Updated February 21, 2014

TIMELINE IN THE CATHERINE WOODS HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION

The PCDF has recently obtained and sifted through an enormous mountain of case files to piece together a much more thorough and well fleshed timeline that allows for a near minute by minute play of events that factually occurred on November 27, 2005 that show beyond any shadow of doubt that Paul Cortez not only did not, but could not have been involved in the homicide of Catherine Woods.

All events itemized in this updated timeline will have inline reference links to the corroborating evidence or documentation, photographs, video, etc. in order to show that the claims made about this case on this website and from those supporting Paul in his wrongful conviction case are backed by factual evidence and are not simply opinions of any one person or groups of individuals with an agenda. 

Though it may get confusing in certain areas, namely the time slot for the murder, it is because of overlapping statements and timeframes that are presented in the appropriate slot, and which may or may not be truthful or accurate on part of the one providing the information. In some cases, we have general timeframes, like ‘between 6 and 6:30′ and a narrative of events, and in these cases, moving statement by statement as a single event, the whole thing is placed in order of appearance in the most logical, probable time slot, and will be noted as such for reference purposes. Some of these may be a minute or three off but still in the best “ballpark” slot for when it would’ve most likely taken place.

The timeline will follow only the statements provided by relevant parties: Paul Cortez, David Haughn, assorted witness statements, and timeframes are noted only where there are hard copy records to confirm the event took place at a specified time – such as with cell phone records for calls and texts, photographs, video, and information specifically provided in the official typed police reports and not handwritten, jotted cop notes. However, if there is any discrepancy of time or event, it will be noted where appropriate. 

For example, 48 Hours Mystery did 3 episodes on the case while Paul La Rosa wrote Death of a Dream, and each has a breakdown of the case with “facts” as reported to them which were not only grossly inaccurate, but neither the producers of the 48 Hours programs nor La Rosa ever bothered to fact check in order to report truthfully, nor has either ever bothered to retract their own fictional version of events and provide a truthful account to their viewers.

Both 48 Hours Mystery and La Rosa did a huge disservice to Catherine Woods, her friends and family, and everyone legitimately interested in getting  a clearer picture of what exactly happened to Catherine, when, why, and by whom.

None of this sort of information, nor statements in media, are used in this timeline. All sources are from case files originating from the police investigation and through the selected material used in the trial, and where relevant, Google Maps for visual reference.

Each item noted in the timeline has one or more corresponding documents, photos, or image scans that was used as a reference for basis of inclusion in the timeline of events and will be provided either as commentary per item or inline links to the source files so you can study it as you move through the events.

The full content of Paul’s written statements to police have not been used here because out of several pages, only a short paragraph actually deals with the events of Sunday 27 Nov 05. Only the relevant statements that correspond with the timeline are included, as well as Paul’s 48 Hours interview, though brief, fills in more of the gaps. It is also common knowledge that he spent the afternoon with someone, ended up on store security video that would be used later, however that outing is not relevant to the specific incident of Catherine’s murder so it is omitted.  

Accepted Time Of Death

This timeline presumes Catherine was still alive as of 6:03pm. The statements made do not omit any information; they are broken up and fit into the timeline of events as a description of what was taking place in that timeframe. No information has been changed, rearranged, or removed. It is provided sentence by sentence in chronological order. If one witness account appears to have happened earlier than another witness account in the same time window, that witness account will appear first in the timeline. 

Format 

It’s basic procedure in all homicide investigations to begin with those closest to the victim and, only after eliminating them, move outward to those next closest and beyond. In this case, both David Haughn and Paul Cortez were considered primary suspects, and Paul only because David mentioned his name at all. They each provided hand written statements to police on November 27th and November 28th respectively. Those statements are segmented and placed in chronological order surrounded by hard confirmed timeframes. In some cases where either a general timeframe is provided, or none at all, courtroom testimony and other witness accounts have been used to help place the event in its most likely time slot.

These cases are shown in green where the event is known to have taken place but the time slot is in question, and normal case red where the events haven’t been confirmed but are reasonably true or accurate in that window.

Minutes in red bold are from one red bold confirmed event to the next as a matter of convenience to show the “windows of opportunity” afforded an outsider (as Paul) to get into the building, apartment, commit the crime, any cleaning required, evidence removal, staging, and exiting the premises without encountering anyone else or being caught, if at all possible.

Normal red font minutes later are respective to those events.

Loc denotes the cell tower that fielded the call and its street location, and NOT the actual position of the one with the phone. Cell towers trade off fielding calls depending on a number of factors and are not always reliable as an indication of specific movement. At absolute most, the towers in play give a general indication of the general vicinity of the one with the phone. 

The cell tower accepted as being the one fielding Paul’s cell phone from his residence at 154 E 106th St is located at 179 E 105th St. Here is the correlation between locations:

Map Paul B

The cell tower that fielded calls for both Catherine and David, inclusive of while David was at work and at their residence:

Map Cat David

The investigators/State’s presumption of guilt based on the fact Paul’s cell location was a mere 2 blocks away from Catherine’s residence, suggesting that since he was “in the neighborhood” he could just as easily have been inside Catherine’s apartment as not becomes questionable and troubling when placed beside the fact that 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, either, 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 farther away suggest Paul was “in” her apartment” when the tower for David and Catherine both was directly across the street, but David really was where he claimed he was?

