Animal Writings

to the author of site... so you think you have the 'full' story of catherine's life and case based on Paul's (half-assed) site? .. his site only tells what he and his family want you to hear.. go to the detectives on the case to get the full information, and you will CLEARLY see by the evidence and circumstances that you are being duped.... Paul is very much guilty, and nothing at all in terms of events and situations that points to ANYONE else besides Paul... for you to say he is 'innocent' is absurd... Catherines friends along with erin moriarty (48 hrs) see that their relationship was stricly plutonic for a few months.. Paul till this day cannot get his story straight and his site is FULL of assumptions

whether the print was invisible to the 'naked eye' , its a fact it is attached to the bloody handprint left at the scene, and the print attached to the handprint was mathed to paul...
 

www.donfreepaulcortez.org

we are close friends of catherine's .. please please take time to read this site, some of this is from catherine;s own mouth to us... she is not here to defend herself against pauls lies about her and their relationship.. but its very convenient for his defense that she is not... even if paul was found 'not guilty' .. that is far far from him being innocent of this crime... we all believe including her family that the right man is in jail...

even if you dont publish this post... please take time to read the site
 

Joeseph,

In the interest of openness and fairness, I am publishing your comments and the link to your web site. (The correct link is http://www.dontfreepaulcortez.com; the link in your comments was misspelled.)

First let me say that I in no way intend to diminish the severe pain and agony that Catherine's friends and family must be feeling. No one should have to lose a friend, a colleague, a daughter that way. I am saddened for Catherine's dog as well; the animal-to-human bond can be powerful and stronger than a mighty oak. My heart sincerely goes out to everyone who is suffering. There is far too much of that in this world.

Secondly, two of the most basic, fundamental principles that are supposed to guide our justice system are 1) the effort to avoid, at all costs, convicting an innocent person, 2) the accused's right to a fair trial. A violation of principle 2 can cause a violation of principle 1.

I can't say I read every word in your web site, but I read most of it. After going through both web sites, here are some of my thoughts:

Paul Cortez, by a long shot, did not receive a fair trial. His defense team was appallingly incompetent. Even Ms. Moriarity, quoted on your site as believing that Paul is guilty, admits that Paul did not get a fair trial.

The fact that no DNA test was performed on the hair in the victim's hands is inexcusable. My understanding is that the hairs were blond, and that neither Paul, Catherine, nor Catherine's dog had blond hair.

There was also DNA under Catherine's fingernails, but it was never tested - which seems almost beyond belief, since that's practically a smoking gun.

The examiner of Paul's fingerprint admitted that he could not be certain whether it was bloody.

The fact that there were no tests done to determine the approximate age of the fingerprint is preposterous. An old fingerprint could be bloody from subsequent splattered blood. I'm no forensics expert, but I would think that since it was apparently difficult to find the one (!) fingerprint in the room, that at least indicates that the print did not occur after the blood was splattered. An old print would be basically under the blood, and harder to detect. There was no evidence showing the print was made in the blood rather than covered in blood.

Your site says that Paul made no calls to Catherine after the time of the murder, but the prosecution stated that he did make a phone call to Catherine after the time of the murder.

By my reading, Paul didn't lie about his whereabouts, as your site claims, but answered the question "where were you when you last spoke to Catherine" literally and truthfully; he was at home when he last actually spoke with her.

How did Paul escape being seen by surveillance cameras both when entering and - more importantly IMHO - exiting the building?

The jury was not sequestered, so every night each member of the jury could have been exposed to the sensationalist media that pronounced Paul guilty and created a made-for-TV re-characterization of Paul as a monster - all the better to increase ratings and advertising rates and make sponsors happy.

If Paul was so diligent about disposing of all traces of the murder, why would he leave an incriminating phone call trail and then without hesitation submit that to the police?

I cannot find any evidence of past threats or phone calls to the police that would indicate that Paul had a violent streak. I agree that some of his poems and drawings are rather dark and brooding - many others are uplifting and tender - but that would describe about one-quarter to one-half of the artists I know.

Though not physically impossible, it is difficult to accept that this person with no history of threats or violence suddenly went berserk and 16 minutes later in a different part of town was conducting business as usual without a scratch on him.

I have seen instances up-close of overzealous police and prosecutors, as well as outrageous media spins in which the portrayal of individuals does not even come close to representing their actual viewpoints or characters. Unfortunately, too often the media chooses their angle based on potential sales, prejudices, pressure from advertisers and investors, and other factors. That seems to have happened in this case. Unfortunately, the media can tarnish many people's reputations, including a murder victim's, in one fell swoop.

