Michael Barrymore fully released without charge

[Larry]

Michael Barrymore has been arrested on suspicion of murder by detectives investigating the death of Stuart Lubbock, who was found dead at the side of his swimming pool in 2001.

Barrymore, 55, was arrested at an address in London at 9am today.

Barrymore’s former lover, Jonathan Kenney, 37, was arrested at the same time in the North East of England and Justin Merritt, 32, a dustman from Harlow, Essex, was picked up by officers in the Midlands.All three are expected to be brought to Essex later today to be questioned.

The arrests come after a review of the death of Mr Lubbock was carried out last year.

A spokeswoman for Essex Police said: “We had a review done last year as a matter of routine looking at all unexplained cases and that has resulted in the action today.

“The officers would have to have grounds to arrest someone. The review will have gone over all the statements and every piece of forensic evidence and would have identified any new forensic opportunity, if there are any.”

Mr Lubbock, a butcher, was found at his Barrymore's home in Roydon, early on March 31 2001.

Post-mortem tests showed that he had suffered severe internal injuries that suggested sexual assault. Alcohol, Ecstasy and cocaine were found in his blood.

It is the second time that Barrymore has been arrested in connection with the death.

what ever happens Barrymore is going to find it even harder to noe revive his career

[Rob McCow]

Very odd indeed!

No new evidence then?

[Dirk Gently]

I wonder what the "grounds for arrest" are?

[Paul Monk]

How weird. Surely they must have some pretty strong new evidence if he's been charged with murder?

[Alex]

You'd think so, doesn't he otherwise have quite a strong case for suing for damages if he's found not guilty a second time?

I have this strange feeling that someone at the party might have confessed as to what actually happened that night, I don't know why but it'd make the most sense.

[Lissa]

"Arrested on suspicion of murder" is not actually the same as "charged with murder" and those are the BBC's words anyway.

Thinking back to criminal law lectures, murder is causing death either intentionally or by having reckless disregard for the outcome of an action likely to cause death or serious injury.

So it is possible they could prove that Michael Barrymore forced alcohol and drugs into the guy and then effectively raped him to death but if any charge is going to be brought, involuntary manslaughter would be much more likely as there you only have to prove they caused the death through recklessness or negligence.

[Dave Lewis]

Maybe the pineapple has finally turned up.

[Larry]

Barrymore is a talanted entertainer who really gets on well with the public and audiances at his shows and it's such a tragedy how he has just self destructed over the last 4 or 5 years.

[Captain Tancredi]

It's absolutely perfect tabloid fodder, isn't it- the "much-loved" "entertainer" whose cheerful persona conceals a double life of drug-fuelled gay orgies. Sordid doesn't even begin to describe it, although I can't help wondering whether part of the idea is to get him sent down on a lesser charge at least. Neither do I think there's much chance of him having any kind of career hereafter- all the grannies who used to like him now know exactly what sort of a person he is and what he gets up to in his spare time.

[davethesailor]

The title of this thread really bothers me.

Michael Barrymore has not been charged with murder. In fact he has been released without charge.

If Michael really is truly innocent of murdering anyone (which I personally believe he is), I think it's shocking what he has had to go through.

Of course, a young man did die and that of course is ver sad indeed.

[Larry]

The title of this thread really bothers me.

Michael Barrymore has not been charged with murder. In fact he has been released without charge.

If Michael really is truly innocent of murdering anyone (which I personally believe he is), I think it's shocking what he has had to go through.

Of course, a young man did die and that of course is ver sad indeed.

problem is there are still a lot of unanswered questions over how that man died and there are a lot of people who suspect that Barrymore knows a lot more then he claims to.

[Pip Madeley]

Nevertheless the thread title was inaccurate, he wasn't charged with murder Larry.

[davethesailor]

problem is there are still a lot of unanswered questions over how that man died and there are a lot of people who suspect that Barrymore knows a lot more then he claims to.

