Author Topic: The case of Stuart Lubbock  (Read 664 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44499
Re: The case of Stuart Lubbock
« Reply #15 on: March 18, 2021, 10:29:PM »
Not forgetting it was Essex police !

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13429
Re: The case of Stuart Lubbock
« Reply #16 on: March 18, 2021, 10:37:PM »
Not forgetting it was Essex police !
They've questioned Mike Browne again. They want to clear up the case before Stuart's father Terry dies. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/michael-barrymore-agent-quizzed-police-23755719

This is Jonathan Kenney: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14367323/jonathan-kenney-who-michael-barrymore-partner-stuart-lubbock/
« Last Edit: March 18, 2021, 10:39:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1958
Re: The case of Stuart Lubbock
« Reply #17 on: March 18, 2021, 11:12:PM »
Not forgetting it was Essex police !

I've also seen criticism of the Home Office coroner - another parallel with the Bamber case.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13429
Re: The case of Stuart Lubbock
« Reply #18 on: March 18, 2021, 11:20:PM »
I've also seen criticism of the Home Office coroner - another parallel with the Bamber case.
It wasn't the coroner but the pathologist Dr. Michael Heath, who had to resign from police work in 2006. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/barrymore-pathologist-missed-key-evidence-178483.html

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 22618
Re: The case of Stuart Lubbock
« Reply #19 on: March 18, 2021, 11:54:PM »
I don't see how they can get convictions.

Lubbock was sexually assaulted so it would have taken more than one gay man. So it's not as if they can all accuse one person.

There were women at the house. But if they say they didn't see anything not sure how things can progress.

The assault was carried out by gay men. Of which Barrymore was one. Surely they would not drown him afterwards.

 
« Last Edit: March 18, 2021, 11:55:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1958
Re: The case of Stuart Lubbock
« Reply #20 on: March 19, 2021, 01:24:AM »
It wasn't the coroner but the pathologist Dr. Michael Heath, who had to resign from police work in 2006. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/barrymore-pathologist-missed-key-evidence-178483.html

Yes, sorry, that's who I meant - slip of the tongue/keyboard.

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44499
Re: The case of Stuart Lubbock
« Reply #21 on: March 19, 2021, 10:49:AM »
It wasn't the coroner but the pathologist Dr. Michael Heath, who had to resign from police work in 2006. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/barrymore-pathologist-missed-key-evidence-178483.html




Another ? I thought it was bad enough in the Ian Tomlinson case.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13429
Re: The case of Stuart Lubbock
« Reply #22 on: March 19, 2021, 06:03:PM »
I don't see how they can get convictions.

Lubbock was sexually assaulted so it would have taken more than one gay man. So it's not as if they can all accuse one person.

There were women at the house. But if they say they didn't see anything not sure how things can progress.

The assault was carried out by gay men. Of which Barrymore was one. Surely they would not drown him afterwards.
I think the allegation was that he was sexually assaulted in the jacuzzi, suffered a heart attack and was thrown into the pool to cover up. I agree we may never know because Stuart Lubbock's lungs were never examined for chlorinated water.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13429
Re: The case of Stuart Lubbock
« Reply #23 on: March 19, 2021, 06:12:PM »



Another ? I thought it was bad enough in the Ian Tomlinson case.
Yes this case is worthy of a thread of its own. https://youtu.be/HECMVdl-9SQ

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1958
Re: The case of Stuart Lubbock
« Reply #24 on: March 20, 2021, 04:22:AM »
One issue I have with all this is that the prosecution angle sounds very anti-Barrymore: very personal against him.  Even the title of the book co-authored by Stuart Lubbock's father amounts to a personal dig at Michael Barrymore himself.  I always find it off-putting when people get personal.  Also, I wouldn't normally be the type to make this observation as I am no fan of homosexuals generally and homosexuality and its surrounding culture, but there is a definite 'homophobic' or anti-homosexual undercurrent to the criticism from some quarters.  It's ironic that I would make that observation as I would normally be the type of person to be accused of it, but my attitude has always been that when evaluating evidence, you have to put aside personal biases and prejudices and so on.  I really just want to know the evidence.

That said, for me, the first stage in looking at this case will be to read the Bennett/Lubbock book, as that will give a useful overview and provide the full strength version of the prosecution case.

I will say that based on what I know so far, I think Adam has the right take on things.  In the absence of a confession or incriminating admissions, it will be difficult to make a case.  He died of a heart attack, so the question is what caused the heart attack.  Drowning can cause asphyxial cardiac arrest, but even if we accept it was drowning, then we have to ask what caused him to drown.  I think it may all hinge on the tangential problem of the injuries, even though they may not have directly caused Stuart's death.  If the injuries were inflicted as a result of a sexual assault, then that lends itself to the conclusion that this was a homicide.  For now, I will assume that a nexus can be established between the act of sexual assault and the death of Stuart that makes this a criminal homicide of some variety, but it's important to note that this causal nexus would have to be established in order to prove the case. 

Furthermore, there are various other evidential steps that have to be surmounted even just to get to that point.  Even if the injuries were caused by sexual contact, the Crown would still have to prove that the injuries were inflicted due to non-consensual contact or otherwise somehow contributed to Stuart's death.  If this can't be established, then the injuries can't be considered relevant, and if the injuries aren't relevant and you have no confession or admission, then what are you left with?  Of relevance to this is that it is said by all who knew him that Stuart was not anything other than conventionally heterosexual.  Can we rely on that?  He was a drug user and heavy drinker.  Could this have prompted reckless behaviour on this and prior occasions?  To be clear, I'm not suggesting he was or wasn't engaged in such activities, but how do we know one way or the other?  It is a question that maybe has to be considered further. 

This case raises all sorts of delicate and awkward topics.  Homosexual men will often incur internal injuries due to the nature of their sexual activities.  It doesn't follow that there has been non-consensual sex, but I don't know the nature of the specific injuries.  I can only find quite general descriptions: apparently, he suffered bruising, lacerations and dilation, yet in general such 'injuries' could potentially be considered consistent with rough sex of the kind that certain homosexual men sometimes engage in.  Rough/quasi-consensual sex is part of some homosexual culture. 

But we go back to the point that everybody who knew Stuart is saying he was heterosexual - very much so.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2021, 04:37:AM by QCChevalier »