**UPDATE JUNE 2, 2011:**

The actual State Supreme Court of Appeals document ruling: **after reading this, one will clearly see they were duped by his defense site or any related site in connection with the defense site: (please copy, paste in URL box)

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-first-department/2011/2011-04595.html


His defense and other related sites (The new seemingly odd, highly opinionated 'AlphaDarling' blog) obviously have a bias to free Paul (like most family members with convicted murderers in prison. 'they are ALL innocent'). Even as they give only partial pieces of the case with extreme 'opinions' not seen by any of the jury, court judge, or the Supreme Court of New York, who all saw "overwhelming guilt" on Paul's part.  The strange AlphaDarling blob/website has highly irrational and in some parts racial opinions on a case that occurred 6 years ago in which they have not much knowledge about, neither knowing  the convicted or the victim.   *This being Catherine's best friends site, although not as 'flashy' as Pauls defense or related sites,  will give accounts of those inside the courtroom, ones who testified, and from poor Catherine's own words about Paul.

**Please read Paul's confession in a jailhouse interview from CBS below (after court ruling) where he clearly states following a question on what he did directly after his phone calls to Catherine: 'I went down to her apartment to see her'... Information that is very much lacking from any other site in his defense or other related sites. They only mention he was at a 'Starbucks', which he fails to mention in his LAST interview from jail or his actual testimony from his trial.***

                                          

                                                Synopsis of Appeal judges ruling:                                                                    

--A State Appeals Court panel of judges denied Paul Cortez's appeal.  They ruled 'overwhelming evidence of guilt', along with a ruling that Paul's complaints about his lawyers, prosecutor, AND the judge were completely unfounded.  I want to thank ALL for the support given to this site and to Catherine, and MOST IMPORTANTLY: THE TRUTH, which is what was omitted from Paul's defense site, which had much support due to the lack of details of what actually happened throughout the entire 5 years, ranging from the night of the crime, to present day.  A jury of 12 citizens and a panel of State Appellate judges cut though his lies, and realized what the truth really was. And ultimately, Catherine, her family and friends received their justice.  I know we couldn't provide a well-funded website like Pauls defense site, but we knew with the truth, an expensive website was not needed.  Again, Thank you for the support and may god bless you all... Lets just hope that whom ever administered Paul's defense site will look into refunding the donations given they were duped into  believing he was innocent on the basis of false and omitted information that wasn't given to them.  Noone seems to win in this situation-

 

'We note that the evidence clearly supported the conclusion that defendant left his fingerprint in the victim's blood, which had spattered on a wall of her apartment, and it refuted the theory that this was a latent fingerprint left by defendant on a previous visit, over which the blood had spattered. Accordingly, it was entirely proper for the prosecutor to make [*3]summation arguments along these lines. Moreover, the fingerprint itself provided evidence of defendant's guilt, and when combined with an extensive amount of other circumstantial evidence, it provided overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt'

**Paul was given a waiver and full detail of his lawyers pending charges when he hired them, and signed the waiver to not bring this matter up if he was found guilty, The attorney's still did their jobs to the fullest of their abilities...Here is the statement from the Appellate judges ruling:**

-"Defendant was not deprived of his right to conflict-free counsel. Defendant asserts that both of the attorneys who represented him at trial operated under conflicts between their own interests and those of their client. However, we find that, at most, only one attorney had a conflict, that defendant validly waived this conflict, and that there is no record evidence of prejudice." 

 **Now it is beyond absurd at this point in that after this appeal notion, Paul's defense site STILL continues to argue that the ruling of a jury and the State Supreme Court: Appellate Division as 'completely wrong'.  Some of the ignorant comments which show nothing more than complete assumptions and disrespect for our justice system are as follows:  

-"We were disappointed the judges did not rule on the side of common sense."

-"We are saddened and disappointed  that the appellate court essentially washed their hands of their ability to come to a reasonable and just decision that would ensure  Paul Cortez his fair day in court." 

-"In Paul’s appeal, the most offensive issue on appeal was that Paul’s original trial attorney represented him despite a major conflict of interest. At the time of Paul’s trial, his own defense attorney was under indictment for a serious crime by the same prosecutor who was currently prosecuting Paul. More specifically, Paul’s trial attorney was charged with smuggling drugs into a prison for one of her other clients. This crime could have easily sent her to jail and caused her to lose her license to practice law. It is not a far stretch to assume that she did not zealously advocate for Paul against this prosecutor because she was hoping for some kind of leniency in her own drug smuggling case if the prosecutor got a conviction in Paul's high profile case"   (He waived this as stated above, and she was allegedly charged, not yet a trial)

 

"A monster doesn't always look like a monster" - Catherine's mother Donna Woods



-We are the close friends of Catherine Elizabeth Woods. There is absolutely nothing in this world that we wanted more than to see the person that took our close friend Catherine's life in prison.  Through Catherine's own words from her friendship with Paul Cortez,  and his actions throughout their friendship, we strongly believe (100%) the right person is behind bars for this crime-    *Catherine was afraid of Paul for months prior to her murder*


-"98% of convicted murderers are NOT the type that 'hear voices' in their heads or 'see images' so to speak, but seem like average-normal people that fit very well into our everyday lives" - 
  Dr. Keith Ablow Forensic Psychiatrist

-"And that's the hardest thing about listening or talking to convicted murderers. Many of them can convince you of their innocence one on one but when you look at the evidence in the cold light of day, you realize you've probably been duped" - Paul Larosa (author of 'Death of a Dream')
________________________________________________________________________________________________________


**EXTREMELY REVEALING JAILHOUSE INTERVIEW**

--Jailhouse interview with 48 Hours (CBS) in which Paul admits and specifies how he went down to Catherine's neighborhood at the time in question to specifically see her and to ask if she would skip work that night.. (And cell phone records show he was near apartment at time of murder)** (admission is 3:28 into video)**..  http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=2791475n 

Here is part of the transcript:

Erin Moriarty: So the second time that the phone call ended, what did you do?

Paul: I called her back serveral times (which she did not answer), I knew she was in her house getting ready, so I decided to head over to her neighborhood..

Erin Moriarty: Why?

Paul: Well, several times I convinced her not to go to work, and we'de go out and have fun, and ummm,  so I was just trying to see her again at that point'

_______________________________________________________________________________________


"I don't have any question (that) Paul Cortez did it..... I believe he did it."
- Erin Moriarty Journalist for 48-Hrs (interviewed Paul)/Author for Death of a Dream


"She says she hates me, and wants me out of her life" - Excerpt from Paul's Journal


"I think it's interesting that the arguments Paul's defense website puts forth are different from the statements Paul actually made to police and while testifying.
For instance, the website makes no mention that Paul indicated the bloody fingerprint could have come from his having had sex with Catherine while she was on her period. The site also goes into great deal about his being in the area that night, but it does not state that he told police the opposite, saying he was at home. It seems obvious to me that there is a lot of "spin" going on. The website is well-written, but Paul's own statements and testimony are not so carefully chosen" -  Brian G. Law Enforcement Officer


"I met Paul at a work party about 7 years ago and he was a waiter there. I realize now that he lied about how old he was. We hung out that night and he was nice and sweet, so we exchanged numbers. We went out on a date a few days later. When we went back to my place, he was very different. He was very aggressive to get me to bed, almost forceful. He was so persistent that it was scary and I asked him to leave. He kept calling me for days after and I would not return his calls until he got the hint"  - Dana Elizabeth (one-time aquaintenence of Paul)