I've never had a friend murdered, but I had a friend killed by a drunk driver who ran a red light. She was 24. I had nightmares and bouts of depression, where I could not concentrate, for weeks. I remember one vivid dream in which I found out my friend was alive - only to wake up and have the crushing reality sink back in. I don't mean to claim that I know how you feel, but I may have some profound basis for empathy. Likewise, I have spent much of the last several years fighting on behalf of billions of animals who are unjustly confined for much of their lives, who are denied many of their most basic urges, whose world is unending bleakness. It is though a non-stop horror movie is always playing just beyond the horizon. To put an innocent being in a steel cage and deprive that individual of any semblance of a normal life is a gross, unforgivable injustice.

I would hope, for the sake of justice, fairness, and perhaps closure, that Paul gets another trial. I think he deserves one. His defense team was derelict in their duty, there are too many unanswered questions, and I do not see nearly enough evidence to subject him to decades of living in a tiny cell. We are not, in this country, supposed to convict persons if there is reasonable doubt. In my sincere judgment there is an astonishing amount of reasonable doubt.

I believe I understand why friends and family of a murder victim would want someone behind bars, to pay for the crime. OTOH, were I in your position, I would not be able to live with myself if I prevented someone from having a fair trial, or if by choosing expediency over fairness I contributed to an innocent man spending decades in a prison cell.

There are an alarming number of key unanswered questions and compromised procedures in this case. Justice so far has been denied, not served. There is a chance to remedy that.

Of course, an appeal is not one-sided. The prosecution team gets to re-present their side of the story, too. For instance, they could interview bandmates, have Catherine's friends testify, scrutinize the timeline, and further inquire into any parts of Paul's alibi that they feel are questionable.

I hope for all parties' sake - and for the sake of the memory of Catherine, the victim - that as a result of a new trial, with competent defense lawyers and diligent prosecutors - and, God help us, an absence of media frenzy - that answers will be found, the innocent will go free, and the the truly guilty will be punished.
 

As for your post, the only DNA under catherine's fingernails were her own.. not anyone else's .. and the fingerprint they know was part of the bloody handprint, thats also known, catherine's pets were also found 'on her' when the cops came... and Paul absolutly DID lie about his whereabouts.. he had a few different alibi's in which he ended up getting caught in his own lies,and never told the cops he was in her neighborhood (he claims that now but is in no reports ever)... and as for the phone call at 6;33, it was accidental or didnt happen because we know it didnt show on Pauls phone records .. try dialing your cell phone to someone for 1 second and you will see it was unintentional.. he may have done it in a weak attempt to cover his trail .. and for his DNA not to be there, not surprising, if you think DNA is left at every scene (remember it was freezing winter time),then you are watching too much CSI

have you read the book 'death of a dream '.. i could tell that you hadnt with some of the details you state that are completely false..this book is a good read for insight on the trial..

I had met Paul on the street with catherine when they were still friends (her claiming after she thought he was 'gay'), then months later she started to express serious concern that he was 'sort of 'harassing her' .. Paul went down there, got mad at the fact he saw david leaving the apt, he ran upstairs to confront catherine and snapped, noone says he planned it at all... and for him to say he 'left things out at the police station is absurd...

So think, with the 'millions' of prints in their apt of hers, davids, family and friends, one print of Pauls (which he was only in there a couple times at most, he admits in the book they met at public places like coffee shops)just happened to be found attached to a bloody handprint? u tell me

every person in prison who is guilty desperatly want to get out and start to 'believe' their own stories in a bad attempt to trick people in their innocense.. statistics show this is the case for most convicts

We know Paul did it, we are not trying to frame anyone to put anyone in prison.. we want the person that we know murdered our friend and it was in fact Paul.. nothing pointed to anyone else besides david (cuz he found her), but was cleared for his extensive cooperation and NOT LYING

if anyone would know about her intimate relationships it would be her best friends and none ever heard a word about him including megan who lived with her during the times paul says they were 'in love'(summer of '05)saw or heard of him, only in the few calls in which paul and catherine spoke a few times

please think about this
 

and its www.dontfreepaulcortez.org

thank you very much for posting this.. means alot to us
 

and there were testimonies that showed he was very aggressive towards women and made them feel uncomfortable... for him to not have a scratch is not surprising, again like i said before, he was heavily clothes.. and the surveillance was not working in the area, and probably couldnt recognize him if it was cause again he was heavily clothes..and being in manhatten, I could walk by my father in the city streets and not recognize him hence very very busy streets there..again not a surprise.. it was 34 degrees that day and snowy... i blieve paul is socio, and those people are known to not have sympathy which paul doesnt express one bit...so for him to go about his business is not strange to me

as for what her parents say.. they are still wondering that if paul 'claims' he loved her so much, why he didnt call the parents to wish them any sympathy... strange if you ask me

