Gothamist: Guilty: Jury Says Cortez Is The Killer

You need to face the facts

Fri, 02 Mar 2007 19:17:08 -0500

Catherine's life was a lie, because she lied to her parents about stripping??? lol, and your gonna say her 'life' was a lie over something most teen girls would lie about and have in the past ... And you believe a convicted murderer who lied to everyone, including police, his attorney, and his mother over something you shouldn't lie to your family about(I am sure he didnt tell her he was a block away when the calls were made)... and Dave wasn't looking at his alarm clock before he went to pick up his car, he assumed it was around 6.30-40 .. so in retracing his steps they figured he couldn't have been at his job earlier than 6.35 ...And his boss and co-worker said he was happy and did't seem disturbed at all in any way...and remember Dave never had a scholarshipor schooling for acting or any training in any type of theatre. Either you are Paul's attorney or someone who believes alll the mumbo-jumbo from his defense attorney who makes a living defending murderers: hence it's her job to make people believe he didn't do it by making up anything to exonerate him including the bullsh*t 'mentruation handprint' ..which is utterly ridiculous, and if I was a juror I would have sealed his fate after that ludacris story...

Innocent

Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:14:02 -0500

person above

Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:34:40 -0500

Fingerprints, and the numerous phone calls right before her death, then not one after till he 'claims' he heard about her death. Take into account also from all the 'hear/say' statements you put in your summary (joe acabrera), I could give many hear/say statements that were told to me and the prosecutor that catherine's best friends from home gave..I'll give one for instance : That she was NEVER intimate with him and in fact thought he was a gay man (which I even heard Catherine claim before)... Obsession is a sickness and there are many people like Paul in this world.. unfortunatly, not all kill ... And for the record, MOST who commit haneous cowardly acts like this are in fact the one's that most who knew them claim 'They would be the last person to do something like this' ... look into most serial killers first murders, and most who knew them say the same YOU all are saying about Paul...And on top of all this, to LIE about your alibi , not a good idea if you are being questioned within the first 24 hours of a murder investigation... A so-called Boston College 'scholar' should have known better..It's going to come back and bite you in the ass EVEN if you are innocent...Lying isn'tright during an investigation by detectives...Not even a good 'actor' could get away with that -And if you (person above) ask to yourself why did they let david off so quick ....a) cooperation .. and mostly his alibi b) david's boss and co-worker at his employment spoke with him in person when he went to pick up cd's before his car @ 6:35pm (which is 4 blocks from the house)

person above

Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:31:15 -0500

person above

Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:24:02 -0500

person above

Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:07:34 -0500

Innocent Until Proven Guilty

Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:49:26 -0500

When you say, “there are people that went to school with him that will tell you without a doubt he was capable of doing this” and you wish to believe this without knowing Paul yourself, that’s your business. But Paul did have friends from high school & college, a schoolteacher and a professional elderly couple who just recently come to know him as a physical trainer who all came to swear in a courtroom full of people and the press that no way could Paul commit this murder. But you didn’t hear much about that in the news did you? The media also didn’t bring to the surface that there were days that passed without Paul calling Catherine and there were days that Catherine would call Paul more times a day than he did. But this wouldn't strengthen the prosecution's case, would it? Of a year's worth of phone records they built their case around the three or four incidences of "excessive" phone calls. Also, Judge Berkman refused to admit into evidence Catherine's e-mail message to Paul just days prior to her murder where she simply stated, "I love you". That certainly wouldn't have helped the prosecution's case either. The cell phone tower usage has been given too much power over this case. Paul & Catherine practically lived in walking distance to each other and even the "experts" admitted that signals will bump to the nearest tower that wasn't busy. Paul testified in court he was running errands & buying dinner while making his phone calls to his clients, but I guess the fact the media stated he called from his home is what got stuck in everyone's mind. Another thing that the prosecution and the media decided not to dwell on is that Catherine knew a “gentleman” by the name of Joe Cabrera. Joe Cabrera is a known drug dealer and has served jail time for assault. I would personally like to know if his hair sample matches what was left in Catherine's hand. Isn't anyone curious as to why the prosecution decided not to test David's own hair against the known hairs in Catherine's hands? The prosecution started to build its case against Paul the day it became the tabloid's "source" poisoning everyone's mind against him. Even during trial you could see Prosecutor Casolaro and NY Post's soul-less trash writer Laura Italiano sitting together in the court room discussing Paul's case for the next edition. You all can condemn Paul for your own personal reasons but having the prosecution make its case in the media the way it has is wrong. Sadly in the end, Catherine’s life was a lie, her family and friends may not want to believe that but it was. Catherine lied to her family & friends not only about the relationship she had with Paul but the life she led. The Catherine she became while living in New York is not the Catherine that left Ohio and she was probably conflicted about that. She certainly didn’t want her family or her hometown knowing about the Catherine she became.

