
 
Last edited:
It makes me sad too that so much emphasis was placed on Stuart's sexuality which coloured a lot of the press' opinion. I think someone here said before how the whole thing may have gone differently if Stuart had been female (press attitude and general investigation).

It literally doesn't matter whether he was straight, bi or gay. He was raped and killed. I just hope that he was so high he didn't feel it much. :cry:
 
Perpet said:
I'd look into the background of that Tony Bennett fellow who wrote the post if you haven't already. I know he is citing court documents but he himself is not what I'd call a reliable source.
Click to expand...

I think the sad thing is that Terry Lubbock put his name to a book with Tony Bennett and then, upon realising Bennett's reputation, in particular his homophobic stance, thought better of it.

It seems that Terry, a grieving parent desperate to uncover the truth, was initially just glad someone was actually taking him seriously. After his son's memory had been treated with such contempt by the media and the police he, quite understandably, got on board with Tony Bennett but, when homophobic hate complaints were raised against Bennett, Terry disassociated himself with him. Sadly the association potentially coloured people's view and fuelled this "he just can't cope with the idea of his son being gay" rumour.

But, as uncomfortable as Bennett's apparent anti-Barrymore, anti-gay rhetoric is to stomach, some of his findings do hold water, particularly where he directly quotes witness statements and court documents and it is entirely correct that it was part of Essex police's case for arresting Barrymore in 2007, that they had a witness - a nurse - who claimed MB had visited a clinic the day after Stuart's murder to receive treatment for an injury to his penis.

The barrister on behalf of Essex police did also state that they had intelligence to suggest that Barrymore had paid off two witnesses.

It is interesting that so much came out as a result of Barrymore suing the police for wrongful arrest (he won but only on the technicality of the rank of the arresting officer). I do wonder what other details would emerge were this to finally go to a full, criminal trial.
 
Mustard said:
I never heard of the Tony Bennett connection. What was the book about?
Click to expand...

It was called It's Not Awright (I think) and was credited to Tony Bennett and Terry Lubbock but it was pretty much Bennett's own work outlining his theories of what happened the night Stuart Lubbock was killed at Michael Barrymore's house.
 
Catsontoast said:
But, as uncomfortable as Bennett's apparent anti-Barrymore, anti-gay rhetoric is to stomach, some of his findings do hold water, particularly where he directly quotes witness statements and court documents and it is entirely correct that it was part of Essex police's case for arresting Barrymore in 2007, that they had a witness - a nurse - who claimed MB had visited a clinic the day after Stuart's murder to receive treatment for an injury to his penis.
Click to expand...

I hadn't heard this detail until now and it's astonishing this isn't better known. He went to the bloody Priory and had a wound on his dick that required treatment and an operation? Suggests to me he might have been attempting to stick it into someone who didn't want it stuck in them, and fought back. Maybe it got bent back and 'snapped' in the process .. of a rape? Maybe he tried to stick it in the mouth of someone who didn't want it there and it got bitten. Hard. I mean, most men are pretty protective of their dicks and not inclined to do stuff to damage them. A big drugged up fight with the aim of rape though? Could easily happen. Especially when the victim was another man able to better inflict injury than the average woman. It's fairly uncommon to sustain injuries in the course of an average night or normal consensual sex that require major dick repair surgery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top