The Double-Headed Coin of Sean Fitzpatrick

Sean Fitzpatrick, left, is accused of the brutal slayings of Michael Zammitti, Jr. and Chester Roberts. Michelle Zammitti, right, was the Defendant's paramour for several months.


It's an old axiom: There are always two sides to a coin.

But when there are two people's heads, in essence, their lives on that coin, when does that roll reverse? When is it that we, as human beings, start to believe the side we want to believe because, well, it's obvious, we want to blame someone for these horrific crimes?

We all know that people want to find someone to blame; we've witnessed it throughout grade school and into our daily lives. Who can forget the cranky, old teacher who snapped at the student whose daily planner flew across the room at her? Remember when she asked who threw this and the whole class pointed at you when it was really the kid behind you? Maybe not, but I do and it's situations like these that can be the foundation for much larger offenses such as what stands before Sean Fitzpatrick.

Fitzpatrick, 44, claims he is innocent; he has told conflicting stories of going for coffee that morning at Freedom Market and how he was home in bed sleeping during the murders, along with the claim of his tenuous alibi, neighbor, Gert DuCharme, but when do we, as people, decide that a person who stands defiant in the face of his accusers, whether the case against him be proven or not, is de facto guilty?

We have all heard of the presumption of innocence---the dictum that emblazons every criminal trial---the steadfast belief that "we, as a society, would rather let 100 murderers, rapists, and thieves walk free on a technicality than put one innocent man in prison," but in the height of suspicion, without much evidence at all, we have seen time and time again, innocent people go to prison, in essence, having part of their lives taken away, even put to death, until years later we discover we have made a grave error in judgment. But didn't they get a fair trial? Or is the word "fair" as subjective in theory as the term "reasonable doubt" is to those twelve people who took their lives away?

While we may never know what makes up the minds of the people who convict with shoddy evidence no more than we shall ever learn what makes up the minds of the jury that acquits with overwhelming evidence before it, we do know one thing: That the people whose lives play in that soap opera will forever be affected regardless whether the verdict be GUILTY or NOT.

With that said, in Sean Fitzpatrick's defense, we must, as a society, look at even his side of the coin along with comparing the side of the victims who have brought this case before us and who have endured such tribulation for two and half year. So without further adieu, we shall begin with the Commonwealth's case against Sean Fitzpatrick:

The Inculpatory Evidence

• Motive: Fitzpatrick had been having an affair with victim, Michael Zammitti's wife, Michelle
• Michelle had just told Sean that she could not leave her husband "unless something happened to him"
• The Zammitti's house is burglarized and a 16-gauge shotgun is stolen
• On the morning of Monday, March 13, 2006, Sean Fitzpatrick is off work and his neighbor, Fred Martin is in Florida when his neighbor's green F-150 truck's EZ pass transponder goes off at 8:51AM, some ten minutes after the murders, allegedly on its way back from Massachusetts
• The surveillance cameras from neighboring businesses spot a green F-150 truck outside of Allstate and a person running from the building towards it
• A 16-gauge shotgun was used in the two slayings and, while the gun is never recovered, 16-gauge shotgun shells are found in the Defendant's home upon a search warrant; the Defendant owns no 16-gauge shotgun
• The Defendant's skin cell DNA is found in a crevice on the steering wheel and on the keys of the truck, but the neighbor tells police that the Defendant has never been inside of his truck
• The Defendant's white truck is parked outside of his home---something unusual said by neighbors, along with the fact that the Defendant is leaning against his truck that morning some time between 9:15AM and 10:05AM, drinking a cup of coffee, and talking to his neighbor, Gert DuCharme, allegedly to set up an alibi
• His cellphone is unusually turned off---since he works for Verizon, he has knowledge that the police can triangulate cellphone signals---it is turned on and a call is made at 9:34AM to a friend
• A four-second call was made to a car rental agency by the Defendant the night before the murders---presumably he had figured out that his call could be traced by police so he hung up

In the light of that somewhat overwhelming circumstantial evidence, one might say that, "Hey, he did it. We don't need to hear his side," but there is his side, and in this country, he gets to present it whether you like it or not, and perhaps it may make you think when you hear it. With that being said, I present to you Sean Fitzpatrick's best defense:

