| Type | Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle | Source | Last Checked |  |
 |
On the morning of March 13, 2006 Michael Zammatti Jr. and his co-worker were shot dead on theZammatti family's concrete company premises. Rumors spread quickly about a conflict with the mob, until Michael's mother suspects a man she once caught in an inappropriate embrace with Michael's wife.
I am truly shocked by the verdict convicting Sean Fitzpatrick. He was guilty of having an affair and I can't believe that whoever committed these heinous crimes is walking free. It's obvious that the jury had a very difficult time reaching a decision. Apparently, at some point, they decided to just be done with it and go home. Meanwhile, an innocent man will spend the rest of his life in prison because he had an affair. I think those jurors who were bullied will be spending many sleepless nights, as will Sean. This is just so sad and representative of the mediocrity that has become so prevalent in our society. The jurors had a serious job to do and failed to live up to their responsibilty. There was and still is reasonable doubt. I pray that the real killer will have an attack of conscious and come forward. That's Mr. Fitzpatrick's only hope now.
#1 - Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:19 PM EDTDid you watch the entire first trial on CNN or are you basing your comments from what you saw on Dateline? Just curious. I did watch the whole trial and dateline can only do so much in "summarizing" the whole thing.in two hours.
Unless Sean Fitzpatrick was recently released or escaped, I don't think anyone has to worry about the murderer walking around.
Watching the trial, the witnesses for the prosecution were solid, never changed in either trial. Obviously, if you are not a real tech person, you might believe he is innocent, but he turned his cell of for a reason, he couldn't take it with him, he could be tracked - so it was left behind and OFF. That way no one would know he wasn't there atthis place. Also - the image of the truck was good enough in the clip along and put that together with the transpoder for the toll booths and his print on the letter, it would lead a prudent person to deduce that he took the truck, tried to get through the booths without using the pass, and bless that toll booth employee for making a mistake and clicking on the pass before realizing that he wanted to pay money ... otherwise - it would have been very hard to place him there. Sending the letter with his print, and trying to say he did it because he was afraid of the suspicion by the police....that is just plain baloney. He tried to make it look like a mob hit. Cocky and arrogant, flippant - I have been in enough court rooms to know - INNOCENT people are scared and they do not behave or act like that. His actions were calculated, cold and deliberate. His arrogance and flippant manner are not those of an innocent person.
He is where he belongs.
As for the wife of the victim, she should be haunted by her dispicable behavior. A good man lies dead partly because of her. For her to say that the only way she could see them being together is if something happened to her husband. A wife that truly wanted to work things out - would never say that. In a way = its almost like she was planting this idea in her boyfriends mind. Nevertheless, she didn't get charged and she is walking around scott free. The victim, his father and mother and others are the ones who should be thought of - comforted. Not his wife or the boyfriend - they deserve what they get, she will answer to God for her traiterous act.
Too bad Dateline didn't report at the end of the interview that the Good Widow Michelle, had a new boyfriend not long after the murder and well before the start of the first trial.
So much for her love for either Michael or Sean.
TO DO LIST;
GET RID OF HUSBAND (insert check mark)
GET RID OF BOYFRIEND (check check)
#2 - Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:21 PM EDTWhere did you hear about Michelle taking up with someone new?
What in tarnation does this comment have to do with Sean Fitzpatrick being found quilty of murdering two people?
In response to John White:
It has EVERYTHING to with Sean Fitzpatrick being found quilty of murdering two people.
Are you familiar with case or just learning of it from last nights episode? I'm not asking in a condecending tone or anything. I'm simply asking because if you're just hearing about now than you need the get the background story.
I couldn't help notice a guilty/liar's face on the widow Michelle. Seemed like she had something to hide and hidden motives.... I can't believe both the prosecutors, lawyers, jury and the family of Michael could not see something about this woman.
I think they have to investigate something about this woman....
And how wratched that she had a new boyfriend after the death of her husband.....
#3 - Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:51 PM EDTMichelle deserved the Oscar in a leading role, for her performance in "The Grieving Widow" episode from the first trial. That one was aired on TruTv, the second one was not.
I think the sole reason she worked with the police and prosecutors was to make sure the "heat" would stay off her...being a cooperative witness made it less likely that anyone would look at her.
