Dangerous Liaisons

District Attorneys Brad Gessner and Mike Carroll had just made a compelling case against Cindy George. They exposed her as an adulteress with a child born out of wedlock, as a woman having not one, but two affairs who ultimately persuaded one lover to kill another.

And now, those high-powered defense lawyers, with nearly 200 years of legal experience among them, were about were about to take on the local prosecutors.

The defense suggested that John Zaffino acted alone, and immediately went on the attack, trying to undermine the testimony of the prosecution’s key witness, Zaffino’s ex-wife.

There was not one bit of evidence that proved Cindy George planned and financed the hit on Jeff Zack, the defense said, and at no time did Zaffino say on tape that Cindy knew about the murder beforehand.

Meeker:  Do you have any explanation for the judge as to why a tape where he said, “She knows all about the murder,” didn’t find it’s way into evidence in this case, if in fact it exists?

Todaro:  It does exist, and no, I have no explanation.

In fact, it didn’t exist. And under cross examination, Detective Felber had to admit that John Zaffino never once directly implicated Cindy George during the secret recordings.

Meeker:  Have you found on a taped conversation in John Zaffino’s voice where he said, “Cindy George knew all about this happening?”

Felber: No—Not in John Zaffno’s voice.

And the same went for those recorded phone calls of John Zaffino from prison...

Defense lawyer: There’s not one single place in all of that 5 - 6,000 minutes where he implicates Cindy George in this murder in any fashion is there?

Whiddon: Yes, That’s correct.

Then, the defense argued that the court did not get the full story from those recordings of Zaffino’s calls from the prison. The prosecution had played portions that sounded as if Zaffino was keeping his mouth shut as part of a deal. But the defense played other parts of the same recordings to try to show that Cindy was innocent and Zaffino knew it.

Zaffino:  They offered me immunity from prosecution if I would say that the Georges were, you know, involved in this murder. And I said I can’t. I said tell me what you want me to say, because I don’t know anything about the George’s being involved with any murder.

And after his conviction, Zaffino explained why he refused to make a deal with prosecutors to give up Cindy in exchange for a lighter sentence.

Zaffino:  I said, “No. I can’t lie and put somebody else in prison.” Because I know what it’s like. I’ve been here and I surely wouldn’t do it to them. They—as far as I know they’re innocent, you know.

Bowler:  He says such things on these phone calls like, ‘Even if I’m offered a deal, and I’ve been offered a deals, I’m not gonna lie on against somebody just so I can get a better deal,’ correct?

Whiddon:  Yes, something similar to that, yes.

Bowler:  Over and over he says I’m not gonna lie to help myself, true?

Whiddon:  Yes.

Next, the defense set out to explain away the suspicious pattern of calls between Cindy and John Zaffino: the ones from the night of the alleged botched hit—and the ones from the day of the murder.  They argued there was no way to know what was said—certainly no way to prove that Cindy was discussing a murder plot.

After all, Cindy spent many many hours on her cellphone with both lovers day and night. And perhaps even more crucial, the defense was able to show that it was Zaffino—not Cindy—who initiated the calls the day of the murder.

Still, what would explain why the George’s paid some of Zaffino’s legal bills, the so-called hush money sent through two of Cindy’s lawyers? The defense said prosecutors had it all wrong. They were merely sharing expenses and information, a common practice among defense lawyers. And to prove it they called Zaffino’s attorney to the stand.

Pyle:  Do you know of anything in the code of professional conduct that bars attorneys from engaging in such joint defense agreements?

Whitney, Zaffino's attorney:  There is not.

Pyle:  Did you ever understand that these monies were being paid or given as a shake down to keep John Zaffino from saying something?

Whitney: Absolutely not.

The defense then took on one of the most important parts of the prosecutors case – motive—claiming that Cindy had no reason to kill Jeff Zack...

They’d been broken up for months... and Zack had stopped harassing her five weeks before he was gunned down.

Cindy’s therapist testified that Cindy had been taking steps to end her affair with Jeff Zack  amicably. And even though the break-up was messy, there were no signs that Cindy was capable of violence.

Meeker:  There’s never any indication by her or a discussion as part of any part of a plan that she wanted to hurt, kill, injure in any fashion, this friend that she was trying to remove herself from?

Kurzweil:  Correct.

Meeker: Did she ever indicate to you that she wanted to do any harm to this friend?

Kurzweil: No.

The defense needed to counter the ugly picture the prosecution painted of the former beauty queen...

And they turned to the man most hurt by Cindy’s actions—the man who had been publicly humiliated by his wife’s betrayals...—had every right to be furious and vindictive.