Reasonable Doubt

Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:27:28 -0500

Cell Phone Tower

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:41:44 -0500

Besides the bloody fingerprint of cortez's, his alibi was he was at home calling clients. Yet the cell phone tower used for the calls were the ones nearest to her apartment not his....

lucky

Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:27:51 -0500

This reminds me of the Robert Chambers trial. What is it about sociopaths that attracts a fan club? For every person here who doubts Cortez' guilt - forget the fingerprints, which are damning enough, EXPLAIN THE PHONE CALLS. He called her 13 times in the last 90 mintues of her life, 292 times the month before, and yet from the moment she's dead - he doesn't call, not once. Yet claims to not have known of her death for 16 hours. So, as we say, from where -I- come from in New York, shut the f*ck up. It's an insult to decency.

Catherine the Great

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:09:29 -0500

RIP Catherine Woods. Never again will you endure the pain of striving to acheive an unattainable dream. your soul has transcended your earthly goals and you are now in a place much greater than even your wildest broadway dreams. you were too beautiful, delicate and good for this world anyway.

is it live or memosex

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:14:21 -0500

The Police focused on the wrong guy. Cortez is innocent of this crime.

the person above

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:02:19 -0500

i know all 3 .especially david and catherine...and not to disappoint every cortez fan (u all r crazy if you think he wasnt obsessed or guilty) but the ONLY one that said besides a friend of his that they were intimate was him (which we obviously can't believe)... so the truth of the matter... he wanted her,he couldnt have her ...and ultimatly killed her... catherine's best friends stated that she ALWAYS said to them they were only friends, and that he was a lil strange after a while...and one of catherines friends stayed with her and dave for a whole summer and says the same about Paul.And catherine's mothersaid she useto tell her he was gay, and she was happy to meet a gay man finally... i think u all need to rethink before defending that psycho/sociopath

cortez or haughn

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:22:09 -0500

And you know this how? You first say you know cortez then you know Catherine. Are you Haughn? or are you another stripper in that filthy club? I hope you stay in hell in this life and in the next.

guilty

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:13:57 -0500

All of you that think Cortez is not guilty...there are people that went to school with him that will tell you without a doubt he was capable of doing this...he obviously has issues with women and himself as others had said in the past. Catherine will finally rest in piece and justice has been served. May he rot in jail where he will have plenty of time to think about what he did.

guilty until proven innocent

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:52:47 -0500

there is enough REASONABLE DOUBT here for a not guilty verdict. too bad the justice system was not set in motion while the fingerprint was Cortez's the hairs in her hand at the time of her death were definitively NOT Cortez's. if she struggled with the killer (as everyone says she did), Cortez's hair should have been found on her. it was not. there should have been fingerprints ALL OVER the apartment. Cortez was sleeping with Woods. why was there only one ??? also, the skin under her fingernails were not matched with Cortez's DNA not only that, but Cortez spoke to many of his friends that day and afterwards was normal. he also had no scratches or signs of struggle on his own body. despite a fingerprint and circumstantial phone calls, there is enough reasonable doubt for a not guilty verdict. this is a true shame and a bungled investigation. unfortunately, for Cortez, he will sit in jail until the real killer is found or turns himself in.

drewo

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:19:06 -0500

Great Neil Young song.

guilty?

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:44:05 -0500

I think yoga boy is guilty of a lot of things, but I'm just not convinced murder is one of them. Too many unanswered questions here regarding the other bf. The only thing I'm convinced of is that the police did a really bad job here.

you don't need a lawyer

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:41:10 -0500

I liked how the other stalker get's away with it. And, how he "impressed" the cops because he didn't request a lawyer. Oh yeah, the old, if you're innocent you don't need a lawyer trick. The oldest trick in the book.

S.D.

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:49:33 -0500

Justine, how do you explain the print? Apparently, his explanation of it was found lacking to the jury.

Justine

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:43:29 -0500

I don't think he did it

Luck

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:29:41 -0500

Hopefully in prison, he'll become some 300lb HIV-positive skinhead's 'private dancer'.

bernie_goetz

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:24:32 -0500

www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=ITSUF7v2kJE

Stickler

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:05:49 -0500

A little accuracy concerning the length of the jury deliberations! This jury began deliberating at 4:15 pm on Tuesday, and they came back with a verdict 1 pm ish today--Thursday (based on when associated press releases on this story to all news venues were time stamped on google news) "After a FEW DAYS of deliberations....." is misleading and inaccurate. Having been on juries, I can tell you that they keep standard business hours, 9-5. So actually they deliberated for less than two days.

Bubba

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:39:42 -0500

goodbye yoga boy