Articles Posted in Murder

In two previous posts on this subject, I wrote of how Middlesex County District Attorney Gerry Leone’s office has doggedly pursued a suspect in the unsolved murder of Dr. Linda Goudey, a Stoneham obstetrician who was found strangled to death in the trunk of her car in September of 1993. That suspect is one Richard Stryker, M.D., the former boyfriend of Dr. Goudey. While Stryker was always a prime suspect in Dr. Goudey’s death, authorities were never able to assemble enough evidence to formally charge Stryker with her murder. However, Dr. Goudey’s family, led by her mother Marguerite Rafuse, brought a civil case against Stryker, seeking to hold him civilly and financially responsible for the death of Dr. Goudey. (For a refresher on how that legal mechanism works, see my last post on this subject.) Goudey’s family won that civil case, and secured a $15 million judgment against Stryker.

In response, Stryker hatched a plot to escape that $15 million jury award. His plan centered on securing a new trial on that civil judgment by producing a “new” witness who would testify that Dr. Goudey was last seen alive on the night of her death with another man, not with Stryker. Stryker devised the alibi scheme with a patient and friend of his, Woburn handyman Richard Chambers and with another man, Craig Pizzano. If the plan worked, Stryker was to pay both men over $100,000.00. But Pizzano eventually cracked, and admitted his role in the plan to authorities. That led the whole plot to unravel, and Stryker was arrested and charged last July with multiple counts of conspiracy to commit perjury. After spending several weeks being held in jail, Chambers then also broke down and admitted his involvement in the scheme. In exchange for his cooperation in this case, Chambers will likely avoid prison time.

Based on the summation of these developments, Stryker today pleaded guilty to multiple counts of perjury, subornation of perjury, and conspiracy charges in connection with his attempt to escape the $15 million judgment the Rafuse family secured against him. He was sentenced by Middlesex Superior Court Judge Diane Kottmyer to four years and one day in State Prison followed by fours years’ probation. Conditions of his probation include that Stryker pay restitution to the family of Goudey for their costs associated with the motion for new trial, and refrain from contacting the victims or any of the witnesses in the case. Commenting on the sentencing, Middlesex County District Attorney Gerry Leone said, “We were presented with a very interesting and large ball of yarn. The result of our unraveling that ball of yarn, were Timothy Stryker’s pleas of guilty today.” “Tim Stryker orchestrated the most serious of frauds upon the court … and attempted to frustrate our criminal investigation into the murder of Dr. Goudey. Her family has had to live with the anguish of Linda’s death for more than 15 years.” Goudey’s mother Marguerite Rafuse, 80 years old now, issued a statement read aloud to the court. In the statement she said the perjury scheme was a “diabolical” plan, and called Stryker, “unfeeling, calculating, manipulative and abusive.” “I am sure part of the reason for the plan of lies was retaliation in anger against me for the civil judgment,” wrote Rafuse.

A Norfolk County Superior Court jury convicted Ryan Bois, 22 on Thursday March 12 of raping and killing his 6-year-old cousin, Joanna Mullin. The jury rejected his attorney’s claim that Bois was insane and “tortured by demons” when he committed the crime. Bois was found guilty on 10 of 13 counts, including two counts of rape and one count each of kidnapping and home invasion as part of the murder. Judge Janet Sanders commented this case has been “the worst” she has seen in her 14 years on the bench. As she is required to under Massachusetts law, Sanders sentenced Bois to two life terms in prison without the possibility of parole.

The jury convicted Bois after eight hours of deliberation, and followed a dramatic display by Bois earlier in the week, when he claimed he could not enter the courtroom due to emotional distress.

Prosecutors from the Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office argued that Bois broke into his grandmother’s house in Weymouth and raped and strangled Joanna Mullin, who was having a sleepover there in August 2007. The prosecution argued Bois broke into the house to steal money, and when Joanna Mullin caught him, he killed the girl to cover it up. Bois then wrapped the girl’s body in a quilt and stole his grandmother’s SUV. Police found the girl’s body inside the SUV after Bois led them on a high-speed chase, and then crashed the vehicle into a taxi in Quincy.

The Middlesex County District Attorney’s office scored a big prosecutorial hit earlier this week, with the conviction – on the second try – of a defendant who had been charged with a double homicide in 2006 in Wakefield, Massachusetts.

