A child care service provider, aged 34, is facing serious charges for allegedly molesting 17 boys between the ages of 2 and 14. The prosecution argued that the defendant had a “pedophile handbook” in his hard drive, suggesting that he actively hunted his victims. Meanwhile, the defense questioned the validity of the prosecution’s legal theory.
Matthew Antonio Zakrzewski, residing in Costa Mesa, is confronted with 34 felony sex charges related to 17 victims spanning from 2014 to 2019, as stated by Deputy District Attorney Juliet Oliver.
“The entire book is in defendant’s hard drive,” revealed Oliver regarding a book on pedophilia. “One of its chapters is titled Hunting Season… When the defendant reached out to one of his victims, offering to be their occasional babysitter, he was actually hunting that child. He was targeting every family involved in this case… He wasn’t just reading the book; he could have written it himself.”
Oliver argued that the defendant videotaped much of the evidence against him, indicating his audacity in committing these acts with toddlers.
In one of the videos, a victim was observed lying naked on Zakrzewski as he “caressed” the child to normalize the molestation, as per Oliver’s argument.
Another video allegedly shows Zakrzewski touching himself while a boy sits on his lap, concluding with the defendant saying, “Thank you,” leaving Oliver to state, “There are no words.”
Furthermore, the prosecutor claimed that Zakrzewski engaged in a game called “rocket ship” with one of the boys, seated on his lap, and remarked, “It feels like we’re having sex.”
“All of this was videotaped,” Oliver emphasized.
“None of the parents knew each other,” Oliver continued. “The children didn’t know each other… The defendant was a mastermind, manipulating and grooming the parents to believe he was the perfect candidate to protect their children. This is every parent’s worst nightmare.”
Zakrzewski, who had actively promoted his work with children having behavioral disabilities, advertised his years of experience, CPR training, and background checks, according to Oliver. Notably, many of the victims were between the ages of 6 and 9, added the prosecutor.
Jennifer Ryan from the Orange County Public Defender’s Office argued that although her client is charged with showing pornography to some victims, the explicit photos do not necessarily qualify as “harmful” material, as charged.
“Each charge has its own set of laws and guidelines,” she warned the jurors.
Ryan also rebutted the accusation of her client directing a dog to lick one of the victims’ private parts, stating that there was no evidence to support this claim.
“Cameras are always recording,” she asserted. “However, they want you to believe that something happened which was not depicted… That is not supported by evidence.”
Furthermore, Ryan argued that certain evidence presented in the trial merely showed “two kids running around” in their underwear.
“That’s not harmful material,” she claimed. “Sometimes kids play without their clothes on… There’s nothing illegal about a little boy wearing shorts and running around.”
Ryan also contended that one of the videos merely “simulated” an oral sex act.
“Simulating?” responded Oliver. “That’s absolutely outrageous and an insult to your intelligence. It was captured on video.”
Oliver also mentioned the testimony of the victim’s mother, who relayed the incident as additional evidence.
“Any form of contact, no matter how slight, is sufficient” for a conviction, Oliver asserted.
Regarding the videos in question, Oliver revealed that there were so many of them that investigators weren’t able to review every single one.
“There was no suggestion — from me or anyone else — that cameras were recording all the time,” clarified Oliver. “Do not be fooled by the defendant’s arguments… He deserves nothing less than 34 guilty verdicts.”
Jurors will commence deliberations on Tuesday.
Denial of responsibility! Vigour Times is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
