Massachusetts Love Triangle Murder Trial Plays Out

The trial of a New Hampshire man accused of murdering two men as part of an alleged love triangle is moving forward in a courtroom in Middlesex Superior Court in Woburn, with a few interesting twists.

Sean Fitzpatrick is accused of murdering Michael Zammitti, the husband of a woman named Michele Zammitti, as part of what prosecutors say was his plan to ‘eliminate’ Mr. Zammitti so that Fitzpatrick and Michele could be together. According to prosecutors, Michele Zammmitti, who was having an affair with Fitzpatrick, had reportedly told Fitzpatrick that she planned to return to her husband, and Fitzpatrick was allegedly desperate to stop that from happening. Not only is Fitzpatrick accused of murdering Michael Zammitti, he is also accused of murdering an alleged witness to that murder, a co-worker of Michael Zammitti’s by the name of Chester Roberts. Both men were shot to death on March 16 2006, outside their workplace.

A couple of interesting developments, so far in the trial: The prosecution contends that Fitzpatrick acted alone, without the knowledge of Michele Zammitti. The prosecution also contends that Michele Zammitti broke off the affair with Fitzpatrick “several weeks” before the murders – and Michele Zammitti has testified on the witness stand to this direct effect. However, Fitzpatrick’s defense attorney, Randy Gioia, successfully brought out, under cross examination of Michele, that in fact she continued to have contact with Fitzgerald right up until the weekend prior to the killings. In fact, according to her testimony under cross examination, Michele had engaged in more than thirty phone calls with Fitzpatrick between the time she claimed to have severed the affair with him, and the time of the killings. That will be an interesting point for the jury to consider when weighing this key witness’ credibility. Is she telling the truth, or is she cooperating with the prosecution to avoid charges against her, in the hope the prosecution can catch the ‘bigger fish’ here? It’s uncertain. Neither I nor any other observers can say at this point.

Yet, it’s certainly cause for question as to how the prosecution’s key witness, an admitted adulterer (which goes to that person’s propensity for honesty or veracity,) can claim to have ‘broken off’ an illicit affair with someone at a given point in time, then later admit under oath to having had over thirty separate phone calls with that person, afterward. That reason for question is especially critical when the witness is one of the two people involved in that illicit affair, who is not charged with the murder of the husband she was cheating on. Does this mean Michele Zammitti is lying? Not necessarily, and there has been no direct evidence of that, yet. But it does mean that this jury better be listening carefully. As I often say, “There’s always a story behind the story.”

More on this trial later.