A Forgery from 20 Years ago...and a Forgery Now

Spread the love

AND WHAT WILL THE NAVY’S RESPONSE BE?

April 18, 2012

Dudink Letter page 1 001 — Page 1 of handwriting analyst Frederick G. Dudink's report which states that he does not believe that the "Response to Letter of Reprimand" was signed by Walter Fitzpatrick, as Fitzpatrick has contended for more than 20 years

Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert
Chief of Naval Operations
Office of the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff
9999 Joint Staff Pentagon
Washington, DC 20318-9999

Dear Admiral Greenert:

RE: WALTER FRANCIS FITZPATRICK, III
COURT-MARTIAL, 1991

I own and operate an electronic newspaper, The Post & Email, which reports aggressively on government corruption at all levels.

For the past two years, I have become acquainted with LCDR Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III (Ret.), who has sent me a large amount of documentation regarding his court-martial of 1991. Fitzpatrick maintains that he was innocent of the charges levied against him and that a document bearing a forgery of his signature was placed in his file allegedly acknowledging the reprimand he received.

I have also spoken with Adm. John Bitoff, whom Fitzpatrick has accused of allowing the court-martial to not only proceed but to have decided the outcome before the actual trial was held, and Kevin Anderson, who was Fitzpatrick’s defense attorney. Neither was willing to go on the record.

I think you will agree that there is a difference between the signature on the enclosed “Response to Letter of Reprimand” and a letter from Lt. Timothy Zeller to Adm. Bitoff stamped “Received” and signed by Fitzpatrick ten years after the court-martial sent to me directly from Fitzpatrick.

Fitzpatrick vehemently states that he never viewed nor signed the reprimand letter at any time and has identified the person he is convinced signed his name to it.

I have also enclosed a report obtained from Fitzpatrick from a handwriting analyst who contends that Fitzpatrick did not sign the “Response to Letter of Reprimand” document.

Is this why, in the partly-typed, partly-handwritten memo from Ernie Simon to “27HOST_DOM…” it is stated, “…if you can prove the forgery, it totally supports his 10 years worth of contentions and makes the NAV look really bad”? Is it why Fitzpatrick was “fended off” when he attempted to speak with someone about it?

You will also note that the closing paragraph of the memo from Zeller to Bitoff reads:

Since I don’t believe in keeping a file to cover this office when decisions are later questioned, there is no copy of this letter in my files or on my computer.

Why would a prosecutor make such a statement to the admiral in charge of a court-martial proceeding?

I would appreciate a response from your office at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours,

Sharon Rondeau, Editor
The Post & Email
www.thepostemail.com
P.O. Box 195
Stafford Springs, CT 06076

Dudink Letter page 2 001 — Page 2 of Dudink's report

Personal for RADM Bitoff 001 — Memo from Lt. Timothy Zeller to RADM John Bitoff stating that it would not be placed in the permanent record

Richard Allen memo 001 — Memo from then-NCIS Director Ernie Simon to an unknown recipient stating that if the forgery of Fitzpatrick's signature were proved, the Navy would "look really bad"

WFF Forgery page 1 001 — Page 1 of "Response to Letter of Reprimand" which Fitzpatrick states he never saw beforehand nor signed

WFF Forgery page 2 001 — Page 2 of Reprimand memo bearing a signature ending in a "t" rather than a "k" and missing the generation mark "III"

——————-

Editor’s Note: Paragraph 3 of Frederick Dudink’s report reads, in part:

Based on my initial examination and comparisons I found numerous indications (based on the copy of the document in question) that Walter F. Fitzpatrick did not sign the document. And further, the document gives evidence of having been produced on a machine of several other documents on U.S. Navy stationery.