nanandjim
Former Member
I think that the jury is now deliberating, aren't they? I hope that he is found guilty. He viciously murdered this poor girl.
NY - Catherine Woods, 21, stabbed to death in her NYC apartment, 27 Nov 2005
- Thread starter mysteriew
- Start date
Did anyone read his song lyrics? He is such a sick excuse for a human being. I know it is the defense's job, but they are making me want to puke. They are claiming that his bloody handprint or fingerprint on her wall was left after they were intimate while she had her period. And then they claimed it was mixed with some other "protein." Pathetic.
JDB
Tybee you will never be forgotten
Verdict is in Guilty
nanandjim
Former Member
Thanks, JDB! I hadn't heard!! I now need to see if I can find a link.JDB said:
Okay, I found some links:
http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=246982
http://www.courttv.com/trials/cortez/021507_ctv.html
UM&AMWfan
Former Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2007
- Messages
- 374
- Reaction score
- 17
WHY wasn't Paul Cortez convicted of 1st degree murder?????
I mean he practically decapitated poor Catherine and he was standing outside making obsessive phone calls to here and it only takes a second to form pre-meditation and he clearly had even longer than that so WHY wasn't he convicted of 1st degree murder????
I mean he practically decapitated poor Catherine and he was standing outside making obsessive phone calls to here and it only takes a second to form pre-meditation and he clearly had even longer than that so WHY wasn't he convicted of 1st degree murder????
UM&AMWfan
Former Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2007
- Messages
- 374
- Reaction score
- 17
Yeah, New York has the death penaly again but AT THE VERY LEAST this conviction should mandate a life WITHOUT parole sentence so it should have been 1st degree murder considering Paul Cortez's stalking and near beheading of Catherine Woods!!mattsmom said:
Can't someone answer here why it wasn't 1st degee murder?
Can the judge go higher than 25 years since it was such a horrific murder?
UM&AMWfan
Former Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2007
- Messages
- 374
- Reaction score
- 17
How do you know this?Masterj said:
He hasn't been sentenced yet so he would still be at the county jail. People only go to the state prisons AFTER they have been sentenced.
Plus doesn't ANYONE here know why he isn't face life without parole and why he wasn't charged with first degree murder for all the stalking and near beheading he committed??
nanandjim
Former Member
1st degree murder is reserved for those individuals who murder police officers. Everyone else is charged with 2nd degree murder. That's what happens in liberal states. I live in NY and can't stand it.UM&AMWfan said:
UM&AMWfan
Former Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2007
- Messages
- 374
- Reaction score
- 17
You can't be serious!!nanandjim said:
That can't be because there have got to be people on New York's death row who have NOT murder police officers.
So, someone can hunt down somebody in New York and torture and behead them and NEVER get charged 1st degree murder and ALWAYS have a chance for parole????
NO WAY!
ihadcabinfever
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2005
- Messages
- 876
- Reaction score
- 126
By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS
Published: July 16, 2007
It was a Perry Mason moment in the trial of Paul Cortez, an actor and yoga teacher who was ultimately convicted of killing his former girlfriend Catherine Woods, a dancer who was working as a stripper.
After weeks of testimony and a parade of witnesses, the case against Mr. Cortez boiled down to this: a bloody fingerprint and data collected from a cellphone.
A record from a T-Mobile cellphone transmission tower on the day Ms. Woods was murdered showed that Mr. Cortez called her 13 times in the hour and a half before her death, and then never again. He had told the police in a written statement that he made the calls from his home.
But as he called, the record showed his cell signal hitting a tower on East 105th Street, near his apartment, and gradually shifting to towers on East 86th and East 84th Streets, near Ms. Woodss apartment. At trial, when the prosecutor questioned him about the discrepancy, Mr. Cortez changed course, saying he had made some of the calls from a Starbucks.
Examining cellphone data is a technique that has moved from being a masterful surprise in trials to being a standard tool in the investigative arsenal of the police and prosecutors, with records routinely provided by cellphone companies in response to subpoenas. Its use in prosecutions is often challenged, for privacy reasons and for technical reasons, especially when the data comes during the morning or evening rush, when circuits are crowded and calls can be redirected to other towers. But it is often allowed and is used by both prosecutors and defense attorneys to buttress their cases.
Its one of the most important developments in technology in the courtroom in the last five years, said Mark J. Geragos, a Los Angeles defense lawyer known for his celebrity clients, who challenged cell tower data while defending Scott Peterson, a Modesto, Calif., fertilizer salesman sentenced to death in 2005 for killing his pregnant wife, Laci.
Many people know that cellphones can be used as global positioning devices in real time. Yet few people are aware that cellphone companies keep records from transmitters that can be used to trace approximately where a caller was at the time a crime was committed.
Its another arrow in the quiver, said Joyce B. David, a lawyer whose client Darryl Littlejohn, a nightclub bouncer, is facing trial in the death of Imette St. Guillen, a graduate student found strangled in February 2006. When he was arraigned in March 2006, the police and prosecutors said cell tower records from the day of the killing indicated movement from his home to near the spot in Brooklyn where Ms. St. Guillens body was found.
Ms. David said she would challenge the trustworthiness of cell records.
Daniel Castleman, chief of investigations for the Manhattan district attorney, Robert M. Morgenthau, described tower data as circumstantial but convincing.
Defense lawyers have also begun using cellphone, or cell site, records to establish alibis.
In January, George A. Farkas, a defense lawyer, presented such records to a judge in Brooklyn to show that his client Eric Wright, accused of killing a drug dealer, was in Newark about 13 minutes after the killing, which took place in East New York, Brooklyn.