ALL in ALL, no reason to lie and hide the truth as your whereabouts if your innocent.. point blank
 

Joeseph / Joe,

I appreciate you bringing up counterpoint. We certainly want to consider all sides of the story, which is why I favor a re-trial.

However, various parts of your comments seem highly presumptuous and/or speculative. For instance, you suggest that Paul called Catherine after the murder to "cover his tracks." You say you want fairness and facts but those sorts of biased "what if's” fall into the realm of idle speculation. How many times have you, or any reader, dialed someone and then said to yourself "Oops, better not call them at work" or "On second thought, I just talked to them; this can wait till later." I probably do that at least once a month. I'm not laying out an airtight proof, but just reinforcing that one cannot build a case on convenient speculation.

You assert that Paul is "socio" - without sympathy. Based on his writings alone I can't accept that. Granted, none of us has perfect sympathy. All of us - you, me everyone - can improve in that area. "Love thine enemy." "Hate the sin, not the sinner." But to condemn someone as having NO sympathy is a quite an extraordinary pronouncement.

Moreover, the text messages between Catherine and Paul might shed light on the nature of their relationship - but they were not presented as evidence. Maybe things would have been different had Paul's defense lawyers not skipped so much of the trial! (That alone indicates shamefully inadequate representation and grounds for a re-trial.)

You state with some certainty that the DNA under Catherine's fingernails was her own. On what basis do you make that conclusion? The DNA was never tested.

And again - the blond hairs in Catherine's hand. Neither Paul, Catherine, nor Catherine's dog have blond hairs. This is not just reasonable doubt; this is enormous, "cannot convict" doubt.

In addition, some parts of your web site and comments seem gratuitously inflammatory or insulting. For example, the site maintains that Paul's identifying Catherine as a stripper is done purely to bias others against her. I think that's a cheap shot. The description is accurate, it is not the only way he describes her, and I have known women who stripped and I think absolutely no less of them. Your describing Paul as "lawyered up" is a needless barb, as though retaining counsel (no matter how incompetent) several hours into testimony - and after letting the police search his apartment without a warrant - is tantamount to guilt, or is worthy of snide criticism. As to your remark about watching too much CSI...I would appreciate it if you could refrain from such pettiness. I realize this is a difficult subject and emotions run high, so I'm not trying to get on your case. I may have inadvertent bias and put-downs in my own comments. So let's both make an effort to stay on the high ground, okay?

I agree that guilty persons can convince themselves that they're innocent. At least down to a certain level. However, by the same token, I also know that people can convince themselves that a person is guilty - overlooking contrary evidence and/or ignoring inconvenient facts - even when the person is innocent. That's why I'm basing my conclusions primarily on evidence, or lack thereof. But even if I thought Paul was guilty, I would welcome - if not demand - a new trial that had some semblance of fairness, because he was ripped off in the first one.

The case against Paul is full of holes. IMHO, there is not nearly enough evidence for a conviction - and that is justice denied.

Furthermore, that so much pro-prosecution information was leaked to the media through "anonymous sources" is troubling, and suggests that one or more people on the prosecution team were anxious to satisfy a media and public hungry for an answer - or, more to the point, a conviction.

I don't see how anyone looking at this trial could conclude that it was even close to fair. That skepticism seems to be shared by a growing number of legal experts, journalists, and people who read the book you recommend, "Death of a Dream."

I also don't see how anyone could be opposed to an appeal, during which all these relevant questions could be looked into, and the evidence, testimony, timeline, and motive could be examined with due diligence, albeit long after the fact.

If you're sure Paul did it, why are you so seemingly afraid of a more thorough trial, in which the defendant has adequate counsel?