Could you please get Stone Phillips back? Keith Morrison has got to be the worst choice for a crime reporter; he reads like a grandpa telling a kid a story, and this show has been ruined for me. You also lay out the story at the beginning, unlike 48 Hours on that other channel, who can really tell a story without giving it all away at the beginning, I just don't like how you stretch a story into two hours that could be better told in one, without featuring KM driving or in a mirror or doing asides while walking that seem unnecessary, and rather dull and egotistical and irrelevant.
#4 - Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:36 AM EDTI think it's portrayed that way for dramatic effect. But you're not buying that are ya. :) Keith does have a certain flare about his reporting... the way his voice ranges from high and low. Does kinda remind me of listening to Grandpa tell a bed time story. ;)
I disagree. I think Keith Morrison has vastly enhanced this program. He is much better than Stone Phillips (who was flat, bland & boring). In fact, the show has become more intriguing since Keith joined. His voice is truly hypnotic & captivating. Also, his angular, uniquely handsome physical appearance is perfect for a show about crime. You just can't take your eyes (or ears) off him. I agree that the way he modulates his voice is very effective. He doesn't remind me of my Grandpa. I wish my grandpa looked & sounded like him. He's a riveting crime reporter. Great work, Keith!! You are the best!!
Does anyone know Sean Fitzpatrick's DOB? email: lynn@astrogal.com
Thanks
#5 - Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:31 AM EDTI am not a psychic, but I have a very strong intuition and from the very beginning, I felt Fitzpatrick was not guilty. I would like to know what you find out from your chart. I have recently been told I am a "lightworker" and am getting back in touch with my intuitiveness. I would like to know if I am right.
I would like to do Sean Fitzpatrick's chart to see if he's duilty. Anyone know the DOB?
Lynn@astrogal.com
#6 - Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:37 AM EDTWhat kind of a chart are your going to do to prove or disprove someone guilty of two murders?
His DOB is 6/10/62. I knew Sean was a Gemini when I saw the program. The duplicity, double personality, Jeckyll & Hyde. He is light & breezy on the stand, hiding his dark side. Also, they described him as social, chatty, easygoing, witty...all Gemini traits.
i normally go for the death penalty in murder cases where there is no uncertainty. but there is something very fishy about this whole case. 1. very little attention is given to the other murdered victim, ie, the employee. how is it determined that he was not the target? 2. the poor litlle unfaithful wife is not above suspicion. she might have rigged the entire event (although one would expect a little more confirmation or evidence from the defendant). 3. there was the suggestion that several break-in's in the lake community may have been where the murder weapon was obtained. i would like to see more evidence tying the defendant to these break-in's. 4. anyone could have driven the martin truck down there. there is no direct evidence tying the defendant to driving the truck on the day of the murder. 5. the alleged motive for the murder (ie, love) is very weak. it would be more believable if the defendant had felt threaened by the victim. it seems unlikely that the defendant would kill two people if he were after only one. it also is illogical to think that the defendant would kill a parent leaving children fatherless. no, the alleged motive just doesn't make sense. 6. the most incriminating thing against the defendant is his writing a note to the family. but this note is entirely inconsistent with the alleged motive. if the defendant were to kill for love as alleged, then he would not write such a note & threaten harm to his love object's family. but he did write the note as he confessed. therefore, he was not that serious about the victim's wife & consequently had no motive. the police need to do more home-work. but i hope that ultimately i'm wrong, because otherwise, an innocent person is serving time for something he did not do.
#7 - Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:46 AM EDT1. It was determined that the employee was not the target because he was shot in the back. The husband was shot twice in the face---that is personal. The employee was eliminated because he was a witness. 2. I did not see any evidence presented that she rigged two murders. She appears emotionally needy and was a prime target for an opportunist. 3. The caliber of the stolen shotgun and the murder weapon were determined to be the same. The proximity of the defendant to the robbery victim and the main target cannot be ignored. Nothing of value was noted to be missing from the truck owners home. The truck owner was away for an extended period of time, including the time of the murders. The keys could have been taken, the truck driven and returned and the keys replaced with the owner never knowing. 4. DNA---Weak DNA does not necessarily mean old DNA placed at an earlier time. It simply means that it did not come from a body fluid, such as deposited skin cells on the steering wheel. Strong DNA would have required that the defendant bled on the steering wheel---or licked it. 5. Defendants do not need to feel threatened by their victims. A large number kill because they want to kill. The husband seemed to have accepted his role in the wife's seeking support elsewhere. Witness elimination. He wasn't killing a father to leave two children fatherless. He was overcoming an obstruction in his quest for control of his rival's family. 6. The note is inconsistent with the alleged motive and threatened harm because it was an attempted diversion. His motive was ownership and control and he was serious about those issues. The police found DNA, a palm print, video, two crimes involving matching caliber weapons, evidence denying an alibi, motive, opportunity, rivalry.
