Walt Fitzpatrick – What perjury?…

Walter Fitzpatrick and his sidekick at the Post and Email have been expressing the belief that somehow the prosecutor had failed to provide any evidence of perjury. I listened to Walt’s recordings and made some notes about how the prosecutor summarized the case.

The jury looked at the evidence and found that Walt, in at least one instance, had made a statement under oath which was false, and made with the intent to deceive as part of an official proceeding and which was material. Appeal’s courts are not going second guess the jury as to what statement or statements they found to have been perjurous, and I believe that there exists sufficient foundation that Walt claimed that Cunningham had blocked him six times from appearing before the grand jury. A statement which I could see would lead a jury to convict Walt.


Time-stamp 49:10 Aggravated perjury

Petition that were sought to get an order of protection


1. false statement under oath
2. statement made with intent to deceive
3. false statement made during or in relation to an official proceeding
4. Statement is material

False statements made:

Swore that Cunningham stalked him
Swore that Cunningham assaulted him
Swore that Cunningham threatened him with physical harm
Swore that Cunningham blocked him from seeing the grand jury six times

intent to deceive  

Walt was trying to get a judge to sign an order of protection

Official proceeding  

Walt initiated an ex-parte proceeding to get a judge to sign an order of protection.

False statement material  

The fact that Mr Fitzpatrick wanted the judge to rely on these statements made them material. The fact that the judge rejected the order does not make the statement any less material or not part of an official procedure.


One thought on “Walt Fitzpatrick – What perjury?…

  1. To quote Mr. Fundfilcher:

    “Finding me guilty of “aggravated perjury” was impossible.”

    Well, shit happens and sometimes even “impossible” things happen ………

Comments are closed.