As will be shown quite factually, the tower fielding Paul’s calls through 6:33pm and the one picking him up by 6:46pm make it impossible for him to have been anywhere near the apartment, let alone inside it, without being in there with David Haughn, himself, and since the evidence does indicate at least some cleaning up of the perpetrator was done, if we allow any time at all for him to have cleaned up, then for Paul Cortez to have been in the area close enough to be picked up by the E95th St tower at 6:46pm, given the distance, he quite literally would’ve had to leave Catherine’s apartment before she was even attacked.

The evidence does speak for itself. It always did.

If any of these events inspire even a sliver of raised brow, one or more questions that need answers, curiosities to be explained, then that is considered reasonable doubt about Paul Cortez being the perpetrator of this crime and he should not have been convicted.

SOURCE FILES

Paul Cortez
Police Statement
Cell Records

David Haughn
Police Statement
Cell Records

Catherine Woods
Cell Records

KEY

Normal black – description
Confirmed, corroborated, accepted as fact
Timeframes confirmed, corroborated, accepted as fact
Probable, reasonable, likely but unconfirmed timeline or event
Event corroborated, confirmed, accepted; conflicting timeframe

 More

Reveals more information, photos, doc scans, links, or comments regarding the event in question

Paul’s 48 Hrs Pre-trial Interview – for his version of events in the timeline

• 6:25 am – 6:58 am – Paul calls Catherine (33m 21s) Loc: 179 E 105th St (home area)  More

 Paul Cortez Statement “Sunday I called her when I got up (about 6:30) and we talked about how we were doing and I mentioned we should get together sometime in the day/afternoon.”  

• 7am (two minutes later) – David Haughn gets off work  More

 David Haughn Statement I got off work at 7am. I work as a doorman at 309 E87st. My car was parked real close to my work on E87th st. When I left work, wearing my work clothes, I got into my car. I turned the key back and was writing my music to an instrumental playing on the radio. Actually it was a CD called “Smoke Box”. I [sic] guy I know produced it for me so I could write the words for it.

I stayed in the car until about 7:45am. I forgot to say this I didn’t have a pen with me so I went back to my work and spoke to “Jair”. He’s the guy that relieved me. I asked him for a pen and then I went back to the car to write until around 7:45. When I got done I took my bookbag with my notebooks, locked up the car and I cut through the parking garage and went home.

When I went into the apartment the dogs got all excited and started making a lot of noise so Catherine woke up. She asked me to go and get her an apple. I told her I’d get her one. I took the dog, the black lab, outside so she could pee. After I put the dog away I went across the street to the Gristedes supermarket and I bought an apple for Catherine and a quart of milk for myself. I was still dressed in my work clothes. Now as I’m thinking about this, I’m not sure if I bought milk or cereal for my self but it was one of the two.

After the grocery store I go back to the apartment. I wash off the apple and give it to Catherine. She wasn’t exactly sitting up in bed but sort of leaning up. She had the covers pulled up so I couldn’t tell what she was wearing. I got out of my uniform, I got myself a bowl of cereal. I ate the cereal and was about to go to bed. Catherine asked me to set the alarm for her for 9:20am. She had to do something. She didn’t explain what she had to do and I didn’t ask her. I set the alarm for 9:20am and I went to bed.

The next thing that I know I wake up about 4:30pm. I didn’t hear the alarm that I set for her but she must have gone out because she wasn’t home. I put the tv on and I think I was watching ESPN for awhile. I know that the black dog needed to go out and I was hungry. I didn’t take a shower or anything, I just put on the clothes that I’m wearing now. I have on black shell toe Addidas, blue jeans, a black tshirt and under that a white tshirt. I only have two pair of shoes. The Addidas that I’m wearing and the black dress shoes that I wear to work. I wanted to take the black dog for a walk and get something to eat.

Just before I could leave my cell phone rang. I think it was about 5:00pm. Catherine was calling from her cell phone.”

• 7:16 am – David receives a phone call (7m 57s) cell 88 Loc 401 E 86th St 

• 7:35 am – (NINETEEN MINUTES LATER) David makes a phone call (5s) cell 88 Loc 401 E 86th St 

• 7:35 am – David makes a phone call (7s) cell 88 Loc 401 E 86th St 

• 7:38 am – (THREE MINUTES LATER) David makes a phone call (5s) cell 88 Loc 401 E 86th St More

 David never mentions a single instance of phone activity in his details. It is curious that in the dead of winter at 7 in the morning, he would sit in his car for 45 minutes writing when he could’ve just gone inside to do it where it’d be warm.  

• 9:35 am – Paul sends Catherine text message: “Do you want to go for cafe’ around 3 at Union Square” 

• 10:44 am – Catherine calls Paul (31s) cell 88 Loc 401 E 86th St 

• 10:45 am – Paul calls voicemail  More

 Paul Cortez Statement “She called me back once, & I missed her call.” 

