Teen Victim, Mother Testify in Trial of Peabody Cop Wojick

Prosecutors say they expect the trial to last about a week.

The victim in a sexual abuse case against Peabody police officer Fred Wojick took the witness stand Tuesday, explaining in detail to jurors Wojick's alleged behavior with her and describing it as inappropriate and just "creepy," reports the Salem News.

Wojick, 49, a Peabody native, is charged with nine counts of indecent assault and battery on a minor and two counts of disseminating pornography to minors. His trial got underway in Lawrence Superior Court on Monday.

The now-teenaged victim, a family member of Wojick's, claims the abuse started when she was just 11 years old and lasted for years.

The Salem News reports the teen's mother also took the stand Tuesday and said she was aware of Wojick's alleged behavior, but never called police or filed a complaint.

The case first came to light in November 2012 when Wojick confided in another Peabody officer that his family life was in shambles and he indicated he may have behaved inappropriately toward the girl.

The teen's allegations, however, go far beyond the playful backside slapping Wojick admitted to his colleague.

Wojick, via his attorney Thomas Drechsler, maintains the teen fabricated the entire story likely as an act of revenge over a boyfriend Wojick did not approve of and because he didn't intervene when the boyfriend was arrested for drunken driving.

You can read more of the latest details from court in the Salem News here.
DEBBIE January 10, 2014 at 11:28 AM
So, the mother knew what was allegedly going on but didn't say anything for all those years. Sorry, I don't buy it. This sounds like an act of revenge at its worst. If it was as bad as these women claim it was, this never would of gone so far and for so long. Dave Bonfanti is a good guy (as is Scott Wojick) but he should of discussed this with Scott first to try and find resolution. Now it just pulls the department further apart than it already is. These allegations sound fishy to me.
Bjean January 10, 2014 at 01:01 PM
Agreed. There is no way, as a mother, that you would stay in a relationship with ANY MAN that compromises, allegedly-in this case- the safety of your children. I would live in a shelter before i would expose my daughters to any type of harm. I dont care if you are married to the mafia, TAKE YOUR DAUGHTER AND RUN!!!! I hope they are going to charge the ex-wife?!? Oh thats right, probably has immunity for lying/ahem, testifying against her ex. I dont believe a word out of their mouths. I hope they find him not guilty, give him his job back, with back pay, and he sues the ex for defamation and harassment.
Johnny D January 11, 2014 at 10:40 AM
I don't think it is fair to condemn, or exonerate, this man without hearing all of the facts. It really is a no-win situation here...either he is guilty, destroyed this girls life, and deserves the harshest of penalties...or he is innocent and this false accusations have destroyed his livelihood and reputation. It is up to the jury to decide, not us. I understand that people have a right to their opinions, but I can't believe how many people already have made up their minds.
Bjean January 11, 2014 at 10:50 AM
Johnny, that is what I said in a previous post. Almost word for word. It is a no-win. But, I have to say, as a mother, and a wife, you should 1.know if your husband is a predator before you marry him and 2. If you find out after, RUN!! this upsets me to hear that she STAYED! It actually physically makes me sick when I think of it. You protect your children, no excuses.
DEBBIE January 11, 2014 at 12:19 PM
Johnny, nobody is making any decisions at this point because it is up to a jury to do that. There is no rush to judgement here. From the facts that are from the media, you can't help but wonder why any woman is so desperate to be with a man that she says nothing about these alleged accusations. BJean is right on target, no matter who is inappropriately doing things to your children, it is the parents' responsibility to run for the hills and get away from this so-called predator. But pitifully, mommy did not do that. So that is why it is hard to believe that the mom and daughter are telling the truth. If I were on that jury, I don't think I would convict this man because if everything happened the way the mom and daughter said it did, why wait so long. I smell a rat here.
Bjean January 11, 2014 at 02:14 PM
This is also the court of public opinion. We will never know what evidence was presented to those jurors. But, based on what I have read, personally, and from what I can piece together, I have formed MY opinion. It may not go along with what the jury comes out with next week, either. People do not necessarily have to agree with what juries say. I think it is a no win situation for anyone, but that ex-wife is sure playing her part as the torn/victim/"I dont know what to do" mommy". She should get the academy award!!!!
Johnny D January 11, 2014 at 04:01 PM
Everything said here both both Bjean and Debbie is 100% true. Though the comment that stuck out the most is "People do not necessarily have to agree with what juries say." While this is true, I do believe the juries are more properly equipped to make that determination than we are...especially since, as was stated here, we will never know what evidence was presented to those jurors.
Bjean January 11, 2014 at 08:32 PM
Yes, and I agree with that Johhny. But my only point behind that statement is sometimes, and not always, juries make the incorrect decisions even when given all the facts. You never know who is sitting there judging your fate. People come from all walks and not everyone is as educated/street smart/has common sense, etc etc. Sometimes juries convict based on their emotions even when the evidence isnt there. That is the only point i am trying to make. I have very little faith in juroes. Personally, if anything happened to me, depending on the severity of the crimes alleged, I would go for a bench trial. At least a judge knows the law inside and out. Just my opinion :)
Bjean January 11, 2014 at 08:32 PM
Pardon my typos, *jurors*
Steve January 12, 2014 at 03:01 PM
first of all...there is no Scott...get your people straight. "Scott" would be referring to Vlassic and its Wojik knuckleheads. Scott is in fact a stand up guy and would never be in a situation of diddling a child. My personal opinion on Wojik without even reading the facts, is Fred would find himself in allegations of diddling a child. The guys done more steroids to make him clinically insane 30x over. Fact
Bjean January 12, 2014 at 04:38 PM
Who is the knucklehead? Its not a brand of pickle, his name is Wlasuck.
Bjean January 13, 2014 at 11:04 AM
Fyi, jury just cleared him of all counts. As of 8 minutes ago.
DEBBIE January 13, 2014 at 11:59 AM
Okay everyone, it is Wlasuk. THAT is the correct spelling.
DEBBIE January 13, 2014 at 12:03 PM
Huh, steroids oh boy and you think some of the other cops don't take them. Let's not play "Mickey the Dunce" on that subject. As for Frederick Scott Wojick being exonerated, good for him. Now he needs to have the police department give him his job back immediately, if not sooner, and naturally all his back pay plus vacation time, sick time, personal time, and whatever else. Finally, sue the pants off the "Mommie Dearest" and her daughter for slander and libel and for all the emotional damage they have caused.
Shawna January 14, 2014 at 01:45 AM
I love when people claim drug use when they don't know the guy. Must be steroids if he looks like that, oh right because no one can gain muscle mass by actually working out. I'd love to know where you get your "facts" from. He deserves all that and more Debbie.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »