That’s entertainment

Sean Fitzpatrick is guilty as sin!!! He is the most irritating, obnoxious, lying individual I've ever seen. The body language, his way of speaking, just everything about him tells you he's lying. The way he rambles on and on and on while on the stand. It is so obvious. What a creep!!!

Why was Sean allowed to hear testimony, then take the stand in his own defense? I though if a person was on the witness-call list, they were not allowed to hear testimony. Sean was able to think up more lies to weasel out of the lies he told police!

And yes this has been "entertainment", but not in the same way as VH1 or The Simpson's. 2 people were murdered, and we get a chance to see the system at work. The system does fail, as we see. Thanks to TruTV and the great facilitators like Jami Floyd, regular people like me get to watch and learn. I appreciate that!

I believe this guy is guilty of murder, who else would have the motive but him, the rejection by the other woman was to much for him

I believe the wife should be looked at. Who knows....perhaps she hired someone to "off" her husband.

It's nice to see you you back Jami.
Of all the trials I have watched on In Session in the last 6-8 months, this is the one that I was most torn over. I feel like the defendant is probably guilty. But I am aware of the lack of any physical evidence tying him directly to the crime or even the scene of the crime. And I think you are typically astute in suggesting that a hung jury is a result. I think a hung jury in this case is evidence of the genius of the system as it is. And I am dubious about the legitimacy of the Rodriquez or Dynamite Charge.

Did Mr. Fitzpatrick have in gunpowder residue tests? He would've had some type of powder residue on his skin or in the truck. I think he's already been proved innocent. Mr. Fitzpatrick would have to be a descendant of superman to maneuver in that time frame.

Obviously, the people who will not convict have not followed the rules of reasonable doubt and the fact that the prosecution did not prove him guilty.

What kind of commentary is this? To family and friend anxiously awaiting an outcome this commentary piece is insensitive and uninformative. CNN is better served by fact-based information or expert analysis rather than this useless rhetoric.

how do you drive a truck with one finger in a groove, and nothing on the gearshift. i do beleive that fitzpatrick had a motive, and that he did the murder, but there is no evidence to close the case. the jury will be hung.

Sean saved his case by testifing. He was excellent and will prevail where without it he would most likely would have been convicted.
I think he was guilty but weak evidence. Thats my 2 cents.

Jamie Floyd what is wrong with you? NO, it ISN'T entertainment!! What is wrong with you??

I WONDER WHY MORE WASN'T SAID ABOUT THE PROBABILITY OF GETTING THE TRUCK IN AND OUT OF THAT SMALL COMMUNITY WITHOUT ANYONE SEEING. I LIVE IN A RURAL COMMUNITY AND I CAN TELL YOU IF A NEIGHBORS TRUCK GOES BY, SOMEONE SEES IT. IF THAT NEIGHBOR WERE OUT OF TOWN THE POLICE WOULD BE CONTACTED.

IF HE TOOK THE TRUCK OUT BEFORE DAYLIGHT, PERHAPS HE COULD HAVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH THAT, BUT I CANNOT SEE HIM BEING ABLE TO PUT IT BACK AT 9:00 OR 9:30 WITHOUT BEING SCENE.

I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS TO SOME OF THE OTHER EVIDENCE, BUT THIS ALONE WOULD PRESENT TO ME, REASONABLE DOUBT.

"It's not like it was anything MAJOR," says murder suspect Sean Fitzpatrick. It's just the whole fabrication that's going to save your life there, big guy.

If there is not enough reasonable doubt to aquit Mr. Fitzpatrick anyone of us could be convicted of anything. No weapon, no witness, no evidence at the crime scene or anywhere to associate the defendant to the crime. The wifes two year brain lapse about conversation is questionable enough. He could have done the crime but there is more than enough reasonable doubt.

I am one who thinks he is guilty. When he testified, he always used the prosecutor's name when he responded. He did not do that when he answered his lawyer's questions. It was just one of the facts that made me believe that he was trying to con us all. And, maybe, he has. He had such a smirky attitude and that is why he conned Michelle, too, and she fell for it. He wanted a ready-made family and she was weak from years of neglect and enjoyed the attention, but, sadly, knew she had a good, but uncaring man and children to consider.

The cousin that testified had plenty of motive, he was angry with the family....over money he thought due him , also over the fact his uncle threatened to foreclose on his mother's house. Was he ever investigated?

Is it just me or does anyone else think Sean Fitzgerald looks like he could related to David Gregory on NBC News?