Beyond a reasonable doubt---Not beyond any scenario that can be cooked up.
I watched the entire first trial and must agree that Michelle is quite the actress!!!!!!! What kind of a woman would not only disrespect her murdered husband, BUT also her three children by "hooking" up with someone not soon after the murder. Since Sean was in jail awaiting trial, she just couldn't wait to bait someone else. Those poor children. Thank heaven for their grandparents. I feel so badly for Michael Sr. and his wife and Michael's sister. They were genuinely grieving, not like Michelle who, like I said is quite the actress!! Has a lot of people fooled. I do believe Sean committed the murder, but I can't stop thinking about the "grieving" (NOT) widow.
#8 - Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:50 AM EDTDoes anyone know where Sean Fitzpatrick is incarcerated? I am not the type to write to an inmate, but really feel that this guy got a raw deal and want him to know that there are people out there who believe him. How horrible it must have been for him when the verdict was read! I do not believe this man is a murderer.
#9 - Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:59 AM EDTI'm not sure if he's still incarercated in this facility, but as of March 2009 he was in the maxi section of the Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center
PO Box 8000
Shirley, Ma. 01464
Phone (978)514-6500
Before you send anything (assuming you might) you may want to phone the jail first in case he's been moved.
I'm sorry. But the more I think about this, the more I've got to ask this question.
Michelle??? What kind of guy (other than her husband) would go out of his way to kill for her? If they were not having any REALLY FANTASTIC sex, I cant think of any. Were they having sex? They both say "no". Did she have Sean believing that she was an abuse housewife? Doesn't sound like it. Did she entice Sean to go kill her husband? Doesn't sound like it? Did she set Sean up for a frame up, having hired another "hit" man? If so, Sean isn't saying so. So the alleged motive "for love" doesn't hold water.
What does make sense is a confrontation between Sean & the husband with a threat against Sean's life. If this were the case, Sean may have acted out of self defense. But you can't prove it, since no witnessed anything to that effect (unless it was Michelle). Certainly she would know if there had been such a confrontation.
No, the more I think about it, the more this case is way off coarse.
#10 - Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:43 AM EDTLet me try one more time. What makes even more sense is that Michelle DID ENTICE Sean to kill her husband for insurance money. That was his motive, not love. They jointly staged it to look like a Mafia Hit, using a shotgun & sending a threatening letter to the family.
I would look LONG & HARD at Michelle. She's is not being truthful about something. I am convinced that she had something to do with it.
#11 - Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:06 AM EDTI'll put it to you this way.
I've long thought Michelle was behind this, or had her hand in it. I won't condem the woman for having an affair. A bad choice on her part, yes, but nonetheless, affairs don't generally lead to murder.
My feeling is that she no longer loved Michael, infact she herself in her own testimoney revealed she told Michael she no longer loved him the way two people should love eachother. NOW, the lifestyle Michael had provided for her, well that's a whole nother issue. Michael could give her the lifestyle and status that Sean could not.
However, I'm not so sure that she loved Sean either. I think she loved the attention that Sean gave her, and everyting that went with it, the poem and the like. She didn't get the same from Michael.
OH WHAT'S A WOMAN TO DO YOU ASK
She would have lost out big in a divorce settlement and that's a well known fact. Had it not been for the mere other fact that she had a new boyfriend within a few months of the murder and way before the start of the 1st trial, I might not view her in the light I do.
I think she set Sean up to take the fall. Remember, she told him that the only way that SHE WOULD LEAVE MICHAEL WAS IF SOMETHING HAPPENED TO HIM. That's a very suggestive statement and not one that you'd expect to hear unless said individual is secretly hoping something will happen to spouse.
You can say oh, poor choice of words or spin in it anyway you want to. BUT why would a woman who claims she wants to get back with her husband say something like that to her lover? Unless of course, you want to get rid of them both.
With that statement she planted the seed as far as I am convinced. I think she found what she liked far more than anything Michael or Sean had to offer her behind Door #3 and had to grab it and get the 2 obstacles out of her way. An easy fix, knock off the husband and blame the crazed lover for it.