Sean Fitzpatrick, 46, of (ironically) Freedom, New Hampshire, will never know freedom again. He was convicted February 19 2009 by a Middlesex Superior Court jury of two counts of first degree murder in the deaths of Michael Zammitti, Jr., 39, and Chester Roberts, 54. Fitzpatrick was also convicted of a lesser charge of illegal possession of a shotgun. The first degree murder convictions carry a mandatory life sentence in Massachusetts. While an appeal to the state Supreme Judicial Court is by law automatic, as a Massachusetts criminal defense attorney, I doubt there is much room for reversible error in these convictions. Sentencing is scheduled for tomorrow, February 23, before the judge presiding over the trial, Judge Kathe Tuttman.

Just after 8 a.m., on Monday, March 13, 2006, Wakefield Police responded to a 911 call from an individual at Allstate Concrete Pumping, located at 17 New Salem Street in that town, reporting an unconscious male. Upon arrival at the scene, police discovered the body of Chester Roberts on the first floor of the building, and the body of Michael Zammitti in a second floor office. Both victims were both pronounced dead at the scene. Zammitti was the owner of Allstate Concrete Pumping, and Roberts was a longtime employee at the company. Autopsies by the Medical Examiner determined that Zammitti died from a gunshot wound to the head, and the cause of death for Roberts to be a gunshot wound to the back. Prosecutors produced evidence that Fitzpatrick drove to Wakefield from New Hampshire on March 13 and shot the two victims. Fitzpatrick was a friend and neighbor of the Zammitti family, who owned a summer home in New Hampshire. Prosecutors alleged that Fitzpatrick was interested in pursuing a relationship with Zammitti’s wife, Michelle, and killed Zammitti to accomplish that objective. Chester Roberts, prosecutors established, was killed by Fitzpatrick as Roberts was a witness to Zammitti’s murder.

Continuing my discussion of Elliot Weinstein and Stephanie Page’s complaints of legal media analysts’ commentaries of the Entwistle trial, from my previous post:

Fact: On the day the verdict was delivered, talk radio was abuzz with news of the verdict, especially WRKO-680AM/Boston. Almost all callers to the Howie Carr Show (the flagship program on that station,) that day were in strong support of Entwistle’s conviction, and overwhelmingly critical and disparaging (to say the least) of the defense team. I called in on the air to defend the criminal justice system, and the performance of these two lawyers in particular, stressing that criminal defense lawyers are ethically bound to zealously defend their clients. This, too, apparently escaped notice by Weinstein or Page in their Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, (“MLW”) interview of 7/14/08. On the evening that the verdict was delivered, while a guest on WBZ-AM 1030’s “Nightside With Dan Rea”, (a syndicated program broadcast in multiple states) I again defended these attorneys, advising listeners that constitutionally, the defense is never required to put on a case. This too seemed to escape notice or comment by Weinstein or Page.

Fact: On June 24 2008, I was asked by a Boston Herald reporter if I thought the fact that the jury had not yet returned a verdict, bode well for either the prosecution or defense. In that Boston Herald story published June 25, I indicated the jury could go either way, and stated: “They have a man’s life at stake. They hopefully will be methodical.” This, too, apparently escaped notice by both these attorneys. What didn’t escape their notice, however, was a piece in the Boston Herald the previous day, on June 24 – and that’s where things got interesting. In responding to a reporter’s question on whether I thought the defense’s strategy to not call Entwistle as a witness was a wise decision or not, I said that it was wise, and opined, “One of Neil Entwistle’s worst enemies in this trial has been has own mouth. He’s not insane, he’s just narcissistic.”

In my previous post, I discussed how Neil Entwistle’s attorneys, Elliot Weinstein and Stephanie Page, had conducted an extensive sit-down post-trial interview with Massachusetts Lawyers’ Weekly, which appeared in the July 14 2008 edition of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. Weinstein and Page said several things in that interview, and I’d like to respond here with a few facts. By way of full disclosure, I also submitted a Letter to The Editor to Lawyers Weekly, which was published in the August 4 2008 edition of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, citing some of the same points I will mention below. (However, due to editorial restrictions at Lawyers Weekly, that letter was capped at 1500 words, preventing a broader and more detailed discussion of the facts.)

Herewith follow excerpts of some of the more interesting points in the July 14 2008 Lawyers Weekly interview, and my responses to each of those points (Note: “MLW” refers to Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly):

Weinstein/Page Assertions in MLW: Referring to media analysts, Mr. Weinstein states: “Their comments build upon a cynical view of the law, the courts and lawyers …Their views and opinions showed a total disregard and disrespect for the basic principles of what our criminal courts are all about.”