I"m sorry I said Sean Fitzerald instead of Sean Fitzpatrick.

BILLIE MARTIN – this was off season and only a handful of year round residents were there (maybe 10). Sean's truck would have blocked the view from Gert's window to where Fred's truck was and it would still be dark when the truck was pulled out and heading to MA. Then Sean would have returned the truck between approx 9:45-9:55.

Still nobody to see him replace that truck.

I dont know, I liked the way Fitzpatrick testified. He told the truth. He is confident, some people misinterpret this as arrogance. Also, Fitzpatrick was allowed to take the stand to testify after hearing all the other testimony because the defense doesnt get to go until after the prosecution has already presented its case. You do realize that people are allowed to testify in their own defense right? It's a constitutional right. The reason why Fitzpatrick would be allowed to testify if he is on the witness list is because he is the one on trial! What are they supposed to do? Not allow him to sit in on his own trial?

It would be unreasonable to doubt he did it. Where are these theories coming from??? The mob or a professional hit man would not break into a home (ironically that of the victims father) and steal a shotgun to make a hit, he'd have his own weapon.

The main thing that I'm a little confused about–is there should've been some DNA in that truck that belonged to the victims. Oh, don't get me wrong I think he's GUILTY. I think he planned and calculated every move. No one that was innocent would've written a letter to the victims family!!! GUILTY!!!!!

You go Rose!!! I'm 100% behind every word you say.

I think it's disgusting how many people are willing to throw someone in prison for the rest of their life for his body language, shape of his eyes, or on the thought of; who else could of?
Everyone should look at evidence and then ask themselves if that is reasonable to convict.
What kind of evidence would others think is fair to be judged themselves???

Although I am still having issues explaining the EZ-Pass, I can come up with alternative explanations for all the other evidence. I mean, he didn't have to 'touch' the keys with his hands. If he was wearing shorts, his knees could've touched the Martin truck keys.
Even though the evidence the Commonwealth put on was compelling, and he didn't present well on the stand, I'd have to aquit. There's just too much reasonable doubt.

Having an emotional affair doesn't make someone a murderer. How does one committ such a horrific crime and no blood evidence on him...did Gertrude say she saw him that morning?
I say not enough evidence let him go home and get his life back after 2 years in jail...what a shame. I believe he was framed or maybe Michele had a hand in this somehow. She's no angel....I think she is an actress on the stand....she is trying to cover her ass....Set this man free and go find the real killer(s).

From the time the truck went thru the toll gates,and the time it took to get it back in the Martin yard, I would have thought if Sean was outside in the yard he would have seen that truck being returned.

I think Paul Taylor should be looked at again.
I think there is more to Michael Jr. & Paul's argument.
Whatever it was, it was enough to "X" him out of the Zammitti family.
To Paul, that was a huge loss considering Michael Sr. has always been a father figure to him.
Why did Paul call Sean @ 8:15 & 8:33? What did he want.
How did Paul find out @ the murders?
Where did Paul get all of his money?

Set the man free! There is clearly not enough evidance to convict this man. It does not seem as if this so called affair was that serious for anyone to commit such a crime. Micheal appears to have a stable personality , Michele is volitale. She has been volitale since the get go. Did she want to stay with her husband or go? Maybe the authorities should check more into her.

Sean said that if he were driving the truck he would have "stuck out like a sore thumb"...my question is...according to the timeline, he should have been standing in his driveway when the truck was returned...why didn't he notice it? It should have stuck out like a sore thumb!
I can't make up my mind about Sean's quilt but I do have questions about Michelle. Her eyes were either down or closed throughout her testimony. Furthermore, I believe she fabricated the part about saying that she told Sean..."unless something happens to Mike"... (no one says that in conversation) If she did say it, there had to have been a sinister reason.

I told my husband from day one that this man would walk and looks like i am right . Dont the pro.know about YES AND NO answers only it has been a show thats it

I cannot say wether he did it or not.So obviously the prosecutor has not proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt.I would always vote not guilty if there is so much doubt.I don't think it should have been hung.What a waste of money and anguish for the victims in this case.

I've been reading the comments over at Juror Thirteen and it looks as though he'd be convicted in a minute if those who've known him for decades were on the jury.

I don't think there's reasonable doubt. If you believe it was him in the truck, then it was him the entire way. He acted suspicious to all of his friends and neighbors, and still can't get his story straight where he went that morning to get coffee.