I don't know if Sean committed the murders or not. Could he, maybe. But did he is the question I still have. I'm on the fence and I couldn't have voted GUILTY because I've got too much doubt in a lot of areas.
But, do you have "reasonable" doubt? The jurors didn't and they saw the entire trial.
Yes I still have some reasonable doubt.
I question how he could have made it back to NH in the time given. This all happened during the am hours when you've got the morning rush to contend with. For him to do the shooting and get back and have been able to put Fred's truck back without getting caught in or around the truck doesn't add up. Plus where or what was done with the gun?
Secondly, there was minsicule DNA of his found in the truck. He can explain that one. No blood was found. Which is puzzeling.
The time line is the biggest problem I have.
I watched the show last night and was absolutely riveted! NBC did a great job summing up the trial in 2 hours. I watched the trial last year and have been wondering ever since whatever happened in this case. I always felt that Sean was guilty -- WHO ELSE would have driven that truck?!! Certainly not the Mafia. Also Sean came off a little too cocky trying to look innocent. I also believe Michelle should take some responsibility -- whether she was involved or not. She was a bored housewife who toyed with his affections and got her husband killed!
I was very relieved that Sean finally got what he deserves, also.
#12 - Sat Jul 18, 2009 8:54 AM EDTEither the mountain of evidence was either an unbelievable coincidence or Sean Fitzpatrick was quilty. I think the jury got the verdit right. And, I think he got a just sentence. Yes, indeed, as his vanity plate stated, "O2BME" (Oh! to be me!). Well Sean, I wouldn't want to be you, nor do I think anyone else. I wonder what other lives you screwed around with???
#13 - Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:21 AM EDTHow did Sean know that there were no surveillance cameras at Allstate Concrete? He knew because Michelle told him.
#14 - Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:20 PM EDTSean was considered family... he could have learned this during his many associations with the family and Michael. Your assumption above is not conclusive.
How dare all of you who are attacking Michelle. I did not know Michelle well, but I met her and Michael and their kids, what a wonderful family. Michelle made a mistake and she will live with that in her mind and heart forever. However that does not make her guilty of anything other than loving another man. That has been going on for centuries, I wonder if a man was having an affair and his wife was killed and he was proven to have had nothing to do with the murder, would they cast him as some of you have of Michelle. Oh and by the way she did not have a boyfriend shortly after Micheals death. So if you dont know her or anything about her you should probably not say anything at all. The right person is in jail, found quilty and their he will rot. I pray that Michelle and her children live life the best they can and always remember Michael as just what he was a wonderful husband, father, son and brother.
#15 - Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:05 PM EDTBlondie - I guess Michelle is a better actress than I thought, if she can convince someone who actually knows her. She did infact have a new boyfriend before the first trial began and I disagree that the right person is rotting in jail. Remember "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT??? I hope you never get chosen for jury duty.
Blonde:
How dare we??? Are you kidding me. Scroll up a few posts and you will see that I AM NOT condemming her for the affair.
I thought I addressed that early on but will agian for good measure.
My exact words: I won't condem the woman for having an affair. A bad choice on her part, yes, but nonetheless, affairs don't generally lead to murder.
First off: What I do condem her for and will continue to do so is in what she said to Sean! The only way that SHE WOULD LEAVE MICHAEL WAS IF SOMETHING HAPPENED TO HIM! Keyword phrase: something happend to him
Who goes around saying something like that? Unless of course you're secretly wishing and hoping you've got a real patsy on your hands that you can mind control.
Secondly: Michelle DID have a new boyfriend. Maybe you don't know her as well as you think you do.
Third: (And this one really takes the cake) You said "I wonder if a man was having an affair and his wife was killed and he was proven to have had nothing to do with the murder,
(My post was cut before I could finish)
Third: (And this one really takes the cake) You said "I wonder if a man was having an affair and his wife was killed and he was proven to have had nothing to do with the murder
HASN'T BEEN BEEN PROVEN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER YET HAS IT. They never looked at her. Why the hell not I will never understand. So your analogy does not hold water.
