Following the death of his daughter Kate Fitzgerald last year, her father Tom was told she had died from a broken neck after hanging herself at her home. Empty alcohol bottles at the scene suggested she had been drinking heavily. She was also “off her medication”.

Months later he was sent the autopsy report.

From today’s Sunday Independent:

Kate did not die of a broken neck.
She died slowly of ligature strangulation.
Kate had not stopped taking her medication. The medication levels were clinically spot on.
Kate had not been drinking heavily.
She died with the equivalent of one drink in her system.

Kate’s hyoid bone — a small bone in the neck — was broken. This unattached bone in the neck can only be broken by horizontal pressure. It is extremely rare in suicidal hanging and even more so with a young person.
We’ve spoken to a number of legal people on this matter and since the autopsy report, we’ve done a lot of research, and this injury is always a strong indicator of murder.
We went back to the Kevin Street gardai. They reluctantly agreed to have another look. Two more weeks and I was told that they had looked and said there was no reason to investigate further.
I went to the Garda Ombudsman and after some persuasion he agreed that the investigation must be reopened. It took almost three months from the arrival of the autopsy, but, based on a demand from the Garda Ombudsman, a team of detectives reopened the investigation on May 4. It was now almost nine months since Kate’s body was found…

‘We Can’t Accept Suicide As The Only Explanation Of Kate’s Death'(Tom Fitzgerald, The Sunday Independent)

Kate Fitzgerald on Broadsheet

Tom Fitzgerald (above with his daughter Kate at the Irish American President Obama Inauguration ball in Washington DC in January, 2009) writes:

Dear Broadsheet readers,

Thank you so much for the support you have shown over the past months during the controversy surrounding Kate’s death. I’ve been very impressed by the intelligent, and thoughtful tone of the discussion.  

Unfortunately, this is very far from over.

As you can understand, I’m not in a position to discuss the Garda investigation.  However, I would like to spark a wider discussion on the role of the Press Ombudsman.

I have limited legal training, but a lot of writing experience. I cannot find a legal or logical reason as to why the Press Ombudsman threw out 7 of the 8 items in our complaint, because they allegedly fell outside of his time limit of 90 days.  

He [press ombudsman] claimed that he would have to refer back to the September article by Kate, and that this article was outside the time limit.

First, we made no complaint about the September article. The total complaint (text here) was about the December 3 apology to The Communications Clinic..

Second, the September article was still on the IT website up until November 27.

Third, the September article was modified on the website on the 28^th of November, which I believe brought it back into the mix as a newly published article and thus back into the 90 day time-frame.

I understand from reading some of the input that there are a number of people on Broadsheet with legal expertise. Can you please provide some feedback on the validity, or lack thereof, of throwing out 7 or the 8 elements of our complaint to the Press Ombudsman.

The Irish Times behaviour on this has caused great pain to our family, as it publicly dishonoured Kate’s memory and cast a deep shadow on her last words . 

To this day, Kevin O’Sullivan (Irish Times editor) has refused to tell us what was “not factual” in Kate’s article.

The Press Ombudsman was also made aware of this.

Thank you,

Tom Fitzgerald

Bantry, Cork. June 11.