The Exculpatory Evidence

• No Motive: The affair had been over for a while---the Defendant was in the process of selling his house
• Michelle told Prosecutors that she had told Sean that they could only be together "if something happened to her husband" two weeks before trial and two years after the fact
• The Zammitti's house was burglarized and a 16-gauge shotgun was stolen, but who cares? There's nothing linking Sean Fitzpatrick to that burglary, no evidence it was the same 16-gauge shotgun used in the murders, and there had been three burglaries that month in his neighborhood and seventeen burglaries that winter in the area
• On the morning of Monday, March 13, 2006, the Defendant was off work, but he is always off on Mondays. Furthermore, his neighbor's green F-150 truck's EZ pass transponder goes off when he is in Florida, but anyone could have taken that truck and no evidence shows that it was the truck used to commit the crime. More so, the Zammittis lived across the street and had access to that truck as did everyone else in the neighborhood
• The surveillance cameras from neighboring businesses may have spotted a green F-150 truck outside of Allstate that morning, but no evidence links the neighbor's truck or the Defendant to it
• It had been raining earlier that morning; the ten sets of tire tracks taken from the scene by police do not match the neighbor's truck and the footprints at the scene of the crime do not match the Defendant's footprints
• The murders were committed from about 10 feet away with a shotgun; blood blew everywhere when Michael Zammitti, Jr. was shot in the head so the Defendant must have gotten blood and even gun powder residue on his clothing and transferred it to the truck
• No gun powder residue or blood was found in the neighbor's truck
• No dirt, mud, or any sediments from the Allstate dirt parking lot were found inside the truck or in the tires or wheel wells; a bloody footprint was found at the scene of the crime, but unsure whether that was the killer's print or Zammitti Sr.'s when he found his son shot
• 16-gauge shotgun shells are found at the Defendant's house, but those could have been planted by the real killer and they cannot link them to the 16-gauge shells stolen from the Zammitti's house; also why would the killer use a shotgun to do these murders and why would he possibly steal it from the victim's house? Does not make sense
• The skin cell DNA of the Defendant's is found in a crevice on the steering wheel of his neighbor's truck along with being on the keys; his neighbor says that Sean has never been in the truck, but the Defendant says he had been in the truck several months prior to help his neighbor get his boat out of the water. The neighbor is old and forgetful
• There are no fingerprints on the door, the gear shift, the radio---no hair from the Defendant in the car, he is a minor donor on both the keys and that crevice. His story makes more sense than the Prosecution's theory that he drove hundreds of miles to murder Michael Zammitti---wouldn't he have left hair or wouldn't he have left prints all over that truck? Why is it only in that little crevice on the top of the steering wheel?
• The Defendant says he has an alibi, Gert DuCharme and he says he talked to her between 9:15AM and 9:30AM prior to making that call at 9:34AM---the alibi says it was between 10AM and 10:05AM. The neighbor though is old, forgetful, and she is basing the time on her routine. The alibi also cannot remember whether the Martins' truck was in the driveway when she was talking to the Defendant nor did anyone see the truck disappear or come back and it was during the busy time of the day
• Either way, it's cutting it close as to whether the Defendant could get back home from that spot at 8:51AM where the EZ pass transponder went off to make that call or see his neighbor, Gert DuCharme after getting a cup of coffee
• The Defendant says he went to Freedom Market to get the cup of coffee, but the cameras at Freedom market only have a live feed---they do not record---How would the Defendant know?
• The security system and cameras at Allstate were broken the morning of the murders---coincidence? How would the Defendant know?
• So the Defendant's truck is parked outside? So his cellphone is off? You've never done something like that before?
• The four-second call to a car rental agency was a wrong number dialed. Haven't you dialed a wrong number before?
• There were other people (possible mob connections), some in the Zammitti family, that could have wanted either Michael Zammitti, Jr. or Sr. dead. In fact, Michael Zammitti, Sr. was running late for work that morning because he had received a phone call on his way out the door. It's possible the bullet was meant for him

However you look at this case, whether Sean Fitzpatrick be guilty or not, it still took a lot of coincidences in either direction to bring us to this point. One cannot help feeling that a set-up has occurred, but maybe I have watched too much television. Nevertheless, the lives of the people who are affected by this case will forever be changed---whether it be the Defendant's, the victims' families', or the neighbors' in this community---life will be just a little different, and like all good mysteries, this one, verdict or not, will never truly be solved.