If you were accused of a murder THIS EVENING, wouldn't you rack your brain OVER and OVER about what EXACTLY you did this morning??? You wouldn't be sitting there on the stand going "Welllll...... maybe I didn't walk into that room that morning" (when the prosecutor asked him about what time it was when he woke up, and showed him a picture of the huge clock in his living room) "Welll.. maybe it was this or that, blah blah" you would KNOW what you did that morning.

And you CERTAINLY WOULD NOT SEND THE VICTIM'S FAMILY A THREATENING LETTER!!

He is innocent! what is taking so long???? there is no evidence to prove him guilty. we can surmise all we want the evidence just isn't there.

If he was at that scene and blew 2 people away with a 16 guage shot gun, then moved Mr. Roberts as the prosecution claims, bloody foot prints by the body , Why was there no blood on the floor board of the truck. It would be on his shoes and transfer to the carpet in the truck.
No blood, no proof, no weapon! I think it was a rush to judgement.
He may have had motive, but too much reasonable doubt! NOT GUILTY!

I don't know if he is guilty or not, but, the time line and the truck would give me reasonable doubt? Can't see how he could have gotten it back, got rid of the gun, and where is the residue? Surely a shot gun at that close of a range would splatter all over the place and you mean there was not one trace found in that truck? I don't think he actually did it. If he did, he must be a magician?

Just my opinion. I think the jury might find him guilty if the judge keeps sending them back in the jury room. Who knows? Only the killer, I guess?

There are 2 smoking guns, IMO. The first is the note that he sent, and he almost got away with that....but forgot about palm prints...and the 2nd smoking gun is that all of the neighbors offer differing testimony from his. In short, too much circumstantial evidence IS evidence of guilt. But he will get away with it. A hung jury....that is my humble opinion. The prosecution did not present a case and the jury cannot find him guilty as charged. Too bad. But I hope that Michelle Zammitti does not end up with him. She could be the next victim.

Marie
Countryside, Illinois

Reasonable Doubt. I don't FEEL he did the murders regardless of some of the "circumstances". I can't find the evidence to convince let alone the tight time line. There is something missing about Michele...
Gert could def. be mistaken about time so long ago. Too many "coulds" "could nots" in this case.

DNA. I think everyone in the world has heard of it by now, incluiding the criminals. I think they know by now to not leave any DNA behind. Some people think "no DNA, must not of been them" but thats not true. Sometimes they only make 1 mistake and his was the EZ pass that shows the truck went that way and back which ties everything together beyond a reasonable doubt. Take away the easy pass and all they have is "it might be the truck", "that might be the gun which was stolen from the house", "he might be the man" but the easy pass says that it was the neighbors truck and it's all in the same neighborhood.

Dear Jami,
I watch you everyday. I watch the entire tru tv from 6 am until it goes off the air at noon, here in Nevada. All of you are so brilliant, and I love how you cover the trials, and the reporters also. I must admit, I am more prone to the Commenwealth, Prosecutors in so many cases, just because I believe whomever is being tried is probably guilty. Not always the case, but that is just me. I always wanted to work with the FBI, since I graduated from High School in 1952. However, they apparently didn't hire women for agents!!!!! I always read non-fiction, and I am addicted to allllll the True Crime shows, and must admit, that every night when my husband and I settle down to watch TV, he has taped sooooo many crime shows for me.... He asks, "Well Sandy what kind of crime story do you want to watch tonight"!!!!
Thank you for reading my comments, hopefully. I just cannot tell you how much I appreciate your show. I had worked for the Prison System and Parole Division in Nevada for many years, I am 74, retired from the State for 14 years. Jean Casarez (SP?) was a reporter in Reno, NV for sometime. We love watching her report the news. We never, ever knew of her background, so when we watch her, we just love her so much. She is without a doubt one of our favorites, so intelligent.
Thank you for your wonderful show,

Sandy Castor
Carson City, NV 89705

I do think Sean killed the two men but I don't think the State proved it.

I think the trial came out just like it was supposed to given the evidence that the proscecution gave. I truly believed they should look at the wife Michelle. I think she had more to do with it thaN

