Sean Fitzpatrick

Yesterday I proved to myself why when I go to write these blogs up things have to be quiet. I cannot watch or listen to the television, or do anything really, and still compile everything with my notes. I get distracted and then I forget where I was and if I had mentioned something already. Depending on the case sometimes even without distractions it may take a few hours to pull together, with distractions it can take all day. So, after having much of this blog done I ended up erasing it and deciding to start again today. It will be a challenge because again I may add something not realizing I already have, thinking of the last draft, or I may not add something I should because I thought I already had. If any of that happens I apologize now. But, enough of that and on to the story.

This case was odd and interesting. There were some legal proceedings done that I did not quite understand completely also. This case took place in Massachusetts and it is one of only four states (the others are Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kentucky) that refer to themselves as a Commonwealth as opposed to simply calling themselves a state. I thought at first that maybe this could have answered some of my questions but it did not because while they use “Commonwealth” it is said that it is in name only and through their own state constitutions and makes no difference when it comes to laws. When I get to that part of the story I will let you know when and where I was a bit confused.

The other thing I found interesting about this case is not that there were two trials after the first jury failed to reach a verdict, but the fact that the second trial was allegedly almost identical to the first and there really did seem overwhelmingly evidence against Sean Fitzpatrick. Members of the first jury did not speak as far as I could tell but it was speculated that they may have failed to come to a decision because they felt that someone else may have been involved also. I understand where they were coming from, and you likely will also, but in the same respect whether someone else was involved or not does not lessen the fact that he too was involved and committed a double murder.

Just after eight in the morning of March 13, 2006 a 9-1-1 call was made in Wakefield Massachusetts. The caller was Michael Zammitti Sr. Michael and his son, Michael Jr., owned Allstate Concrete together. Michael Sr. got to work and when he walked in the door he found employee, fifty-four year old, Chester Roberts on the floor. Chester had been shot in the back but it is unclear whether Michael Sr. realized this when he first called because he reported finding him unconscious. As Michael Sr. was on the phone with the dispatcher he made his way to the second floor of the business where he found his son, Michael Jr. on the floor of an office with a gunshot wound to his head.

Of course investigators spoke to family members about if they knew anyone who could have held a grudge against either of the victims or even the company itself. Michael Sr. even gave a list but none of them led anywhere. Investigators looked at surveillance cameras from three different nearby businesses to see if they could see anything. They did find one odd thing. There was a truck that had driven past the business, a few minutes later Michael Jr. pulled into the business lot and then the truck returned, also pulling in. A few minutes later Chester Roberts also pulled in to work, soon after the truck left the business and again, a few minutes later Michael Sr. pulled in.

Investigators interviewed Michael Jr.'s wife, Michele, and it appears that they may have felt she was holding something back. They learned that she and Michael Jr. had in the past year appeared to have marriage problems and they began probing her about that. Soon she openly admitted that although she had broken it off, she had had an affair with Sean Fitzpatrick. She agreed to wear a recording devise and make a call that lasted two hours. It is unclear if anything was learned during this call.

While the Zammitti's, both Sr. and Jr., lived in Wakefield, they both also had summer homes in Freedom New Hampshire, about two hours away. The neighborhood had year round homes also and Sean Fitzpatrick lived in one of them. This is how Michele and Sean had met in 2004. Michele and Michael's marriage seemed a little rocky and he worked quite often so Michele and their children spent a lot of time by themselves in New Hampshire. Michele says the relationship simply started as close friends. Then they began talking on the phone when Michele was in Massachusetts. In January of 2005 Sean told Michele that he loved her and the relationship became sexual. In the summer of 2005 Michael and Michele began marriage counseling and while it was said that she became committed to repairing her marriage it does not seem that she took it too seriously at first. In August her mother in law walked in on Michele and Sean and found them in what was described as “an embrace.” At that point it was said that she remained cordial to Sean but began distancing herself from him. By all accounts though Sean did not “abide” by the new rules and kept pushing Michele to leave Michael. In December of 2005 it was said that she officially ended the relationship but Sean would later claim that the following February Michele had told him that while she would never leave Michael the only way they could be together was if Michael left her or “something happened to him.” It was said that despite this he still pressured her to leave Michael. This statement though, whether true or not, was used by defense attorney's to implicate Michele or at least indicate that Sean was pushed to commit murder. I never saw anything else that seemed to elaborate on this statement or anything that indicted that any sort of plan was made between the two to free her of Michael.

Investigators made their way up to Freedom to look into things. It is unclear if they even spoke to Sean Fitzpatrick on this first visit or just went to the neighborhood in which he lived. They notice fairly quickly that the house next to Sean's, who belonged to a Fred Martin, had a truck in the drive similar to the one they had seen on the videos from surrounding businesses. During their visit they contacted Fred Martin, who lived the majority of the year in Florida, to get permission to seize and search his vehicle. They also asked him when he had been in New Hampshire and driven the truck last, as well as inquired if anyone, particularly Sean Fitzpatrick would have been given permission to drive the truck. Martin informed them that he had not been in New Hampshire for several months and that not only did Fitzpatrick not have permission to use the vehicle, he also had never been in it with him. After the phone call with investigators Fred Martin looked at a pass he had for the toll road in the area that was used to get into Massachusetts. He saw where it had recorded his vehicle leaving New Hampshire the morning of the murders and returning not long after the murders were thought to have been committed. It is not clear whether Fred Martin immediately told investigators or if they were simply able to determine that on their own through their investigation. They did seize the truck though and sent it to be examined and tested for DNA.