I was not trying to hold water in what I said about the whole thing, I was just trying, as all of you are, giving my opinion. I told you all that I did not know her well.............but I know she did not have a a boyfriend shortly after Michael was killed. She did eventually have one, but not shortly afterwards. She will live with her bad choice for the rest of her life and someday (if it hasn't happened yet) will have to explain this to her children. Michelle did and said some really stupid things, and Sean took it totally wrong and to the extreme. I once told someone something that i did not want anyone else to know, I said to her "Ïf you tell anyone I'll kill you" Gosh how many times have you said something like that to your friends, co-workers, your kids etc. We never think sometimes what comes out of our mouths, and to whom we say it to till it is too late. I was young then and after I said it I knew what a stupid thing to say to anyone. I almost got fired for that statement. Maybe I should have been fired, just to prove a point to me, I dont know. I just know it was stupid. You see people make mistakes and say things they should not have, in this case Michael is gone because of a stupid statement that Sean took to mean something totally different. Please if any of you do not care for what I say about Michelle, at least think of those kids and pray for them, not Michelle, the kids!!
Blondie: I'm sorry if I came down hard on you. I know you are just giving you opinion as we are and emotions are running high on both sides of the coin.
My feeling is Michelle pulled the strings and Sean followed them.
Of course I've said in joking "I'll kill you." I'm sure we all have many times. Of course most of us don't ever act on it either. But you see I have a hard time trying to equate that with "The only way I'll leave my husband is if something happends to him." It just seems too far out there. Had she said something along the lines of, "Sean, the only way we have a chance is if Michael tells me its over with no possible reconcilliation." (Putting the ball in Mike's court so to speak) AND then Michael turns up dead, hell yea, you bet my first reaction would be that Sean took it to the extreme to get his "obstacle" out of the way.
I just have a really hard time with the whole thing. I guess the only ones who know the truth are 4 people, two of which are not hear to talk.
wat u talkin about willis: You are soooo right!! We may never know because two very innocent people are no longer with us to say and that is so sad! Yunno Michelle could have never told the police that she made that statement to Sean. She could have denied it altogether, but she did not. I suppose if she had not told them she said that, then some suspicion would have been on her. Maybe she thought telling them the truth would set her free. Unfortunately it slapped her in the kisser, because now alot of people (some who dont even know her at all) do not like her and that is just too sad, because she really is a very nice person, she welcomed me into her home like I was someone other than a stranger. And spoke to me, really spoke to me, not down to me. I totally see others point of view, I just wish they would give her a chance. Obviously the police must have checked her out long before they got to Sean and then some afterwards. But they could never come up with anything to tie her to Micheal's death other than her stupid statement. Never fell bad for thinking you came down hard on me, it is your opinion and we all have those. I just , well......................I look for the good in all people, and that doesn't make me vulnerable, in my heart in makes me feel good about myself. Thanks for writing me back and saying what you said!!
Blondie, I have to say I watched Michelle on that stand and she seemed quite convincing of being sorry for her "mistake." HOWEVER, at the sentencing she said she loved Michael SO much, etc., etc., At the same time she didn't mention that she had "taken up" with a yet another new boyfriend soon after the murder and before the trial. How grief stricken could she have been? I, too, believe that she is indeed responsible for Michaels murder. I am not talking about the affair itself, but she certainly planted the thought in Sean's head, if nothing else. Who would say "we can only be together is something happens to Michael." Helllllll o! It may take a while, but this case should not be closed. That woman had more to do with it than we know and maybe we will see her in court again. MIchelle is not the angelic woman she has convinced you she is. And certainly not the GRIEVING WIDOW!
What is Sean do for Verizon? What year did her retire from Verizon. Was he ever married. Did he have children. When did he come from and did he move to Freedom?
#16 - Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:43 PM EDTHe worked for Verizon down here in Mass. A line tech I believe for the residential part of the company.
I'm not 100% certain but I think he was married several years ago and divorced. He didn't have any children of his own, but did have a small role in helping a girlfriend raise her young son back in the 80s. He thought of the boy as his own.
He was from Concord Mass area but an unmarried aunt left Sean her cottage on the lake. It was a small quaint little place. When he left Verizon he moved to the cottage and turned it into a year round place. It eventually burnt down. It was rebuilt. It has since burnt down again.
What did Sean do for Verizon. Where did he work in the state of NH?
#17 - Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:48 PM EDTWow could that long drawn out story get any more boring, no way in hell. Awful
#18 - Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:51 PM EDTI do not know how anyone could convict Sean. Even if he did it, which I do not think he did, There is plenty of reasonable doubt. Blondie, you have been brainwashed by Michelle or something. I watched every minute of the first trial and never thought that he was guilty.
