All hung up

I'm convinced that Fitzpatrick is guilty but don't believe the lead prosecutor was effective in presenting his evidence or in making his closing statements. He wasn't focused enough and botched the dna testimony. Perhaps his female assistant would have done a better job. ...

The main reason I don't buy Fitz's story is that Michelle doesn't. Do you think she sobbed through this trial because a stranger executed her husband? She is feeling extreme guilt because she knows that her misbehavior brought about his murder.

Maggie in Mesa

I don't think any one was that surprised of the verdict. I think the police should take a closer look at the victims cousin because his attitude on the stand really bothered me, and he was very unhappy with the family of the victim because of a lawsuit and the threats made towards his mother.

If they were looking for physical evidence what happened to the DNA on the steering whee? Why did they believe Sean over Mr. Martin? He said Sean was never in his truck. Something went wrong in this trial with so much evidence against him or pointing to him. How could the jury not see that this man is guilty.

I have been watching on and off for several days...simply can't shake the feeling that the murdered man's cousin is somehow to blame. Has he taken a lie dectector exam or been thoroughly investigated? There seems to have been some very bad blood between members of that family involving those two and their respective relatives. I can't help but think that Sean Fitzpatrick is being held and accused as a very convenient scapecoat for this crime. I truly beleive it is a "family matter".

I think Fitzpatrick showed an arrogance beyong belief, including that at one point – whether anyone noticed or not – he raised his total finger to the camera as he held his chin to make it not so obvious!!

I think it needs to be said that it wasn't the majority of the jury that didn't convict, but only a few..and it was because it was a circumstanceal evidence case. Those jurors need to not take the law into their own hands by deciding not to convict because it was circumstancal evidence. Most everyone knows it was Fitzpatrick that committed these murders,based on the evidence... also know that he only took the stand because he had to. No one else could or would put him in that truck but him....and he had to come up with his "reason" why he sent the note because he could deny sending the note because no one saw him mail it

It's like news reporters, we don't need your opinion just the facts please. Don't get caught up in the fairy tail of Sean, the odds of everyone but him is not telling the truth. Let him out on bail and see if he shows up for the next trial, if he does he will be in a box. No, that is the last word!

Do it again, right away, BUT do it better the second time. Present the evidence in a way that allows the jury to find Fitzpatrick guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

What a waste! It's sad that this poor guy has to sit in jail until another jury can finally find him NOT GUILTY!!!
Hopefully they'll do more investigating into the sobbing tramp of a widow and I bet they find she's got alot more to do with this then everyone knows.
Also, I wonder how her acting will be the next time? Cause it sucked this time!! I bet her face hurts from all the pretend frowning she did all those weeks.
She now can run around and find another man to destroy his life as she did Sean's.
Michele.. you should be ashamed of yourself!

there is reasonable doubt all over this case. for those who say that the DNA in the truck convicts him. how do you explain the lack of DNA at the crime scene. do you think that he cleaned up the scene and made it spotless and for got to clean the truck i think not the senseble conlution is that he was not on the scene and that i was in the truck earlier in the year like he said ( sorry about the bad spelling)

Some unanswered questions:
-Were receipts or work orders checked at the garage where Millie had her car? A time stamp on those could assist Gert with her time line.
-Could Sean have been in cahoots(a legal term, I'm sure!) with the cousin? Maybe the cousin made him a deal that would help them both out. Sean drove the gun down to Mass. in the "borrowed" truck, and the cousin did the murders. Sean could then be smug, knowing he didn't do the crime, as charged.
-Just what were Michelle and Sean talking about/planning in all those 30 calls between their February condo meeting and the murders? You don't say, we're over, give me time to work it out with my husband, all the while being on the phone more than daily with the lover. Just sayin'.
-Sean said the weather had been bad the preceeding weekend, rainy etc., yet he had the meeting with Michael, Jr. on the ice, and was working on a walkway the next day? Huh?

These are some of the questions I would like answered in the next trial.

In my opinion, if a jury can not come to a conclusive decision, then there obviously was not enough believabe evidence to convict Sean. Personnally, I feel a hung jury is an innocent verdict because of the lack of believable evidence to prove guilt. I also strongly feel someone should seriously take a closer look into the possibility of the victims cousin being a suspect! If anyone came across in a suspicious manner, it was him.

No physical evidence to prove Sean committed those murders. You can retry his case all you want to commonwealth, but you are still gonna come up empty. Next trial will be an aquittal. God bless you Sean. Freedom will be yours soon.