The Prosecution withheld this information from jurors that after their half hour morning chat about getting together sometime and going for coffee, Paul sent the text asking if she’d like to get coffee, and Catherine called him on her own. This is not the sign of a woman trying to avoid a creepy stalker she wanted nothing to do with. She called him once, he missed it because he was at work as of about 9:30. Paul’s phone records clearly corroborate his police statements made Nov 28, 2005, well before police obtained said records, which goes against their fairy tale that he’s an obsessive nutter who lied and harassed Catherine. So far, he’s telling the truth and this is a case of two people having connection far more positive than a woman fending off an obsessed loser…which is likely the real reason the State decided to skip over this part and not mention it to the jury. 

There’s no instance in her phone records where she had anything longer than a minute or two conversation with David, who continues to claim she’s his girlfriend, yet she spent half an hour chatting with Paul at 6am – while David was still working – and called him later that morning before she left for the afternoon. She just sent David off to get her an apple, and chances are that sending him off was more likely to have been around 10:45am so she could call Paul real quick and leave a message – that the prosecution also withheld from the jurors.

• 10:46 am (29s) – Catherine calls Christina DuPont

• 2:02 pm – Paul makes phone call (13s) Loc: 799 Broadway

• 2:16 pm – Paul calls voicemail (5s)

• 2:16 pm – Paul makes phone call (49s) Loc: 27 Union Square West

• 2:23 pm – Paul calls voicemail (5s)

• 2:31 pm – Paul calls voicemail (39s)

• 2:31 pm – Paul calls voicemail (1m 4s)

• 2:33 pm – Paul calls voicemail (37s)

• 2:34 pm – Paul makes phone call (1m 20s) Loc: 1556 3rd Ave

• 2:35 pm – Paul makes phone call (12s) Loc: 1556 3rd Ave

• 2:36 pm – (SEVEN HOURS LATER) David calls 411 (55s) cell 88 Loc 401 E 86th St 

• 2:37 pm – (ONE MINUTE LATER) David makes a phone call (1m 37s) cell 88 Loc 401 E 86th St 

• 2:39 pm – Paul calls voicemail (26s)

• 2:50 pm – (THIRTEEN MINUTES LATER) David receives a phone call (40s) cell 88 Loc 401 E 86th St 

• 2:58 pm – Paul makes phone call (1m 8s) Loc: 1504 3rd Ave/178 E 85th St.

• 3:14 pm – Paul makes phone call (19s) Loc: 1504 3rd Ave/178 E 85th St.

• 3:16 pm – (TWENTY SIX MINUTES LATER) David receives a phone call (3m 46s) cell 88 Loc 401 E 86th St 

• 3:21 pm – (FIVE MINUTES LATER) David calls Catherine (8s) cell 88 Loc 401 E 86th St 

• 3:33 pm – (TWELVE MINUTES LATER) David makes a phone call (13m 33s) cell 88 Loc 401 E 86th St 

• 3:50 pm – (TWENTY TWO MINUTES LATER) David makes a phone call (35s) cell 88 Loc 401 E 86th St 

• 4:49pm – (FIFTY NINE MINUTS LATER) Catherine’s voice mail called (1m 29s) cell 228 Loc 160 E 84 St 

• 4:51pm – (TWO MINUTES LATER) Catherine calls David (1m 59s) cell 88 Loc 401 E 86th St (both)  More

 David Haughn Statement “There was nothing really important about the call. Sometimes she’ll just do that, call to see if I’m home. So she said she was almost home.” 

David was up well before 4:30 making phone calls and he wasn’t so out of it he didn’t hear the alarm or realize Catherine had left. If he wrapped up the music writing about 7:45, he’d get home by 7:50am. At 7:55 he’s dealing with the dogs and Catherine wanting an apple.

By 8, he’s taking the dogs for a walk, bringing them back inside, going across the street to the store, getting the items, waiting at the check out for the transaction, returning, having something to eat, changing clothes…it’s nearly 9am at this point anyway so he wouldn’t really need to set the alarm. He was already awake. His morning account sounds harmless but it’s already not passing the smell test when you factor in that he claims to have been asleep until 4:30 and didn’t hear from Catherine until nearly 5pm, but his phone records show he’d been on the phone all afternoon and he even called Catherine. 

While half truths and omissions don’t qualify as an explosive piece of evidence, it does set the foundation for a glaring lack of credibility. 

• 4:59 pm – (EIGHT MINUTES LATER) Catherine calls Paul (2m 59s) cell 61 Loc 1742 First Ave 

• 4:59 pm CCTV captures video of Catherine, David with lab out front on 86th approaching apartment building More

 

David-n-Catherine on Street 001 David-n-Catherine on Street 002 David-n-Catherine on Street 003 David-n-Catherine on Street 004 David-n-Catherine on Street 005
David-n-Catherine on Street 006 David-n-Catherine on Street 007 Camera 1A Camera 1B Camera 1C

 Time Discrepancy: The time stamp on these frames is 16:59 (4:59) pm. Catherine’s phone records show a call to Paul at this time, and Paul’s records show the call came at 5pm, or 5pm is when he answered. State presented these frames (excluding the 3 above from Google’s street view for a visual reference of the location) to David during trial to confirm it is him and Catherine in the video and to identify the time and what he’s wearing.

None of these frames show Catherine on the phone, holding the phone, dialing anything on the phone and given the previous conflicts between her and David about Paul, it’s not likely that she would’ve called Paul with David there. Cell phone call records are likely to be far more accurate in their time stamps than CCTV cameras on city streets but how much the time stamp was off is anyone’s guess. In and of itself, this instance of a time discrepancy isn’t much of an issue…but later in the afternoon, it becomes a huge discrepancy that makes or breaks David’s version of events. 