#19 - Sat Jul 18, 2009 6:45 PM EDTHow could I have been brainwashed by Michelle? I said I didn't even know her that well at all, I only met her that one time. I to watched the trial and given his body language and his cocky attitude I dont think anyone else but Sean needs to be looked at. Remember they said that he was a calculating, cold blooded murderer. He was too smart to ask someone else to help, then there would be someone else who knew his acts. And then they would have to be killed and so on and so on and so on.
I will say this. IF he did murder Mike & Chet, then yes, he is right where he deserves to be. No arguement there.
But, I don't think this was a one-man operation. If he did it, he had help and they should be sharing a cell side by side.
#20 - Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:59 PM EDTAs far as I know, Sean does not have violence anywhere in his background. Michelle admitted that he had been talking about giving up the house and moving on. Sean apologized to Michael about the talk about him and Michelle. Why would he bother if he had planned to kill him? Had Sean ever been to Allstate Concrete before? If not, how did he know the layout? How did he know that at 8:00 am, in broad daylight, the place wouldn't be swarming with workers? Did the police ask Michelle if she might have told him about any of that? I think the fact that Michael was sitting at his desk means he was killed first, then Chet was killed when he came to find out what the noise was. I'm sorry, but this is obviously a mob hit. Michael Sr. admitted he had enemies, and I'm sure Michael Jr. did also. Police aren't going to go there unless they have proof. Absolutely, Sean made a big mistake by sending that letter to the Zimittis. But it was obviously an act of desperation trying to get police to leave him alone. He also made a mistake getting involved with Michelle and a few other things, and he's going to have to pay for those mistakes by spending his life in prison. Sad, but he won't be the first one nor the last, unfortunately.
#21 - Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:23 AM EDTLet's start of by saying Michelle got away with premeditated murder. Her act inspired an instructed these murders. As some one whom was locked up with Fitz in the 19th Teir of middlesex Cambridge Jail workers block. I have seen the letters she's sent to him in jail. She got rid of husband, and Boyfriend all at once. She is the Boss Of This Crime Family. As I've wriiten before:
August 27th, 2008 10:05 pm ET
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…….
Sean, i'm sure ur with all your old Cambridge Jail buddy's. Pytou Heang also on workers block convicted of 2 murders. Neil Enwhistle convicted of 2 murders. James Keone convicted of murdering wife also a Cambridge inmate trustee. What can I say Middlesex Cambridge jail is the place to be for friends like these.
#22 - Sun Jul 19, 2009 3:18 PM EDTAnother love triangle. Children. And a woman who wants it all. A lover on the side. Sean didn't do this alone, Michelle or someone else must have helped or co-conspired with him in some way. How is it that Michelle gets away with not being charged at all? Clearly, Sean's DNA was in the truck and the video clearly shows it was the neighbors truck. But remember, the old man's house was broken into so the truck keys could be found and used, so this was the perfect crime. Until of course, Sean was convicted of murder. But 2 hung juries? Next time, don't say "You got the wrong guy". Just fess up and admit your guilt, and the truth will set you free. Except Sean. He aint free, nor will he ever be. See?
#23 - Mon Jul 20, 2009 12:47 PM EDTWhy didn't the Dateline story address Sean's background? There was nothing mentioned, like where he grew up, siblings, family, education, marriage, etc. How did he make a living up there in Freedom? Interesting and very disturbing story. A BIG WARNING to everyone out there -- NEVER get involved with a married person! They may turn out to be someone like Sean or Michelle. Pray for those three precious children!!!!! What they have seen and endured over the last 3 years. Horrific!
#24 - Mon Jul 20, 2009 12:55 PM EDTThere was only 1 hung jury.
2nd jury convicted Sean.
#25 - Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:32 AM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Follow msnbc.com U.S. & World News to get e-mail or watchlist alerts whenever new content is published, or subscribe via RSS:
Popular Articles & Seeds 
NYT: Hasan was 'mortified' about deploymentDeath toll rises to 13 in Fort Hood rampageGrandma says suspect had 'a good heart'Military hails 2 heroes from Ft. Hood rampageFort Hood suspect said goodbyes before attackRise of stealthy traffic cameras fuels disgustIs NYC marathon winner American enough?S.C. man gets 3 years for sex with horseJudge: Mich. man can sue store he robbed
Log In | Register
Start Tracking
Stop Tracking