Finally, there is this cogent and relevant remark by lawyer Sal Osio, writing in the Hispanic Vista: "The legal doctrine of absolute immunity, codified into law universally, grants criminal prosecutors and judges total protection from legal accountability of any kind, regardless of the maliciousness and willfulness of their conduct, in the course of their discharge of their function as prosecutor or judge. The victims of their intentional fabrications, withholding or concealment of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, lies, procurement of perjured testimony and outright misconduct during the prosecution and trial of a defendant, have no recourse." That to me, is a crime. And I know it occurs. The only redress for the victim is a new trial (ideally with a new prosecutor). That is what the Paul Cortez defense fund is trying to do.

Let me just make this suggestion going forward...I've read both web sites, and have read nearly every post in the www.freepaulcortez.com discussion board, but I'm not an expert on the case. Also, between work and animal advocacy (which is the main subject of this blog), I won't have much time from here on out to respond to comments about this case. I would suggest submitting your arguments on the aforementioned discussion board. Not everyone there is in the pro-Paul camp. Some participants have voiced numerous doubts. However, there is nearly unanimous agreement that the trial was lacking in diligence and that Paul was not competently represented. There is also almost no objection to a re-trial, or appeal. A few of the participants have a background in crime-solving, BTW. In any case, in that forum I am confident that others will agree with, question, or contest each point that you raise. As long as everyone is polite, it is possible that a fruitful and productive debate will take place, as it already has. I will visit the forum from time to time myself. I will also seriously consider reading the book - although you'll have to give me some time, due to the aforementioned constraints. FWIW, I will point out that the author of the book said this on the discussion pages:

"I do not believe Paul had a fair trial, and am not completely convinced he is guilty despite all that I know."

"If you [read the book], you'll see like many people -- including my wife -- that the book makes a solid case for reasonable doubt and Paul's innocence."
 

(Author's email to me)

i'm well aware that paul might have imagined his relationship with catherine as being much more than it was.

paul

Ps...I do believe paul committed the murder....I have a very small amount of doubt but not enuff to override that I think he's guilty



*** Paul's e-mail to me after i read the book and sent him a reaction e-mail****




---- one coincedence, maybe, two, maybe, but three or four coincedences and a physical print?? your guilty... and as a matter of fact they do know the DNA under her fingernails were her own and not anyone else's, that was presented in court... like i said, u have to be carful when reading Pauls site, he needs to raise money and is pressed on time, I believe they will say anything to get this money...

** and to let you know the reason the texts messages werent presented, cause she wrote 'I love you' to all of her friends including myself.. so for her to have wrote that to him as a friend isnt surprising..

-- and i am speculating that he did it to cover his trax, maybe he did or maybe he really accidentally dialed it by mistake, regardless it was accidental due to the timeing of it... and for Paul to say he was 'very concerned' that night over her and call her so many times then suddenly stopped at the time of her murder (and he claims he spoke with her evertime she worked at 4am or before) ...

and his writings and dimeanor on the stand when reading his writings was very strange and pushed juriors the wrong way as well... he speaks about 'going to the midwest and slicing throat of midwestern girl', then it happens, very strange to me and to all


-- and I do believe that is a tactic for paul to get others to bias against catherine for being a stripper because he put it in too many of his statementsand like one for example on my site ' i didnt call catherine after bacause as a stripper she doesnt turn on her phone' .. now thats a cheap shot if you ask me..because her phone was always on at all times... and any of her friends and family will contest to that...


and we have motive, and we cant get a timeline because he **still doesnt have an alibi for the time of her murder** he just cant be believed... and as for getting an attorney, if he was innocent no need for an attorney, it
looks very bad on his part especially not even being a suspect at the time he got an attorney... dave was still in suspect and they cleared him for his cooperation wheras Paul did not cooperate at all agfter the initial interview because i believe he knew what was coming about and that he did wrong...


-and to let you know, when we (who try to post things as catherines friends on his discussion boards), they block out our IP's, and it happened to all of us thus far... weird if you ask me...

-- and they claim in their site that they 'never tested the murder weapon in the sink' .. is there something wrong with that figuring the weapon was never found? his whole site is only half of what went on in the trial, they wont give the details that were presented which will get people to swing there views of him that read his site only...
 

I do apologize for the 'CSI comment' .. its just that many of the supporters claim his innocense due to 'lack of his dna at the scene' .. as for the weather and circumstance, for his dna not to be found is not uncommon for dna is not found in more than half the murders that occur each year... for those who say 'your dna is left at every scene', to those i say they are watching too much CSI'.. and I would say the same for yourself if you believe like he rest of them.. and i dont know if you saw Paul prior site where they went as far as to show a picture of catherine's mangled arm for the world to see, i thought that was absurd and wrong...

and for the hairs, i think if were to prove anything its that someone else was there with paul, or its again the pets hair, OR the fact that her and david had sex right before he went to pick up the car (not sire if you saw that on his site, which im sure it doesnt mention)..
 

joeseph,

I only have time to comment on a few of your points.