Police Report: Simon Sharjell NR Wireless “He says that the last time he saw David was Sunday Nov. 27, 2005 between 3:30 and 5pm as he saw David walking toward 1st Ave.”

David Haughn Statement “I went outside with the dog and started walking in the direction she would be coming from. I started walking towards Second Ave. I made it to about where the mattress store is when we met. We stopped and hugged each other. She was wearing a red jacket, I’m not sure what else. I walked with her back towards the apartment. She asked me to get her some food. She wanted a frozen dinner from the grocery store across the street (Gristedes). I told her I’d get it but that I’d get it after I got my food because I couldn’t take the dog into Gristedes.” 

• 4:59:47s pm Catherine calls Paul Loc: cell 88 Loc 401 E 86 St

• 5 pm – (THIRTEEN SECONDS LATER) Paul answers Catherne’s incoming call (2m 38s) Loc: cell 179 E 105th St (Paul home area)  More

 Paul Cortez Statement “Then I called her around 5pm she was very short with me and seemed preoccupied. Then her phone got disconnected.”

Most likely due to the fact she cut it short because David was still nearby and she was annoyed by that, and Paul presumed it was aimed at him. Seeming preoccupied sounds like distracted trying to handle David and get him out of the way.

• 5:05 pm – (FIVE MINUTES LATER) Paul calls Catherine (5s) Loc: 179 E 105th St 

• 5:07 pm – (TWO MINUTES LATER) Paul calls Catherine (35s) Loc: 179 E 105th St 

• 5:09 pm – (TEN MINUTES LATER) David makes phone call (1m 16s) cell 88 Loc 401 E 86 St  More

 David Haughn Statement “I walked to Taco Today on First Ave. I tied up the dog where I could see it. I went in and got steak and rice and a soda.”

• 5:10 pm – (ONE MINUTE LATER) Paul calls Catherine (2s) Loc: 179 E 105th St Loc: cell 88 Loc 401 E 86 St (Cat) – 179 E 105th St (Paul home area) 

• 5:11 pm – (ONE MINUTE LATER) Catherine calls Paul (1m 31s) Loc: 179 E 105th St  More

 Paul Cortez Statement “She called me back and said we should talk later because she needed to get ready. I knew something was wrong…”  

In fact, Catherine’s pattern on this day seems more aligned with finding reasons to send David on errands so she had some solo time to call Paul, and given that her 5pm call was brief and snappy with Paul, and 3 of his calls went to voicemail, but then she called him back 11 minutes later, that strongly appears that Catherine was sending David off on another errand so she could call Paul, and the 3 missed calls were likely because she wasn’t going to answer them while David was around. So she got rid of him awhile. 

The Prosecution made an enormous show insisting that Paul lied about where he was the last time he spoke to Catherine, and that he told them he was home, but his cell phone records show that he was “in her neighborhood.” In reality, the Prosecution flat out lied to the jurors, or was incapable of reading a phone sheet. Paul’s cell phone records show that the last time he spoke to Catherine would’ve been this 5:11pm phone call where she called him back…and he was absolutely at home, just as he said. 

So far, between David Haughn’s faux truths and omissions, the police investigators’ concealment of evidence, and the prosecution’s withholding evidence and facts from the jurors or outright lying to them, it seems the only one who actually was telling the truth was always Paul Cortez. He said he was at home the last time he spoke to Catherine, and that’s where he was. 

 • 5:13:37 pm – (TWO MINUTES LATER) Paul calls Catherine (2s) Loc: 179 E 105th St  More
 Paul Cortez Statement “…so I called back several times.” 

• 5:13:50 pm – (THIRTEEN SECONDS LATER) Paul calls Catherine (1s) Loc: 179 E 105th St  More

 Paul Cortez Statement “…so I called back several times.” 

• 5:14:02 pm – (TWELVE SECONDS LATER) Paul calls Catherine (2s) Loc: 179 E 105th St  More

 Paul Cortez Statement “…so I called back several times. I thought she was just mad at me again but I didn’t know. I was at home when I called her and she hung up.”

• 5:15 pm (ONE MINUTE LATER) Catherine’s voice mail called (45s) cell 88 Loc 401 E 86 St  More

 David Haughn Statement “Then I went back to the apartment. I took the dog and my food up to the apt. I might have had a bite or two of my food. Then I went back out to the grocery store to get her a frozen dinner. I left the apartment and walked over to the grocery store and I bought her a “Smart Ones” chicken Santa Fe frozen dinner and a bag of chips.” 

• 5:27 pm (TWELVE MINUTES LATER) – David purchases items from Gristede’s More

 David Haughn Statement “I have the receipt in my pocket (timed 1727 on 11/27/05).” 

David Haughn Gristedes ReceiptThere is no report to provide a basis for stating the time stamp on the grocery store receipt was 14 minutes fast. There’s not any statement from any employee or management at Gristede’s acknowledging that the time stamp was incorrect or why it would be. Unless and until one turns up, the time now is 5:27pm, the receipt is valid, and whoever made these notes on the receipt can not be considered a credible source.

