Despite no police report or any evidence, Fitzpatrick was convicted of “aggravated perjury” and “extortion” unanimously by 12 ignorant and possibly intimidated jurors whose names are here.
Let’s set the record straight here, so that people understand the full facts. The victim, Mr Cunningham reported Walt’s behavior to the Courts and the Attorney General and preserved the evidence. The Attorney General decided to investigate the concerns and the investigator met with Cunningham, who provided him with all the evidence and the Attorney General decided to present the evidence to a Grand Jury who indicted Fitzpatrick on four counts.
In pre-trial arguments, one indictment, stalking, was dropped by the Judge and three were allowed to go to trial. At the beginning of the trial, 12 randomly selected people were chosen to be on the Jury and to claim that these people are ‘ignorant’ makes a mockery of our Fifth Amendment Right to Trial by Jury and is an insult to the people of Tennessee and McMinn County.
Worse, the accusation is that these jurors were possibly intimidated, even though there exists no evidence and no evidence has been presented to show any such intimidation. In fact, the Jury decided against the harassment charge and found Walt “not guilty’ on that count. The Jury, having seen all the evidence, and heard all the testimony, did decide to find Walt guilty on two counts, extortion and aggravated perjury.
The evidence that was introduced during the trial includes Walts submissions to the Grand Jury, his petitions for a motion for a protective order, and likely Walt’s writings sent to the Supreme Court and the Office of Professional Accountability, in which Walt appears to have asked them to disbar and/or punish Cunningham for ‘crimes’.
Mr Cunningham and others had properly informed Walt that his submissions contained elements which were at odds with the facts and therefor could open up Walt to perjury charges, and that Walt’s attempts to remove Mr Cunningham as the foreperson of the Grand Jury could be interpreted as extortion under the Tennessee Statutes. Instead of heeding the advice, Walt decided to file motions for protective orders and other complaints, all of which would have impeded the foreperson from effectively doing his job.
Walt was also advised that his true recourse was to be found in the Courts, where he could challenge the Foreperson’s decision to no longer accept Walt’s repetitive complaints, which had been more than once been rejected by the Grand Jury. Under Tennessee law such findings are final…
So before one goes off accusing juror members of being ignorant or intimidated, it may be helpful to first look at the facts and evidence and then make a case. Until then, such claims sound like those made by sore losers who, rather than argue the facts, attack the person. In common parlance this is known as the ‘ad hominem’ fallacy.