HELLO, I AM RETIRED AND WATCH IN SESSION FROM 10 TO 3 EVERY DAY. I AGREE WITH THE JURY'S DECISION....I KEPT ASKING MYSELF, WHERE IS THE BLOOD EVIDENCE? BUT THE REAL REASON I WROTE IS TO SAY JAMI FLOYD IS A CLASSY LADY. SHE IS SMART, BEAUTIFUL AND MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE THAN MOST LAWYERS I HAVE SEEN AND HEARD ON TV......I AM 70 YRS. YOUNG AND ONE OF HER BIGGEST FANS.....GOD BLESS ALL

I am curious what the split was with the jury. I am sure that most of the jurors tried to come to a unified decision and feel that, although they did their best, they failed. It is very frustrating to spend so much time and emotion on a case and realize that 1 or 2 others do not see things the same way. Some jurors seem to have a difficult time looking only at the evidense and the jury instructions. These jurors will probably spend a long time replaying this case over and over in there minds, wondering what they could have done differently to reach a verdict.

As someone whom was locked-up with Fitz. I know that he is a lying sack of you know what. I've spent countless hours on a tier playing chess with him. He is smart about his moves, but arrogant in his demeanor. Also for those who worked with Fitz in the kitchen in Cambridge Jail, well we'll just say he knows how to brown nose, steal, lie, an rat, along with putting the blame on others to protect his so called innocence. Once again the sheep pulls the wool over someone else's eyes. Sean I'd like to say good luck but in this "case" all you needed on your side was for the police to foul up.......

It did not surprise me that this trial ended in a mistrial. The prosecution made an impressive opening and never backed it up. That, in my opinion, is a big reason the jury could not decide one way or the other.

I believe the prosecution did not have enough evidence to place Sean in the truck let alone placing the truck at the murder scene. If I were on the jury I would not convict on the evidence that was presented. Right now I do not know if he did or did not do it.
Kris

Maybe someone out there can tell me who testified that they saw the Martin truck at/or near the murder site? I believe that Fitzpatrick was the murderer, but can see with no gun, no witness, no blood. . .just a huge amount of motive, they couldn't all agree. If Fitzpatrick was smart, he would have said that he took the truck, drove it thru the tolls, but decided to have coffee and donuts in Delaware, or where ever, kept the receipts and been on his merry way. He could have even said that he drove by the scene, saw the police, ambulance, etc., and got the heck out of there. Of course, Gert's testimony may have been part of what, at this point, was in question. She varied her routine, gave doubt about time. Anyway, can you give me an answer re the eye witness on the truck?

PVessey: it was a video tape from a nearby building in which it looked like it could be Fred Martins truck but they can't say for sure. hope this helps

It is amazing how much misery the digusting widow caused such a fine family man. She should be on trial too.

Was the jury polled after they informed the judge they were deadlocked? If so, what was the count?

Set him free!!! He DID NOT DO IT!!! Check out the fake sob-er, and the father. Geez people, look at the evidence, what evidence... There are other people who have or had motive. SET HIM FREE

I think he is guilty and it was proven. How come the jury didn't know you don't have to have physical evidence to find someone guilty? Many people seem to have trouble coming to logical conclusions based on evidence presented to them. Could it be a lack of education? They used to teach Logic - I took it as an undergrad - it should be required of jurors - Logic training! I think as the commentators indicated, there's too much CSI TV show influence so people seem to want the murderer covered in the victims' blood and his footprints and DNA all over the crime scene. As proven in the OJ trial, even that can fail! This hung jury is crazy and it's so too bad for the families of the victims. Next time this case is tried, perhaps the prosecutor can add to the witness list:

Fred Martin's wife, whom Sean says thanked him profusely for helping Fred get the boat out of the water

Gert's friend, whom she drove to the car dealership - maybe she can coroborate Gert's timeline

Gert's daughter, whom Sean dated - he may have said something incriminating to her - was she surprised at his sudden interest in her?

Sean's "best" friend, who now thinks he's guilty. Is there some way to get more of his testimony in?

Mr. Defense Attorney was the key here! This has nothing to with “professional” training for jurors . . . hold the prosecution accountable for not being honest, or more “forthcoming” in addressing the weakness’ in the State’s own evidence so baldly stated by the defense. (Hint: good things come in three’s.)

The jury already has, it seems to me.

Get it straight: Mr. Defense Attorney was far superior to Mr. Prosecutor precisely at each and every turn, especially in light of all the evidence adduced at trial by the State. Give Mr. Prosecutor a bull horn next time . . . and only one decibel level.

IIronically, it was Mr. Prosecutor’s summation, his “demeanor” that was the “sad,” albeit necessary component to vindicate the rights of the accused here.

It became so obvious to me at that point, and I maintain even to Mr. Prosecutor himself. Of all the players on this stage it was Mr. Prosecutor in his final summation that convinced me to an “absolute certainty” that the State had not met its burden of proof. It was his “fog horn” schtick that truly belied the fundamental weaknesses in the State’s case. Socratic irony, my friends? Who made their argument actually weaker in their final summation?

No one asks for absolute certainty . . . just justice . . . “trust the 12 ” to do their job. I do.

Since some of the jury felt there wasn't enough evidence to convict Mr. Fitzgerald, how can he continue to be held without bond? I don't understand the system at all. Doesn't how the jury felt count for anything?