• 5:27 pm – Paul calls Catherine (1s) Loc: 50 East 86th St and Madison Ave More

 After Paul talked briefly with Catherine and couldn’t get an answer, he then leaves the area of his residence (where he factually was the last time he spoke to Catherine, as he said) and begins making his way to “her neighborhood” with the goal of connecting with her, perhaps trying to persuade her to ditch work so they could go hang out. As his phone records show, and corroborating his statements made in the interview, Paul Cortez is again telling the truth and it’s backed up  by his cell phone records. 

• 5:30 pm – David returns to apartment.  More

 David Haughn Statement “I went back across the street to the apartment with the food. When I came in she was in the bathroom getting ready for work. I heated up the food for her. I don’t remember if she ate her food or not. I should say I don’t remember seeing her eat it. But after I heated her food I ate the majority of mine.” 

David Haughn Courtroom Testimony:

5 Q Now, what time do you think you were back
6 in the apartment, just your best estimate?
7 A I’m not sure, maybe, maybe 5:30 or so.
 

David claims to have heated up Catherine’s food (also in court testimony), which had been a Santa Fe chicken frozen dinner. In the trial exchange, he provides a timeframe of about 7 minutes to heat up her food. Studying the crime scene photos of the kitchen, and following up the crime scene photos of the rest of the apartment, Catherine and David did not appear to have a microwave oven (unless it was hidden in a cabinet or further back on top of the fridge out of view). The left side is a full wall, the sink butts the side of the fridge and stove, and no microwave is visible. Once the issue can be verified either way it will be noted here.

Kitchen CompositeMeanwhile, if there was a microwave then we must add 7-10 minutes to the timeline for David’s version of events. If there was not  microwave and he would’ve had to do it in the oven, we have to add another 20-25 minutes to the timeline and David’s credibility is draining down the nearer it gets to the time slot that the murder took place.

A frozen dinner would require a minimum of 15 minutes to heat, still possibly not being fully cooked. This reality impacts David’s actual timeline of events. Even 7 minutes tosses a wrench into the point of departure making it impossible for him to have cooked her food and done everything else he claimed happened because the longer he remains in the apartment, the worse it gets. And, ironically, if David Haughn was telling the truth, there’s no way Paul Cortez could’ve committed the crime. If he’s lying, particularly the closer things progress to the accepted time of the murder, his whole alibi is out the window. 

Since it’s unclear how much of David’s version of events is true or not, the confirmed, hard timeframes will provide the evidence needed to expose the truth.

• 5:36 pm – Paul makes phone call (47s) Loc: 354 E 84th St More

 Paul Cortez Statement “I started calling clients for appointments, friends, to talk about Thanksgiving, and then I called my friend Spencer to hang out with him.”  Which is exactly what his cell phone records corroborate. He’s not leaving anything out about his phone activity.

He talked to Catherine awhile to start his day, invited her out, missed connection, so he took off and spent the day with someone else instead, Catherine calls him later that afternoon, they speak 2 times, he heads her way and when she doesn’t answer, he calls clients and friends and starts making plans in case Catherine and he don’t meet up. In short, for an obsessed stalker who has no life, Paul Cortez didn’t waste much time hanging around moping…he made other plans and got on with it.

The flurry of brief calls would be the calls dropping, as he explained long before anyone had his cell records. Some of those, however, have another explanation that did not get any real attention during the trial: the short calls were not calls at all but text messages back and forth, so while the calls may not be connecting, the texting very well did. 

Paul and Catherine Text Messages

 • 5:38 pm – Paul makes phone call (47s) Loc: 354 E 84th St 

• 5:40 pm – Paul makes phone call (47s) Loc: 354 E 84th St 

• 5:41 pm (FOURTEEN MINUTES LATER) Catherine calls Megan Wilkins More

• 5:42:14 pm (ONE MINUTE LATER) Paul calls Catherine (4s) Loc: 354 E 84th St 

• 5:42:29 pm (FIFTEEN SECONDS LATER) Paul calls Catherine (4s) Loc: 354 E 84th St 

• 5:45pm – 6pm Jesse Danzig & Amy Van Deusen hear attack More

While it is probable that in spite of their confidence in the time, since their description of the event closely matches that of another witness in the accepted time of the murder, they were still mistaken about the time, the evidence that suggests two separate attacks on Catherine occurred with a span of time between them can also be supported by these ear witness accounts, that the initial attack was the stabbing in one area of the room, and after some time passes, coinciding with the upcoming ear witness account of the attack, the fatal attack took place in the open area of the room where her body would ultimately come to rest. 

Police Report: Jesse Danzig & Amy Van Deusen “Apt 2H the tenants Mr. Jesse Danzig and Amy Van Deusen both stated that they were home since approx 1300 hrs and at approx 1745/1800 hrs they both heard a sound like a child screaming or having a tantrum. The sound was coming from the other side of their living room wall, which is the victim’s apt. Mr. Danzig put his TV on mute so he could hear better. The couple then heard movement as if someone was moving furniture or walking, and then heard the dogs barking. The couple also stated that they don’t usually hear anything through that wall. They also indicated that the sounds were brief they did not last long. The couple have been living at that location for over one year and they do not know the victim.” 