Will the detritus from the Entwistle case never cease? An interesting thing happened on the way to summer last month. I haven’t yet talked about it here, but for some time I’ve wanted to. Here’s the background: The July 14 2008 edition of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, the paper of record for the legal profession in Massachusetts, featured a front page, above-the-fold story headlined “Post-Trial, Entwistle Team Fires Back At Lawyers Who Offered Commentary.” In that feature story, which was written from a sit-down interview with both Elliot Weinstein and Stephanie Page (Entwistle’s lawyers,) Weinstein and Page railed on about how fellow lawyers who served as media commentators (like me) essentially had no business doing so, and were seemingly aligned against them and their client in that sad and tragic case. In the Lawyers Weekly story, I was specifically mentioned among other legal media analysts, as being “shameful” and “uninformed” in my media analysis of this case.

Actually, the precise language used by Weinstein and Page in that story was even more histrionic than just those two words offered above. Excerpts of some of their comments will follow in a later post, but for the immediate, let me ask: Will these two lawyers ever cease complaining? It really is rather pathetic, in and of itself. Here are two talented criminal defense attorneys, who apparently felt (and may possibly still feel) the need to carry on like two professional victims. When I first developed this blog, I wanted it to be about more than reporting news and developments in Massachusetts criminal law and criminal practice, important as those functions are. I also wanted this blog to be an honest approach to both the theory and practice of criminal law, to peel back the complicated layers and show what really goes on in day-to-day practice. As much as possible, I don’t want to varnish things in this blog.

In that vein, that means admitting when things have gone wrong in a given situation – whether by me, my colleagues, or anyone else. It also means doing the best I can, in the best way I know how, and not looking for excuses or scapegoats if things don’t go my way. If I can do that, why can’t my colleagues Weinstein and Page? Why must they persist in whining and complaining when things here didn’t go their way? Why must they have pointed the finger of blame at others, effectively laying the cause for their defeat on other parties, instead of taking their licks, standing tall, and resolving to do the best they can with their appeal? Acting in the manner these two lawyers acted post-trial, not only diminishes their own reputations, it does not help the image of the average criminal defense attorney, either. I’m fully aware of how criminal defense attorneys can be perceived by many members of the general public, and very unfortunately, a lot of it isn’t flattering. Behavior like Weinstein’s and Page’ post trial behavior doesn’t help.

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.

Summer went and interrupted again my writing again. Like everyone, I need to recharge my batteries, and as I don’t ski in winter or go hiking in spring, summer is my time of year. When it hits, I usually head south to Cape Cod whenever my schedule allows, and (so far, anyway,) my computer doesn’t come with me (though I’m sure that will change in time.) My apologies to any of my readers who’ve missed my writing.

I thought that with all the negative news going on these days, I’d highlight some positive news in the field of criminal law in Massachusetts. Many of my readers are familiar with the story of how a federal judge in Boston ruled in 2007 that the FBI, over forty years ago, framed four men for a notorious 1965 gangland murder, which none of them committed. The case came to be known as the “Teddy Deegan Murder Case”, after the victim of that March 1965 slaying. That 2007 court ruling, by United States District Court judge Nancy Gertner, included a damages award that ordered the U.S. government to pay a total of $101.7 million to the four men wrongfully convicted, two of whom are still alive, and two who have passed away. The two surviving former prisoners are Peter J. Limone and Joseph Salvati. The two men who have passed away are Henry Tameleo and Louis Greco, who died while still in prison. Greco is survived by his wife, Roberta Werner of Boynton Beach, Florida, who is the executrix of his estate.

In 2004, Massachusetts passed a state statute that allows for a maximum payment of $500,000 to a person wrongfully convicted by the Commonwealth. While this law does not prevent such individuals from seeking or collecting state damages even if they have been awarded damages in federal court, the attorney for Mrs. Greco has entered into an agreement with Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley that she will repay the state the full $500,000 if and when the federal government ever pays at least that much of the judgment ordered by judge Gertner. (The federal government has not yet paid the judgments, as the government has appealed judge Gertner’s ruling.)

In my previous post, I discussed the events surrounding the unsolved murder of Dr. Linda Goudey and the successful wrongful death lawsuit brought by her family, against Dr. Timothy Stryker, whom they believe murdered Dr. Goudey in 1993. Earlier this week, Dr. Stryker was arrested by police and charged – but not with murder. Instead, he was charged with multiple counts of perjury, conspiracy to commit perjury, bribing a witness as well as multiple counts of subornation of perjury (“subornation of perjury” means orchestrating a plan of perjury with another person.) Why these charges? Read on.