IMHO, your speculation that the blond hair in Catherine's hands may indicate a second person is edging dangerously toward making stuff up. There's no evidence to support your theory. A more plausible explanation to me is a *first* person with blond hair. Again, a fair and diligent trial could go a long way toward answering these questions.

I agree, the verse from Paul's writing that you quote is disturbing. But we cannot condemn a person to 25 years in prison because of that. How many songwriters - of all genres - write songs about killing at some point? Johnny Cash wrote "I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die."

Re: hiring counsel. I know from being an animal rights activist that even innocent people often retain counsel as protection against over-aggressive police and investigators who may try to twist anything you say. To insinuate that hiring a lawyer is evidence of guilt is unwarranted.

The quotes I provided from the author were from two months ago. Perhaps over time he's developed more doubts about the verdict.

But, again, all of this is secondary to the main purpose of the www.freepaulcortez.com site, which is to ensure, as much as possible, a fair trial.

There seems to have been an utter lack of due diligence in examining evidence, however scarce, that would be at the heart of determining the culprit, e.g., the fingerprint, the skin under the victim's nails, the hair between her fingers, etc. That is not justice, that is not right.

I appreciate your concern as well as the points you raise; I am sincere about that. But I doubt that anything you will say will change my mind about the need for a new trial. I don't see how anyone can have peace of mind when the first trial was so blatantly sloppy and left so many key questions unanswered. We know that people are wrongly convicted on a regular basis; often it is the result of a combination of incompetent or lax defense, an aggressive prosecutor who wants a conviction, and an impatient angry public. It is imperative that we make a conscious and sincere effort to look at this case in a fair and thorough manner, as this is the right of every defendant.

Let me offer one more suggestion for going forward: You could create a discussion board on your site. Then you could discuss these ideas in an open forum without restrictions, and probably get lots of feedback.
 

Why doesn't anyone bring up the video of Paul walking into a department store wearing what appears to be Sketcher boots; the model of boot that left shoe prints at the crime scene? According to the jury, this was the one piece of evidence - evidence produced by the defense as a matter of fact - that prevented the jury from being hung.
 

My understanding is that:

- The video is extremely grainy; even trained experts with advanced technology could not be certain that the shoes were Sketcher boots.

- The boots were never produced as evidence.

- No one ever testified that Paul owned such boots.

Also, 10 1/2 is a very common shoe size. I wear 10 1/2.

IMHO, the boot video is too ambiguous and lacking in supporting evidence to be used as a criteria for a conviction.

Perhaps in a fair and thorough re-trial, with defense attorneys who actually show up and do their jobs, these questions could be examined with proper diligence.

Again, I would suggest going forward that comments and opinions discussing details of the case be submitted to the message board on freepaulcortez.com or on a new message board that could be set up on dontfreepaulcortez.com, either of which are (or would be) dedicated to the purpose of discussing all aspects of the case. In either scenario, points such as the ones you raised will get adequate scrutiny.
 

His friend actually did testifly to him wearing the sketcher boots in trial.. and his attorney's did a good job I believe...
 

Anonymous:

You are right, one person did revise his previous testimony and said that Paul owned Skechers. OTOH, no one else could support that assertion, and also Paul produced a pair of Johnston & Murphy's that looked like the shoes in the grainy video. I imagine that if you asked 10 of my friends if I had a particular brand of shoes that I do not own, one would say yes.

With regard to your statement that the defense attorneys did a good job: If missing the first three days of the trial, failing to get professionals to examine key pieces of evidence that could potentially change the verdict, failing to question neighbors, and failing to show any imagination or concerted effort in asking challenging questions or putting forth plausible arguments about numerous matters in the case is part of doing a "good job," then yes, we're in firm agreement about the defense attorneys' performance.

Note: I'm going to be closing out comments for this post soon, since a) I have a number of animal rights-related posts coming up that will require research, b) there are other, more suitable venues (such as the www.freepaulcortez.org message board) available for this discussion which will in all likelihood generate much more give-and-take and user participation. I'm going to make a note on the main post about this also, but figured I would mention here as long as I was posting a comment.