Police Report Re-Interview: Jesse Danzig & Amy Van Deusen “The u/s did inquire as to the time period of when the above persons did become aware of a disturbance that did occur in victims apt. The u/s was informed by the above persons that they believe that they are confident in the time period of what they stated from their initial interview with Det. Yovane 19pds and that time period being 1745hrs-1800hrs.” 

Police Canvass Report: Jesse Danzig & 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.” 

Jesse Danzig and Amy Ven Deusen were not called as witnesses. In fact, the above reference notes are the extent in which police investigators actually “investigated” or followed up with the ear witnesses to a homicide. 

• 5:45 pm – Paul makes phone call (32s) Loc: 354 E 84th St 

• 5:46 pm – Paul calls Catherine (10s) Loc: 354 E 84th St

• 5:47 pm – Paul calls Catherine (32s) Loc: 354 E 84th St

• 5:56pm – Paul calls Catherine (2s) Loc: 354 84th St

• 5:46 pm – Paul calls Catherine (10s) Loc: 354 E 84th St

• 6 pm (NINETEEN MINUTES LATER) Catherine and Megan end call 

• 6 pm – 6:30pm – David goes to Taco Today with black lab.  More

 Police Report: Zhao, Xiao Taco Today “On this date at 2200 hrs I responded to 1657 1st Ave in regards to purchase made by David Haughn. Det. Ryan informed me that David Haughn purchased himself a dinner at Taco Today. I spoke to Zhao, Xiao who is one of the workers. Mr Zhao states that he remembers a male white that comes in regularly with 2 dogs both dogs are small. Mr Zhao states that male was there around 1800-1830hrs and brought [sic] chicken and rice.

Mr Zhao states that can’t remember what he looked like or what he was wearing. I asked Mr Zhao if there was any CCTV at location. Mr Zhao states that there are no cameras at location. At 2245hrs I was summons back to location and spoke to Mr Zhao who stated that he remembered that a Doorman who works around the corner on E 87 St was there at the same time the other M/W was there. Mr Zhao states that male had a Black dog with a gray nose with him and that dog waited outside. Mr Zhao states that male ordered rice with steak in a small container and a root beer soda.” 

• 6:03 pm (THREE MINUTES LATER) Catherine’s voice mail called 

Note: Because there are no specific times provided, using police reports, witness statements and courtroom testimony as reference, the following account is placed in the only time slot available given known timeframes, and each act is given 3 to 5 minutes to play out in actual time. Events are placed in order of appearance according to various accounts. Probable time slots are shown in standard red font. 

The timeframe of the murder taking place during the window of Andrew Gold’s and Donna Propp’s phone call has been widely accepted by parties on both sides, with nothing in particular that would refute it. That timeframe is accepted in this timeline as the most resonable, probable time of the murder.

6:05 pm (two minutes later) – David milling about, Catherine getting ready for work  More

 David Haughn Statement “After I ate I had the TV playing and I think I was messing with the beat machine. Catherine was walking back and forth from the bedroom to the bathroom. She was only wearing panties as she walked back and forth. The outline on the panties was black and I think they had pink and red flowers on them. She was a real pretty girl.”  

6:08 pm (three minutes later) – David and Catherine have a moment   More


David Haughn Statement “At one point she was standing in front of the mirror and I said to her, “I wish we could freeze frame this.” I thought she was so beautiful that she looked like a picture. She thought, I think, that it was a cute thing to say.”  

6:10 pm (two minutes later) – David makes a move on Catherine  More

 David Haughn Statement “The next time that she went to walk out to go to the bathroom I met her by the door and we hugged and started kissing.” 

6:13 pm (three minutes later) – David and Catherine make out  More

 David Haughn Statement “As we moved back into the bedroom the hugging and kissing became more intimate. I picked her up and set her on the edge of the bed.” 

6:15 pm (two minutes later) – David and Catherine have sex  More

 David Haughn Statement “I pulled my penis out of my zipper. She pulled her panties to the side. She said “we have to hurry.” We start to have sex. It didn’t last over five minutes. Right before I finished I pulled out. I came in my hand. I leaned down and kissed her.”

Setting aside the fact that by her, his, and friends accounts they’d not slept together since October, and only again on the day she’s murdered as highly suspicious, the Medical Examiner’s Report lab results from Catherine’s autopsy showed negative results for saliva, semen, or skin cells in the vaginal, anal, and oral swabs. (pg3)

nosex

Further, Megan Wilkins stated to police on December 7, 2005 that Catherine shared with her that David had given her chlamydia and she’d gotten it cleared up several months prior and this was the reason she’d not had sex in awhile and didn’t want to have sex with anyone.

meganstd

 How likely is it that a woman who’s reluctant to have sex with anyone after contracting an STD is going to casually hook up with the same guy who gave it to her to begin with, even for 5 minutes? 

Megan Wilkins gave police this information before they went on to arrest Paul, and they did not appear to even question David’s version of events, or what the forensic lab reports did and did not show. 

As a relevant aside, with regard to motive for murder, it could reasonably be argued that given Catherine’s penchant for telling people what they want to hear in order to save face from time to time, that she lied about David giving her an STD, and instead she’d given David the STD and after a confrontation over it, it led to a retaliation that sped tragically out of control…

As another relevant aside, in the same report provided by Megan, she also gave police the information about the instructor named Paul at the dance studio who had assaulted her 4 months earlier and who’d been fired over the incident when Catherine reported him. She told them at least twice, in this report, and previously on December 2:

PD Report Megan Wilkins pt1

that she did NOT mean Paul Cortez, that this was a different Paul, but police ignored this information and did not investigate further. To date, not even the last name of this “angry Paul” has been determined.