On June 6, 2006 Sean Fitzpatrick was arrested. This is where my confusion on the law and how things were done comes in. My information says that just after his arrest he was “arraigned as a fugitive from justice.” I can only assume that this was simply a legal term to indicate that the warrant for his arrest came from another state. He refused to waive extradition to Massachusetts until his next hearing on June 20^th. My information then stated that he as arraigned in Massachusetts on June 21 where he pleaded not guilty and was held without bond. On August 17, 2006 a grand jury returned indictments against him for two counts of murder as well as the illegal possession of a shotgun. Then, on September 7, 2006 he was arraigned once again where he pleaded not guilty and again was held without bond. When it came to the legal things I was confused at all of the arraignments as there was no real information given and I do not recall seeing any other case like this.

Sean Fitzpatrick's first trial began on July 31, 2008. Along with all of the things I discussed above there was more. One thing involved DNA. The prosecution would say that there was DNA consistent with Fitzpatrick found on the steering wheel and other places on Fred Martin's truck. I did not see any “numbers” given to see just how much or how accurate it was and the defense attorney's would argue that it was too degraded to be accurate and could prove nothing. Investigators had also learned that no one had seen Sean on March 13, 2006 until after the truck had returned to New Hampshire. The neighbors in the area all knew the Zammitti's since they had summer homes right there. At least one neighbor stated that Fitzpatrick had come to her home and told her of the murders saying he assumed she had heard already although she had not. Prosecutors argued that when Fitzpatrick spoke to the neighbor he told her things that had not been released at that time and seemed to know details of the murders. Prosecutors argued that the target was obviously Michael Zammitti Jr. and that Chester Roberts was simply killed because he showed up for work while Fitzpatrick was still there. They argued that Fitzpatrick had shot Michael Jr. in the office on the second floor just after he arrived for work and that Chester likely barely made it through the door before being shot. It had always been believed based on knowledge of when Michael Jr. arrived to work and Michael Sr. arrived and found the bodies that the shooting had occurred between 7:30 and 8:05. This also coincided with the truck entering and leaving the business as well as the times that Fred Martin's truck had entered the toll road each time. It was also argued that Fitzpatrick had told a friend details of the murder before they had even been announced. Michele would testify to the affair at the trial.

It is unclear exactly what sort of defense was presented other than it seems he was simply claiming innocence. The defense did ask for a direct verdict, which means they asked for the judge to rule that he prosecution had not presented enough evidence to even bring it to trial. The judge denied this but it is unclear whether the defense asked at the end of the prosecution case (which happens most often), at the end of their case or while the jury was seemingly having an issue with agreeing on a verdict. This is asked for and denied in an overwhelming amount of cases that I rarely mention it at all. There have been the rare cases in which the judge agrees that the evidence did not support a guilty verdict but the majority of the time the judge leaves that up to the jury, as they did here. However on August 28^th the jury returned and the judge declared a mistrial because they could not agree on a verdict. As I mentioned earlier it was speculated that they believed someone else was involved, in this case Michele, and that hindered them in their ability to determine the case against Fitzpatrick. I hope that this is just a rumor as to the reason because in my opinion that is unreasonable. I believe there was plenty of evidence against him in just what I discovered and I am confident that the jurors heard much more.

Many things stated that the second trial, that began January 23, 2009, was just a mirror image of the first trial, although there was one small thing that indicated that it was possible that Michele did not testify in the second trial. It seems reasonable that they would have been able to present their evidence, as well as evidence of the affair without necessarily calling Michele to the stand and that prevented the defense from putting other ideas out to the jury. But, to be fair I am unsure if she testified or not. Deliberations began on February 10^th and much to my surprise the jury deliberated for eight days before returning a verdict. Sean Fitzpatrick was convicted of first degree murder and given a mandatory sentence of life without parole, times two. He was also found guilty of illegally possessing a shotgun.

In a 2012 appeal the defense attempted to say that the second trial was illegal as it fell into the category of “double jeopardy.” This is also often used in cases such as this and just like the issue of asking for a direct verdict I do not always mention it and it is overwhelmingly denied. Both are true for this case but I do mention it because their argument here for double jeopardy went back to the fact that the asking of a direct verdict had been denied. It was once again denied in this appeal.

Another interesting footnote to this case revolves around the fact that in 2006 Michael Zammitti Sr. and his wife filed a suit against Sean Fitzpatrick asking that a 2.5 million dollar attachment be placed on Fitzpatrick's home. It was said they did so to prevent him from hiding assets later, I can only assume for a civil suit of some sort. In February of 2007 Fitzpatrick's home was burned to the ground and it was ruled as arson. I attempted to see if I could determine if anything else was discovered about this but I could find nothing.

Some states have their own Department of Corrections website in which you can search inmates and get some information while others, as well as most county jails, go through another website that will only simply tell you if the inmate is incarcerated and where. Massachusetts falls into the latter category so I can only say that Sean Fitzpatrick is still in prison.