The jury had to "assume" way too much. Can't put a man away with so little to go on. Can't prove nothing. Prosecution can only assume.

The evidence just wasn't there. Plenty of 'what ifs' and conjecture, but when the judge gave the jury the Rodriquez charge she said that the decision was to be based on the evidence and the law. She went on to say that conjecture and assumptions had no place in the deliberations. The police did so many things wrong, and skirting the law made a huge impact on decisions. The body was moved before the ME saw it. Why? Chester Roberts' body was moved. Did they examine the jacket he was wearing, under the arms to see if anything was left behind? A hair, an epithelial cell? No. They didn't. Did they examine the bloody footprint beside Roberts' body? It was clearly made before the door was opened.The supposed surveillance placed the suspect truck in the Allstate parking lot. Where are the tire tracks? It was muddy that day. Fitzpatrick testified that it was rainy and muddy on the 13th. If Martin's truck had been moved off of the empty lot, there would have been tire tracks leaving and returning, there would have been shoeprints in the mud. Did they find anything? No.

This man was convenient for an investigation team who was looking for an easy way out. Zammitti Sr. is a very powerful man in his community, both in MA and NH. They didnt want to anger him. Look at the family – that is where the answer lies.

You armchair jurors cannot criticize or judge these jurors for being unable to come to a unanimous verdict. Until you have been in their seats, you will have no inkling as to the seriousness with which they take their duty to render a verdict. The definition of reasonable doubt is hazy, to say the least, but such are the rules of the system and they must be applied. This case became the singular focus of these 12 men and women; they breathed it and lived it long after they left the courtroom. Spectators have the luxury of being able to discuss, to read about, to research. Jurors don't have that option. The facts swirl around in their heads every waking minute and they can't share their doubts and questions with anyone. I am an eyewitness to this and I can tell you with absolute certainty that it has changed some of these fine human beings in a way that you will never understand.

Has anyone read about Mr Fitzpatricks house being burned to the ground or the fact that the victims family have filed a civil suit against Fitzpatrick that is on hold waiting on the criminal trial verdict. The police know it was arson but are they investigating??? NO, why ?? They know who did this but because the Zammitti family is so powerful in this area they aren't going to do anything to step on their toes. It is a shame that on the so called evidence the police have ruined a mans life who is supposely "innocent until proven guilty". His bank accounts are frozen, his home is gone and he has been sitting in jail for 2 years while his friends and neighbors are scared to stand with him because they have to live among the Zammitis. So he still remains in jail waiting on the next trial w/out bond and they say presume innocent ?????????? What a travesty of our justice system.

I think Sean is guilty as sin, but why isn't the wife, Michele, being looked at for putting him up to this? Who says, "We can only be together if something "happens" to my husband?" She is a sniveling whore and she should be charged with engineering this whole thing! I feel so sorry for the innocent victims in this case: the children, the parents and the poor employee who was at the wrong place, at the wrong time.

U will find that the murderer in these two deaths will end up being one of the zammiti's. i do not believe that sean killed these 2 people and was able to get rid of all blood, GSR. He did something stupid with sending the letter but he was prob feeling desperate to prove his innocence and get the police to look at other avenues, not just him. Can someone answer for me if the toll ticket in the truck can be removed? if so, couldn't anyone have taken it and especially since they say the truck "could have been" the neighbors. and why didn't the police take the truck in to search for evidence, if it was the "one" possibly seen at the scene? if they did take it and searched for evidence and came up with nothing how can they say for sure the truck (at the scene) was the neighbors? It all seems to me like he was an easy target and set up. The wife would have known sean's routine better than anyone. so easy for her to set it up!!!!! And how would he be able to take the gun out of the father-in-laws house? afterall, isn't everybody scared of the zammiti's, according to testimony? He would be crazy to think he could break in and get away with it. what is the security like around the zammiti's home? If they are as powerful as everyone thinks, you would wonder how sean got in to take the gun???? Let this man go because all he is guilty of is having an affair with a nutcase. And until the trial is rescheduled, he should be able to be posted for bond. This is unconstitutional to keep him locked up in a prison for something 12 people COULDN'T find him guilty of. FREE him until the trial.

I have followed this trial, and didn't have a chance to hear the veredict, finally decided to look it up on line, and here I am. I am glad they declare it a mistrial. Why? With all the evidence I heard and saw I wouldn't called him guilty if I was one of the jurors. Remember, with out reasonable doubt, thats the only way a person should be declare guilty. To me that was not the case, too many mishandles and nothing substantial.

I know this comment is late, but since Sean cleaned septic tanks I wonder if maybe he disposed of the gun in someone"s septic tank? Just a thought. By the way I think he is guilty.

Good question, how can they keep him locked up if the jury could not find him guilty? He should be free at least till his next trial. Does anyone know when he will go to trial again?

The retrial is scheduled to begin on January 20, 2009, according to an article in the local newspaper. There was also a very interesting interview with one of the jurors in the first trial. Hope you can find it because it was an insightful read.