THE Barrymore Files
Exclusive: Top cop’s verdict on mystery death in party pool
» Detective reviews mountain of evidence » He believes Stuart died in tragic accident
THE man found dead in Michael Barrymore’s pool almost certainly drowned by accident, an ex-murder detective concludes.
Peter Kirkham examined hundreds of pages of original statements and scientific evidence before finding it highly unlikely that Stuart Lubbock was murdered.
Mr Kirkham said the “window of opportunity” for an attack to be carried out and covered up was so brief it made it almost impossible.
The murder theory would require eight partygoers, some meeting for the first time, to have conspired “in a complex false account”.
The retired detective said: “I think this is extremely unlikely.” He added: “There was no motive for murder.”
Barrymore is expected to learn within days the outcome of his claim against police for his unlawful arrest on suspicion of Stuart’s murder.
Dad-of-two Stuart, 31, a butcher from Harlow, Essex, died at an allnight party at Barrymore’s Essex home in March 2001. He had a significant level of alcohol and drugs in his system and serious anal injuries.
Four pathologists were unable to agree on a definitive cause of death. Barrymore, 65, was questioned in 2001. He was arrested on suspicion of murder in June 2007, after police launched a fresh inquiry into Stuart’s death in 2006. The Independent Police Complaints Commission announced a probe into the way the original inquiry was handled.
The IPCC found two potentially important pieces of evidence – a swimming pool thermometer and a door handle – were never seized at the scene and had gone missing.
Barrymore was never charged. The entertainer is claiming £2.5million damages, mainly for loss of earnings, while Essex Police argue he should get a “nominal” £1.
They admit the officer who made the arrest was not properly briefed but claim the arrest itself was justified. Barrymore’s lawyers say it led him to suffer “distress, shock, anxiety and reputational damage”. He fled but later said he had panicked, and was not trying to hide.
Police claim Barrymore continues to withhold information.
He denies this and says there were no reasonable grounds to suspect Stuart had been murdered as the cause of death was unknown.
There was no forensic evidence implicating him and his movements on the night had been established, making it impossible for him to have committed crimes, his lawyers claim.
But Stuart’s dad Terry, 72, believes there were grounds for arrest. He said: “He knows what happened, and it’s about time he came clean.”
Mr Kirkham examined statements from Barrymore and the partygoers, all four pathologist reports, forensic findings and civil case papers. However he has not seen every single piece of evidence.
He said he is “fairly sure” the party was not planned and drugs were used, explaining why Barrymore left in a panic. The account of two female guests that night was “basically accurate” and did not refer to an attack or cover-up. Mr Kirkham added: “It’s unlikely they would have been able to take on and repeat a totally false account.” He said an absence of significant amounts of blood at the scene is not consistent with the theory that lacerations on Stuart’s body were caused in a sexual assault.
In reply to Mr Kirkham’s findings Terry added: “Where did Stuart get the injuries? I hope time will tell.”
Here we present Mr Kirkham’s professional assessment of the case.
WHAT WE KNOW
On the night of March 31, 2001, Barrymore, had spent the evening at the Millennium nightclub in Harlow, Essex, with his then boyfriend, Jonathan Kenney.
He invited seven locals including Stuart, who he had never met, to his house. Alcohol, cannabis and allegedly cocaine were taken.
At 5.48am the ambulance service received a call saying a man had been found in the swimming pool.
INJURIES
The anal injuries are a red herring. I don’t believe they’re as “serious” as most pathologists concluded or the dilation and lacerations were caused simultaneously. The absence of significant amounts of blood at the scene is not consistent with lacerations found on Mr Lubbock’s body having been caused in a serious sex assault. I don’t think the anal injuries were directly connected with his death.
BODY TEMP.
His temperature was 29.3C at 6.28am at the hospital. That is 7.7C below a normal body temperature of 37C. The pool temperature was about 23C at about 12.30pm the following day.
It would have been cooler in the early hours. A body in air cools at 0.75-1C an hour in ordinary UK daytime temperatures. In cold water it would be quicker. The low temperature of Lubbock’s body suggests he had been in the pool a considerable time. This puts the time Lubbock was last seen alive to when he was seen messing about in the pool by two guests.
CLEAR-UP
If there was a clear-up, why were various drug items left behind? And why were the most suspicious items – two towels and a robe with traces of Lubbock’s blood – left where they’d be found, next to where they tried resuscitating him?
MOTIVE
There is no motive for murder or serious sexual assault. There is no apparent history of animosity or sexual attraction between Lubbock and others at the party. He reportedly had limited links with all.
CAUSE OF DEATH
The entire case revolves around cause of death and how it may have arisen. Having reviewed all papers available to me and making clear that is not all the evidence, the case distils down to a couple of main issues: The nature and effect of the injuries and the time frame available for any serious sexual assault and or murder.
CONCLUSION
With a case like this it is impossible to know for sure. People lie and are mistaken in their accounts for a variety of reasons.
As I have explained, the time frame does not really allow for much to have happened unless we assume that all parties are conspiring in a complex false account and, for the reasons I outlined, I think this is extremely unlikely.
None of this analysis of what happened takes anything away from the grounds Essex Police had to suspect criminal offences at the time Barrymore was arrested. The law allows arrest to be lawfully made on “reasonable
WITNESSES
We can be fairly sure the party was not pre-planned, drugs were used and some people in the house knew each other better than they admitted.
If drugs were used and Barrymore was aware of that, it would provide an explanation for him leaving in a panic. Broad accounts of guests Claire Jones and Kelly Campbell – who met Barrymore for the first time that night – were basically accurate, after discrepancies are put to one side, and do not refer to a violent attack or cover-up. It is unlikely in the extreme they would have been able to take on and repeat a totally false account of what happened.
WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY
We know an ambulance was called at 5.48am and paramedics arrived at 5.56am. Whatever had happened must have happened by then. The start of the time frame is less clear. There is nothing to suggest Lubbock had come to any harm prior to the time that Kenney and another guest were in the Jacuzzi and were initially joined by him.
It is impossible to put a precise time on this, but working forwards from the initial arrival of Barrymore in his cab it cannot have been before about 3.30am, probably more like 4am.
This gives a time frame of between 1hr 45mins and 2hrs 15mins for a situation to develop in which Lubbock is seriously sexually assaulted and or killed by one or more of them, for any traces of that to be cleared up and for a story to be agreed to tell the police.
I would suggest that this is simply not feasible. grounds to suspect”. The act of arrest is intended to be at the start of – or at least in the early stages of – an investigation.
It is not at all uncommon for that investigation to result in those initial suspicions being explained away, resulting in no further action being taken and if this happens, it most definitely does not mean that an original arrest was unlawful. On the basis of everything I have read I am absolutely sure there were ample grounds to suspect that there may have been foul play.
The fact we are still discussing the circumstances, unable to come to a clear conclusion even with the benefit of 15 years of hindsight demonstrates that vividly.
Likewise there were ample grounds to suspect Barrymore may have been involved if there had been foul play.
Whether those grounds were sufficient for a lawful arrest is for the Courts to decide, but I will be extremely surprised if they find that there were insufficient grounds.
‘Reasonable grounds’ is difficult to dispute