Nobody dared challenge me in a Forum where I could respond directly so they did it from places Ive been banned from – which is their usual tactic, and of course they were led by Mad Mick Fitzsimons and his little band of toadies. The desperate irrational lengths these people went to in order cling to their delusions about Fitzpatrick being a drunk were staggering : I was amazed to learn that Bobs years working in a bank, and Stuart Rowsells career outside medicine left them both with a much better understanding of human pathology and physiology than medical school and a decade of postgraduate study and research left me, so I should probably apologise to them – arguing with such clever people is pointless. According to these two deluded fools the person doing the autopsy didn’t know anything and ascites is only caused by alcoholism….who would have thought all the medical textbooks got it so wrong!
So what exactly is Fitzsimons claiming ?
First, the attacks he and the toadies make on me are the same lies – and I do mean lies, actual lies – they’ve been posting for nearly ten years. They have no relevance to anything about the Kelly story except as a demonstration of the kind of people Kelly fanatics are – actual liars who prefer to play the man and not the ball, deluded people who are both incapable of and who fear rational discussion. I’ve answered all these lies on many occasions before, but he keeps repeating them and I couldn’t care less. But here’s one of the stupidest of his claims – that I am a troll and that I go to places I am not wanted. In fact, I have a Blog and a FB page and I don’t post anywhere else. The Kelly mobsters cant help themselves – they come HERE and read THIS and go away screaming!
So let’s focus on his anti-Fitzpatrick rhetoric.
He asks “Why was he late back from the races….?”
ANSWER : He WASNT late back from the races. That’s an Ian Jones smear that’s been disproved
He asks “Why did he go to the Kelly house when the instructions were that no police were to go there alone?”
ANSWER: 1. That verbal instruction was given to Thom and Hayes who were instructed to tell other police who came there to Greta (and Fitzpatrick had never been there) So, did they tell Fitzpatrick? Not as far as we know. 2. It was never a formal instruction and was never the topic of a specific order issued by Nicholson. If it had been Fitzpatrick would have been reprimanded for breaking it : he wasn’t. And thirdly, his visit was approved by his Senior, Sgt Whelan at Benalla before he left.
He asks why was Fitzpatrick sent home from Sydney, and then answers his own question : “His liaison with a woman, theft, associating with undesirables, turning up late.” RESPONSE: These are accusations only. They were investigated. There was no ‘liaison with a woman’, there was no ’theft’. He was not convicted of anything in relation to these accusations. So Fitzsimons is it an Australian core value that a person is innocent until proven guilty or not?
Without identifying his source he says “with the Lindsay brothers….there is a problem” because the brother Fitzpatrick names said it was the other brother who interacted with Fitzpatrick that day. RESPONSE: So what? Fitzpatrick mixed up two names and you’re going to construct a conspiracy theory on THAT? OMG!
He has a problem with Lindsay denying under oath that he ever told Hensley that Fitzpatrick was drunk. RESPONSE: What’s the problem Fitzsimons? The truth? Isn’t it just that you want to discredit everyone and everything that doesn’t fit your insane conspiracy theory about Fitzpatrick being a drunk, a theory that’s manufactured out of speculation, denial of evidence and conspiracy? If you have evidence that Lindsay was lying under oath – committing perjury – then lets see it. Otherwise, put a cork in it.
As for the evidence that Fitzpatrick was shot – even Ned Kelly said that he shot Fitzpatrick. So too did his sister Kate. And Dr Nicholson’s evidence is very clear – except to a mad conspiracy theorist who is desperate to find any, even the slightest excuse not to accept the bleeding obvious – pardon the pun – that Nicholson believed the injury was a bullet wound. No scrupulously honest person seeing any wound of that nature would be prepared to SWEAR it couldn’t possibly have been caused by anything else – but theres no basis for Fitzsimons to suggest Nicholson entertained any serious doubt about what he was looking at. No rational basis at all. But a rational basis for anything is unimportant to fanatics like him and the toadies.
Finally, a comment about the contribution from Jack Peterson recommended by Fitzsimons which purports to be an argument in support of Fitzpatrick being a drunk. It is nothing but a string of unreferenced guesses and completely absurd speculations :
Peterson thinks that Fitzpatrick met Smyth at the Bayview Hotel – pure speculation.
Peterson thinks Fitzpatrick and Smyth met ‘more than likely over a few drinks’ – pure speculation.
Peterson thinks that Smyth was a drunk and so Fitzpatrick must have been one – pure speculation.
Peterson thinks that Fitzpatrick enjoyed ‘a drink or two’ so must have been a drunk – so Jack, are you saying that anyone who enjoys a drink is therefore a drunk? Because if thats what you believe, I would like to know if YOU enjoy a drink? I know Greg and Paul and the Toad are well known as people who enjoy a drink or two, so are you calling them drunks as well? Or are you going to admit that argument is plain stupid?
And I’ll just say I find your dismissal of the content of Fitzpatricks death notice revolting and utterly contemptible. A man dies of cancer, his bereaved family expresses their love and sorrow and you shit on it. You’re a disgrace. Is there NO limit to the depths you sickening fanatics wont sink in your desperation to cling to your misguided hate ?
Heres the problem you mob have to overcome : its simply nowhere near good enough to make personal attacks on me and others who you disagree with, or to argue about trivial points of difference here and there, or to make up conspiracy theories and guesses to fill in blanks. Hate to disappoint you but that doesn’t constitute an argument or a case for believing something different.
What you people have to do is produce an entire narrative from start to finish that provides a better, more rational and coherent explanation for all the evidence than the one we currently have before us, which is that the Fitzpatrick conspiracy is a lie, the man wasn’t a drunk, he wasn’t a womaniser and the Kelly crimes are what caused the Outbreak not Fitzpatrick. It will have to explain why Kate Kelly claimed Ned Kelly shot Fitzpatrick, why there is nothing in Fitzpatricks police service record about drunkenness, why he was a womaniser but there were only two women known to be partners of his, why Ned Kelly said he was hundreds of miles away at the time and wasn’t lying, why Nicholson got it wrong when he said the wound in Fitzpatricks wrist had every appearance of being a bullet wound, why all the people who swore Fitzpatrick wasn’t drunk were wrong….and on and on. And by rational and coherent I don’t mean a bizarre fantasy that incorporates guesswork, conspiracy theories, proven lies, malicious speculation, denials of facts, assumptions of guilt where none has been proven, exaggeration, unreferenced assertions and slander – thats the mess you are all currently slithering about in.
Apparently a QC is writing a new book that will explain everything – but given the fact that a lunatic conspiracy theorist is his research assistant I am not holding out any hope for it being an improvement.