I am anxious to watch Open Court and Best Defense tomorrow. I did not see information on how the jury was split and whether Fitzpatrick is out free already, etc. He has already served 2 years in prison and the money for attorneys baffles me - especially if he truly was innocent such as those who spent many years and then new DNA evidence sets them free. I guess I feel too leary to take the freedom of someone under as much circumstancial evidence as there was in this one. It could have been planted knowing that everyone would look at him for that fact. I just can't put the feeling that there would not have been any other DNA of his in that truck with as little time as he would have had - if any - to clean it up, etc. Also curious as to if there was gun residue on his hand when questione.d But, without weapon, clothes, DNA of victims on him, etc.-how could they do anything else? I would also be curious to hear if and how the prosecution goes about determining if they will retry. I suggest they try to follow some of the other scenarios and try to focus on finding any murder weopons or DNA that links the victims to Fitzpatrick or that place of work. I think it was a right call. Thanks for choosing this one. America does want to know when there are cases such as this where we depend on the justice system to demand that the prosecution prove its case - that is why our system is in place. Thanks, again.

now that there is a mistrial, the prosecution should thank there lucky stars that it wasn't an outright acquittal. in the eyes of the law, a person is pressumed innocent until proven guilty. the key word here is proven!! what did the prosecution prove? they proved he was in rfred martins truck. the only bad thing is, they couldn't prove when. they proved that the truck went from nwe hampshire to mass. and back. they couldn't prove sean was driving it or that the truck was at the murder scene. did he do this, probably, but, probability isn't proof, it's an opinion, everyone has one. in my opinion, unless the prosecution can somehow come up with some type of solid evidense, it won't matter how many times they try him, the results will be the same. there will alway be at least one person on the jury that will not convict without physical evidense. that's the way it should be though, innocent till PROVEN guilty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What motive would he have? Look at her then look at him! I do believe he's had much better and will have much better. She is a loser. She was the one soliciting to murder by saying something would have to happen to her husband!!! (Hello) This man has lost two years of his life to prove his innocense, because you are guilty til proven innocent in this country. May peace be with him...

This case brought to mind this phrase, "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, IT"S A DUCK!" The evidence was pointing in only one direction...to him! I wish they had asked the public to check their surveillance cameras for that time and date for that truck. I bet there was a 'snapshot" on one of those camera of him in that truck. It appears that as long as the murderer stays tidy and neat with physical evidence they can truly get away with murder. I believe too many common sensed men and women get out of jury duty with lame excuses. This leaves our court system with jurors who appear to be afraid of deciding someone's fate or not open enough to truly deliberate as directed by the judge. With all the recent high profile murder cases ending in mistrials, it appears mistrials will become more and more frequent which will further slow the wheels of justice.

Sean got a hung jury, but he should have been aquitted. This man is not guilty; accept it and let him out of jail. It could have been a numerous amount of suspects, but they ;never got checked out. It could have been business related, a money situation, a gambling debt, etc. I bet Zammitti Sr. knows exactly who did it and has framed poor Sean. SEAN FITZPATRICK IS NOT GUILTY

after hearing all the evidence, I feel Shawn Fitzpatrick is innocent. Michael Z. sr seems like the type of person that may have a lot of enimies, and I don't know why but I just do not trust Michelle Z, It's odd to me that she was in the shower when she got the call that her husband had been shot, what was she washing off, I know thats a stretch, but somehow I feel she is involved. angela

I have never thought that Sean Fitzpatrick is guilty of this crime. I am sorry for him that this has ended in a mistrial instead of an acquittal.

I thought the defense attorney did a wonderful job. Congratulations to him.

I think this was a total rush to judgement. No one could place Sean in that truck on the day of the crime. I agree totally with the defense attorney.

I am concerned that in a retrial the obvious is for the police to try to bolster their case with additional evidence. The unfortunate part of that is shared evidence. As a retired sheriff's detective I am highly skeptical of investigators and prosecutors willingness to disclose any or all exculpatory evidence to defense. I investigated two occasions where it happened and I know of others. It is an unfortunate part of human nature. Nobody likes to have egg on their face. I refer to it as the Nyfong syndrome.

Pete

Sean Fitzpatrick has smoozed all of you who think he may not be guilty just like he smoozed/lied to Michelle Z. Lots of you have double standard where the woman is concerned. You would convict her with no evidence and are not willing to convict Sean with physical type evidence......

fitzpatrick is likely guilty of this crime but the prosecution did not have what they needed to prove it. the police should have considered other scenarios in my opinion. if fitzpatrick is innocent all you adulterers/cheaters out there better hope nothing bad happens to your partner.

WHAT A SHAME ! THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOME CONCLUSION TO THIS TRIAL. THE FAMILY INVOLVED DOESN'T NEED TO GO THROUGH THIS AGAIN !
GOD BLESS THE ZAMMITTI'S AND STAY STRONG !

To those who voted not guilty, my only pray for you is that you never have two close persons to you murdered; and then some jurors can't bring themselves to connect all the dots to one who did it.