• 6:18 pm (FIFTEEN MINUTES LATER) – Andrew Gold and Donna Propp begin phone call (landline)  More

 Police Report: Andrew Gold “Mr Gold informed me that on Sunday 11/27/05 at about 18:15 hrs. he was home at his apt at 355 E86th St. in apt 3D. He told me that he was on the telephone (land line) with his fiance Donna Propp.” [Note: both witnesses phone records confirm the call connected at 18:18hrs, 6:18pm] 

Andrew Gold Phone Records Donna Prop Phone Records

6:20 pm (two minutes later) – David and Catherine finish having sex  More

 David Haughn Statement ” Right before I finished I pulled out. I came in my hand. I leaned down and kissed her.”

6:22 pm (two minutes) – David cleans up post sex  More

 David Haughn Statement “I went to the bathroom and washed my hand off. The last time we had sex was on Halloween, I think. Normally I did not come inside her or on her. She didn’t like that. Sometimes we would use a condom but not always.”

In later statements, and court testimony, he flashed back and stated Catherine had still been getting ready for work. He does not mention that she also cleaned up after sex or that she went to the bathroom. Autopsy report noted 150cc urine present, which amounts to approximately half a cup. That’s quite a substantial amount that would trigger the urge to urinate, especially after sex but he makes no mention that she did anything to that effect. 

CWbladder

Furthermore, the crime scene photographs taken that evening of the bathroom show a flat iron in the sink, its cord draped over the front of the sink and dangling unplugged on the floor. He makes no mention of the flat iron, that he’d moved it, or if he’d left it there while washing his hands.

Crime Scene Bathroom 1 Crime Scene Bathroom Sink Crime Scene Bathroom Toilet Cover

Crime scene photos of the bedroom reveal that Catherine’s bed was a twin, and there were no items belonging to David in the bedroom to suggest he slept in the bed in the bedroom with the “girlfriend.” All of his things were concentrated in the living room.

twinbed Crime Scene Living Room Entry

The evidence shows that a sexual encounter between Catherine and David Haughn was unlikely. Instead, police decided to use the sexual encounter to paint David and Catherine as a happy little sexually active couple in love being harassed by Paul Cortez. They were not interested in finding out who killed Catherine Woods or why; they were only interested in making it look like Paul Cortez did it, regardless of the evidence pointing elsewhere.

 • 6:23 – 6:30 pm (FIVE MINUTES LATER) – Catherine is attacked  More

 Police Report: Andrew Gold “He told me that at about 1818 hrs, just a few minutes into the call he heard a loud scream followed by what he said sound like a struggle for about five (5) to seven minutes (7). He said he than [sic] heard another loud scream that seemed to be suddenly cut off and than [sic] a loud thump. He told me that he was sure of the time because he had to meet his parents at 1845 hrs. and that it was important that he was on time due to a bankruptcy hearing that he had on 11/28/05. He told me that his fiance had also heard the first scream through the phone and had asked him what it was. He told me that he also heard a dog barking after the scream and during the struggle but the barking than [sic] stopped. He also informed me that he continued his conversation with the fiance for about another ten minutes.” 

Police Canvass Report: Andrew Gold “At about 1829 or 1825 hrs he was on the phone with his girlfriend when he heard a female screaming. He then heard some scuffling and a small dog bark. There was another short female scream then more scuffling as if someone was trying to move around something. There was walking then a very loud thud.”

Police Report: Donna Propp “Ms. Propp told me that she called Mr Gold at about 1815 hrs from her home phone to his home phone. She said that after about five (5) to (10) minutes into the conversation she stated that she heard a loud scream through the phone. She said it was the sound of a females voice that sounded like a “startled horrifying Scream”. She said that she asked Mr Gold what that was and he told her that he heard noises and a dog barking. She said that when Mr Gold told her the dog had stopped barking so they thought everything was okay. She said that they talked for about ten (10) more minutes before saying goodbye.” 

6:24 pm (1minute later) – David discusses gettng car with Catherine  More

 David Haughn Statement “I came out of the bathroom and she was still getting ready to go to work. I asked her “When should we go get the car.” She said we should leave in the next ten minutes. I say I’ll go get the car while you’re still getting ready. She doesn’t like to be late for work. She says “Okay that’s fine.”

6:25 pm (1 minute later) – David leaves apartment  More

 David Haughn Statement “I put on my coat, I grab my keys and my phone and I go to get the car. I left the apartment, I didn’t lock the door to the apt. Sometimes we didn’t lock it when one of us was there. I went outside and I walked towards Second Ave. I cut through the parking garage thats closer to Second Ave.”

• 6:25pm – David on cctv video leaving building  More

Det Goetz Homicide outline references the video capture of David exiting the building at 6:25pm. (pg3) and again reference 6:25pm as the time David goes to get the car and stops in at the jobsite. (pg4). But on page 14 of Goetz’s case outline, he has changed the time to 6:40 that David leaves (which is even worse for David), and the reference to the 6:25 video and time of David’s departure has been omitted entirely from the timeline.