The charges against Dr. Stryker surround what police say was an elaborate plot by Stryker to escape the $15 million civil judgment that Dr. Linda Goudey’s family previously obtained against him, in their wrongful death suit brought in Middlesex Superior Court. Police investigators say that Stryker hatched a twisted scheme to find and pay someone to come forward and claim that he (the new witness) saw Dr. Goudey with another man the evening of her murder, not with Timothy Stryker as has been reported. Investigators say that Stryker attempted to use this man’s sworn but false affidavit to re-open the civil case that Dr. Goudey’s family won against him, hoping to secure a new trial, and using the “new” witness’ testimony, void the resulting $15 million judgment the court had ordered him to pay to her family. To secure such a witness, Stryker allegedly solicited his handyman and longtime patient to help assemble the plan, allegedly promising him $100,000 in cash and a ready supply of Oxycontin, a powerful painkiller often used to treat cancer patients.

This handyman, Richard Chambers, allegedly reached out to a friend in Derry, New Hampshire, who then contacted a player from his (the friend’s) hockey league, named Craig Pizzano. Prosecutors have alleged that Pizzano was ultimately sought out to play the role of the “new witness” because he had recently lost his job and needed some “easy money”. Via Chambers, Stryker allegedly offered to pay Pizzano another $100,000 if he testified in court (at the new civil trial Stryker hoped for) that he Goudey with another man the night of her murder, and not with Stryker. Carefully coached in advance complete with maps and diagrams of the crime scene, Pizzano appeared in 2006 with a sworn statement that Stryker’s lawyer then used to try and re-open the civil case that Dr. Goudey’s family previously won against him. Soon after Stryker’s lawyer admitted that sworn statement to the court, Pizzano testified before a grand jury that he had seen Dr. Goudey in her car the night of the murder, with a man who resembled Boomer Esiason, a retired NFL quarterback who has blond hair, and not with Stryker, who has brown hair.

It’s not unheard of for murder cases to go unsolved. This only makes the pain even worse for the victim’s loved ones and family. Such was and has been the case for the family of the late Dr. Linda Goudey, who was found strangled to death in the trunk of her car in the parking lot of the New England Memorial Hospital in Stoneham, Massachusetts, in October of 1993. Dr. Goudey had worked as an obstetrician at the hospital. She had also dated another doctor for the previous four years, an endocrinologist by the name of Timothy Stryker. Prior to her death, Goudey had confided to friends and family that she feared Dr. Stryker would “kill her if (she) didn’t accompany him on an upcoming trip to the Caribbean.” Shortly after making those statements, Dr. Goudey was found murdered.

Suspicion immediately focused on her boyfriend, Dr. Timothy Stryker, and while police and prosecutors never obtained enough information to formally charge Stryker with Goudey’s murder, he has always remained a suspect. Frustrated, and perhaps inspired by the family of Ron Goldman, one of the murder victims in the O.J. Simpson trial, Goudey’s family, led by her mother, Marguerite Rafuse of Concord, Massachusetts, filed a “wrongful death” suit against Stryker, seeking to hold him civilly liable for the death of Linda Goudey. If you click on the wrongful death link immediately above, you’ll be taken to that page of my web site, where it will explain more about that type of suit. As you can see, a wrongful death suit seeks to hold a person civilly liable for someone’s death, and seeks damages for the lost companionship, society, and/or support of that person. In murder cases like Ron Goldman’s and Linda Goudey’s, it can afford the families “another way” to hold a suspect who has either been criminally charged and found not guilty, or never criminally charged, civilly responsible for the murder.

Why would a family like Ron Goldman’s or Linda Goudey’s family, file a civil suit, when there is either insufficient evidence to charge a suspect criminally, such as with Dr. Stryker, or when a suspect has been charged, but found not guilty, as with O.J. Simpson? Because of two reasons: 1) Most importantly, the standard of evidence required for a plaintiff to prevail (win) in a civil case is much lower than the standard required to convict in a criminal case. In a criminal case, the state must prove their case – i.e., that the defendant is guilty of all the elements of the crimes charged – “beyond a reasonable doubt”. That is the highest standard of proof that exists in our judicial system, and for good reason: If someone is to be found guilty of a crime, perhaps a serious one where a criminal record and/or imprisonment could result, the standard of proof should be very high.