The assistant district attorney who was prosecuting the case, Kenneth Mark Taub, ridiculed the alibi, contending that while the phone might have been in Newark, the defendant was not. Mr. Taub suggested that cell tower technology could lead to a new tactic by criminals of planting their phones in a place other than where theyre committing the crime.
Mr. Farkas said in an interview that he got the idea of going to Sprint for transmitter records after a jailhouse interview with his client. As Mr. Farkas was leaving, he said, Mr. Wright told him: The only reason I knew this happened was I was on the phone, talking to my friend Chris. He was in East New York, around the corner from where the shooting was.
Mr. Farkas added: Ive been doing this for 30 years, and cellphones are relatively new to me. But I know the issue is, was he using his cellphone? If he was using his cellphone, then hes where the cellphone was. Mr. Wrights trial is scheduled to begin on Aug. 13.
In the Peterson case, prosecutors introduced cell tower records to show Mr. Petersons movements on the day his wife disappeared.
One of the theories was that when he said he had left the house at 9:30, in fact around 9:50 or 9:46 his phone call pinged on a tower near the house, Mr. Geragos said in an interview.
Mr. Geragos conducted what legal observers have come to consider a groundbreaking cross-examination of the prosecutions expert witness, focusing on the flaws in cellphone transmitter technology. He managed to disqualify two witnesses, he recalled, and forced a third witness, a telephone company employee, to admit that when cellphone traffic is very heavy, a signal can be redirected to a nearby tower.
Published: July 16, 2007
It was a Perry Mason moment in the trial of Paul Cortez, an actor and yoga teacher who was ultimately convicted of killing his former girlfriend Catherine Woods, a dancer who was working as a stripper.
After weeks of testimony and a parade of witnesses, the case against Mr. Cortez boiled down to this: a bloody fingerprint and data collected from a cellphone.
A record from a T-Mobile cellphone transmission tower on the day Ms. Woods was murdered showed that Mr. Cortez called her 13 times in the hour and a half before her death, and then never again. He had told the police in a written statement that he made the calls from his home.
But as he called, the record showed his cell signal hitting a tower on East 105th Street, near his apartment, and gradually shifting to towers on East 86th and East 84th Streets, near Ms. Woodss apartment. At trial, when the prosecutor questioned him about the discrepancy, Mr. Cortez changed course, saying he had made some of the calls from a Starbucks.
Examining cellphone data is a technique that has moved from being a masterful surprise in trials to being a standard tool in the investigative arsenal of the police and prosecutors, with records routinely provided by cellphone companies in response to subpoenas. Its use in prosecutions is often challenged, for privacy reasons and for technical reasons, especially when the data comes during the morning or evening rush, when circuits are crowded and calls can be redirected to other towers. But it is often allowed and is used by both prosecutors and defense attorneys to buttress their cases.
Its one of the most important developments in technology in the courtroom in the last five years, said Mark J. Geragos, a Los Angeles defense lawyer known for his celebrity clients, who challenged cell tower data while defending Scott Peterson, a Modesto, Calif., fertilizer salesman sentenced to death in 2005 for killing his pregnant wife, Laci.
Many people know that cellphones can be used as global positioning devices in real time. Yet few people are aware that cellphone companies keep records from transmitters that can be used to trace approximately where a caller was at the time a crime was committed.
Its another arrow in the quiver, said Joyce B. David, a lawyer whose client Darryl Littlejohn, a nightclub bouncer, is facing trial in the death of Imette St. Guillen, a graduate student found strangled in February 2006. When he was arraigned in March 2006, the police and prosecutors said cell tower records from the day of the killing indicated movement from his home to near the spot in Brooklyn where Ms. St. Guillens body was found.
Ms. David said she would challenge the trustworthiness of cell records.
Daniel Castleman, chief of investigations for the Manhattan district attorney, Robert M. Morgenthau, described tower data as circumstantial but convincing.
Defense lawyers have also begun using cellphone, or cell site, records to establish alibis.
In January, George A. Farkas, a defense lawyer, presented such records to a judge in Brooklyn to show that his client Eric Wright, accused of killing a drug dealer, was in Newark about 13 minutes after the killing, which took place in East New York, Brooklyn.
The assistant district attorney who was prosecuting the case, Kenneth Mark Taub, ridiculed the alibi, contending that while the phone might have been in Newark, the defendant was not. Mr. Taub suggested that cell tower technology could lead to a new tactic by criminals of planting their phones in a place other than where theyre committing the crime.
Mr. Farkas said in an interview that he got the idea of going to Sprint for transmitter records after a jailhouse interview with his client. As Mr. Farkas was leaving, he said, Mr. Wright told him: The only reason I knew this happened was I was on the phone, talking to my friend Chris. He was in East New York, around the corner from where the shooting was.
Mr. Farkas added: Ive been doing this for 30 years, and cellphones are relatively new to me. But I know the issue is, was he using his cellphone? If he was using his cellphone, then hes where the cellphone was. Mr. Wrights trial is scheduled to begin on Aug. 13.
In the Peterson case, prosecutors introduced cell tower records to show Mr. Petersons movements on the day his wife disappeared.
One of the theories was that when he said he had left the house at 9:30, in fact around 9:50 or 9:46 his phone call pinged on a tower near the house, Mr. Geragos said in an interview.
Mr. Geragos conducted what legal observers have come to consider a groundbreaking cross-examination of the prosecutions expert witness, focusing on the flaws in cellphone transmitter technology. He managed to disqualify two witnesses, he recalled, and forced a third witness, a telephone company employee, to admit that when cellphone traffic is very heavy, a signal can be redirected to a nearby tower.
Similar threads
Staff online
-
SillybillyAdministrator -
FraizeAdministrator
-
TriciaManager Websleuths.com
Online statistics
- Members online
- 122
- Guests online
- 2,057
- Total visitors
- 2,179