That may be the case, but it has been so far fully investigated by the police twice now and no charges have been brought.

Stuart's Dad, as has his brother have both previously gone on record stating that they are confident that Michael Barrymore was in no way responsible for Stuart's death.

[davethesailor]

Nevertheless the thread title was inaccurate, he wasn't charged with murder Larry.

Thanks Pip, although the thread title is still inaccurate as Michael has actually been fully released without charge after cooperating with the police and is not an any bail terms.

Thanks, Dave

[Pip Madeley]

I've changed it to reflect the truth.

[Dirk Gently]

Is there any way to be partially released with out charge?

[Lissa]

the thread title is still inaccurate as Michael has actually been fully released without charge after cooperating with the police and is not an any bail terms.

That's not strictly true - he's been released on police bail which the Home Office defines as "If there's not enough evidence to charge you, you'll be released on police bail. You don't have to pay to be released on police bail, but you'll have to return to the station for further questioning when asked."

Essentially, this means the police can get him back in for questioning without having to re-arrest him or, if he leaves the country without notifying the police, he can be arrested for breaking the terms of his bail. So the police haven't cleared him completely yet.

[Captain Tancredi]

The inference I took was that although he's not currently directly implicated in the death, as the owner of the premises where it occurred the police would still want to question him under caution so that there was a formal record of his version of events.

Incidentally, from a grammatical point of view, "fully released without charge" suggests that they decided to release all of him rather than holding on to a few odds and ends...not sure the "fully" is necessary!

[Larry]

I've changed it to reflect the truth.

no problems with that pip - I got the report from one of the newspapers which was pretty much with that headline.

[Mike Saville]

My own feelings on this is, whether directly or indirectly involved in the death or not (for all we know Barrymore could have been passed out in a drunken or drug fuelled stupor at the time), there are a LOT of questions still to be answered and the public will never even come close to taking him back fully unless he is seen to be fully co-operating with the enquiry, and he's always seemed reluctant at least to share his 'insights'.

Of course he could have been fully co-operating with the police, and forbidden from going public with his testimony while the crime is still being investigated.

As for murder charges, if I remember correctly the CPS can't actually charge someone with manslaughter initially. It has to be murder first (as an unlawful killing) then reduced to the lesser charge of manslaughter.

[Fatso the wombat]

I'm going to be really picky here; Barrymore has not, at this stage, been "released without charge". He has been released on Police bail to return at a later date where he will either be charged, bailed further, or then released without charge.

At the moment, he is "released on Police bail".

[davethesailor]

My own feelings on this is, whether directly or indirectly involved in the death or not (for all we know Barrymore could have been passed out in a drunken or drug fuelled stupor at the time), there are a LOT of questions still to be answered and the public will never even come close to taking him back fully unless he is seen to be fully co-operating with the enquiry, and he's always seemed reluctant at least to share his 'insights'.

Of course he could have been fully co-operating with the police, and forbidden from going public with his testimony while the crime is still being investigated.

As for murder charges, if I remember correctly the CPS can't actually charge someone with manslaughter initially. It has to be murder first (as an unlawful killing) then reduced to the lesser charge of manslaughter.

Hi Mike

You start of by saying "whether he was directly or indirectly involved in his death".

Surely a third option must be that he had nothing to do with his death?

Has there been evidence that Michael has not been cooperating fully with the enquiry? If so, I've not been aware of it.

With regards to him not sharing his insights, he wrote a book which went into the events in a lot of detail and explained exactly how he felt about what happened that evening. Have you read it?

Anyway, good to hear from you Mike. I hope you are well. It would be great to see you again soon.


Dave xx

[Mike Saville]

My own feelings on this is, whether directly or indirectly involved in the death or not

Think you'll find I did give the 'or not' as an option, so nyerrrr!

Nice to see you here too Dave xx

[davethesailor]

According to latest reports, Michael will not face any charges in connection with Stuarts death.

[Pip Madeley]

I think it's about time he was left to try and get on with his life.