Meeker:  How long have you and Cindy George been married?

Ed George:  21 years.

As astonishing as it was to many, Ed George was still living under the same roof with his wife and was paying for her defense. And now he took the stand as Cindy’s principal character witness.

Ed George: After what we’ve gone through here I think you would never believe how great a family I have and how wonderful my kids are and I think the major influence comes from the mother.

He praised his wife and said he believed in her innocence, although he had no idea about her affair with Zack.

Defense attorney:  Did you ever know that he and your wife had a sexual relationship?

Ed George:  No.

Defense attorney:  Your wife never told you that and he never told you that?

Ed George:  Correct.

Defense attorney:  Did you ever suspect that?

Ed George:  No.

Defense attorney:  What did you believe their relationship to be?

Ed George:  Good friends.

And he says he was also in the dark about Zack fathering the girl he believed to be his youngest daughter.

Defense attorney:  At this point you had no idea that they had a sexual relationship?

Ed George:  No, I did not.

Defense attorney:  In addition, you had no idea that any of your children were fathered by Jeff Zack?

Ed George:  Correct.

What he did know, he testified, was that Jeff Zack had become a pest, making harassing phone calls to Cindy, even while the family was attending Christmas eve mass in 2000, Cindy’s cell phone rang.

Ed George:  It was Jeff Zack and he she had asked Jeff Zack to please, she just wanted to be with Jesus tonight and then he made a horrible horrible remark, knocked me out of my seat.

Defense attorney:  Were you upset?

Ed George:  Yes, I was.

Defense attorney:  She upset?

Ed George:  Yes.

Once Zack was murdered, he said, Cindy as just as shocked as he was.

Defense attorney:  Did you show her the paper?

Ed George:  Yes.

Defense attorney:  And did she read the article at that time?

Ed George:  She glanced at it.

Defense attorney:  What was her reaction?

Ed George:  She was stunned.

Ed George:  She was just speechless and just stunned and we both just stood there, we couldn’t believe it.

Then it was prosecutor Brad Gessner’s turn. As he grilled Cindy’s husband during cross examination, Ed George held his own and stuck by his wife.

Brad Gessner, prosecutor:  Would it be fair to say there’s quite a bit in the life of Cindy George that you weren’t aware of back in June 2001?

Ed George:  Some things.

Gessner:  Some things?

Ed George:  Yeah. And some things she doesn’t know about me also.

Gessner:  Were you aware of John Zaffino?

Ed George:   No.

Gessner:  Did she tell you that she paid John Zaffino’s cell phone bill for him?

Ed George:  No.

Gessner: Did she tell you that she spent $5,300 to purchase John Zaffino a motorcycle?

Ed George: No.

Gessner: What did she tell you about the murder of Jeff Zack?

Ed George: She said she had nothing to do with it.

Corderi: What did you think of his testimony?

Gessner: What else could he say?  It was sad. He was getting on the witness stand trying to say, “My wife, the mother of my seven children, is this wonderful woman.  And basically, I’ve been able to ignore all these things she’s done so let’s hope everyone else does.” 

If court bystanders were now expecting to hear Cindy’s version of events, they would be sorely disappointed. She decided not to take the stand in her own defense.

Trexler: You expected to hear her voice, something to say, “I didn’t do this.”  But, you know, again, we didn’t get that. I think there was a great amount of let down when the case was closed.

In closing arguments, Cindy’s lawyers once again stressed the lack of evidence in this circumstantial case.

Bowler: There’s been no evidence whatsoever that Cindy George procured or solicited anybody to do any kind of a homicide.

But is that how the judge would see it?  Cindy George and her family would have to wait four agonizing days to find out.

Corderi: Did any of you at any point think—maybe she did do it?

George daughter: No. There’s not a doubt that crossed my mind that she could have done this.  The woman that I knew.  The charismatic, loving, humble person I knew, no—in no way had the capacity to plot this murder

They were about to learn if the court agreed with them or if their mother was about to go to prison for very long time.

MORE FROM DATELINE

Dateline Section Front

NBC's People of the Year: Read the interviews The Night Mary Jane Disappeared The Friday the 13th Mystery Mystery at Lost Dog Road Slideshow: Photos in the Bob Duke case When The Smoke Clears   Sneak peek: When The Smoke Clears Slideshow: The Christie Fleming murder Transcript: Dan Brown and Secrets Of The Lost Symbol Through The Pouring Rain Dateline Section Front   Add Dateline headlines to your news reader: