NEW: NEW MOTION TO VACATE VERDICT PROVES PAUL CORTEZ IS INNOCENT – HAUGHN CAUGHT ON VIDEO LEAVING APT AT 6:37 CLICK TO READ –
Young artists have always flocked to New York City, like bees to honey. Since the 60s, the Big Apple has acquired and retains a certain mystique and energy that keep creative people in search of inspiration coming back for more.
In the past decade though, many artists have changed their mind about New York, and the reason is simple: it is too bloody expensive. The cost of living is very high and most of the neighborhoods that used to provide cheaper rent and offerings have now been revitalized and rendered unaffordable by gentrification; a phenomenon not very conducive to creation.
The Josef Astor’s 2010 nostalgia documentary ”Lost Bohemia” illustrates the situation very well. It is about the exuberant life and final years of the Carnegie Hall studios where artists like Editta Sherman lived and created but eventually had to vacate because of corporate greed.
Some wealthy New Yorkers have preoccupations that seem totally outside the realm of common mortals. In 2012, Upper West Siders went to war over a Peace symbol.
A resident of the Ansonia landmark, a building located on Broadway and much beloved, had decided to protest against wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by posting a neon peace sign in her living room window.
The vile and combative reactions of the neighbors would not have been more vehement if she had put up a Swastika. It is not hard to see why going to war on peace signs is not the kind of activity young creative minds have the time or the energy to focus on. Their main purpose is to find work and succeed.
The hell with crazy games rich people play.
Our young bohemians are now headed South, East, West or North in search of new hoods where they will be able to pay rent, do their craft and find sustaining jobs until they can make a decent living and follow their bliss.
Visual artists can now reach an audience online and sell their products through the Internet so they can afford to live in cheaper and smaller towns where they are able to rent an apartment and a small art studio for their work.
The same could be said for musicians who can record and produce in their own home and sell their product online. They can continue touring, but their home base can be anywhere.
Dancers and singers aspiring to work in Theater are still drawn to New York and its famous Broadway shows, because so far, no other American town can rival the amount of productions and the prestige you can attain in the Big Apple. After all, if you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.
This concrete jungle has seen the rise and fall of many young artists.
Catherine Woods
Catherine Woods was born in June 1984, in Columbus, Ohio, and moved to Manhattan in 2002, after graduating from high school.
She was 17-year-old, a classically trained dancer and by all accounts, a very talented one.
Like many performers before her, she came to pursue her dream of becoming a Broadway performer. It is with great trepidation that she first came to the big city.
Catherine had a rough beginning when she arrived in New York. She was raped at knife point by the person she rented a room from and consequently, headed back home. But she did not give up and returned in a safer environment accompanied by her parents who did their best to forego their anxiety and support her dream.
Being from an upper middle class family, Catherine was very lucky to have parents who could give her money for rent and classes. She still had to earn her keep by working at various jobs to cover her other expenses while auditioning for parts and taking lessons. In spite of her obligations, she felt footloose and fancy-free in a vibrant city.
Not long after she settled in her new life, Catherine met David Haughn during one of her visits back to Ohio.
At the time, he was an aspiring rapper selling his CDs in a parking lot. After being introduced to her by a friend, he decided almost immediately to follow her to New York City to pursue his career and follow his heart.
They were from very different backgrounds. Catherine came from a very loving and functional family and David grew up in foster homes without much direction.
He probably did not have much to lose when he impulsively decided to move to the Big Apple to be with his dream girl.
All was well for quite a while as Catherine took dance lessons, taught at a dance studio, auditioned for shows like Sweet Charity, worked at a Spa and maintained her relationship with David who, as time went on, seemed to become more of a lap dog than a boyfriend. He looked up to Catherine almost as a mother figure who would boost his confidence and pay most of the bills.
By all accounts, David was not too enthused about work and kept floating from one menial part time job to another. Catherine was the breadwinner and she grew tired of it. By 2005, she had asked him to move out, but took him back 2 weeks later after he threatened to kill himself and had to resort to living in his car.
Catherine was known to have a good heart. Her fear of hurting others or to be perceived as less than perfect, made her compartmentalize her life in order to please everyone.
Instead of stealing from Paul to pay Peter, she would lie to Paul to please David, so to speak. And after a while, she was lying to pretty well everyone to keep up with the charade her life had become.
It was not easy for her to live up to her parents’ expectations while trying to experiment and live life on her own terms while continuing to get their financial support.
In February 2005, when Catherine moved to 355 East 86 St apt 2D in Upper East Side, she had already met Paul Cortez in the summer of 2004 at the NY Sports Club where he worked as a trainer, and they were dating.
David finally took a full time job as a doorman one block away from the apartment and he worked the graveyard shift.
He was banished from her bed and slept on the futon in the living room during the day. They were no longer romantically involved. Catherine broke off the romance and probably his heart in the process. David continued to profess his undying love for her.
As usual, Catherine probably did not have the heart to tell him there was no rekindling their romance and he kept hoping she would eventually reconsider. In the meantime, he served her hand and foot and remained her loyal friend, but kept his irresponsible ways with money and remained a poor provider.
Paul Cortez
Paul Cortez was born in 1980 in a rough Bronx borough of New York City where he lived with his mother, and two siblings.
His mother who had to live on social assistance for a while, forged a good career for herself and managed to get an outstanding education for Paul with the help of scholarships.
He gained entry into the Buckley School in Upper East Side Manhattan where he excelled in academics as well as athletics.
He also attended the Poly Prep Country Day School in Brooklyn where he focused in ballet and jazz dance. He was involved in numerous theater and dance productions. But it did not come easy for him. He had to ride public transportation for hours back and forth and had a grueling schedule.
He persevered and turned out to be a success who dreamt of helping his family move out of the Bronx and land a career on Broadway for himself.
He attended the Boston University’s Theatre Arts Program and while in Boston, he formed a band. He recorded solo albums, wrote songs and played several instruments. He also sang all vocals.
He was a very talented young man, but also a very hard worker who cultivated great relationships with his family and friends.
Catherine and Paul had similar interests, a great work ethic and they were going places. Paul as a yoga and physical trainer and Catherine as a dancer and instructor.
David Haughn
I wish I had as much information on David Haughn, but all I could find out is that he was from Columbus, Ohio and worked as a doorman in New York City while writing rap music.
He has albums under the name City 270. One of them is called Certified MidWest, and the other Amplified Trunk Art.
I like rap, but the only songs I enjoyed on his albums were the ones sang as a duet because the other guy saved the day. On his own, the result is pretty amateurish.
He had a difficult upbringing and had to stay in foster homes because his mom, Penny Ray Stanley, had to deal with addiction problems.
David developed a strong attachment to the lovely Catherine he would have liked to marry.
During an interview, he said that she was almost like a mother figure to him.
But his actions were often out of sync with the reality of their situation.
The object of his desire was drifting away from him and he felt unfulfilled by his work.
She had already kicked him out once and he basically did not have many other options; financially or otherwise. Before Catherine’s murder, David had announced his intention to move back to Ohio.
He was known to be jealous of the men Catherine was seeing and had threatened Paul during a phone call.
Sleeping on the futon must have been the ultimate humiliation.
David and Paul both had potential and value, but unfortunately, because of his difficult background and circumstances, David had all the markings of someone whose own insecurities, fear of abandonment, lack of opportunities and talent could have caused him to become desperate enough to strike at the girl who had a bright future, but undeniably without him by her side.
He saw the writing on the wall and his name was not on the marquee. It seems that mostly in North America, people tend to think that murders are committed only by monsters.
Crimes are committed by seemingly ‘good people’ all the time when they are at the end of their rope and have been trying to hide their troubled personality for too long.
Prelude to a murder
In March 2005, Catherine quit her job at the Spa and in June, started working at a strip club called Privilege. Her friend Megan Wilkins from Ohio came to New York and bunked with them for two months. She also decided to embark on the same dancing adventure as Catherine.
I would imagine that the possibility of making good money a few nights a week was appealing to them and that way, Catherine could audition during the day. You could call it a little walk on the wild side, and it did not seem to bother their friend David one iota.
I was close to that scene as a University student and I have known many girls who chose that path. It is a risky proposition, especially when it involves lap dancing and backrooms. It is one thing to dance on a stage, but to be doing lap dances can be degrading and leave some emotional residues.
Most girls do not tell their parents about it and see it as a phase and a way to earn good cash under the table while pursuing their dreams. Some come out of it unscathed, but some do not. It can be demeaning even if you try to be emotionally detached. Plus, some patrons can be dangerous characters, even if they wear fancy suits.
Megan Wilkins
Megan Wilkins was a friend of Catherine who only had positive things to say about David who probably was as accommodating with her as he was with the object of his affection. They were a busy bunch and they managed to live in that small space without much inconvenience.
She did not know much about Paul Cortez because Catherine had kept this aspect of her life compartmentalized so that David would not find out. One lie leads to another.
Wilkins said she was making thousands of dollars working in backrooms with Catherine and pretty good money in the club. She mentioned making $2000 in private settings.
According to Megan, her friend was saving money to be able to stop working soon and pursue her dreams full time. After Megan left, Catherine left Privilege and started to work at Flash Dancers.
While reading Megan’s police interview, I was struck by the numerous inconsistencies in Catherine’s stories to her friends. She definitely appeared to tell people what they wanted to hear. What a tangled web she wove.
She would pit people against each other, telling one that the other was crazy or that she did not care when in fact, she did. I wish the investigators had kept her journals instead of giving them to her parents. It might have answered a lot of questions.
When questioned by the police, Megan talked about a guy named Paul (not Cortez) who was an instructor at the dance studio where Catherine worked. He had allegedly pushed Catherine against a wall and was supposedly fired after the incident.
She was worried because he knew where she lived. The police did not seem too interested in finding out more about this important piece of information.
Catherine was a beautiful girl so she had to attract attention everywhere she went.
The incident at the Club
Even if Catherine did not talk too much about Paul Cortez, their romance was going strong. They were in constant communication and saw each other frequently, a fact documented by phone calls, texts and dates.
He introduced her to his mother and the three of them went to the zoo. His mother and close friends could see he was hooked.
This girl who shared so many of his interests was a dream come true for Paul and she relied on him a lot as a confidant.
He eventually found out she was living with David Haughn, but was told that he was just a friend she felt sorry for and still cared about. She did not have the heart to kick him out and wanted to help him. Paul did not see David as competition and was pretty understanding at first.
One night, Catherine called Paul from the Club because she thought that someone had put drugs in her drink and she was confused and afraid. He came running and even if the doormen wouldn’t let him in, he managed to catch up with Cat who was stumbling and the fear was that she might have been raped.
He was very upset and tried to convince her to go to the hospital after taking her to a hotel, which she was not keen on doing considering the secret nature of her job.
He was so worried about Catherine that he looked in her phone to find her parents’ phone number. He called to let them know what was going on with their daughter. It was very risky because he had to know that he might lose her because she would feel betrayed.
Paul was willing to risk his relationship with Catherine to save her from what he considered a very dangerous lifestyle. He knew she had been raped when she first came to New York and the drugging incident made him go into overprotective mode.
Strangely enough, Catherine never turned to David for help and did not confide in him about this scary incident.
Jon Woods
When he heard the message from Paul, Catherine’s father, Jon Woods, found him to be very polite and articulate, and decided to come to New York to talk to Catherine.
Phone records indicate that Paul and Jon Woods talked several times, even if they tried to minimize this fact at trial.
But when confronted by her father, she lied. She told him that Paul was a crazy guy who was making up stories about her, and she should take a restraining order against him.
How easily she threw people under the bus and destroyed their reputation.
It partly explains why cops believed the stalker fib David fed them.
Her father called the Club, but the person who answered did not know Catherine who danced under the name Ava. Plus, it could have been the cleaning lady for all we know. The club owners do not usually rat on their dancers.
The man went back home satisfied that his daughter had told him the truth and had landed a role in an off-Broadway show called Privilege.
The break up
As to be expected, Catherine was furious at Paul and wanted nothing to do with him anymore. She switched to another gym to exercise and gave him a hard time.
He was hurt and wrote about his pain in his journals. Since he was a boy, writing had been an outlet for Cortez. He had at least 22 journals that he kept in his apartment. And he also wrote songs for the band he fronted called Monolith. As the lead singer, he had also recently came to the conclusion that the type of lyrics and songs his mates were asking of him were not in sync with his ideology.
He was a devotee of the Hindu religion and a very peaceful guy. So he probably had outgrown the edgier style of Monolith. In fact, his co-band members had noticed his lack of luster recently and were going to ask him to leave the group.
Even if Paul was against Catherine’s risky lifestyle and worried about the damage she was suffering by exposing herself to objectification and all kinds of strange patrons at the club, he persisted and tried to patch things up with her.
He vacillated between moving on and holding on. After all, he knew Catherine’s heart and she was a gem. If he could only convince her to quit and find other ways, everything would be all right, he thought.
The two of them could have a good relationship while sharing their love of the arts in NY. Frankly, any adult in her life would have wanted her to quit, including her parents and dance instructors.
Cortez was not really being over the top by pushing to get her out of there. He even asked her boss to fire her. I am sure that had her father known the truth, he would have put more trust in Paul than in David.
So he kept communicating with her and she relented. She probably realized that he had intervened because he sincerely cared about her well-being and her warm feelings were revived. She started seeing him again and they were exchanging a lot of texts and having conversations.
As Paul mentioned during an interview, Catherine liked to be pursued. And he was happy to oblige.
In the meantime, Paul met other women and went on with his active and creative life and Catherine did the same because she probably was not ready for a committed relationship and wanted to live her life.
Even if Paul was infatuated, he would have moved on eventually and continued with his career. It was not a life and death situation.
Catherine was probably way too young to be involved in a serious relationship, and being alone in New York at a fairly young age, she liked the protection and attention of doting boyfriends.
It also appears that she enjoyed playing with fire; probably as a reaction to her cushy good girl upbringing.
The murder
On Sunday, November 25th, 2005, at 18:57 hours, David Haughn called 911 to report that he had found his girlfriend Catherine Woods face down in a pool of blood in her bedroom with the bed pushed in front of the door. Throughout the investigation, he kept referring to Catherine as his girlfriend and pretending they were still an item.
He was strangely calm and interestingly enough, the operator is the one who showed signs of distress during the conversation.
After listening to David’s call, I was struck not only by his demeanor, but mostly by his words.
Click to listen to the 911 call. david-haughn-911-call-3 (4)
He is not all over Catherine trying to see if she is still alive, but says he pulled on her sweater when she was not even wearing one.
He does not ask how to do CPR and mentions an accident. These types of injuries do not look at all like an accident. Plus, he slips and mentions boot tracks on the bed.
How on earth would he know they were boot prints? You cannot tell at first glance if bloody prints are made from regular shoes, running shoes or boots.
He is not focused on reviving Catherine. He is afraid to look at her face as if he knew what he would see.
Plus, the way he describes seeing her body in the room does not coincide with the description given by the EMTs who first showed up at the scene.
Haughn started creating a diversion right away and was keen to mention a ‘stalker’ and the name Paul Cortez.
Catherine had a 30 minute conversation with Paul in the morning. He was never a stalker. David also said to the cops he ‘knew’ something like this would happen.
He knew all right something was going to happen, but I doubt it had anything to do with Cortez.
Mind you, Catherine had denied sleeping with Paul to spare David’s feelings and simply said he was nuts. Exactly like she did every time she tried to get out of telling the truth.
After a friendly conversation with Paul, David had to come to terms with the sad reality that Cat and Paul had been intimate.
He had recently called Paul to tell him to leave his girl alone or else.
He was growing more and more desperate about losing he woman he called his baby girl. She was also seeing other men and he knew it. He was not her lover anymore, and instead, had become her butler, chauffeur and dog walker.
Poor Catherine had multiple lacerations from a beating and her throat was slashed. She did not look like she had any kind of accident. There was blood on the walls and it was an ugly scene. Her bed was blocking the entrance, meaning she had been cornered and there was a foot print on her back.
Someone was really mad at the girl and went ballistic on her.
It had all the markings of a crime of passion. It looked and felt really personal.
David Haughn’s timeline
When the cops showed up, David mentioned Paul Cortez right away and gave them a CD of his music with his picture on it that just ‘happened’ to be in his bag. This is very disturbing in itself and a tad obsessed.
David claimed to have left for 20 minutes and that Catherine was attacked and murdered during that time.
Detective Steven Goetz who was in charge of the investigation referenced in his report, a video of David leaving the building at 6:25 and as the time he went to get his car at his job site, a block away. But in his case outline, he changed the time to 6:40 and did not mention the 6:25 video anymore in the timeline.
He subsequently did not account for the video showing David leaving the building and turned his undivided attention to Paul Cortez.
Two frames taken from that same video that picked up David and Catherine earlier that afternoon are timestamped 6:34 and the other 6:57 and neither show David nor Paul.
This video was never turned over to Paul Cortez’s attorneys. If David was seen exiting at 6:25pm, it puts him in the apartment during her murder.
If David is not seen in the video at all, then David is caught in yet another lie and cannot prove when he left the apartment that evening during a specific period of time.
According to a new motion to vacate the verdict, the video was part of the discovery that Paul’s defense received, but they obviously never used it or looked at it. If they had, he would have been acquitted because it clearly shows Haughn leaving at 6:37 wearing a cap that was later found in the apartment, and it makes him or someone residing in the building, the guilty party. The video clearly demonstrates misconduct by the prosecution and ineffective assistance of counsel.
David said he went to get his car and stopped to talk to his coworkers. He added that he made 3 phone calls to Catherine to tell her he was on his way, but his phone records only show one call at 6:47. Goetz, in his report, says the call is at 6:59, but it is in fact when the 6:57 call to 911 ended.
David told the detective that he spoke to his coworkers for only 5 minutes, but his coworkers changed their stories about the encounter and said it could be longer. This came from the same witnesses who testified about cops interviewing them the same day when in fact, they were there the following day.
The coworkers were confused about the time and described David wearing a hooded sweat shirt and jeans which is clearly not what he was wearing on the video at 4:59 or what he was wearing at the police station a little later. So you wonder if anything they said was reliable and if they really saw David at all that day.
David said that he parked his car in front of the building and after trying to call Catherine, went to use the buzzer, but got no answer. As he was going to put the key in the lock to enter the building to go fetch Catherine, he said that he met their neighbor Brad Stewart who had found the black lab David had been dog sitting for a few days; a scenario in contradiction with what Brad said about meeting David after he came up the stairs.
By the way, David told cops he went back to his car to get his keys to enter the building, so the theory of the front door having a faulty lock on that day does not hold water, and Cortez or any intruder could not enter without being let in or buzzed in. This place had no other access in the back or on the side.
I personally wonder why he would have to go upstairs to fetch Catherine. Why not wait for her in the car? It appears that he knew she would not ever come out.
How did the dog get out and why?
David and Catherine owned a tiny Chihuahua named Josie, but to make extra money, Haughn had started walking a few dogs from owners at his work place and he was dog sitting a black lab since 3 days in his own apartment.
Brad Stewart
Their neighbor Brad Stewart, who lived on the same floor, came out at approximately 6 pm to go walk his own 2 dogs and saw the black lab running down First Avenue without a leash.
He knew this dog was in the care of David so he grabbed it by the collar and dragged it back to the building and knocked on David’s door. There was no answer.
He then went to his own apartment with the dog and told his girlfriend, Julia Jeon, about it. He finally left it in the vestibule.
When Haughn came in the building to go check on Catherine, he encountered Brad who told him about the dog left in the hallway and running loose outdoors. Haughn told Brad that he was gone 20 minutes and that his brother was supposed to keep an eye on the dog. And Julia corroborated the story to the police.
Excerpts from Brad’s police interview: “…stated in substance that he was at home with his girlfriend Julia and stated that they did not hear any noises, Brad stated that at approximately 1800-1830 hours he was leaving apartment to walk his dogs when he did get into vestibule noticed black dog down by door trying to get out, dog he stated belonged to David that he stateds [sic] David walked, delivery guy pushed through door and dog got out head towards 1st ave where Brad retrieved the dog put a leash on and took dog back to the building to apartment 2d saw door was ajar light was on, sounded as if someone there but could have been the television no answer but heard buzzer ring.
Then David came up the stairs and Brad stated that he found his dog, David looked confused and stated that he was gone 20 minutes and thought that his brother was looking after the dog, he then looked at the dog shocked. David thanked him than [sic] Brad left building and David went into his apartment. Julia called him shortly after he left and said that neighbor was hurt came running back to the building and saw David with detectives, said David looked dead and that David stated to him that she didn’t do it to herself. Told David to hang in there David looked shocked.”
The problem is that David’s brother was 12 and lived in Ohio at the time. Why make this story up?
David claimed he had left the door to the apartment unlocked and brought the dog back in with him. Five minutes later, he went to knock on Julia’s door and told her his girlfriend was not breathing and there was blood everywhere. Julia called Brad and he came back on the scene.
At trial, Brad and Julia did not testify. They were essential to the defense and would have obliterated the prosecution, but they were not called in.
It does not take a rocket scientist to know that the only person who could have thought of putting the dog in the hallway by opening a couple of doors so the dog could not return if there was going to be a fight, is David Haughn. He hardly knew this big dog, and it could have barked very loudly or even bit him if Catherine was attacked.
By letting the dog out, it eliminated this problem and demonstrated a violent intent. If a stranger had come in and let him loose, the neighbors would have heard frantic barking.
Paul Cortez had no way of knowing that there was a big dog in Catherine’s apartment and he thought that David had moved out months ago. Another lie she had told him, probably to facilitate the relationship.
Click here to read the dog’s timeline that makes it impossible for Paul Cortez to have killed his friend Catherine.
Upstairs neighbor Andrew Gold
Andrew Gold lived directly above Catherine’s apartment whose floor plan was similar to his. According to his official cell phone records, he talked to his girlfriend at 6:18 pm and the call lasted 22 minutes, which means that it ended at 6:40 pm.
Andrew remembers that at no later than 6:25 pm, he heard a ruckus downstairs and one small dog yelping. He knows because he was sitting in front of his cable box when he talked to his girlfriend.
She heard it also. He paused the conversation and she could hear a scream. He stated ‘’ I heard a scream. And I heard a scream and then I heard scuffling. It sounded like a scuffle and I heard a dog barking and then I heard another scream, and then I heard a thud. And then nothing.’’
At that point Gold, feeling uneasy, went outside his apartment to investigate. He did not see anyone in the stairway or the hallway and checked out the window on 86th. He yelled is anyone out there? But heard dead silence.
The downstairs apartment was usually pretty quiet except for a bit of music so it worried him.
Same floor Neighbors Jesse Danzig and Amy Van Deusen
“Residents Jessie Danzig and Amy Van Deusen state at approx. 1745 to 1800 hrs they heard a sound like a child screaming or having a tantrum, at this time residents were watching TV in the living room and put the TV on mute to hear better. Heard movement like someone moving furniture or walking. Then heard dogs barking. Sounds did not last long. Other side of ear witnesses apt is the victim’s living room. Stated that they normally did not hear anything from victim’s apt and did not know victim. Based upon other follow up interview on 12/7/05 their time frame is still 1745 to 1800 hours.”
It either means the attack was twofold and started earlier or they were wrong about the time. But it corroborates the attack and strongly suggests that David Haughn is the culprit.
Jesse Danzig and Amy Ven Deusen were not called as witnesses.
The Murder’s timeline
The killer’s bloody foot prints on the bed and on Catherine’s back stopped at the bedroom door.
It obviously means that the culprit removed his boots not to leave tracks in the apartment or in the hallway, and probably threw his bloody clothing in a bag with the boots and ran out of there.
It makes it possible for the killer to have fled at 6:35. Who would have had extra shoes and clothing handy in such a quick homicide?
They found traces of blood in Catherine’s bath tub so someone felt comfortable enough to clean up in this apartment.
There was absolutely no sign of blood out of the apartment or downstairs so it had to be an inside job and someone quickly executing a plan.
As previously stated, Goetz mentioned the existence of a building security camera showing David leaving the building at 6:25, but it was changed later in his report and the video was never shown in court.
Andrew Gold exited the building between 6:40 and 6:45 and did not encounter David or see him waiting outside. Brad met David after 6:47 when he was calling Catherine.
Let’s not forget that David’s car was parked only a block away and he said that he stopped at work 5 minutes, so he would have had plenty of time to rush and come back.
His impromptu visit, if there ever was one, was undoubtedly to try to establish an alibi. He said in his deposition that Catherine wanted to leave in the next ten minutes so why would he have taken the time to show up at work?
Video of interview with Cortez’ lawyer and of David Haughn leaving building at 6:37
In the meantime, contrary to the lies propagated by the media, Paul Cortez was not captured on any video around the building.
With all the comings and goings that evening, he would have been spotted by someone or caught on camera.
There was no way in or out of the building through the back and you needed a key to unlock the front gate of the building.
It was mentioned that the lock would sometimes remain open, but David and other tenants confirmed that they needed their key to enter the building that night.
Anyway, this theory would not have solved the other mystery surrounding the invisible presence of Paul around the building.
It is not because he hung out in the neighborhood and called Catherine several times that he had any opportunity to kill her in this very small window of time.
How on earth would he have known to come at that time and to let the dog out earlier? It defies logic.
Paul Cortez’ timeline
On the day of the killing, Paul had talked with Catherine for 30 minutes in the morning while he was at home, and they had mentioned the possibility of hanging out later in the day.
They had a little tiff about her not spending Thanksgiving with him, but they talked it out and she even texted to him ‘Sorry, I love you.’ He was sad but managed to have a good time celebrating with his family. His father mentioned that Paul was having a problem with his cell phone around that period. The calls would drop.
Paul worked at a gym a few blocks from Catherine’s apartment and chilled in the area quite often. He had an outing with another woman earlier in the day, and they had a video to prove it. It was also corroborated by his date. She even said that he was a bit too flirtatious and that he apologized for it. On that day, she bought him a book about sex.
Let’s talk about mixed messages.
He tried to call Catherine several times during the day and she briefly called him back twice. He came to the area and went to Starbucks hoping to meet her as they had done in the past.
Even if the cell location was a mere 2 blocks from Catherine’s place, it did not mean he was in her apartment. It means he was in the neighborhood.
David Haughn’s calls from his place of employment and route back to the apartment does not preclude him from being literally inside his apartment since the same tower picks him up in both places.
Why did it suggest Paul’s presence in the apartment but not David’s?
How can a tower 2 blocks away from Catherine mean that he was attacking her when the tower for David was across the street?
The police tried to make his constant calling that day look very sinister. It was very typical for Catherine and Paul to call and text each other up to 50 times.
Constant texting is the norm nowadays. Their relationship was on and off but it was strong. Catherine had spent the night at Paul’s place days earlier and she would sometimes skip work to spend time with him.
She told him that she did not feel like going to work that night. He was probably hoping she would change her mind and meet him at Starbucks. He said she sounded strange.
The last phone call to Catherine was at 6:33, but the police said it was a butt call or a misdial because they knew she was already dead at that time.
Even if it was a misdial, it would have meant that he was holding the phone and would make it impossible for him to have attacked her.
He handed his phone to detectives and it had no blood or DNA on it. He had nothing to hide.
When Paul realized Catherine would not answer and intended to go to work at 7 pm, he simply went home and called clients along the way.
He called his own voicemail at 6:46 pm and a client afterwards, and the call was picked up by a cell tower on 95th St, 9 blocks from Catherine’s apartment and 11 blocks from the Starbucks where he was earlier.
So it makes it impossible for him to have committed any kind of a crime.
He later met an acquaintance from the gym called Spence Lebowitz at a local bar to watch a game and nothing was amiss. He was still wearing the same leather jacket he had on his date earlier in the day.
The section of blue and yellow were Paul’s calls to Catherine. The two pink highlights are Catherine’s calls to Paul.
The series of blue lines being so frequent show a series of repeated brief calls, the shortest length duration being 1 second, the longest being 35 seconds, supporting Paul’s explanation to investigators from the beginning that the calls kept dropping and he was simply making an attempt to call back.
It was determined that on the day of the homicide, the prosecution asserted the phone records showed a barrage of unanswered calls placed from Paul to Catherine.
The prosecution’s theory was that the numerous unanswered calls fueled Paul’s anger over Catherine’s supposed rejection.
New Counsel’s review of Paul and Catherine’s cell phone records, in conjunction with a cell phone expert, established that although numerous calls from Paul to Catherine’s appear on Paul’s cell phone records for the day of the homicide, because those calls last only seconds in duration and are not on printouts of Catherine’s phone records, they are non-completed calls.
Such non-completed calls ended before ringing on the receiver’s phone, and suggested an aborted call, such as after an inadvertent hit of the phone’s redial or speed dial.
What the jury could have learned, but was never shown, was that there were only 4 calls between Paul and Catherine on the day of the homicide – 1 placed by Paul and the other 3 placed by Catherine.
Paul placed that one call to Catherine’s phone when he woke up at 6:24 a.m.; at that time Haughn was not in the apartment, and Catherine and Paul spoke for over half an hour.
The other three calls between them were placed by Catherine. She first called Paul at 10:44 a.m.; that call lasted a mere 31 seconds, so it likely went to voice mail prior to Paul picking up.
The second call Catherine placed to Paul took place at 4:59 p.m., at a time when Catherine and Haughn were walking together into her apartment building.
Catherine placed her third call to Paul at 5:11 p.m., after she sent Haughn out of the apartment and to the store.
This was the last time Catherine and Paul would speak; she told him she was getting ready to leave for her strip shift at Flashdancers.
He would have had to bring boots he never owned and change clothing and shoes. This is utterly ridiculous and disproved, especially when their theory is that he just snapped when she would not meet him. Yeah right, as if.
He would also have had to make himself invisible to the cameras and neighbors. He would have had to enter the apartment by magic to release a dog he knew nothing about while David testified to being in the apartment when the 2 dogs were there, and then come back to murder Catherine after David left.
He would also have to be on the lookout and near the entrance door. The dog is the smoking gun because of the presence of Haughn and the impossibility of anyone releasing it but him.
He did not have a key. The police reports states that Haughn was seen leaving at 6:25 and then at 6:40, so when did Paul come in and how did he perpetuate this horrible crime in seven minutes including clean up and having extra shoes and clothing?
The person that released the dog through several doors never intended for it to be let loose in the streets by a delivery guy. Only David Haughn cared if that dog got lost or not.
It is not possible for Paul Cortez to have murdered his friend Catherine.
He was not losing her. He was still working at regaining her love and she had recently texted him twice that she loved him. They were recently seen in an embrace so affectionate that they were told to get a room.
On the other hand, David Haughn was on his way out and he knew it. Catherine had put an end to their romantic relationship and contrary to Paul who had an education, was popular and going places, David was on a fast train to nowhere.
His difficult childhood came with baggage and he was a more suitable candidate to commit a desperate act because he lived with the object of his desire and she was slipping through his fingers.
To his chagrin, she had declined Paul’s invitation to join his family for Thanksgiving to go to her hometown with David. It might have been a nice sendoff for old times sake. If Catherine left David, he had nothing. She was his life.
The investigation
Poor Catherine was savagely attacked in what had to be a crime of passion. The person had actually stepped on her back to keep her down. She was slashed on the neck and had multiple stab wounds. She had hairs on her body and was clutching some hairs in her hands.
None of the hairs belonged to Cortez because according to the lab, they were of Caucasian origin. The short light hairs entangled in her fingers were never analyzed or compared to David’s hair that was short and blond.
It soon became a typical case of tunnel vision. After the detectives talked to David and wondered why he did not cry or show emotions, they quickly turned to Cortez.
Even if he was a very educated and peaceful guy, they treated him like a thug and focused all their efforts on proving his guilt. It sure looked like the Puerto Rican kid from the Bronx could do no right in their eyes and they totally forgot about David who had done nothing but lie.
When Catherine’s father received the phone call informing him of his beloved daughter’s demise, his first reaction was to say why did she have to be with this guy? And he meant David Haughn.
His impression of Paul had been positive when he had called them. Paul cared about his daughter and had actually tried to save her from herself and further attacks. Not the case with David who kept taking advantage of her generosity.
The cops and the state did not investigate David or the phone calls he made when he lied about being asleep. They did not check the clothes he lied about wearing. They did not read the lyrics of his rap songs and did not search for clothing and boots he could have discarded nearby.
They did not check if he had purchased or owned Skechers boots size 10 ½, which was the size of the foot prints left on the scene that matched his shoe size.
Catherine who was supposedly making good money was found with only $64 in her wallet and $200 in her bank account. How could that be?
They never verified how much money Haughn had on him or spent in that time period. He would have been the only one to know where she kept her hard earned cash.
At trial, David seemed to suffer from amnesia when he answered most questions. When asked how much money he made, he answered around $500 net weekly. Catherine was getting $1000 monthly from her family and he could not help her make the rent that was $1475? He admitted giving $125 or more or whatever ‘he could’.
He testified that he had bought a car behind her back and kept spending instead of paying his share. Why was money so tight if he made that kind of salary? Catherine was buying him shoes and clothing and she co-signed a loan for him that he was not repaying. Common sense indicates that they would have had fights about his chronic unwillingness to contribute, even if it had improved a little.
Instead, the cops zoomed on Cortez whose hair did not match and who had left no DNA or any traces indicating he could have been there that day.
When Paul realized that Catherine was going to work and was curt with him, he headed home and stopped calling her at 6:33 pm.
He made phone calls to friends and clients. He went to work early in the morning without calling her. He probably wanted to give her a chance to call him back.
The investigators took this as evidence that he knew she was dead. On the contrary, if he had killed her, this smart guy would have called her to cover his ass. When his mother came to notify him of the tragedy, he fell apart.
When he was first interviewed by the police, he only answered the questions asked of him and did not volunteer that he was in the immediate area. They accused him of lying when he said that he was at home when he talked to Catherine, but it was the truth. The phone calls happened when he was at his apartment.
He was in a daze and subsequently told them where he was in detail and gave them his phone. I see nothing sinister about this and I would not blame the guy for staying out of it. Look at what happened and you will know why.
They also made a huge deal of the fact that his band mates said that he didn’t show up for practice that night and said he was asleep. The answer was simple; he knew he was going to get canned because of his recent lack of commitment and he was trying to avoid this unpleasant encounter.
Instead, he called a friend and went to a bar to watch a game. It is not like he was the only one to fib. Catherine and David also seemed to have a problem with the truth. It is not a crime.
They managed to arrest him because a girl he had slept with after a concert long ago said he was rough. It was simply an excuse to get his fingerprints. She never pressed charges and had gone back to listen to the band and being friendly with him. If she had gone to court, we might have had both sides of the coin, but she declined for a reason.
The latent print
The big not so smoking gun of the state’s case was a print that was found two weeks after the fact on a wall in Catherine’s bedroom.
After they obtained Paul’s fingerprints, someone finally found an invisible or latent print on a wall. They called it a bloody print, which it was not.
It was a partial print that could have been there for a long time or even planted if we want to go there. They had to use chemicals to lift it and that was it for the state. They had their case.
In reality, Paul had been to Catherine’s apartment several times, so it was no big deal that a partial latent print would be found. The blood had simply been deposited on top of it at the time of the murder or the chemical had reacted to something else.
They did cut a piece of the wall and made it sound and appear as if the dark coloration was blood, when in fact, it was the chemical reaction from the product used to lift it. And this product reacted to other elements than blood.
It should have been dismissed the minute they realized it was not a bloody print.
How interesting that in the pigsty of an apartment where David and Catherine lived, they found no other prints in her room.
The investigation was a joke, but they brought it up at trial and presented it as a bloody print.
They charged Paul Cortez with 2nd degree murder because he had called Catherine often from her neighborhood and had left a partial print there a while ago.
Oh and the cherry on top was the journals he kept that they used to illustrate that he was a monster with a lot of rage towards women.
It must have been surreal for Cortez, and such a relief for Haughn who pointed the finger at Paul from the minute he ‘found’ Catherine.
I do not know why they were so easy on David, but they cut him loose even if he said that he was kind of resigned to being guilty. Not once did Cortez say that. He denied killing Catherine and still does.
The Arrest & the Media
Woods was murdered on November 27, 2005 and Cortez was arrested and charged in December of the same year.
Considered a flight risk, he did not get bail. Talk about rush to judgment.
It is during that period that Paul was in the process of auditioning for Rent and completing another solo album.
He had no reason to harm Catherine.
On the other hand, David’s night shift career and relationship with Catherine were pretty much in the crapper.
In no time at all, the police had let go of David Haughn or of any other person of interest like the mystery delivery guy, and decided that Paul was their man. Because he had made a series of quick calls on that day, they branded him a stalker and focused entirely of him.
The media was in a frenzy and constantly publishing lies about the case. They called Cortez every name in the book. The lethal Lothario, the Stripper Slasher, the Savage Ripper, the Hispanic tsunami, and they went as far as questioning his sexual orientation. The New York Post ran a story called Beauty and the Beast.
Even if Cortez was already in a band and playing venues for a quite a while, they said he was an aspiring rock star. In reality, he wanted out of the band to pursue more artistic venues.
He was not a rocker at heart but had already established himself as a good singer and musician. David was the aspiring rapper star, and we all know that rap music comes with a bad rap for its violent edge and the way it portrays women.
Some articles implied that he was caught on video outside Catherine’s building, when in fact, it was streets away.
”Police have video proof that an estranged lover of slain stripper Catherine Woods was standing just outside her Upper East Side building around the time the 21-year-old brunette was brutally murdered” – New York Post
The only important video in this case was of David leaving the building at 6:37, and it did not make its way to trial. I get why the prosecution decided to hide it because they wanted to pin the murder on Paul, but his defense attorneys should be disbarred for not doing so.
Some said he had threatened to kill himself if she left him when in fact, David was the one who had played that card.
They published younger photos of David to make him look sweet and innocent. You only have to watch his rap video to see what he really looked like.
Some articles were plain racists and invoked Paul’s Puerto Rican origin as the cause of his fiery temper. The fact that he was from the Bronx, made them ignore his education and real character. With all their might, they created a monster by twisting facts and his every word and move.
Cortez from the block is the one who did not stand a chance against this media tsunami.
The tabloid press had realized early on that this villain would be more profitable than going after other suspects. They had their big media bliss and they ran with it. As far as the head detective goes, I guess he saw this case and its media attention as a way to shine. And he went for it with guns blazing and blinders on.
The trial
In shock and trusting the system, Cortez thought that the truth would set him free.
He had given hours and hours of interview without legal representation and had cried a river over losing Catherine and the horrendous fate she met.
He had no money to hire attorneys so his friends and family did their best to collect funds to get him representation.
Dawn Florio and Laura Miranda became his ragtag defense team. He had no way of knowing at the time, how unprepared and incompetent they would turn out to be.
Unbeknown to Paul, Florio was under indictment by the same prosecutor’s office for smuggling drugs and contraband into a prison for one of her clients: 98 blue pills; 95 yellow pills, 100 pink pills, three bars of soap, two sticks of deodorant, four sheets of rolling paper, a rap magazine titled Felon, and a turkey sandwich. She had been arrested and released on bail.
In 2012, Florio was accused of misconduct by Bronx prosecutor Omer Wiczyk when she was visiting a client at a lower Manhattan jail. Consequently, her client had to ask for new legal representation.
She had been fired in 2000 after some officials had alleged she had provided an alibi to an ex-con boyfriend. The fact that she still practices law is surprising at best. She obviously won and the decisions were sealed.
They were not prepared and failed to show up for the first 3 days of trial for which they were held in contempt of court. They actually faxed Supreme Court Justice Carol Berkman, a message to explain their absence. Miranda’s mother had a medical emergency and Florio’s uncle died. Miranda had gone to Puerto Rico and goodness knows where Florio was. They had complained several times about not being ready for the case.
Judge Carol Berkman
Carol Berkman retired in 2012 after being the longest-sitting judge in New York. It was cause for celebration for many lawyers tired of her attitude in court. She stated herself, “I have this reputation for being a mean old bitch.” “It’s the way I talk. I don’t pad it,”
She was disciplined for her severe sentencing of a defendant that fully cooperated with the state. She mocked the woman and disregarded the fact that she had risked her life to cooperate with the District Attorney’s office in some drug arrests.
This charming judge became another element of the perfect storm the trial of Paul Cortez would become.
Basically, Cortez’ attorneys let him testify thinking the truth would set him free, and probably because they did not want to spend their fees on pesky experts. Instead, they presented character witnesses, which was the jest of their defense. In an unprecedented move, they did not hire an investigator to dig up information and prepare for trial.
Assistant District Attorney Peter Casolaro
In his opening statement, prosecutor Peter Casolaro went for the kill by attacking the defendant’s character and taking out his big smoking gun: the bloody partial print allegedly matching Cortez.
The problem with this ‘evidence’ is that it was not a bloody print. It was a latent print that was found weeks later and had to be lifted with chemicals.
The blood could have been deposited on top of it at the time of the murder. The defense did not bring any expert to debunk this false evidence.
Casolaro must have thanked his lucky star when he realized the lady defenders were incompetent and unprepared to the point where they had Paul talk about having sex with Catherine when she had her period as an explanation for the possible print.
He also brought good old Spencer Lebowitz to testify under oath that he had seen Paul after the murder at a bar, and he was wearing the size 10½ Skechers boots that left bloody foot prints at the crime scene.
The problem with this testimony is that this same individual was interviewed a year earlier by 48 hours and he had no idea what Cortez was wearing.
Fat chance that a killer would be wearing bloody boots at night when he murdered someone while wearing them earlier. These babies would have gone in the dumpster and fast. The defense did not debunk this witness and their tactic was to call him a pothead. Way to go ladies!
Click here to watch the video of 48 hours interview with Spencer Lebowitz and the video of Paul wearing Johnston & Murphy shoes.
At trial, Cortez testified that the day of the murder, he was wearing Johnston & Murphy shoes and they were size 10 medium which is not the same size as the bloody prints.
He was seen on video wearing them earlier on in the day and his attorneys decided to show the grainy video to the jury to prove their point. He never owned Skechers boots.
Casolaro went on and on about the phone calls Cortez made frequently to Catherine the day of the murder. As if it was a crime.
They proved nothing and the defendant explained that he was trying to call and it was a series of hit and miss. On many days, Catherine had called him as frequently.
In this era of texting and cell phones, it is not a rare phenomenon to be calling someone until the person answers or will text back. It is documented that she had also texted him a lot during their relationship.
The defense showed that Cortez had called Catherine at 6:33 pm and it proved his innocence, but the prosecutor made it sound like it was an accidental call. As if in the midst of a bloody attack, you would be misdialing or do a butt call. The cellular would have been covered with blood or DNA.
The lack of DNA
The DNA testing or lack thereof, was the glaring problem of this trial. Catherine had non- Hispanic hair on her body and hands. Some of them were short and light, but no analysis was performed to see if they matched David or another perpetrator.
During his police interview, Cortez was examined and had no bruises, cuts or scratches on his body. He had worn the same leather jacket in the afternoon and in the evening. Nothing in his apartment and on his shoes and clothing was bloody.
David Haughn on the other hand, had blood on his pants at knee level that had soaked through, and they were never tested to see if the blood on it was from spatter or simply from being on the scene.
If he attacked Catherine, the blood patterns would have been different than if he had walked innocently on the scene.
It is surprising that Haughn did not have blood all over his clothes if he had rushed to Catherine’s help to see if she was hurt or to render assistance. Why didn’t he cradle her or try to help? He tugged at her imaginary sweater?
Haughn had bruises on one hand, and he said that he got them from working on his car, and it could be the truth and nothing but the truth. If so, why did he pretend to forget this important fact at trial? he had to be reminded of it by reviewing the police report.
They brought a witness who lived in Cortez building and his testimony was that he had seen him throwing a garbage bag in a trash can in his underwear early in the morning. The problem is that he did not know on what day it happened and described Paul’s hair as very straight instead of wavy.
Desperate and tentative at best.
The cherry on top was star witness, Margaret Rickter, who had been unable to identify Cortez earlier, but showed up at trial to say that she saw someone who looked like Catherine and a man having an argument.
He was taller than her and he was holding her arm. The problem is that Cortez was the same height as Catherine and she could not say for sure if it was him or not. That same witness rambled on about a bible, a premonition and how she was a trial junkie.
The jurors were eager to say that they did not take her seriously at all, but it makes you wonder why these people testified in the first place.
The journals
The pièce de résistance came when the prosecutor singled out a few excerpts from the numerous journals written by Cortez through the years, and tried to tie the content to the murder. Almost laughable if the outcome had been any different.
Casolaro asked Cortez “Do you remember writing that you want to f— all these girls with your hard c— and turn them to stone? Didn’t you write that since your mother and other women had hurt you, you wanted to bury every girl in the ground?” Cortez answered that he may have written that as an acting exercise to prepare for a role in Hamlet. Cortez also explained that one of his drawings that Casolaro described as a “warrior with a sword” was “actually a foot soldier and two Ninja Turtles.
The prosecutor also focused on lyrics from a song called “Killin’ Machine” which Cortez said was “a parody of violent male fantasies“ and that the steel “Killin’ Machine” in question was really a sex toy.
Some of the entries were written one year before Catherine’s death and had absolutely nothing to do with the case. They should have never come in. The ones written after Catherine’s demise were not scary either.
One of his entries said ‘’out in the Midwest, where boys are dirty and girls are princesses,’’ who ‘’wipes clean the shaft that cuts her throat’’. Keep in mind that it was written 8 months before her demise and they were getting along famously.
Casolaro equated this entry with murder intent, but Paul testified that he wrote this because Catherine had been raped at knife point and was willing to wipe the slate clean and still work in dangerous situations.
I wonder what they would have found it they had analyzed David Haughn’s rap songs.
This type of music is often considered crude and the lyrics violent and demeaning to women.
I realize it is just music, but why did it become intent in Paul’s case?
Someone in the comment section brought to my attention, the fact that David, while interviewed in his car on a TV show, had put a photo of himself and Catherine right beside a Murder CD.
Why is it not important when everything Paul wrote or did was instantly considered suspicious?
If they were going to be that recklessly ignorant, David should have been equally scrutinized.
In spite of all this circumstantial evidence, not to say hogwash, the prosecutor went on with his closing argument and demanded justice in a very flamboyant manner and for effect.
“Why did this happen?” he told the jury. “Because this misogynist and narcissist couldn’t handle rejection.”
Throughout the 3-week trial, he kept labeling Cortez without having him assessed by a psychologist or any mental health specialist. He attacked his character and portrayed him as a jealous monster and a Harlem Spanish man.
Cortez had not lost Catherine. David had and she was dating other men. So the jealous monster not being able to handle rejection was preposterous and unrealistic.
Paul Cortez was a good looking man and he was popular. He was successful and talented. He was not going to throw away the rest of his life because Catherine Woods did not meet him on that specific day.
On November 23rd, she wrote to him, I am sorry, I love you. They had spent the night together not long ago.
On the other hand, and according to the autopsy, David Haughn lied about having sex with Catherine the night of the murder. Plus, Catherine was talking on the phone with Megan for 20 minutes during the period he claimed to have had sex with her.
This phone call also needed to be scrutinized. She happened to be murdered right after she hung up and checked her voicemail. It means that there was no surprise intruder in the apartment terrorizing her.
It sounds like this last minute impromptu quickie was made up by David in case his DNA would be found on Catherine. According to her autopsy, David also lied about serving her a frozen meal purchased earlier and washing his hands in the bathroom after having sex.
You simply have to look at the crime scene photos to see that there was a curling iron in the sink and no traces of a towel.
David’s relationship with Megan, who was the last one to have talked to Catherine, is also suspect. After her friend’s passing, she spent a whole lot of time with him and appeared to step into her friend’s shoes.
The defense brought character witnesses and asked them if Paul was a peaceful guy. This is a ridiculous defense. Probably not as ridiculous as what the prosecutor asked of them; which was if they knew that Buddhism caused the bloodiest war re the TaiPing uprising in China? Or if there was a connection between a swan and a ballet?
None of Cortez former flames testified for the state because in fact, he had remained in good terms with them and the bad blood was made up by the prosecutor.
The trial should have been about evidence and there was plenty of it to show that Paul was not the culprit.
The prosecutor also accused the defense of destroying Catherine’s reputation by lying about her character and activities.
Unfortunately, Catherine’s actions were her own and could not be erased to please the court of public opinion.
They only related what she was doing for a short while in her life. In no way, did it diminish the great human being that she was and that Paul grew to love.
The intention was never to make Catherine Woods sound or look bad. That is the last thing Paul Cortez wanted when he called her parents, but he had to tell the truth as he knew it to them, and now in court.
If there was a whore in this case it had to be Lady Justice catering to the media and the lynch mob.
The Verdict
On February 15, 2007, Paul Cortez was found guilty of 2nd degree murder even if the prosecution had not managed to present any physical or concrete evidence at trial. No murder weapon or witnesses to be found.
On March 23, 2007, he was sentenced to 25 years to life and sent to one of the most dangerous maximum-security prisons in the state of New York.
Some of the jurors interviewed after the trial admitted that they based their decision mostly on the grainy video of Paul taken a few hours before the murder.
The video produced by the defense to show he was not wearing the Skechers boots is the same one that they viewed to conclude he was wearing them. The video experts who viewed the footing were to say the least, baffled. I personally could not distinguish anything on that video, even less his shoes.
What a mistake his defense team made.
How bizarre, how bizarre, how bizarre. ”Ring master steps out and says “the elephants left town”
People jump and jive, but the clowns have stuck around TV news and camera, there’s choppers in the sky”.
The appeal
On January 21, 2014, the state’s highest court upheld the murder conviction of Paul Cortez in the killing of Catherine Woods.
‘’The Court of Appeals ruled the evidence against Cortez was strong enough to outweigh any mistakes made by his lawyer or the trial judge.’’
“We agree with the Appellate Division that the proof before the jury overwhelmingly pointed to the conclusion that defendant was Ms. Woods’ assailant,” Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman wrote in the court’s majority opinion.
http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/2014/225-1.html
What’s next?
The next step for Paul Cortez is the Supreme Court. The appeal would have allowed for a retrial where a new competent team could have presented all the evidence that was omitted at the first trial to prove his innocence.
An appeal is not a retrial, but it is a review of the original trial to find out if mistakes were made. Usually, you cannot present new evidence or testimony during this review. It is to point out irregularities during the proceedings.
On a positive note, the New York Court of Appeals reversed two legal rulings of the trial court.
They ruled that Paul’s original trial attorneys represented Paul while under a conflict of interest because Dawn Florio was facing a simultaneous indictment by the same prosecutor for smuggling drugs to one of her clients.
They stated that the trial judge erred in allowing Florio to represent Paul at trial as she could try to curry favor with the prosecutor and hold back on her defense of her client.
They also ruled that the trial judge erred in allowing the prosecutor to present the jury with Paul’s old journal entries. These writings and drawings dated back as many as ten years prior, during Paul’s teenage years, and ranged from old song lyrics written in collaboration with band mates to drawings of teenage mutant ninja turtles with swords.
The prosecutor used these out-of-context journal entries to portray Paul as a man violent towards women who had an obsession with knives/swords.
The Court of Appeals ruled in Paul’s favor that these journals unduly prejudiced the jury against Paul without providing useful evidence.
Paul had a great relationship with his mom and women in general. His band mate testified at trial that Paul was not a rocker and he was too peaceful and soft to be in their group.
The edgy lyrics they were asking for were not his style. He wrote love poems to his two former girlfriends that were read by the defense during closing argument and of course, they were conveniently ignored by the state.
City 270
Click here for an interesting link about Cortez being refused Vegan food in prison.
The “fingerprint” was very damaging, but the Court of Appeals had to ignore the information supporting that the partial “fingerprint” as preexisting because it was not part of the original trial.
So, although the Court of Appeals overturned trial rulings, they concluded that those trial deficiencies were not enough to outweigh the evidence against Paul at trial to reverse the case.
They also had to ignore the fact that two jurors told the media that they were very much on the fence about what they had heard at trial and ultimately were swayed to convict Paul based on the behavior of his trial attorneys. As lame and pathetic as the defense closing argument was, I still would have been unable to find Cortez guilty. This was definitely a trial by media.
Sadly, it seemed obvious from their demeanor and language that, to the cops and the state, this defendant was still Paul Cortez from the block, no matter what boots he wore. And as peaceful as he was, they were good and ready to launch a full-fledged war on his character. Quite reminiscent of what happened at the Ansonia.
You can visit www.freepaulcortez.org to view videos, read about his defense and obtain more information on the case.
New York Times article about the newly analyzed video and fingerprint alleged evidence.
This was really hard to read. Not because of the writing (which is excellent) but because of the content. I don’t understand how this man is in prison. This is the 21st century. We have shows like CSI, hadn’t the detectives or DA’s involved heard about forensics?
The most confusing thing to me is how hard it must have been to keep those blinders on and zero in on Paul as the lone suspect. It defies belief. Of course he would have been a suspect, all who knew Catherine and had opportunity should have been investigated as suspects. Until the evidence went in other directions…..
The lies and fantastical tales in the media are not surprising. Our yellow journalism today is shameful. It is the legal system in this case that leaves me stunned. How is it not a violation of this man’s rights that he had no legal representation at all? They didn’t show up for court. For three days. Was the absence not noticed? WTF???? Clearly the attorneys he had were the definition of ineffective counsel which violates his sixth amendments rights, but I think not showing up to court is taking ‘ineffective’ to a whole other level.
Why isn’t Catherine’s family up in arms about the lack of definitive forensic evidence? At least some testing….? Why don’t they want to know who owns the hair she ripped out and held onto in her last moments????
I will be going to the website you linked to find out how to offer support. If his only hope is to be heard by the Supreme Court (I assume NY State Supreme Court) it is a thin hope indeed and he will need all the support and publicity he can get.
Thanks for helping spread the word about this one Lise. Why isn’t every major news source doing the same? We know every detail of the evidence collected and the crimes committed by people like Jodi Arias and James Holmes even though they both tried to plead guilty and go to prison for life without a media circus of a trial. This guy adamantly professes his innocence, no tangible evidence is offered as to guilt, he sits alone for three days with no attorneys and not a single reputable journalist sees a different angle on the story? What am I missing? Someone needs to call ‘This American Life’ and see if they would like to sponsor a podcast…. this one has a lot more mystery then the one they went with.
Thank you Lori. I realize that this is a long read, but I would have had much more to say. This case is very hard to comprehend and so sad for the Cortez and Woods family. I do not understand why her parents did not insist on having the DNA analyzed. They really went with the prosecution’s theory. Mind you, I have seen this happen more often than not in court. The poor parents are devastated and want this over with. They are vulnerable because the detectives serve them a solution and they prefer to run with it. They are in so much pain.
Casolaro had to fold in the case of the Central Park 5 who were wrongfully convicted and prosecuted because of strong lobbying. There is none for Cortez. A case where Donald Trump himself had taken a full-page in each of the four daily papers in NY to urge readers to ignore the Mayor and the Cardinal who counseled against rancor. He wrote about the wrongfully accused ‘’I want to hate these muggers and murderers. They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed….I am looking to punish them…I want them to be afraid.’’ And he now wants to be your President. When the evidence took another turn, he did not publish anything.
True that the media has become trash tabloid when it comes to court cases. Beauty and the Beast is a fairy tale isn’t it? This one turned badly, except for David Haughn. I wonder if he sold records because of his notoriety.
The problem with lousy representation is that it destroys your chances on appeal. It is a vicious circle. They can only look at mistakes made during the trial and won’t review new evidence unless is high impact. I would say that discovering whose hair Catherine had in her hands is a gigantic step because it gives you the name of the perpetrator.
Florio and Miranda took incompetence to another level. Miranda kept losing her train of thought during closing argument. She called Lebowitz a pothead. He had perjured himself, but they didn’t hire an investigator to pocket the fees so she didn’t know that. They were held in contempt of court for missing court, but that was it. Cortez tried to get another attorney, but they would not allow it.
This case was in the media a lot and some books have been written on the subject, but as usual, most people go with the flow. I am glad they created the free Paul Cortez site. I am shocked to read some of the comments on different forums about the case. It is mostly about pooooor David. I don’t get it, he is not the one in jail.
The podcast Serial was done about Syed. WTF? There was a witness to the crime. That podcast could have been a one episode called do you believe the witness who helped Syed or not? And Cortez gets nothing.
You’re right. They go on and on with their analysis of cases where the accused wanted to plead guilty and Cortez is left on the side. Where are the real journalists out there? At least to report objectively.
I have to admit that my blog is biased because I find that Haughn was not put under the microscope like Cortez. If they did, and excluded him, I would be in his corner also. In the meantime, I am wondering why they didn’t do their bloody job. Where is the evidence now? Did they preserve the pants and the hair? I asked this question to many sources, but don’t have an answer yet.
In her closing debacle, Miranda mentions how nothing was tested. Why didn’t she get an expert to do it? Oh yeah, because it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt, so she let her client go down because she wanted to spare him the expense. Money talks because it didn’t spare his life.
.
Hi Lise,
I remember this case.I also remember seeing it on Dateline or some such show.
As I recall the prosecution spin was that defendant was outraged that she had decided to continue to strip and had not yet thrown David out.
Surprising to me is that I came away with the impression that David did do it and that her folks thought so as well.
I remember the pros claimed Paul was staring at her apt when David left and leaped into quickie murderous rage.
After reading this I am confused as hell.
Why on earth did I come away with the impression this was made right?Clearly this is a personal problem and I should seek help immediately.LOL.
But to be serious,I am pissed.
I wish would be prosecutors had to endure a moot court scenario in which the had to defend themselves from trumped up charges and less than representation.That`s an excersise I believe is long over due because empathy and fact based results should indeed cohabitate.
Hi Beth, No wonder you were confused because the media lied and said Paul was caught on camera standing in front of her building. It was in all the papers. The prosecutor’s theory is that Paul saw David come out of the building and went in a rage because he still lived with Catherine. And right then and there, he decided to go kill her for that. Duh??? But you probably inversed the name because you are psychic. Just kidding! Unless you read the real information about this case, it gets confusing.
He was never seen around her building and even if he had seen David, which he didn’t, it would not have been a big deal. He could have been visiting to retrieve some of his belongings. Their theory was ridiculous. At first, Catherine’s parents thought David might be involved, but they were convinced that Paul was an animal from the Bronx.
It is about time that prosecutors answer for their misdeeds. It’s not because Paul had bad representation that the prosecutor had to misrepresent a partial fingerprint and go ape on the case with journal entries and misogynistic theories.
Do not seek help, you are doing great. The problem is the bloody media combined with some of the ambitious and callous prosecutors. With Donald Trump as your President, things should improve. LOL
Thank you for reading and for the comment.
Lise–
I have been a longtime reader of yours, but this entry prompted me to finally write (I regularly share your links, though!)
I am also a Canadian, though I’ve lived in the states since 1992 when I married an American, went to law school and passed the bar here in 1998. I am a criminal defense attorney, having started as a public defender & now in private practice, though I still take some court-appointed cases.
I recall seeing this on Dateline & was, like you, appalled by the performance of his court-appointed lawyers. The one thing I thought they did right was point out that, as much wavy, free-flowing hair as Cortez had (I recall thinking he must really go through the Liquid Plumber)…somehow none of it was on or near Catherine? But quite honestly, that’s so basic that if I sat down any number of paralegals I’ve worked with over the years, they would have done the same. Actually, some of them would have done a much more creditable job defending Mr Cortez.
I’ve no idea whether Haughn was guilty or innocent, but I believe he could have been found guilty just as easily, if not more so, than Cortez. Which doesn’t really mean much. It’s almost as if the detectives were playing “Eeny-meeny–” Once I did more digging into the case it’s almost insane how quickly they dismissed Haughn, basically by saying, “He answered our questions and we didn’t *think* he was lying, so….” WTF??
Anyway, I hope to read more soon! All the best, Lise–you are my new professional inspiration, and no, that is NOT an exaggeration.
Thank you for your kind words. It is always motivating to have this kind of feedback. Haughn might not be guilty, but we will never know because they didn’t do their investigative work properly. But he should have been ahead of Cortez on the list of suspects.
Most paralegals could have done a better job than his defense team. I think a plumber or a homeless guy could have done a better job. I get that they didn’t have much time to prepare, but how long does it take to call an expert or an investigator? They didn’t want to spend money it seems.
The way they dismissed David was shocking. They took a look at Cortez and that was it. The Hispanic man had done it.
I hope they find a way to get him out of that hell hole of a prison. He needs to be released.
David Haughn , based on the actual events and facts- is the only person who could have murdered Catherine Woods. All of the evidence, time line, facts, including the shoe size and opportunity , lack of emotion, accusing Paul Cortez, his reaction and own words about finding CW body ” are you ok baby? Are you ok baby?” is bizarre to say the least providing the grizzly scene. I really wish some high profile celebrities would step in and help Paul Cortez get a new trial. How would Paul Cortez continue calling Catherine Wood during the entire attack? What an injustice. Unbelievable that a review of the facts- do not call into question the guilt of Paul Cortez. It seems an innocent man is sitting in jail.
Thanks for reading. The detectives were so focused on Cortez that they kept ignoring the elephant that was in the room. Paul had a pitiful defense and no investigator was hired. If they were going to charge someone, I am amazed that it ended up being the guy who was in the area but did not ping right outside like David who was, according to his first statement, still in the apartment when the neighbors heard the murder happen.
They didn’t do DNA testing on the hair in Catherine’s hand and on her body, but just knowing it was Caucasian was enough to clear Cortez. I read the defense closing argument and I was flabbergasted. She kept losing her train of thought, but as bad as it was, as a jury, I could have never found him guilty with no evidence and a blurry video of shoes/boots they never found.
Paul called at 6:33 but not during the rest of the attack, but it should have been sufficient. And the fact that the dog was out of the apartment had to be a clincher.
They also tried to say that the front door was sometimes deficient, but it was locked and there is no way around it. Paul was not seen on camera. And using his journals?
I cannot say for sure if David was the culprit, but he had more motive and opportunity than Cortez. I am very surprised that Catherine’s parents did not see through this. But pain and grief are often too much to bear and will cloud your judgement.
A show like Serial should present his case and we can all contribute money to his fund so that he gets a chance.
Thank you so much for this. I knew Paul many years ago and he was like a brother to me. There was so much I didn’t know as this happened in an awkard time in my relationship with his family. But to read this hammered home the injustice poor Paul has been subjected to. I see his mother from time to time and she carries a sadness with her that is unbearable to see. Thank you for letting people know how he was railroaded because he was a Puerto Rican kid from the Bronx. He was a man with a bright future who had it stolen from him just as badly as Catherine did. Thank you.
This is such a tragedy. I cannot fathom how they could have found him guilty. His poor mother. It must be hell for her. He was railroaded from day one. I hope more people pick up the story in the media and that his ordeal will finally end. Thank you for reading and for the comment.
It was a complete circus and that she has lived thru this is a testament to a mothers love. Paul is a kind soul and anyone who knew him, really knew him, knows he just couldn’t have been capable of anything remotely close to this level of atrocity. But I read things on your blog that I never saw on freepaulcortez.org. Thank you for spreading the information and keeping this injustice in the face of the people. I know his family would thank you if they haven’t already.
It was the biggest legal Circus I have ever heard of. Mind you, there are quite a few dozzies out there. But usually, there is doubt and they do not know which way to swing. But there is nothing to indicate or prove that he could have done this. Not only, by all accounts, is he a very kind and peaceful man but it would have been physically impossible to commit the crime they accused him of.
And his lawyers? The perfect storm. The justice system robbed him and his mother of a life. And what to say about poor Catherine? It pains me to think she went in such a cruel manner. I do not know Paul or his family but I wish them all the best.
Circus is an understatement. Before he was arrested, a reporter snatched his food from his hand and wrote about his Spanish rice meal in the NY Post.
I’m sure his family has seen this site and appreciate your dedication to the truth being heard. I assure you that I did. I never wanted to pass judgement after two families lost their children-and I assure you I knew Paul very well and could never picture him even angry. But to see the facts you laid out are just too much to bear. She has been robbed of not only her life but justice as well.
The New York Post played a crucial role with their mob mentality. We all know that he was never caught on tape in front of Catherine’s building but the media ran with it and never apologized for slandering him. The headlines were atrocious. I am not surprised about the Spanish rice meal, but I am offended. The prosecutor called him a Harlem man.
Paul is not the angry type and frankly, why would he have been angry at Catherine just because she didn’t want to see him on that day? There was no cause for rage or any violent act. They were going to see each other again and it’s not like he didn’t have a life.
There was no justice involved in this case. I am working with a colleague on a few shows that will include Paul’s case. This wrongful conviction has to be reversed.
Then bless you and your colleagues for letting the truth be seen and the injustice done to two people. Paul will be vindicated but look what it has cost. What he’s been subjected to in the NY Correctional system cannot even be imagined without horror. The media hung him before he ever saw the inside of a courtroom.
Again, I thank you and I know his family appreciates what you have done.
I never heard of this case until it re-aired on 48hrs last month. Since that time I have obsessively been reading and re-reading the timeline of events and am so internally distraught I don’t know what to do. Is there no chance that the hair strands could still be tested as in the case of the West Memphis Three and other crimes that were committed before DNA testing was available? Or if his appeal is denied they’ll just said whoopsie, you missed your one shot?
It is a very disturbing case Erin. I have asked the question over and over about the hair, DNA and also the video showing David leaving his residence. Did they preserve the evidence and is it being tested? That’s all it would take really if the Supreme Court reverses the case and he gets a retrial. I could not get any answers. I am thinking of writing Paul to know if they preserved that evidence.
Appeals are not very useful when your trial was lacking because you are not usually able to bring in new evidence. You can only revisit mistakes made at trial. The fact that they didn’t really challenge the palm print or anything else for that matter didn’t help. He needs a new trial to present the right evidence.
Ive seen this story on ID TV several times.
I didnt know any of them yet the story moved me so emotionally. In my heart I do not feel Paul is guilty.
If there was no way out to the back of this apartment building- David is the only person seen on video leaving the building – it was him. I believe he was the jealous one and did not like Catherine’s relationship with Paul. He had the means and the purpose to commit his horrible crime because he lived there. It obviously makes sense. He killed her, cleaned up, was able to change his clothes and just walk out the door calmly to his “alibi”- again because he lived there. He probably had his bloody clothes in a bag stuffed under his jacket and yes was able to calmly walk out the door and get rid of them and come back- because if he was supposed to be waiting for her and was only coming back in 5-10 minutes to get her- why leave at all- 5-10 min is not that long- I don’t care if his job is only a block away, there was no reason for him to leave and come back- the only reason to me, was to get rid of evidence, Then come back and “oh my” discover her body. And there was no way in hell for someone else to have entered that building without being caught on camera, commit this horrendous crime, clean up, change clothes and leave the building -again without being caught on camera in the short time that David left and came back, it just does not add up or make sense at all.
His 911 phone call was emotionless. To find someone you know dead- wouldn’t you be hysterical? Her throat is slashed and hes calling out “baby girl, baby girl? What is that???
Maybe they had a fight because she was done and told him to get out. Hes not going to tell the police that. She is dead and cannot tell her side of the story and he knows that so he can make up anything to save himself and implicate someone else.
The blond hair under her fingernails? Who had blond hair? Not Paul. WHY didn’t they test that hair? David had blood on his clothes- if he didnt touch her when he “found” her, then how did the blood get on his clothes? The whole investigation seemed botched to me. Even on the 48 Hours episode when they interviewed Paul from jail- he was soft spoken and looked the reporters right in the eyes telling his side of the story, when they interviewed David, his legs were shaking up and down, twisting his hands together and never looking the reporter in the eye but everywhere else. What does that tell you? A police officer or Detective could not see that from the beginning, what was he so nervous about- body language tells alot, anyone knows that.
And what the hell does being a “Harlem” man and eating a spanish rice meal have ANYTHING at all to do with ANY of this? I don’t get that either? That is the most idiotic thing Ive ever heard of.
I can go on and on, it just boggles my mind that Paul was not running or even walking from the building at the time of the crime according to the video but David WAS. Whats wrong with this picture.
I feel immense sorrow for Paul and his family and for Catherine and her family.
Yes Lynn, this case pulls at your heart strings. It is heartbreaking to know that this young and wonderful girl’s life got cut short when she had such a promising future ahead of her, and that the man who tried to be her protector when he felt she was endangering her life, is the one that went down for her murder.
David actually had a reason to leave the apartment because he had to go pick up the car a few blocks away to give her a ride to work. If he had gone to the corner simply to see his co-workers, I think he would have been the only suspect. But the cops lost interest in him the minute Cortez was brought up to their attention.
I have to admire Cortez for not pointing the finger at David because he did not want him to go through the same horror that he did. But I am sure that common sense being what it is, he knows David is probably the culprit, but wanted law enforcement to do their job instead of pushing them in his direction like David so gladly did for him.
I mean short blond hairs in her hand, blood on his pants, he is the rejected boyfriend, Cortez is nowhere to be seen in the building and does not know that there is a dog in the apartment. The dog being left in the hallway is also an indicator that it was released by a familiar person or it would have barked his head off. The neighbors heard the small dog barking.
And I will concede that we never know how people will react when discovering a dead body, but he says it is an accident when she has her throat slashed? He tells the cops he has come to accept his guilt. And there was also the delivery guy who let the dog out who was never investigated.
All they needed to do was a few examinations of his hair and blood spatter on his pants. They did not search the garbage near his work to see if he disposed of boots and clothing. Did not check if he owned the type of boots that left the footprints. He had bruises on his hands, but said it was from working on the car he bought behind Catherine’s back because he was a dead beat as far as paying his share. I believe that David was a nice guy that his friends trusted, but it does not mean he was not desperate enough to commit a crime of passion. Catherine’s father suspected him right away.
Cortez had no reason to kill her. None.
I agree. The Harlem man comment in court and the media lynching should have been enough to reverse the case. They said he was caught on camera in front of the building when it was totally untrue. You can’t have more damaging than this.
I don’t know if you have seen the interview Erin Moriarty has done with Paul. She is usually fair compared to a lot of other journalists, but she is friends with Catherine’s parents so she obviously was taking an adversarial or should I say prosecutorial stance against him. During the interview, he looks ravaged by his time in prison and has a hard time facing her because of the camera lights and she asks him why he could not look at her in the eye. That was painful.
Thanks for your comment and your compassion for Paul. He deserves public support and a campaign to get him out of that hell hole.
It’s very hard to make a legitimate opinion on the matter if you weren’t present in court. Many of these ‘inconsistencies’ were easily debunked in court. As Catherine’s friend, we definitely have the correct person in prison. Even the narrator of the 48hrs video said after attending the trial that he was guilty. The print was attached to a clear bloody handprint, and the luminol used to enhance the print is widely used and accepted in investigations. It’s not a coincidence that if it was a ‘preexisting print’, that out of the millions of prints from other people, it happened to land on pauls, who has only been there a couple of times. And the ‘hairs’ found were not tested because they were not from humans. She had several dogs in the apartment daily, and she was found facedown on a bloody hardwood floor, she had random hairs and fibers stuck ALL over her body. And the owner of her workplace testified that paul called at all hours of the night to the point whee catherine would tell her coworkers to tell Paul she wasn’t there. So for him to say that he didn’t call her because ‘she was working’ was completely debunked at trial. Paul lied on his initial police statements on his whereabouts trying to place himself as far from the scene as possible, until they pulled his phone records. And his journals spoke about his pent up hatred towards catherine so they were admissable as to motive. And yhe journals almost served as a timeline for his aggression towards her up until the night of the murder. It was pretty damning if you were there in court. And paul knew ver well the conflicts with his attorney and he waived them and continued, so the fact that he is bringing up now was shot down by the courts. We believe from the bottom of our hearts that we have the right person in prison who kiled our dear beautiful friend.
The murder of Catherine is a tragedy of epic proportions, but I wrote this blog based on official documents and statements.
The trial did not convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that Cortez was guilty. Far from it. The evidence and facts of the case point in another direction, but his character assassination in the media and the court of public opinion muddled the water.
They lied about him being caught on camera in front of Catherine’s building. How horrible is that? And calling him the Harlem man in the courtroom is beyond offensive.
Everything he did was perceived as sinister. I do not blame him at all for not telling the cops he was in the area at first. Look what happened when he did. He knew who he was dealing with. He should have actually refused to talk to them, but he did it willingly and cried a river over his friend’s death.
No need to be in the courtroom to read official transcripts and find out the truth.
The hairs found on thighs and abdomen were from dogs. In the official report, it mentions several dark-colored human hairs and numerous dark-colored animal hairs. The hairs in her fingers were blonde and not from a dog, but human. And all the hairs analyzed had Caucasoid characteristics, which clearly eliminated Cortez.
http://www.freepaulcortez.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Evidence-hairs-fibers_lab-report.pdf
This does not eliminate the fact that they did not compare them to David’s. They did not examine his bloody pants or read his lyrics. They did not produce the video of when he left the building and ignored his lies about his brother looking after the dog. And the bruises on his hands. I do not mean to accuse him, but he should have gone through the same investigative process as Paul.
Yes, Paul wanted to patch things up with the lovely Catherine, but he was not stalking her. She had called him at all hours also. Her official phone records show how she told him twice that she loved him before the tragedy.
http://www.freepaulcortez.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Paul-and-Catherine-Text-Messages.jpg
Why would he want to kill someone when things are looking up? And he had no window of opportunity to do this. He was not seen or caught on camera. He showed no signs of a struggle.
Sadly, Catherine had a tendency to lie to her entourage probably to spare herself the endless explanations and to keep her privacy. Maybe the drama was appealing to her, but certainly not in a mean-spirited way or to hurt anyone. That was her way to handle difficult situations.
So what she said about Paul does not mean much. What counts is what she texted him, which is I love you and yes I will see you. As much as he wanted to see her that day, and must have been disappointed not to, there was no reason to viciously attack her.
You have to know by now that during the appeal, they ruled that the trial judge had erred by allowing the prosecutor to present the jury with Paul’s old journal entries. So no, it did not prove anything and was not probative.
The palm print was latent and not a bloody fresh print. It was part of the trial. And it was found two weeks later. And Paul was in her apartment, so it does not really matter how many times. And the dark color was a chemical reaction.
You do not need to be in the courtroom to know this. And the appeal could not touch this because of the lousy job Cortez’s lawyers had done and they could only review mistakes done.
But it was ruled during the appeal that Paul’s original trial attorneys represented him while under a conflict of interest because Dawn Florio was facing a simultaneous indictment by the same prosecutor for smuggling drugs to one of her clients. They stated that the trial judge erred in allowing Florio to represent Paul at trial as she could try to curry favor with the prosecutor and hold back on her defense of her client.
I read the closing statements and Cortez’s lawyer did a horrible job. He was entitled to decent legal representation. The boots were a joke. He did not own that type and the video debacle should have in fact, saved him. The prosecution witness who identified the boots lied as indicated in his previous interview when he did not remember at all what Paul was wearing.
Everything in this blog comes from the same facts we all heard so being in the courtroom or not makes no difference. It is quite important to be detached emotionally from the case to assess fairly the evidence or lack thereof.
If they came up with new evidence pointing at Cortez, I would be the first one to readjust my opinion. And if testing proves David was not involved, let the chips fall where they may, but we need to find out who killed Catherine and they have not done that at trial. Far from it.
I wish you the best. Losing a loved one is a heart wrenching experience and he high profile nature of the case only prolonged the agony, but Paul Cortez is also entitled to due process and a fair outcome.
Catherine is the victim, think about what she would want to be done. Someone , have that DNA under her nails checked and those hairs in her hands, she would want justice. If police won’t do it, maybe a pi or lawyer or her parents. I am a 58 year old white mom of 3 from Texas and by God’s grace my kids are good but placed in that ordeal, you damn right I would have wanted that DNA from the start.
I agree Debbie. Poor Catherine lost her life and it was of the essence to find out through every means available who committed this horrible murder. Everything should have been tested and no stone left unturned before coming up to a conclusion.
He most definitely had a window of time to commit the crime for he still has no alibi and lied to the police. And he didn’t show up to band practice for the first time (coincidence?) And the police outlined pauls movements between the calls made and it lined up with making the initial calls, leaving his apartment and hopping on the subway, then continuing the calls 15 minutes later. They also outlined David’s movements and only one of their’s matched up. And being people saw david at a certain time, it didn’t line up. And paul had motive being his band mates and and friends testified to him being erratic the week she denied him going to his families house for thanksgiving. And I was friends with catherine, and she mentioned being worried about him. And she mentioned to me that he had put his hands on her, which apparently was witnessed by a woman who testified in court. Paul thought alot more of the relationship than she did, and I know that first hand from her own words.
The palm print was clear, not latent. They saw the palmprint and cut it out of the wall and analyzed it, which is when they saw the print of pauls through luminol. But it was in the exact place with the clear bloody palmprint. And the blood on the print didn’t have splatter between the ‘ridges’ which means it was put in blood.
The hairs were not human hairs but fibers and dog hairs which were all over her floor and found all over her. Anything which says it is davids or human hairs of others is sheer speculation and just not true.
And there was no dna found under her fingernails. That is also just a say for the defense site to grasp ar straws to create some doubt. But truth it, there was not.
Obviously, you have been reading the wrong things. But regardless-I PERSONALLY knew Paul Cortez for many years BEFORE this act was committed. While it is sad for Catherine, so many things have been ignored:
1. If none of her friends or family knew about Paul, who else didn’t they know about?
2. Not to slam the dead AT ALL-she was a stripper-who was previously drugged and possibly molested.
3. Paul DID NOT OWN OR WEAR SKETCHER BOOTS. EVER. EVER. EVER. His mother spent a great deal on his clothes and shoes and he was very choosy about them. HE DID NOT WEAR OR OWN SKETCHERS.
4. The blood and hair found on her was that of a Caucasian man-look it up. Paul has ZERO Caucasian in him. Read the evidence she so clearly lists on her site.
5. Whats the deal with Mr. Haughn and that dog? No one curious? NO. WHY? Cause why bother when the spanish kid fits the bill.
I find it so frustrating Tara when people bring up points that are clearly not part of the evidence presented at trial. I have put the link of the lab report for the hair and they keep saying it was not human, but from the dogs. The photos clearly show short blond hairs in her hand and the human hairs found on her body were Caucasian. There were also dog hairs and they were precisely identified.
http://www.freepaulcortez.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Evidence-hairs-fibers_lab-report.pdf
I get that because of his incompetent lawyers, they did not debunk enough of the smoke and mirrors evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense closing argument was one of the most pathetic I have ever heard, but even with this lightweight of a defense, I could have never have found him guilty with what was presented by the state.
The dog being let out of the apartment is very telling and if my friend was murdered, I would want to know for sure what happened, and would analyze every piece meticulously. Nobody wants to slam Catherine but we have to state the obvious; she kept a lot of secrets from her friends and family and said different things to different people. That’s why her journals should have been looked at instead of seizing the ones Cortez wrote.
I believe he did not own Sketcher boots and was wearing exactly what is being shown on the video. And when they say that he did not have lousy legal representation, I cringe. A couple of jurors said that they went with guilty because of the behavior of his lawyer. What trial were they watching?
And his attorney’s did the best job they could given the circumstances . Everyone should realize that every convicted murderer who hears the words ‘guilty’, attempt an appeal due to bad representation. It is extremely common. And 2 appeals courts including the highest in NY agreed. He was given an opportunity to get new attorney’s and he did not. That was his choice. But although I believe they did a good job from what I saw, it is much different to say your lawyers just sucked than it is to say that you deserve to win an appeal due to intentional misrepresentation. Not every lawyer is the same and it is your choice who you hire. And I and many are glad the appeals courts saw it that way.
I beg to disagree about Paul having a window of opportunity to commit the crime, especially when you take into consideration that David was in the home and there was a dog let out in the hallway. Paul did not have the key and was not seen on camera. According to his cell phone records, he called her in the middle of the attack.
David on the other hand, had a window of opportunity. I am not saying that he did, but the circumstances are not in his favor. What the neighbors heard narrowed the timeline and make it hardly impossible for an outsider to happen on the scene in this 15 to 20 minutes window.
The police molded the story to fit their scenario and it does not fit the evidence. They never produced the video showing at what time David left and did not have his bloody pants analyzed. They did not search surrounding garbage cans to see if he had disposed of any clothing or boots. He lied about his brother looking after the dog and his relationship with Catherine. He directed them to Paul right away to deflect from himself.
Paul spent hours answering the cops’ questions, but did not volunteer that he was in the area. I kind of get why he did not give more than he was asked when you know how they operate and what happened to him once he told them his timeline. He could have easily refused to talk to them. Trying not to get involved and being in shock does not mean you are a murderer. Contrary to David, he was very emotional about Catherine’s death.
He did not show up at band practice because he knew he was getting fired. Instead, he had an alibi with another friend and he was wearing the same leather jacked and did not sound or look frazzled. His band mate testified at trial that Paul was too peaceful to be in that type of band and gave a great character reference. Not being at practice did not mean he had murdered Catherine.
The cops did not retrace David’s movements. His scenario and alleged phone calls did not match and his recounting was highly suspicious. They gave him a free pass and did not read his lyrics or investigate him at all. They took the word of his work buddies who appeared confused as to the day of his visit and when the cops had showed up. There was nothing rock solid there. If Cortez’ attorneys had hired an investigator, the court would have heard what the real timeline was and David would have had to fess up to his lies.
It would have been impossible for Paul to be hiding outside to wait for David to leave and commit a murder without getting blood on himself or leaving footprints outside the bedroom. Only someone who lived there or who had planned the whole thing could have committed the crime.
The state said it was a spur of the moment attack, but then we would have to assume that Cortez came prepared and walked through walls without being caught on camera.
Catherine said a lot of things to a lot of people. Some of it was true and sadly, some of it was not. Of course, he was upset and probably insisted a lot to regain her love. Telling him that she loved him a few days before the attack kind of flies in the face of her staying away from him and trying to break it off. And she also mentioned another guy named Paul who had pushed her against a wall and was fired for it at work. She told Paul that David was rough with her. There is plenty of blame to go around.
Read the official reports of hair analysis. It is all there in black and white. You cannot change evidence.
“The fact is, there was never any actual “bloody” fingerprint. What the public saw was not a “bloody” print but the dark stain of the chemicals used to make the invisible print visible. The Prosecutors – as well as Paul’s own defense lawyers – continued bandying about the phrase “bloody fingerprint” for no other purpose than to keep that idea firmly planted in the jurors’ imaginations.
Had there been a bloody fingerprint there at all, the investigators would have seen it right away and acknowledged as much. A “bloody” fingerprint will never be mistaken for a latent print. There are no photographs taken at the scene of a bloody fingerprint because no fingerprint was ever seen by investigators detailing the crime scene. The only photographic evidence to date comes only from the Dept. of Forensic Biology who conducted the chemical testing on a segment of wall with a blood smear that gave the illusion of a possible (this time actually bloody) palm print.They found that print 2 weeks later and after taking Paul Cortez fingerprints under false pretenses.
The partial fingerprint in question has long been touted to have been at a location that naturally extends from the palm, when in fact the print in question was located opposite the palm print several inches away, above and to the right side, unconnected to the palm impression. The blood in all cases matched that of Catherine Woods. The alleged palm print was never identified nor matched to anyone.”
There was DNA found under her fingernails and it was scraped, but not analyzed.
His 2 lawyers did a dismal job. They did not hire an investigator and did not show up at the beginning of the trial. During the appeal, it was acknowledged that one of them had a conflict of interest with the DA’s office. It was also said that they should have never used his journals as evidence, which represented half of the prosecutor’s case.
They should have easily proven him not guilty, but they failed miserably to attack the witness who lied about Paul wearing the boots he did not own when he had told a TV station a year earlier that he did not know what he was wearing. They failed to debunk the ‘bloody fingerprint’. It was an epic fail.
The problem with the 2 appeals is that because his attorneys did such a lousy job, he could only appeal what was presented and because they basically did not present a defense, he could not approach the essential points in his favor.
It is sad that Catherine was lost in the shuffle and that her friends and family have lost her while going through this ordeal, but the facts and evidence in this case do not prove Cortez’s guilt, and from what I read in your comment, you have not paid attention, but went with your emotions and gut feeling.
I agree that Erin Moriarty was biased in her 48 Hours reporting of this case. I came away believing that Paul must be guilty but after reading the information here, I am appalled about the way this was portrayed, and the facts that were left out. I feel so bad for Paul, his mother, and of course Catherine’s family. I’m not sure I saw, but is the hair still in an evidence room somewhere that can be tested? And I agree with another poster that the “defense” attorneys deliberately offered a shoddy defense so that the blonde one could be helped out of her own legal troubles with the prosecutor. It’s so obvious! David Haughn probably has abandonment issues due to his childhood trauma, and when Catherine tried to kick him out, he reacted with all of the anger he has against his mother abandoning him. His threat to kill himself the first time she tried to kick him out was classic manipulation, and Catherine caved because he played her. Paul Cortez needs a new trial. This is a travesty.
Moriarty’s interview was prosecutorial to say the least. She usually is more objective. The fact that the lights were blinding him and he didn’t want to be there in the first place gave her a reason to confront him about not looking her in the eyes. He is in one of the most horrible prisons in the US and he is supposed to show up and be like a salesman selling his innocence?
I have tried to find out countless times if the hairs have been kept, but to no avail. It would be simple to test it. And what about David’s bloody pants? They eliminated him right away after he showed no emotions and said he was getting used to the idea of being guilty. It is obvious that David’s background and his situation with Catherine made him the perfect suspect. Not that we know for sure, but he was there and Paul was not, and I agree with you about the fear of abandonment that probably was omnipresent in his life. How could they not see that? And not to have the neighbors testify in court about what they heard is total incompetence. The entire scenario was created to accuse Paul Cortez and his legal team was out to lunch.
You are right, he deserves a new trial. The ones who say he had his day in court are deluded. And his lawyers should be ashamed. I feel very sorry for Catherine’s family and friends, but we cannot let him rot in prison because they are satisfied with the results.
Thank you for you comment.
P.S. Then you put “Rest in Peace” but say nothing good about her and throw her under the bus to save a man who every past girlfriend is afraid of? Fuck you.
Rose, if you think that you can leave comments on my website using the F word, you are at the wrong address. I do not publish insulting or ignorant comments.
But I will make an exception for you, and answer some of the points you raised to illustrate the fact that you did not read the blog or followed the case or trial.
You say you have little patience for people who think Cortez is innocent because he is talented and of Spanish decent. We don’t care if he is of Spanish decent, it is the media and the prosecution who made a point of being racists, and tried to use his heritage as a negative. But I care that all the hairs on Catherine were Caucasians; meaning they did not belong to Paul.
Cortez actually put his talent to work and was quite diligent. It is about character and it shows that he was going somewhere. It also indicates how ridiculous it would have been to throw away his future because a girl he really liked didn’t meet him on a specific day.
You say I had access to Catherine’s journal entries. Where did you read this? I said that the cops should have kept her journals instead of giving them to her parents. It would have been easier to know what was happening in her life instead of relying on different people who heard different stories from her.
Catherine was sexually attacked by the person who rented her a room when she first came to New York. It was confirmed. She was drugged at the club where she worked and called Paul for help. She thought that she might have been sexually assaulted. What part of that didn’t you get? I am not accusing anyone of rape or making it up. And it is not her fault in any way, shape or form.
Saying that I am bashing the victim is ridiculous. She was loved by David, Paul, her family and so many other people. They all thought she was a great person with a big heart, which might have contributed to the fact that she lied to her friends to keep her life compartmentalized or not to hurt anyone’s feelings. Plus, she was young and living in a big city. She wanted to keep a lot of her adventures to herself. Telling the truth is not bashing someone. She was who she was and I am not about to canonise her because of the tragedy that befell her. It is a criminal case and not an autobiography.
If you don’t care that Cortez’ legal defense was dismal, the prosecution creative at best and the judge known for her cantankerous personality, too bad because if it was you or a member of your family, you would hate to be in the middle of the perfect storm.
I have explained that the appeal cannot go far when the trial is lacking because it can only examine errors that were made and his defense was non existent. Their hands were tied. But they sure recognized that his lawyer had a conflict of interest and the old journals should have not been used.
And by the way, the girl who went to the cops to say he was rough during sex never accused him of rape and did not press charges. She went back to the band practices and remained friendly with him. He was in a rock band and having encounters with women is not a rarity. The cops jumped on this story because they wanted him to come in to get his fingerprints, and for no other reason. Otherwise, they would have dismissed her.
His former girlfriends were not terrified of him and none of them testified against him.
And where did you read that the murder was the work of a professional killer? As I said, it was very personal and the person removed his boots and bloody clothing in the apartment for obvious reasons. So it could not be Paul, but you would rather stick to what you read in the media.
You went around all the important facts and impossible timeline, but attacked nonexistent matters. It’s a man’s life hanging in the balance and you have to stick to due process and evidence. Insulting bloggers and making up facts is not helpful.
Paul Cortez is guilty, & he is exactly where he should.
I am sorry Tiva, but this is not a very convincing argument.
I keep wondering if there will ever be justice in this case for both Catherine and Paul. Ever since I saw the 48 Hours segment on The Death of a Dream, I couldn’t shake the feeling that Paul Cortez was innocent. I, too, wondered why the police so easily dismissed David as a suspect. Complete miscarriage of justice, in my opinion. I do think David Haughn is guilty. Such a sad case for all involved.
It is very sad to think of poor Catherine’s life being cut short and of a young man sitting in an awful prison based on speculations and allegations. I don’t know if David killed his friend in a fit of passion, but they should have investigated him before focusing only on Cortez. He needs a fierce attorney like Kathleen Zellner and an investigator to review the case from A to Z.
Paul certainly deserves a fair retrial and I hope at some point he gets it and doesn’t give up until he does. I live just two hours north of Catherine’s hometown of Columbus, Ohio and read that her father passed away just six months ago. He died thinking Cortez killed his beloved daughter. I pray they both are at peace.
So sad about Catherine’s father. Losing a child in such a violent manner is unbearable suffering for parents. It’s not rare for families of victims to refuse to look at any other culprits than the one prosecuted by the crown. It’s a way to hold on to the fact that justice was served. Otherwise, you have to keep opening cans of worms and prolong the pain. I share your concern for Paul. The conditions at the prison are bad enough to break any man. I hope he gets a chance to see his case reviewed.
I just saw an unedited version of Moriarty interviewing Paul. He did make eye contact with her during the conversation. I was struck by him saying that he did not know that David had moved back in with Catherine and that he did assume she was home getting ready for work when he was in her neighborhood trying to call her. So he knew she was home and probably by herself. That piece of the conversation may have helped convince Moriarty that Paul was guilty as she so believes.
So does this mean they edited the segment to show him mostly blinded by the lights and not making constant eye contact? I remember that she almost implied that he could not sustain her gaze and he had to explain himself.
If she based her opinion on the fact that Paul did not know that David or the dog was there, it would make for a very flimsy theory. Very self-serving. It would not explain how he was not seen or caught on camera, how he had no blood on him and left no traces. And he would have been confronted by a dog that was conveniently put outside the apartment. When he realized that she opted to go to work, he turned around and went home. His cell phone records clearly indicate his movement. But I see your point. As weak as it is, it was clearly used as some kind of justification.
It’s apparent they edited the video because in this one, he consistently makes eye contact with her. He said he was in her neighborhood because he had gone out to get something to eat and make calls to clients. He assumed Catherine was home getting ready for work and was calling to convince her to hang out with him instead like in days past. He said he clearly told the police this during questioning. Moriarty asked him why it wasn’t in the police report then if he stated that. Can’t remember his response. ..but I believe he stated he didn’t know why it wasn’t in the police report. Moriarty wrote the book about the case and stated while she thinks Paul did not get a fair trial, she firmly believes he’s guilty.
This goes to show how to what extent they wanted to paint him in a negative light. I read her book some time ago and even if she appears to try to be fair (mostly because the media was lynching him in comparison), she clearly believes he is guilty. Her close relationship with Catherine’s parents should have been enough to keep her from writing and reporting on this case. Her tone and line of questioning were prosecutorial. She never gave him the benefit of the doubt, just the illusion of it.
He stayed for hours with the cops and told them exactly that, but their mind was made up. Catherine had told him that David moved out so he had no way of knowing if she was alone or not, consequently, the jealous explosion and murderous rage do not make sense in this case.
It was a little confusing because I remember it being reported that Paul told the police he had been at home that evening. I think the jurors also mentioned that discrepancy during an interview on the 48 Hours segment then when his cell phone records told a different story, it raised the jurors’ suspicions. Additionally, I remember something about David saying he left the door unlocked when he ran his errand…indicating someone could have easily walked in and murdered Catherine.
But it’s very clear it was someone who knew her well and knew intimately the layout of the apartment and her bedroom. The person clearly planned the attack, even thinking to push her bed against the door to impede her escape. I also thought the comment by David that he thought Catherine had an “accident” to be very odd. And him telling the 911 operator that there was a boot print on her bed…well, I thought it was a running shoe when I first saw it. Either he’s able to instantly identify boot prints wherever he sees them or something is very suspicious here. Even forensics can’t identify shoe type until they take a mold and cross – reference in a database.
The inconsistency was that during his first interview with the cops, he did not volunteer anything unless he was asked. And subsequently, he gave them his cellphone and all the info about his whereabouts. He had not told them he was in that neighborhood but they did not ask either. So the jurors thought he had tried to lie about not being in the area. He probably was afraid to get in the middle of this can of worms. And who could blame him?
But he had told them that he went out that evening with a friend. And to think that he was wearing the same jacket and the infamous shoes that the jury ‘identified’ as boots.
I agree that it was obviously a planned attack and not a fit of passion by Paul who had no reasons to want her dead. The 911 call is totally at odd with someone finding the love of his life stabbed on the floor. His ID of the boots should have been enough to raise all the red flags needed for a further inquiry into his whereabouts and relationship with Catherine. As if Paul Cortez would have had time to go in there and proceed to kill his friend and leave without any traces. The boots were removed in the apartment and David is the only one who had this type of access. I am still shocked that they did not check the video of David leaving the building or if his pants showed signs of blood splatter or not. And the hair takes the cake. This case was flubbed.
The incompetence of the cops and the defense attorneys is astounding if not breathtaking. This man deserves a fair retrial. Both men and the mysterious “other” Paul should have thoroughly investigated, not to mention all DNA should have been tested. His mother should sue the state. I could not let this rest if I was a family member.
Agreed. I was flabbergasted by the incompetence displayed from all directions. It was the perfect storm. The other guy named Paul, the delivery guy, David, Catherine’s journals, the hairs, the DNA, the pants, the videos. It was all swept under the crazy carpet.
I do not understand why some legal eagle did not step up to represent him or his family Pro Bono. They have to be held accountable and Paul needs a chance at a new trial. They would need a change of venue considering the media mob mentality that prevailed.
Very true and very sad. It’s the same media mob mentality that gave rise to Donald Trump as a viable presidential candidate. ..people simply can’t think for themselves.
It sure feels and sounds that way. When you think that a major newspaper lied about Cortez being seen outside Catherine’s building stalking her, and that was not enough to throw the case, how could you ever trust the media after this? They should have been sued or forced to publish a retraction. If they did, it would have been on page 12 in the small right end corner where no one can see it.
Yes the rise of Trump is all about glorifying ignorance and the mob mentality.
Does Paul get a new trial or is he stuck in hell for a crime he obviously did not commit? What can people do to help him? This is so sad, reading the facts it’s apparent that he was convicted based on nothing but ignorance and lies.
Paul still has the Supreme Court, but he is stuck in hell until then. What he needs is for people to give to his fund, get a great lawyer and hopefully, have a documentary made that would examine all the flaws and mistakes made in his case. The media worked to condemn him, but it could also have the reverse effect if it told the truth.
Hi Lisa thanks for your response. Does Paul have a attorney for people to help pay for his defense?
Do you know what the time frame is for the Supreme Court? Does this court give him a new trial or what?
I’m concerned does he gets money to purchase what he needs while he is in prison? Does he need money for this also? If he does where do you send the money to? Thank you Lisa. I really want to help him. I seen this about a month ago and have read everything I could find. I don’t know exactly why but I just can’t seem to get Paul and his mother out of my mind. I really want to help.
I wrote to Paul directly to get more information, but in the meantime, you can go to http://www.freepaulcortez.com. That’s where you can contribute to his fund and get more information.
The system tends to be slow. The Supreme court is usually the last resort. His appeal was turned down. Appeals are for errors or outstanding new evidence, but because his defense was non existent, it is an uphill battle. They did not present anything or even investigated the case.
So glad to hear that you want to help him. The address where you can write to him is also on his website. It is a haunting situation, knowing the suffering Paul and his family have to go through on a daily basis. Not that Catherine’s family has not gone through hell also, but the truth has to be exposed.
I would normally never comment on anything like this, but as a previous long term girlfriend of Paul Cortez I can assure you that “all” his previous girlfriends were not terrified of him as one of your viewers stated. Neither were any of his girlfriends I met after we split up. I know we all have our own opinions but blatant lies are not helpful to anyone. I’m not using my name because I do not wish to be contacted by any more television shows or authors trying to profit from this horrible tragedy.
Thank you for your comment. Too many people have profited from this tragedy and I wish that people would stop with the gossip and lies about this poor guy. I can only take you at your word, and either way, I have no doubt that his girlfriends were not afraid of him.
Here are facts for convincing arguments: David was cleared as a suspect because he had multiple alibies literally from the moment he stepped out of their joint apartment to run his errands, like clockwork. He was that precise about his routine before he picked up Catherine for work. Here is a random fact: Mr. Woods (who died recently, and I’m thankful that he lived to see Catherine’s killer brought to justice)…he said on the stand that he told Paul to stop calling him about Catherine’s drug use and dancing. If Paul lied to Mr. Woods about her drug use, Paul is a liar. Catherine told multiple friends that she feared him. Mr. Woods said on the stand that he talked to his daughter about a restraining order. Catherine never followed through because, well, who would expect someone to do what Paul did? You have commentary from people on your site that believe Paul Cortez was calling Catherine Woods DURING her brutal murder. That’s absurd. Paul lied to the police about where he was when the killing happened. That is a fact. Paul was accused of rape by sodimy (fact) by another woman. These are all documented facts by the way. Another fact is that Paul kept manically calling Catherine (she did not pick up) and his cell phone got closer and closer to her. Paul Cortez’s cell phone pinged on the tower that Catherine’s phone would. He was THAT close. Its a fact that Catherine’s boss testified about Paul Cortez’s constant calls to her asking her to fire Catherine. So is Mr. Woods lying when he said that Paul repeatedly called him (only the first call was he thankful by the way) telling him that his daughter was on drugs? Was Catherine on drugs? No. Paul missed his rehearsal that day, which his band said was very abnormal. His band published an ad for a singer and sent their condolences to The Woods family. Alex Rude (band forefront) added that Paul certainly had those sketchers. You can blow smoke in the direction of the media labeling him guilty before the trial. But as you know, the jury came very close to acquitting him, and the video of his sketchers condemned him. That video was not the only evidence that condemned him, by the way! It sealed the jury’s decision, but that sketcher was not the entire case, as you know. Therefor the persecution theory as to why he was found guilty holds no water. It holds no water because the jury considered finding him ‘not guilty.’ At least one previous woman stepped forward to say she feared Paul’s strength and his obsessive nature once she gave Paul her phone number. Another fact is that his public defender said its uncanny how professional this murder looked. Well, Paul’s high intelligence is undisputed. So intelligent that he gained entrance by his grades to go to these prestigious schools. Here is a question for you to answer: If Paul cared so much about Catherine’s wellbeing (why did he killer her?), why did he try to get her fired while other women, her co-workers, were not approached by him to save their souls? How would you feel if someone you slept with once called your boss multiple times in an attempt to have you fired? Instead of this case being about an obsessed stalker who achieved the ultimate evil goal when he was rejected, you follow an entertainment show’s facts (and withholding of facts) whose purpose was to build suspense and drama? Where is your crucial thinking? You are following an entertainment show for facts. I’ll give you more credit then that, but the more you dig the worse he looks. I don’t understand your motive. Paul lied about where he was when he was initially questioned by the police (he said he was making appointments for clients but his phone said otherwise.) Paul didn’t get to kill Mr. Wood, who said Paul Cortez was a liar about his daughter’s drug use. Or her boss who said he was obsessed with getting her fired. His own band members claimed that Paul owned a pair of those shoes. He called multiple people an hour after the murder and claimed he was asleep (but told the police something else.) These are serious discrepancies in your narrative that he is innocent. The fact that Catherine took his calls for fear of him killing himself speaks volumes about her good character. She was innocent. Can you imagine what she went through? How terrified she must have been? Here is my favorite fact: there was a bloody palm print. Paul spoke about that bloody palm print in court. So in your blog you can ignore it or explain it away, but the actual court transcripts address that issue. Paul Cortez said it was the result of sex on her period. She must have been like the Old Faithful geyser to leave that much blood. You posted that a woman did not have a convincing argument, but you don’t post my arguments at all. All because I said the F word? We are talking about a brutal murder in which a very young girl was nearly decapitated, and you are concerned with a word that adults use as an exclamation mark? You will always have unanswered questions in this case because Paul Cortez is the killer. This is a story of the worst outcome of a stalker. You do realize that shows like 48 hours set their format up like “Death of a Dream” to attract views to keep guessing. They literally have one title on 48 hours called, “The Guessing Game.” If the spotlight was on the killer (Cortez the Killer) then it would be incredibly boring. These crime shows use that formula for almost all of their episodes. The only one that I saw directly focusing on the killer did so because the spotlight was on his ability to fight his case as his own lawyer. He was obviously guilty. You are an adult. You’re supposed to understand that this is an episode in a “Real life drama.” These episodes make the viewer wonder, “Could I be next?” You will find my name on more then one website stating with passion that Paul Cortez is INNOCENT. But I have a stalker who said something to me that matched what Catherine’s friends say Paul said to her. Then I left a very small window of doubt opened in this fascinating case. I left enough doubt to look at the court transcripts. Catherine was told she’d be responsible for Paul’s suicide if she did not continue speaking to him. Look up any stalker site and you’ll find that its a very common threat with violent offenders. Paul Cortez is the worst of the worst. I’m sure he thought he timed it perfectly to frame David. I had to because you blocked my ability to have a decent argument on my normal e-mail address. I would be surprised if you published this. Actually little to nothing I stated before is repeated in this comment. Fair treatment and a balanced argument would be posting comments from detractors, not just Yes people. This is for my girlfriend, whose comments you blocked.
I received your 3 similar comments under different names. This site is not a cult. We don’t post comments from yes people. We post both sides if they are written intelligently and respectfully. If you read the comment section you will see several contradictory opinions.
But when you use the f word and insult the writer, you can be sure that your comments won’t be posted.
The blog debunks the arguments you make but you are welcome to your opinion.
Paul wanted Catherine to stop dancing and using drugs. He knew she would be furious at him for trying to help her, but if he would have lied about drugs, he knew she would have never talked to him again. When he began calling the club’s housemother, Chloe, begging her to make Catherine quit, Chloe (Catherine’s friend) said that Catherine told her “She was like ‘Oh, don’t worry about it. He’s crazy you know. I’m not with him anymore. He’s an ex-boyfriend.”
Catherine lied to everyone. It does not make her a bad person, but it is a fact that she was pitting people against each other by calling them crazy and pretending to one that the other was not in her life anymore. She was young and her lack of experience made her say all kinds of things to keep the lid on her double life and mixed emotions towards men. David threatened to kill himself and that’s why she took him back. If she told a friend that Paul did the same thing, you have to take it for what it is. Drama. She lied about not being a stripper and told her dad Paul was lying. As we all know, it was the truth. So I do not feel like elaborating on why her friends did not know what was going on.
I am convinced that if her parents or dance teachers had known the truth, like Paul, they would have made her quit. This is what responsible adults would do out of love.
David did not have a solid alibi. It is explained in the blog.
David Haughn was shielded From Investigation
“David Haughn had recently begun “dog sitting” for unnamed associations several days prior to Catherine’s murder. The dog he’d been keeping was a black lab. David has a younger brother who would’ve been approximately 12 -13 years of age at the time of Catherine’s murder. His brother did not reside with him or Catherine in the apartment nor was he present but David told a neighbor that his brother was minding the dog. The intruder’s theory is nullified by the canine ‘situation.’
While police sought out and questioned most all of Paul’s friends, acquaintances, co workers, and everyone on his call list, they did not do the same for any one of the individuals David had been calling or been called by on the 26th and 27th and none of David’s friends, associates, family, etc. were ever sought out to determine if any of the flurry of calling activity made during the time he claimed to be sleeping might have been in connection with Catherine’s homicide.”
Investigators Doctored Timeline Evidence
“Police investigators changed the time window for David Haughn several times without ever establishing the basis for doing so, nor is there any report or note acknowledging why the time window for David Haughn was changed. In the case of the incident of David seen on video leaving residence at 6:25pm, this is acknowledged in lead homicide detective Steven Goetz’s Homicide Report timeline, and the 6:25 departure is used a second time without directly mentioning that it’s confirmed by video, but three days later, there is an “updated timeline” for Dec 1, 2005, where the 6:25pm video notation, as well as David’s departure at all at that time have been omitted entirely and instead shows David leaving the apartment at 6:40pm.
There is nothing in the records (that are clearly missing tremendous amounts of information) that corroborates or substantiates that this video exists, from which camera it is referencing, nor any documentation of subpoenas, so it is unknown whether the video mention and 6:25pm exit is accurate, or fictional, or if it was deliberately removed from future accounts for whatever reason.
Another incident of an unsubstantiated change is a Gristedes store receipt David Haughn clearly accounts for in his police statements, down to including the fact it was still in his pocket and time stamped 1727 (5:27pm). When investigators got register tape copies of transactions, it’s noted to the side of David’s and several other purchases that the time stamp is 14 minutes fast, and a notation the “actual” time of 5:13pm.
There is also no documentation to provide any basis of explanation for why the timeline on David was changed or why they decided the time stamp was incorrect, or why it would’ve been.”
David blatantly lied about having sex with Catherine before she was attacked. When you listen to the 911 call, you hear him talk about boot prints. He had no way of knowing at the time that the prints came from boots.
After more than 35 hours of police interrogation, David himself says he began to accept that he would soon be charged with Catherine’s murder. “At one point, I said, ‘Well, maybe this is the way it’s supposed to go down.’ I really felt that at one point I was gonna take this.” Paul Cortez never felt he was gonna take this.
David had blood on his pants and bruises on his hands. Paul did not.
Catherine did not fear Paul and texted that she loved him a few days before her murder.
Paul was not charged with sexual assault. It was a one night stand with a woman who visited him after the fact. She never pressed charges and none of his girlfriends said he was violent.
Paul’s constant calls are explained in the blog. Catherine called and texted him also.
He was never a stalker. You have to check the definition.
By the way, the media did not look at both sides. They clearly accused Cortez and called him names. The few TV shows that asked the right questions were doing it because it is the truth. Not to get ratings.
Sleeping with Catherine during her period was a ridiculous notion brought up by Cortez’ lousy attorney. The faulty prints are explained in the blog.
Cortez could have never framed David. He had no clue that he was still living there. Another lie by Catherine. And his cell phone shows he could not have been there. David’s cell phone pings in the immediate area.
Cortez never owned Sketcher boots and the video proves it.
Paul Cortez is not the worst of the worst. His band testified he was a great and peaceful guy. The fact that he did not show up for practice was because he was going to get fired. Instead he went out with a friend who ended up lying on the stand after saying a year earlier that he had no clue what clothes or shoes Paul was wearing.
I do not blame Paul for not wanting to get involved with the police. Look at what happens when you are from the Bronx and a Hispanic man.
There is plenty of reasonable doubt in this case. It was a sloppy investigation and Paul’s legal representation was non-existent. So you cannot judge the truth by this farce of a trial that took place under the scrutiny of the media.
He needs a new trial and a completely new investigation and analysis of evidence. Too many suspects were ignored to make sure Cortez was their man. Let’s not forget that Catherine’s friends mentioned another Paul who was bothering Catherine and there was a delivery person in the building who was never investigated. Not to mention that she worked in a strip joint where many unsavory things happened.
Just finished watching the 48 hrs piece on this case. All I can say is reasonable doubt. It’s tragic she lost her life, but it doesn’t give concrete proof that Paul was involved. David was too shady & the 911 tape should’ve tipped the police in his direction for serious investigation. Reasonable doubt. The tragedy is that without the truth the whole truth Catherine’s murder is a disgrace on shoddy investigation practices. A miscarriage of justice. Reasonable doubt is like a big red neon sign where Paul is concerned & with David it’s the opposite. He was way to calm to be calling 911 & not freakkng out over his”love” for Catherine to come in & see her murdered.
And no matter what, we are a society that claims to be interested in justice but the concept of innocent until proven guilty has been thrown away years ago. We might say we believe in it but we really don’t
If the concept of presumption of innocence had been applied, Paul Cortez would be a free man. They dropped David the minute they saw him. They became fixated on his guilt and forgot the glaring neon pointing elsewhere. I don’t know if David was the guilty party because they did not investigate him enough, but he should have definitely been ahead of Paul on the list of persons of interest.
They just replayed Paul’s story on Discovery ID, the 48 hours version, of course. I just remember the 1st time I saw this I couldn’t believe he was found guilty. And still to this day, I think of him & how an innocent man is in prison. Could the Innocence Project help him at all? Especially with the untested hairs, etc. I can’t explain it, but Paul’s case has stuck with me all these years.
I have been trying to get answers about the untested hairs and the video that supposedly showed David coming out of the building. I am shocked that they made a huge deal out of Adnan Syed’s case who deserved a new trial because of his crazy attorney and his young age, but that was not very difficult to prove, but Cortez gets ignored while he should be represented by pro bono lawyers fighting to prove his innocence.
We are preparing a podcast on the subject. This case stuck with me as well.
After muddeling over the case again I still come up with the same questions. Forensic science was not used to the fullest capability. Not testing the hairs? Shoddy. Boots? Shoddy & argumentative there’s tons of people with the same boots. Not testing the blood on David’s pants? Shoddy. All of those things create reasonable doubt. Pauls attorney who was charged with drug charges awaiting the same prosecutor? Conflict of interest. Wake up people!
Yes, they have to wake up and smell due process!
Here are a few more red flags for David Haughn – which can be corroborated by the timeline via FreePaulCortez.org and the available docs, as well as crime scene photos.
1. He claims when they met at 4:59, she wore a red jacket. In every single crime scene photo from that day and beyond, there is no sign of any red jacket.
2. In the surveillance video, Catherine’s hair is pulled back . She is wearing flared pants and pointy heels. She’s carrying a dark colored tote with light color strapping. In the crime scene photos, the black bag is shown in the bathroom, on the floor next to the toilet. There is a pair of blue flared pants hanging in the closet on a hanger in such a way as to have been pulled out from the rest. The top she is wearing, the red jacket, and the pointy shoes are not found anywhere in the crime scene photos taken of every room in its disarray. If the pants hanging in the closet are not the same ones she’s wearing in the surveillance captures, then everything she is wearing in them are gone. Why?
3. Her body is found dressed in gray sweat pants with elastic cuffs, she’s wearing a white t shirt beneath a sweat shirt that’s form fitting on her arms. Where are the garments she was wearing outside and why were they nowhere to be found inside? David claims she was getting ready for work, walking around in panties and nothing else. If you are getting ready for work, you’d remove one outfit and replace it with another – which appears to be the case, save for the fact the original outfit is missing from the scene. The crime scene photos show every area in every room, and the flared pants, flared top, pointy heels are not in any of them.
4. David later refers to tugging on her sweater. Catherine was not wearing a sweater. He also forgot the part he just described her walking around in panties and this attack allegedly happened in the 20 minutes he claimed to be gone, so at some point she had to take time to get dressed in the middle of an abrupt, whirlwind homicidal assault. If she’d already changed into the sweats outfit and the killer entered afterward, would her killer have any logical reason to make off with the clothes she was wearing prior to the sweats? Because they’re not in the closet, not on the floor in her bedroom, not in the bathroom in or around the hamper, not in the living room where a big laundry bag sat that was dumped out onto the floor in later photos, and nothing pictured matches what she was wearing at 5pm outside.
5. In the 48 Hours doc, David is shown driving in the car – sitting with whoever’s filming him. They cut briefly to the sentimental photo of himself and Catherine stuck into the visor. I invite you to rewatch that video and hit pause. Look at the CD wedged beside it and what its titled. For the prosecution to make such a big spectacle over Paul’s song lyrics as guilt of homicide, I can’t help think David’s “Murder Music” CD tucked beside the photo of the woman who was brutally stabbed to death in her bedroom is just a little bit psychotic.
6. Many may not be aware of the architecture of that particular building but it’s like a building within a building and the two living room windows covered in green drapes have iron style shutters…and open into a dead space between the interior wall and exterior wall. They are reinforced with cross bars so you can’t go out the window, or get down there…but can throw stuff out of it. On the ground below is trash and debris. Walking into the outside hallway is the exterior wall of the building like an |___| with the same sort of windows and access to the roof where there are dozens of easy disposal spots, up to and including the old elevator shaft – for all we know the clothing, the boots and the weapon and other items could be in a bag on top of the elevator itself, or down at the bottom of the shaft never to be discovered. There is a small vent below one of the windows that, in all of the relevant crime scene photos, doesn’t appear to have even been examined. The items could’ve been hidden in the vent area and removed later.
7. As with Catherine’s missing clothing, upon closer examination of all the relevant photos, there is not a single towel, cloth or hand towel anywhere in the apartment. Not on the floor, not in a hamper, not the laundry bag, not anywhere. David claims after sex he went to the bathroom to wash his hands. There are no towels there. Remember, he washed up, got his coat and headed for the car and 20 minutes later, she’s dead on the floor. He left and was greeted by cops and the evidence list doesn’t show towels, hand towels and wash clothes listed so where are they? What happened to them? Even one should be visible in all the spaces, in spite of the messy conditions. Who washes their hands in a dirty sink with a flat iron resting in it and doesn’t reach for a towel to dry them? Nobody, that’s who.
8. The evidence in the bedroom suggests two attack areas, and that Catherine tried to get out of the room and her killer stepped on her back holding her down and finished the job with the 2 cuts to the throat. The blood evidence on her clothing shows an overlap pattern of lighter drying blood with darker blood over it, and smearing on the floor suggesting she was moved in a dragging fashion through her own blood, reached to the small bookstand, grabbed it to pull herself up, fell with her head toward the entrance and then the throat cutting took place later after some bleeding. That means a span of time took place between the initial attack – perhaps the point prior to 6pm the side neighbors heard…but she wasn’t dead. She tried to get out of the bedroom and was prevented with the second fatal cutting in which fresh blood was introduced on top of drying coagulating blood, which isn’t going to happen inside 20 minutes with all the other provable events taking place.
9. David claims he called Catherine at least 3 times on his return from getting the car and while outside buzzing. He also claims that when he was later taken to the precinct he called Catherine’s parents a few times but got no answer. His phone records show he made one call to Catherine at 6:47pm and the last call was to 911 shortly after. He made 4 calls to check his voice mail and zero calls to Catherine’s parents. He also claimed he met Brad Stewart outside the gate, quote: “When I get to the gate I meet one of my neighbors at the gate. Before I even put the key in.” (which, for the record, coupled with the statements from cops and EMT and Brad , all prove without a shadow of doubt that on that night specifically, everyone required a key or to be let in from someone inside to get through the front gate, begging the question of how Paul would’ve slipped inside unseen by anyone, when somebody would’ve had to let him in also) – but David claims he met Brad out front, was told about the dog, went up with Brad and found the dog in the hallway. Brad, on the other hand says the dog was in the vestibule by the main front gate, a delivery guy unwittingly opened it and the dog ran out, Brad went to get it, brought it back to the floor and saw the door ajar, knocked, got no response and then David rounded the corner up the stairs and lied to Brad claiming his brother (who in real life was 12-13 years old and not present to begin with) was supposed to be watching the dog. Lies, lies and more lies from David Haughn.
And my favorite one of all…
10. On 12-7, literally less than a week after Catherine’s death, Megan was interviewed again in NY at the station. Turns out, she claims she’d flown in from Ohio and had been staying with David and spending time with him and no longer felt he was involved. She made all kinds of claims that Catherine and David were not a “thing” and she’s supposedly Catherine’s BFF…yet instead of remaining in their home town of Ohio and helping the Woods family in their time of grief, she takes off to NY to be with her BFF’s ‘non boyfriend?’ Also she claims they spoke on the phone 20 minutes. We can conclude pretty easily that no outsider got inside unassisted by anyone regardless and Paul is excluded. That leaves someone on the inside with means, motive and opportunity. Someone who knew about the dog. Someone who knew to remove it ahead of time to eliminate the risk. We have two independent ear witnesses to two attacks and screaming/scuffling/dog – a dog barking. prior during exactly the same period Megan claims she and Catherine were on the phone, and during exactly the same period David claims he was gone – both give a 20 minute time frame. It’s assumed Megan is telling the truth and is credible since clearly she was in Ohio…but a read over her statements to NYPD indicate she was more one of those jealous backstabbing friends, you know the type – fake friend, can’t stand being the “nice personality” friend in the shadow of the hot one, the friend who sleeps with her BFFs boyfriend or husband to have a little taste of what the BFF has…and went to NY and ended up getting hung up on David.
It looks quite suspicious that Catherine and Megan didn’t hang out while she was home prior to her death, her records show no calls to her, they didn’t chat frequently…and on the day of her death, suddenly Catherine calls her up during the same period of time she’s likely being attacked or immediately before it…talking for 20 minutes and practically as soon as hanging up the phone, voice mail is checked and then she’s being attacked and murdered. Perhaps Catherine wasn’t the one who called Megan. Perhaps it was David who called Megan because the two of them hatched a plan to get rid of Catherine…and Megan would help in David’s alibi. She was waiting on David at the precinct on Dec 7, and explained she’d been staying with David already for a few days. All Catherine’s money was gone. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see what’s going on there.
Catherine’s family does not indulge internet sites about this case. They seem to have shrugged it off and moved on. They never seemed that interested in finding out who actually killed their daughter anyway. None of her other friends have really come out of the woodwork to comment on the case or add to it, or help. They all seem satisfied letting the wrong guy remain in prison. But two of her “friends” were always vocal when it came to people pointing the finger at David and those two are David and Megan. Megan went out of her way to defend David over all evidence, and any time these posts show up, there are always two people who appear and demand Paul is guilty and David is innocent and they got it right. Usually a guy and a girl. I can’t even begin to imagine who those two people might actually be….can you?
RIP Catherine
Hold on, Paul…people are working for you.
Thank you for this invaluable information Delana, and for the fascinating theories that should be further explored.
Paul’s name has to be cleared and I wish his defense team had done their job because as we all know, once you are convicted, and you are high profile, the system fights you every step of the way.
The Killer is in prison, where he belongs for life. Paul Cortez stalked Catherine Woods – 292 phone calls in the month prior to her death, 13 unanswered calls in the last 90 minutes of her life.
His diary was filled with violent fantasies, words and drawings (knife as weapon), aimed at the women who had rejected him over the previous 2-3 years. As the police described the murder, it was a rage killing, with the victims throat so severely slashed that she was almost decapitated! Yes, he finally snapped and acted out his hatred of women.
Say what you will about Haughn, but he had an alibi that checked out; on the other hand Paul Cortez had no alibi and lied to the police about his whereabouts, claiming he was home making work related calls when cell records showed he was within 2 blocks of Catherine Woods apartment, just prior to her murder. A continued pattern of stalking.
The most damning evidence is the bloody hand print, with a finger print from the left index finger, identified as that of Paul Cortez. There is no way to explain how it got there, and with the victims blood, other than he was the murderer.
I found your description of Catherine Woods to be disgusting, almost as if she deserved it. In your eyes Paul Cortez is innocent because he appears handsome, soft spoken, caring, and teaches yoga. You have simply been fooled by a psychopath. There is no mystery to this, the simple truth is the evidence. Hopefully Paul Cortez will never interact with normal society again.
You obviously didn’t read the blog to come up with such comments. There was no valid fingerprint on the wall. It is explained very well. In my eyes, Paul Cortez is not innocent because he was soft spoken or handsome and because he was a yoga teacher. He is innocent because he was nowhere to be seen around the building, didn’t have a key and didn’t leave hair or any DNA, and had no reason to kill Catherine.
Anyway, I won’t repeat what is clearly explained in the blog and I won’t dignify your comments about Catherine Woods. She was a human being who didn’t deserve to die, but we cannot rewrite history and canonise her to please the peanut gallery who think that a trial is entertainment with a princess, a hero and a villain.
Paul’s legal team has uncovered new evidence: a video of the person coming out of the building after the murder. They tried to pin the murder on Cortez, but whoever has murdered poor Catherine is going down.
Haughn had no alibi. According to the timeline and the neighbors’ testimony, it sure sounds probable that he attacked the girl in a fit of passion. But who knows? We will see what the new evidence brings up to the surface.
In his initial interview with the police Paul Cortez told a Big Lie. When detectives questioned his whereabouts at the time of Ms Woods death, he said he was at home, 23 blocks away from the victims apartment, making work related calls. His cell phone records however showed that he was on the move from his apartment to the location of Catherine Woods. During that approximate 90 minute trip he made 13 calls to her, all unanswered, beginning around 5pm and ending at 6:33 pm. His cell phone showed his location as the calls were made, and those last two calls put him literally outside her apartment building. So not only was he in the vicinity of Ms Woods but he was also there at the most likely time she was killed. Amazingly, that last call he made at 6:33 pm, was also the last time he tried to contact her. There were no calls placed later that evening or the following day, even though he testified in court that he wasn’t aware of her death until 16 hours later. A reasonable person might conclude that the obsessed Paul Cortez, no longer called because he knew she was dead.
You assert there is no evidence, but the jury saw it quite differently. From a New York Times article about his conviction: “Mr. Cortez was unable to overcome the key piece of evidence against him: a print of his left index finger on Ms. Woods bedroom wall in a spray of blood that prosecutors said had spurted from her slashed throat”. The jury rightfully concluded that the person who left the print was also the person who committed the murder.
Are the staunch defenders of Paul Cortez not bothered by his expressed violent attitude toward women? He maintained a number of personal journals, and in one of those he fantasized about harming those women who had rejected him in the past. One violent rant includes a drawing showing his victim with a very large hunting knife in their back. In another entry his words eerily foreshadow the approaching death of Catherine Woods: “out in the Midwest, where boys are dirty and girls are princesses, who wipes clean the shaft that cuts her throat.” An obvious reference to Ms Woods, who was from the Midwest state of Ohio, and an admission of what he planned to do to her.
So there is his fingerprint embedded in Catherine Woods blood spatter; he has no alibi; he lied to detectives regarding his whereabouts at the time of the murder; his cellphone places him in both the vicinity of where the murder occurred, and at the critical time when it happened; his journals reveal a man who harbors violent rage towards women; and in one of those entries he actually reveals what he plans to do to Catherine Woods.
The right person is in prison and hopefully he will never get out.
The wrong person is in prison and he will get out eventually. His legal defense was so bad that the jury went with the tale presented by the prosecutor because they had nothing else. His lawyers didn’t hire any investigator or experts to debunk the prosecution’s weak allegations. Do your research. The latent print was not his fingerprint embedded in Catherine Woods’ blood splatter.
He didn’t lie to the police. At first, he simply answered questions and didn’t go into details for obvious reasons. He told them everything afterwards. The fact that he was in the neighborhood doesn’t make him magically go through walls and become invisible while entering the building.
Who let the dog out if not David? How could Paul not be caught on camera or seen by anyone? How come the hairs are of Caucasian origin? How did he remove boots he didn’t own before leaving the apt? Did he bring a change of clothes and become invisible again?
He was not violent towards women and during his appeal, the judge found the use of his journals irrelevant. All pure invention. You want to send someone to jail because of drawings, poems and rants? The New York Post is a rag and they lied constantly about Paul and even said that he was caught on camera outside the building when it was totally untrue. Cortez should have sued them.
The quote you mentioned is explained in the blog. How frustrating that people comment without reading it or doing serious research on the case.
Wake up and smell the coffee. Strange how you don’t even mention Haughn who lied and was right in the apartment when Catherine was heard screaming by neighbors. Plus, he is the only one who could have let the dog out before the attack. What about the fact that he lied to cops about how many phone calls he made to Catherine and about having his brother watch the dog while he was out? What about the fact that he had bruises on his hand and forgot all about it when he testified during trial? What about the blood on his pants not being analyzed? How about the fact that he carried Cortez’CD in his backpack and gave it to police the minute they showed up? What about the fact that he told the 911 operator that he saw boot prints on the bed when he had no way of knowing that information? Strange how you don’t mention this guy at all.
-said the person who ignored (quite conveniently I may add) the physical evidence. The blood and DNA found on Catherine’s BODY and UNDER HER FINGERNAILS belonged to that of a Caucasian male who PAUL CORTEZ obviously is not. His family made a poor choice in attornies and this evidence was not introduced. Please READ THE BLOG before you comment.
Actually, the scrapings from Catherine’s fingernails were submitted but not analyzed, which makes me wonder to this day, how that is even possible. The hairs, on the other hand, were tested and proven to be of Caucasian origin. It eliminates Paul as a suspect. I don’t understand why the light, short hairs in her hands were not tested either for DNA, if roots were present. It would have been so easy to eliminate Haughn this way. Shabby work from investigators eager to pin the murder on Cortez. I tried to find out if they preserved the scrapings and why they don’t test them now. Maybe they are. Anyway, with new blood evidence and a video, it should prove once and for all that Cortez didn’t do it.
They were not submitted because of the poor job his lawyers did. The state had no need of revealing the results as their job is to provide burden of guilt not innocence. HIS attorney did a massive injustice to him and his family was struggling financially as it was to afford that level of testing.
It is so sad to think that by hiring these two women, and unknowingly, they sealed Paul’s fate. Nothing was asked about the videos and nothing was investigated or tested. It would have been so easy to debunk the fingerprint theory. They failed him miserably. Unfortunately, an appeal cannot go into these omissions, it can only find fault with what was presented. It was poor legal representation and a conflict of interest from Florio. Instead of hiring an investigator, they kept the money for their legal fees. Shameful. But new evidence can give you a new trial. There is hope.
I hope so-his family misses him and he’s missed so much for something he was never capable of doing. For us that knew him it’s the most tragic feeling on top of knowing the person who killed that poor girl is walking free.
It’s a double tragedy. I trust that he will be released and compensated.
Hi, I’ve been following this story for a long time and always wondered about Paul’s innocence. I can’t help but think Haughn was a stronger suspect than Paul. However, I don’t recall hearing or reading that Haughn had cuts on his hands and blood on his clothes. Was this really the case?
He actually had bruises on his hand. I read this from the court transcripts. When he testified, he said that he didn’t remember, but they quoted the police report. He had told the cops that it was from working on his car.
He had blood on his pants. To be fair, it would be normal because he was in the room with Catherine, but the problem is that they did not take his pants to analyze the blood. The patterns would have indicated if it was normal contact or splatter.
Maybe he hurt his hand as he said, but Cortez had no cuts, bruises or scratches, and there was quite a carnage in that room.
Thank you for the clarification. I’m thinking whoever did this carnage would have to have some injury. ..much like OJ Simpson did after butchering two people. The New York Post claims nearby camera capture Paul in the vicinity of her apartment but does not mention a NY video footage of him entering her apartment. Also, there are several websites with posts from people who claim they knew Paul and state he had an explosive temper and an aggressive personality. Has there been any new developments whatsoever that could help Paul get a fairer trial?
If OJ had not lost a glove, he would not have been cut. Mind you, he could have left a video of his crime, and the jury in central LA would have found him not guilty anyway.
By the way, the New York Post was implying that Paul was captured on camera around the building. He was seen in the area, but never around her building itself, which needed a key to enter and had no back entrance. The articles were very deceiving and made him look guilty in the court of public opinion. The NYP did a hatchet job on the guy, and to this day, some people believe he was seen at her building. The titles of some of the articles were brutal. Even if Erin Moriarty mentioned the witness changing his story about the boots and Paul not being spotted at the building, it sticks in people’s mind.
I saw a few forums where people who had met him mentioned he could have a dark side. But his friends and band mates never saw that. The same thing for the guy who saw Paul that night and had no clue what he was wearing except his jacket and lied on the stand a year later to feel important (I would imagine). Paul did not have an aggressive personality. Did he have frustrations as far as Catherine goes? Most lovers do when things are not working out. What counts is evidence. Why didn’t they do the same type of investigation on Haughn who was there and had every reason to be mad at Catherine and even lied about having sex with her in case his DNA would be found on her?
Apparently, there is new evidence in the form of a video showing who is coming out of the building after the murder. I bet this was buried at trial. Or the lawyers simply didn’t try to get all videos from merchants and the building itself. There is also fingerprints and blood to be analyzed. She had short light hairs in her fingers. IMO, it should have been of the essence to attack that.
There is no evidence whatsoever of Cortez being able to murder Catherine in this short window of time. And he had no reason to do so. Frustration at her flip flopping is not sufficient to send someone in a killing frenzy. On the other hand, living on the futon with the object of your affection must be frustrating as hell.
One interesting point about this case is that they accused Cortez of exploding in a rage because Catherine would not take his calls (which was explained) and killing her in a fit of passion on the spur of the moment even if he had been at Starbucks and also walking back calmly returning calls. On the other hand, the person who killed her had to change and wash up not to leave foot prints anywhere but in the room. It would mean that Paul would have left home with spare shoes and clothing in a bag in case he would go kill Catherine. I still wonder how he could have called Catherine in the middle of the attack (as indicated on the cell phone record). They said it was a butt call but it is so absurd that it could be a spoof.
I truly think this was a miscarriage of justice. If people think there are no wrongly convicted persons rotting in prison, then they are living in an alternative universe. Funny how these people twist the evidence to fit Paul’s alleged guilt without determining if any of it makes sense. It amazes me how many have come out of the woodwork to claim Paul was an obsessive freak who had a violent side.
People would be amazed at how many wrongfully convicted persons are rotting in jail because of an aggressive prosecutor and the court of public opinion. If you don’t have money for a good legal team, you go down.
They wake up if it happens to them. I often write about cases where due process was non-existant, but I usually don’t take side as far as guilt or innocence. But in the case of Cortez, I don’t see any evidence at all against him. It points towards the other guy. And I cannot be sure because of the lack of proper investigation.
Thank you for your comments Lisa.
Thank you for continuing to keep us informed and for keeping this case in the forefront. I hope there’s justice for Paul.
Anyone who claims to know Paul and used the words “explosive temper” is a blatant liar. Paul was so soft spoken and introverted-angry is the last word you think of when you think of Paul. Stubborn, yes-but very mild mannered and loving.
I think that people confuse passionate and angry. In affairs of the heart, any sensitive soul has moments of despair and frustration that can be expressed strongly, especially through journals or lyrics. Paul definitely is a peaceful person, but could feel strong emotions in times of trouble. Like most people. But you can always count on a good ole high profile trial to make everything look bad. Nobody can sustain that kind of scrutiny.
I was fairly close to him and his family for many years-passionate yes, but a quiet subdued kind. His passion aside-the evidence speaks his innocence but somehow he’s behind bars.
And evidence is all that should count.
Then I’ll be waiting for your next reply concerning the blood and hair found on her that belonged to a Caucasian male-since your so well informed and all. He’s a brother, son, nephew and a person. Do your research because the rest of us have.
When you are faced with compelling evidence to Paul’s guity you replied with, “So what? He can’t go through walls and be invisible. ..” of course he was not seen. He went through a door, not a wall. He was not seen. Also, just because his lawyer did something illegal to help a prisoner out, that has zero effect on her ability be a good or bad lawyer. If you actually read the court transcript, some of your blog contradicts itself. Paul is guilty.
Is that your argument for guilt? Mine is not so what. It is because of the fact that he didn’t have a key to the building, was not buzzed in and not caught on camera or seen by crucial witnesses. He had an opening of a few minutes to go in there undetected carrying a bag with shoes and clothing and you come to the conclusion that he is guilty even without evidence of DNA or any other indication of his physical presence in the apartment? He would have had to clean up and remove his boots. And he would have had to go there while David was still in the apartment to release a dog he didn’t know about. Brilliant deduction my dear Watson!
The fact that one of his lawyers was in a conflict of interest with the prosecutor’s office sure could have made her want to do them a favor. What you mention is simply part of the package. The appeal stated that she should not have tried the case. What about the fact that they did not hire an investigator or any experts? You pick and choose trivial elements. The article is filled with facts pointing to another suspect.
Who didn’t read the transcripts? Sadly, the only compelling evidence belongs to a Caucasian and with the discovery of a video and new prints, I have an idea of who’s going to go down, and it’s not going to be Cortez.
I watched the 48 hours episode today and then googled to find out that all appeals appear to have been denied. I haven’t studied the details further and thus can’t offer my opinion other than to say that the fingerprint evidence is overwhelming and damning. The appeals courts must have investigated the validity of that single piece of hard evidence. Everything else is circumstantial and can be debated ad infinitum. If the appeals courts had any reason to question the validity of the fingerprint evidence, I believe they would have granted a new trial on that solitary basis.
Richard, I know that my blog is long but if you read the last part, it explains why an appeal does not investigate the validity of fingerprint evidence for the only reason that it was not contested properly during trial. The appeal reviews mistakes made during a trial. In this case, Paul’s attorneys failed to put a defense or hire experts of any kind. Instead, they said that Catherine and Paul might have had sex and ergo some blood could have been there, which was utterly ridiculous.
So the appeal is useless when it comes to the fingerprint because it would be considered new evidence that they won’t accept. A new trial would have been able to present the new evidence. The only instances they will accept new evidence are rare.
Let me reiterate that the fingerprint evidence is not damning or overwhelming. Strangely, in this pigsty, they did not find fingerprints in the bedroom but weeks after the initial investigation, they went back and found a LATENT print on the wall. They used a product on it that reacted. What it means is that there was an old fingerprint on the wall that allegedly belonged to Paul (could have been planted or there since a long time) and either had blood on top of it or had reacted to something else. The product they use reacts to other substances than blood. Paul was in this bedroom several times in the past so it would be meaningless because the print was not fresh anyway. It meant that blood deposited on it after splashing everywhere or the test reacted to something else.
This was not a piece of evidence and should have never been admitted in court. Because his incompetent attorneys did not do anything about it, it came in and was twisted by prosecutor. They presented a photo that pretended to be blood when it was simply the product they sprayed on top that had reacted to something.
His incompetent defense made it impossible to take this into consideration. And by the way, I do not find the rest circumstantial at all. There is a timeline that has to be respected during the presentation of a trial and during deliberations. Paul could not get in the building, he was not seen in the building, and he called her at a time she was dead. The dog made it impossible for him to be the culprit. He did not have shoes and clothes with him and could not have changed in the process. His phone was pinging too far when he was on his way home to have been able to commit this crime
Allison or Megan W or David- Karma is a slow bitch, but when she catches up she’ll look like lady justice. There was not enough to convict Paul Cortez. What kind of family defends the guy who plays a pimp to his daughter while she strips for money? Priorities.
I agree, there was not enough to convict Cortez. I blame the prosecution, his defense team, the media and to a certain extent, the jury. I read the defense closing argument, and as weak as it was, it was enough for reasonable doubt. When it comes to her family, they reacted like so many others before them; they go with emotions and trust the state’s case. The detectives spared them and their daughter by giving them journals that should have been part of the investigation and they attacked Cortez for blowing the whistle on Catherine’s activities so they were grateful. It was easier to blame Paul than to face that their daughter would be outed publicly as the imperfect princess. Their loss took over their common sense. But the state had no excuse. Haughn letting another man fry for his crime is what added another touch of horror to this case.
I can’t believe what I am reading. I stumbled upon Paul’s story, from a website called “The Line-up”
This is an incredible miscarriage of justice. At the very least he should be able to receive a new trial to prove his innocence.
He had terrible attorneys, not allowing just vital evidence into the trial. And David, the “roommate” lied about everything. This is a very serious miscarriage of justice. New York is hanouse
I think they need to move the venue from New York because of prejudicial bias by the courts. Hell I would move to have it moved to another state completely.
In the movie Bernie with Jack Black ( I know this is stupid and silly) BUT they moved the trial to another county because of the prejudicial nature.
They also need to track down David. He snapped. He’s on the video, he was there, he lied about his time, lied about evidence and the fact that New York will not allow a new trial because they will have to pay if they are wrong!
New York has a serious rep for being corrupt they even made a movie about it. Even I’ve heard about way down here in Texas.
I know it’s not much to say that even I believe he deserves a new trial may not be enough but honestly at some point I truly believe the truth will come out.
Thank you
It’s funny. People see Paul Cortez’s obsessing with her getting out of stripping and risking their relationship because he cares so much for her wellbeing by calling her dad as being “caring” and “overprotective” but I see it as being controlling. Yes, she had a scary incident that made him second guess but it more than that. He obsessed. He did not want her doing this. HE is the word. He didn’t care about what SHE wanted, what SHE thought she had to do to get toward her dream, he didn’t believe in her ability to take care of herself and know what she wanted for her own good so he thought he would decide for her. She defied him. I see it more as a man, vividly going over “lusty men” ,as he says in his journal, writhing around her perfect body, the body he made love to, the body that was meant for him, and the more he thought about this the more it tortured him. she defied HIS WISHES. it angered him that she wouldn’t stop stripping not for her wellbeing but for HIM and since she wouldn’t stop for HIM that told him she didn’t care about him. or love him like he loved her. He saw stripping as something dirty and nasty and he didn’t want it linked to her which was linked to him. He fancied himself a white knight savior. FINALLY, if he couldn’t manipulate her into quitting stripping he would do something to MAKE her stop stripping. And what in his mind did he think would be the only thing to stop her? By telling her daddy of course who he knows she values his opinions and judgements more than anything.This wasnt a situation where you see a friend using drugs and she says if you tell my family I am using i will never speak to you again. but you do take that risk and tell her family because losing her isn’t as important as saving her life. No. He was doing this as his last ditch effort to control her narrative. If she wont listen to me she will listen to daddy. He had to snoop around and get his number and then go about blowing up her plan to control her own life as she see fit. He figured dad would be pissed and make her end it. instead she ended it with him. and instead of being all “well whatever i risk losing her because I told her dad but at least now her dad knows and hopefully he can talk some sense into her and now he can watch after her”. No he became angry and resentful. With every stop of trying to control something he didn’t like about her life in some way, he failed. and now he has the ultimate failure in his face which was her door. Anyone who studies crime and perps can understand the psychology of what makes someone who on the outside seems to have it together, explode. It may not make me or you explode but some people…. If you stand back and look David Haughn is the perfect villain in this. His background, his upbringing, how he is a loser and has no prospects and is losing his own grip on Catherine VS, sensitive, artistic, educated, employed Paul. But sometimes it ends up being that person with just one single axe to grind, but otherwise has a perfect cover by having a quality and decent life and all around good PUBLIC character.
The video is date stamped but we have no idea when the actual murder took place. People assume the murder took place minutes before that video shows david coming out. this is because of the screams the neighbor on the phone said he heard. But we all know witnesses cannot always be 100 percent reliable and in this case even if it was because of neighbors phone records, we cannot be sure that scream or noise he heard had anything to do with catherine. I know common sense and coincidence would seem to, but we just can’t. So the time stamped video proves nothing really since they dont really know “for sure” exactly to the minute she died.
and the print- those experts are saying it very could be a possiblity that it was there before. but they can’t know 100 percent, just like the prosecution took their stance- the fact remains his print is in blood and they cant ignore that and it could very well been put AFTERWARD just as much as before.
And him blowing her phone up?
I do not know if Paul did it or David all I know is a lot of the times we swear we know for sure and in the end, things are not what they seem.
It is strange that you would say that we have no idea when the murder took place. We know exactly when it took place. The neighbor has the exact time he heard the screams and they verified his cell phone. The other neighbor puts it earlier and it makes a lot of sense because that is probably when the fight broke out. Plus, Cat was on the phone with her girlfriend so they also have that time registered. And there is the small dog barking and the big one being found outside. All pretty foolproof. And they have the video of David wearing his hat leaving the building and it is time stamped. We have the fact that he said that he needed his key to get in. The lock was not broken. We have the guy who found the dog.
In the motion to vacate the verdict: ”The prosecution pinpointed the time of death in this case at 6:25 p.m.3- 3. The issue throughout the trial was the identity of Catherine Woods’ killer. As the prosecution argued in his summation, it was either her ex-boyfriend, David Haughn or Paul Cortez, the defendant. (TT 2024: 22-23; 2038:22-24). No one witnessed the crime. The murder weapon was never found. No surveillance camera placed Mr. Cortez at the scene of the crime. No one interviewed by the police saw Paul at the location, much less with blood dripping from his person. A clutch of hair, with the roots still attached, was found entwined in the decedent’s bloody fingers; that hair was dissimilar to that of Paul Cortez. At least three of those hairs were light in color, like Haughn’s; Haughn’s hair was never scientifically tested. A bloody impression from the sole of a shoe found on Woods’ bed was left by a size 10 ½ shoe – the size both men wore. Haughn, who claimed to have left the apartment 20 minutes prior to calling 911, placed himself squarely inside the apartment between 5:46 and 6:23, the time four civilian witnesses heard screams and cries as Catherine was being murdered.”
And no, it was not a fingerprint in blood. How many times do we have to explain this?
And no, Paul was not seen around the building and his phone did not ping where David’s phone pinged.
I suggest you read the official documents from his appellate lawyer. He did not incessantly called her. Those were dropped calls. It is all there in black and white. His original defense team neglected to show that also.
You sound like the prosecutor who did his very best to portray Paul as a crazy Latin lover who was willing to kill the girl he could not have and control.
I’ll give you that, Paul was very passionate about this girl and so was David. They were both afraid of losing her and one of them killed her. Evidence indicates that it could not be Paul. As simple as that.
There should have never been a trial. It was a horrible investigation and Paul had a horrible defense team. Not bringing in building security tape? Not having a fingerprint expert. Not debunking the ridiculous guy who recognized the boots. Or that grainy video that showed his shoes? And by the way, it also showed the very passionate Paul who was so fixated on Cat that he was having another date with a girl he was shopping with. Oh and she said he was flirtatious and she turned him down.
Catherine was very young and she enjoyed drama. If not from this tragedy, she would have moved on. Do I agree with Paul calling her dad? I have no opinion. I get why anyone who cares about a girl who said she might have been raped, would be tempted to talk to her family. Her dance teacher said she would have if she knew. Paul had to know if would piss her off big time. He took the chance. David did not seem to care as long as she brought home the bacon.
Even if Paul should have or should not have, it does not have anything to do with the facts of the case or the evidence. He had neither the possibility or the time to enter the apartment when she was killed. The rest is all based on emotions.
Paul deserves another fair trial. I’m hoping someone comes forward with information that will exonerate him. I never believed Paul killed Catherine. I believe David did.
I believe that they already have enough to prove his innocence. I am the first one to take on cases when I think the media was shaping public opinion or when the trial was unfair, but I often try not to take side for guilt or innocence. I try to simply show the irregularities or the other side of the coin often neglected. But in Paul’s case, it is more than irregularities, it is a wrongful conviction.
It sure does seem like a lot of people go out of their way to make up fictitious pieces of evidence to fit their narrative that Paul is innocent. Here are a few pieces of evidence from the trial itself and the Supreme Court of NY judge opinions. David had an alibi as per his coworkers whom he stopped by during the murder. Paul had no alibi. He lied to his band mates and police (on multiple occasions) as to where he was that evening. Paul’s band mates testified as to him definitely owning sketcher boots. It was also the very first time Paul had coincidentally missed band practice when he was the one who usually got angry that people missed practice, were late or left early. Also that Paul sodomized their friend after a New Year’s Eve party. His journal entries spoke about meeting a girl from the Midwest, then slicing her throat (how the murder actually occurred). The hairs that were found on Catherine and on her body were tested. Majority were her own, some were dog hairs and some were fibers picked up from the ground (she was in a pool of blood on a wooden floor). 2 hairs were long and dark (which were inconclusive to Paul’s). None were blonde.
The fingerprint was examined by two experts. Both saying it was a 1 and (some astronomical number) that the killers bloody hand transfer and the print were left by two different people. That it was nearly impossible for the killer and Paul to have left two different prints in the same EXACT spot at two different times since they lined up perfectly. Also bc Paul was admittedly in her apt only a couple of times. Millions of other prints from people who were regularly there were all over the apartment, but the killers hand print was coincidentally in the exact spot paul left his print? Not quite. Which is why paul probably tried to explain it away by saying he left his print in her blood on the wall while having sex while she was on her menstrual cycle.
There was also alot of other damning evidence if people just read the transcripts or judge opinions.
I wish people would read the blog before commenting instead of repeating talking points debunked. Instead, read about the case and new findings or debunked ones and comment about it. Repeating the same old nothing sandwich leads nowhere.
The so called print in blood was debunked. Only one witness talked about the boots and it was demonstrated that he had told 48 hours that he had no clue what Paul was wearing. His bandmates talked about his good character and it was explained that Paul wanted to quit. His phone was in the area but the timeline shows it was pinging too far to allow him to commit this crime. His defense team did not present the video that proves that when neighbors heard the screams, the roommate was there. David had no alibi. The dog is also a smoking gun. They did not call the neighbors to testify. They did not hire an investigator. They did not hire someone to debunk the latent print. Explain why that wall was cleaned of other prints in this pigsty. The blog explains that ridiculous defense argument about sex and menstruating. The short blondish hairs in her hands were not analyzed. There was dog hair and human hairs which were analyzed and determined not to be from Cortez who was Hispanic. But you would know all that if you had read his appeal and the blog.
Most of what was just said is wrong. I was a close friend of Catherine’s and we ALL know the correct person is in jail. I also have an email from the lead singer of the band Alex, in which he talks about his friend who had come out to say paul had sodomized her at a New Year’s Eve party back in 2004. He says she has no reason to lie. And decided to come out when she saw he was a suspect. She felt guilty in not having come out sooner bc she then felt it maybe could’ve saved Catherine’s life. And she is still living with that guilt. And after that admission from his friend, along with his not showing up at practice for the very first time, and his owning a pair (or several) sketcher boots, he believes in his overwhelming guilt. Furthermore, what I mentioned above about the fingerprint and his diary entries was direct from the Supreme Court opinions and trial transcripts, not the media, which your comment and most of his supporters are retaining their information from. Paul had to quickly come up with a horrible story about the bloody print bc the testimony from the forensic fingerprint expert was too damning in claiming that it would’ve been nearly ‘impossible’ for killer and paul to have left two prints in the same exact spot in two different points in time. And that was after being cross examined by Paul’s attorneys in which they tried to show it was a preexisting print. Especially since there was a hand transfer in which the print fit perfectly for the left index finger. And there were no ‘short blonde hairs’ in her hand. That is just patently false. And would know that if you’ve read the trial transcripts of the testing done to the hairs and fibers. Plus the journal entries which are very damning. There is basically a premonition where he talks about meeting a midwestern girl then slicing her throat (I mean, come on!). He also talks about violence towards other women in which he says he will ‘rip their c_nts apart’ and ‘stab their hearts with his hard c_ck’… His song lyrics were also very violent towards women. Whereas all of David’s music is also in the public, and not one lyric references him committing violence, doing drugs, or showing and ill will towards women (I challenge you to try and find it, bc I have for years with no luck).
David did have an alibi, his coworkers. The police also, very meticulously, acted out both Dave and Paul’s timelines. They came to the conclusion David left his apt much earlier than the 20 minutes he initially told police (at the scene), bc two coworkers testified to him being at his job for 15 minutes. Then factor in the time to walk there, then pick up his car afterward, and arrive back around to the apt. That was more like 35-45 minutes. They also mapped out Paul’s (numerous) calls from his apartment. Then a pause for 10-15 minutes, then they started again hitting the same tower that Catherine’s phone would ping off of from her apt. And the pause was exactly 15 minutes which is the time it took to walk from Paul’s house; to the subway, then off at her stop on 86th street. Then zero calls after she was killed when he admittedly always called her at her job on Sunday evenings.
The story about the rough sexual encounter came out. It has nothing to do with the case and the girl went back to see him play.
If the guy emailed you, he should have testified. I watched interviews with his bandmates. They only had good things to say about his character. Not attending the practice has nothing to do with facts and total lack of DNA except a latent print they conveniently found much later.
The timeline does not give David an alibi. He went by his work. So what? To create an alibi.
There was nothing meticulous about the police investigation.
Your own interpretation of the phone pings is not proof. Contrary to what the NY Post said, Paul was never seen around the building. And he was walking back and pinging away. The tape shows David coming out wearing a hat that was found in the apartment and it puts him in the apt when neighbors heard her screams and the scuffle. Plus, the dog being let loose was in the apartment according to David. Plus, his habeas explains that the calls he made were not numerous as the prosecutor tried to pretend. The video of David leaving the apartment pretty well clinches the deal. ”1)Video evidence shows David (not Paul) leaving the apartment minutes after the time of the murder. This powerful, uncontroverted, time stamped piece of evidence contradicts David’s trial testimony as to his whereabouts that evening and squarely places David in the apartment during the time of the murder.”
I read the transcripts and the results of the hairs found on Catherine. It was not Paul’s. And you see on her fingers that there clearly are some short light hairs and it is stated that they were not tested.
”Hairs Clutched in the Decedent’s Death Grip Were Not Subjected to DNA Analysis
57. Numerous hairs were found on Catherine Woods’ body. Forty hairs were retrieved
from her person and twelve were found, some with the roots still attached, entwined and clutched
in her fingers. As testified to at trial, a hair and fiber examiner from the NYPD crime lab, Valerie
Wade-Allison, compared the hair evidence recovered from Catherine to known hair samples
from Catherine and Paul. (TT 1093-1124). None of the hairs were similar to Paul’s. While a
few of the hairs showed some similarities to Catherine’s, Wade-Allison was unable to assert that
they were a match. Wade-Allison was not provided, and did not conduct a comparison with, any
hair samples from Haughn.
58. Although hair that contains the root can be identified through nuclear DNA
testing, and hair without a root can identify anyone maternally related to the donor by
mitochondrial DNA testing, the prosecution subjected none of the hairs recovered to DNA
examination. Although trial counsel was granted 18B funds for a forensic pathologist and a DNA
expert, no such expert was hired by the defense. Here, where the evidence had already
established that none of the hairs were similar to Paul’s, failing to take the minimalistic step of
subjecting hairs ripped out by the roots, which were found in the bloody death grip of the victim,
to DNA analysis is an omission without justification and, standing alone, is a wholesale failure to
provide effective assistance of counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings.”
The lyrics were explained and it is absolutely not evidence of any violent act. This is a ridiculous argument.
What about rap and the fact that David thought he was part of that genre? Does it matter? Probably not.
I did not take anything from the media because they were all against Cortez. On the contrary, I checked and read the transcripts and official documents.
The supreme court can only answer an appeal that is based on mistakes made during trial. As the clowns who ‘defended him’ did not put up experts or a defense, they could not present the rest. But his writings were excluded as irrelevant.
Once again, if you read the blog, you would see that these points you mention were covered.
The neighbors were interviewed and the timeline does not work in favor of David. 4 of them heard it happen when David was in the apartment. They were not asked to testify.
Read the motion: http://freepaulcortez.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/440-Motion.pdf
If you were a friend of the victim, you would want the truth to come out.
This is all verbatim from the judge opinions of the ny state Supreme Court. Who we know more much more than we do.
‘The fingerprint provided compelling evidence that f defendants guilt. Fingerprint evidence could not have been clearer. Entenman testified both on direct and cross examination that when he inspected the wall, he saw a bloody hand print (or transfer pattern) on the wall. The hand print was ‘patent’ or visible to the naked eye and DNA analysis proved the hand print wa shade in Catherine’s blood. And the fingerprint was found in a finger-sized smudge at the upper right hand corner of the hand print or transfer pattern—precisely where the killers left index finger touched the wall. The fingerprint was matched with 100% certainty to the defendants left index finger. The chemical used to process the print, amino black, turned the fingerprint blackish-purple which indicates that the print was indeed made in blood. And DNA testing of the smudged print revealed that the blood was Catherine’s. To obvious conclusion, therefore, is that the defendant touched the wall during the crime and left his fingerprint in Catherine’s blood. It would be a remarkable coincidence if both the defendants and the killers left index fingers just happened to touch the exact same spot on the wall at different times. And it would be even more remarkable if the defendants old er latent print survived intact after the killer left a bloody impression on that same spot. Still aided by defendants attorneys on cross examination, they made the best summation they could, against all odds, to convince the jury that the latent print could have been on the wall prior to the murder. Of course, these attempts to contradict the fingerprint evidence was far-fetched. But it was not councils fault that the fingerprint conclusively linked the defendant to the murder. Far from performing deficiently, defendants council made valiant efforts to attack the peoples fingerprint evidence and tried their best to poke holes in an overwhelming case. The argument for a second expert rests entirely on speculation, as no record evidence establishes that a second expert would have added anything at all, much less anything favorable to the defense.
The hair and fiber expert testified that nearly all the hairs recovered from Catherine’s body were her own. The evidence showed that Catherine’s own hairs, which were naturally present in the bedroom floor, adhered to her hands and body as she collapsed facedown in a pool of blood. The hairs said nothing about the identity of her killer. To be sure, three strands of hair were recovered that did not appear to be Catherine’s, two light brown strands recovered from her body and one grey strand recovered from her hands. But contrary to defendants assertion on appeal, those hairs could not link David Haughn to the crime. After all, Haughn had blond hair. Defense council this had a strategic reason NOT to seek further analysis of the hairs. Simply put, defense council preferred not to know more about the genetics of the hairs so they could argue in summation that those strands of hair created reasonable doubt.
Notably too, defendants repeated attempts to point the infer at Haughn are frivolous. Haughn cooperated fully with police, and detectives verified all of his statements. Indeed, Haughn called 911 immediately after discovering Catherine body and was in visible shock when paramedics arrived. Tellingly, Haughn left his car parked illegally in front of the fire hydrant on the corner of 86th street, confirming his account that he had been waiting to drive Catherine to work. The location of the car also corroborated Haughns testimony that he went inside the building only after Catherine failed to come downstairs. Further, Haughn endured hours of accusatory questioning by the police without complaint and declined multiple offers for attorneys to represent him. And no evidence demonstrated that Haughn harbored any animosity toward Catherine, much less intense rage to commit a brutal murder. By contrast, defendant had clear notice to kill Catherine as he was distraught over their breakup. He exposed rage against Catherine in his journal entries, which included graphic references to slitting her throat. Moreover, cell records tracked defendants movements to Catherine’s apartment before the murder, and his return home just afterwards. Defendant called Catherine several times right before the murder. And tellingly, his incessant calls to her stopped abruptly after the murder.
The appellate court also ruled that the prosecutor overstepped his bounds by giving his opinion about the “bloody fingerprint” without actually having an expert support his assertions that the print could only have been left at the time of the crime.
It is normal that the appeal was of no great help because it only decides on mistakes made at trial with what was presented at trial. The defense had presented no experts and had no investigation done. They did not even present the video of David coming out of the building after the murder heard by neighbors.
In 2017, Paul’s 440 motion asking to test hairs and other evidence was denied by Judge Patricia Nunez in the 1st Department of the Supreme Court of New York. “”The judge’s rationale for the denial was illogical as she explained that the “smoking gun” video of David Haughn leaving the crime scene after the murder had little value because it was not timestamped and could have been from a time before the murder. This statement is especially disturbing since the video was indisputably timestamped – the prosecutor even conceded it was David in the video and that it was timestamped.
Next the judge minimized the forensic findings of six experts concluding the print was under the blood. The judge wrote that Paul had been in the apartment many times and it could be very likely have been an old print was later covered in blood (and consistent with the expert findings). While the judge’s theory is correct, the prosecutor’s entire case was premised on the print being left at the scene of the crime. Without a print left at the time of the crime, there is no case against Paul Cortez.”
The new habeas was filed in 2019 in federal court.
Paul might have been distraught by the breakup but they were back on. They had talked in the morning. It is David who was on his way out and lived there feeling the frustration of her rejection and lifestyle. I sent the 911 call from David to experts. The operator sounded more disturbed than him. And what to say of the fact that he instantly knew the prints were boots and made sure to mention it? And the lies he told about being on the phone, what he was wearing, what he allegedly cooked for his girl and what he said to neighbor about his brother keeping an eye on the dog.
The reason the defense did a lousy job was their incompetence and refusal to spend any money on testing or an investigator. It would have been free to show the video of David leaving the building. They did not compare David’s hair and did not analyze the evidence which the appeal and motions are trying to do.
As I said, read the motions and the blog. The answers are there. You keep avoiding the obvious. Probably to support David.
And there are many, many innocent people in prison. It is foolish to think otherwise. Examining the evidence, it is clear that Paul did not kill Catherine. But his conviction, it appears, is the result of a perfect storm of incompetence.
Sadly, if he had money, he would had hired competent defense attorneys and we know that he would have been found not guilty. Mind you, some public defenders would have done a better job than his hired team. This case was not difficult to solve. Witnesses and video.
On top of a perfect storm of incompetence, we can add the sensationalist media and a prosecutor willing to act above the law to put a notch on his belt.
Yes, all good points. And this does happen, more often than people realize. I truly hope Paul gets his day in court. Very tragic not only for Paul, but also for Catherine whose real killer is still free.
You are right. Wrongful convictions are not rare and the process of appeal is horrendously long and difficult. When the case is high profile like in this instance, the media jumps in to influence the verdict and it makes prosecutors more eager to win.
Indeed, very tragic. This type of trial victimizes more people and sure does not bring justice to Catherine.
It’s a highly flawed system. Even those who are guilty often walk free due to technicalities, circumstantial evidence and/or a very, very good defense attorney. It can obviously works both ways: the guilty may walk free and the innocent may be imprisoned.
I’m not sure why it is so difficult to see the overwhelming evidence in this trial. People are usually convicted on MUCH less circumstantial and physical evidence. The much easier target would’ve been Dave, who basically placed himself at the apt after he called 911. Who people at that time called ‘a ruse’ with no family from Ohio. But luckily the detectives did their job and didn’t jump to conclusions, and got the right guy. It’s in fathomable how in this case everyone is lying according to Paul’s supporters. The lawyers, the judges, the cops, his band mates, his rape victim, the innocent victims father, the other victim who’s being accused etc…. Everyone is lying (who have nothing to gain) aside from the one person who has every reason to lie (Paul). HE is certainly telling the truth :/ This is similar and reminds me of the recent supporters of killer Adnan syed. Someone who clearly murdered his ex girlfriend but has supporters who claim everyone else is lying aside from the killer (who is desperately trying to get out of prison). We all, as Catherine’s friends who knew both of them know the right person is in jail. The person who still to this day doesn’t have a clear alibi, and lied about it to just about everyone at that time.
You obviously have a dog in this race. I don’t. I look at facts and official transcripts and documents.
I thought that Syed was guilty but that he should have had another trial because of the crackpot he had as an attorney. Nothing to lose by giving everyone a fair trial. But you obviously chose emotions.
No need to post here with this blatant disregard for facts.
Wow there’s so many different stories and theories floating around that I don’t know what to believe at this point. I haven’t done much research on the case, but I’ve always been intrigued since I attended high school with Paul. It hits different when it’s someone you know from your formative years. If he’s innocent, I hope he gets released and the real killer is held accountable.
There is a new podcast with an interview with his lawyer on his Facebook page Help Free Paul Cortez. I don’t believe there are many theories. Just two suspects. One is on video leaving the apartment after neighbors heard the murder and his phone pings on the tower in front of the building. The other is nowhere to be seen and his phone never pings directly there.
I am often on the fence about cases but this one is not a hard one to crack as they would say. They caused a situation or issue to seem less clear and less easy to understand by muddying the waters with a trial by media, mediocre police work, lousy legal representation and a less than honest DA eager to get their guy.