This is also the “updated” timeline for December 1, three days later. There is no mention of any reference or an explanation provided for why Goetz changed the timeframe, why he is no longer accounting for the video that showed David leaving the building, and no further report to justify it other than the reality his focus had turned exclusively to Paul Cortez.

There are two frames taken from the same video camera that picked up David and Catherine earlier this afternoon. One is timestamped 6:34pm and the other 6:57pm. Neither show David nor Paul. That the police had this video but did not turn it over to Paul’s attorneys is criminal. That they have two frames from a video means there is more footage. If David is actually seen leaving 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 that he ever left the apartment that evening, which would give him 45 minutes without an alibi.

He has also added 2 more phone calls David made to Catherine (according to David’s police statements) but his phone records show one call at 6:47pm followed by the 911 call at 6:56pm, Goetz shows the call at 6:59, which, according to David’s cell records is when the call ended. 

6:28 pm (three minutes later) – David goes to jobsite More

 David Haughn Statement “Before I went to my car I went to my work to get my CD case that I had left by the desk downstairs. One of my co workers was there, a guy named “Ali”.  I was getting my CDs and my boss, Joe Tabone, was already by the desk with Ali.” 

dhwork

Abdhul Khalik Testimony

MR. CASOLARO: Thank you. Q Now, sir, were you working Sunday, November 27th, 2005?
A Yes.
Q And what hours were you working that day?
A Three to eleven, the afternoon shift.
Q Now, sometime before your shift was over, did you see Mr. Haughn that day?
A Yes, I did. I did see him.
Q About what time did you see him?
A I will say like after six, like a 6:30 to 6:20 or, like, it’s got to be after six o’clock.
Q We’re talking p.m. or a.m.?
A P.m.
Q And how do you fix the time 6:20 to 6:30?
A I have a watch over there, but I’m not like a sure. The last time I saw the watch, it was like six, like 6:15, so I’ll say it’s 6:30. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. MIRANDA:
Q Good afternoon, Mr. Khalik.
A Good afternoon.
Q You were interviewed by the police on November 27th, 2005, correct?
A Twenty-Seventh, that’s like that day happened or –
Q Yes, that same day.
A Yes.
Q And it was later that evening after you had seen David, correct?
A That’s correct.
Q And what time were you interviewed by the police that evening?
A I’ll say like 6:30. After 6:30, they would come and keep coming and I don’t know why they were coming. They were keep asking about David and –
Q When you say after 6:30, was it at 6:45 that the police came to interview you; is that fair to say?
A Yeah. I would say 6:45.
Q And when the police came, David had already left; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And what was David wearing that day when he came to the garage?
A He was wearing like a jeans pants and sweatshirt. I would say like a hood shirt. 

Joseph Tabone Testimony
Q So, you went to the lobby about 6:15?
A Yeah.
Q Now, did you see anyone in the lobby when you got there?
A When I got there, there was only Ali. And I was leaving again. And then I see — turn back and I see David coming down the stairs. Normal.
Q About what time is that, do you think?
A About 6:15. Around that time.
(snip)
Q How long did this conversation last between him and you?
A Probably about fifteen minutes. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. MIRANDA:
Q Good afternoon, Mr. Tabone.
A Good afternoon.
Q Didn’t you tell the police that about 6:30 you were at the front desk with Mr. Ali Khalik, discussing vacation for the holidays?
A Yeah.
Q And at this time Mr. David Haughn came in to pick up his DJ equalizer?
A Yeah. It’s around the time. Between 6:15, 6:30, in that ballpark.
Q Could it have been between 6:30 and 6:40?
A No.
(snip) Q And shortly after David left, did the police come to interview you?
A Yeah. I — the doorman called me. He told me there are police around here, and I came out again.
Q And was that approximately, what, fifteen minutes later?
A Yeah. Probably, it was about six — not 6:45. Maybe around seven. And they didn’t want to tell me what was going on, so.

(snip) RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. MIRANDA:
Q Didn’t you tell the police officers that when you were speaking to Mr. Ali Khalik, that you had — I’m sorry — at about 6:30, you were at the front desk with Mr. Ali Khalik?
A Yes.
Q And that after that was when David Haughn came in to pick up his equipment.
A Yeah. That’s when David came, between 6:15 and 6:30.
Q That’s not my question. My question is, didn’t you tell the police that it was when you were speaking to Mr. Ali Khalik?
A Yes.
Q At 6:30; and that David came at that point?
A That’s when he came, yeah, when I was in the lobby speaking to Ali. I was heading back. I turned back. I see David coming. There was a note that he wanted to talk to me or one of the doormen told me that he wanted to talk to me. And I went back out. In the lobby, you know. Not on the corner.
Q And you distinctly remember the first time the cops came that night; right?
A Distinctly remember. They came about maybe fifteen, half an hour later. The doorman called me up. I went — you know, I went to see why they were there. They didn’t want to give me any information.
Q Well, it made an impression on you because you were the super of the building; right?
A Yeah. I thought something happened around the building that I don’t know of. And I’m supposed to know anything that goes in there.
Q Thank you.
THE COURT: I see.
MR. CASOLARO: Thank you.
THE COURT: May I excuse the witness?
MR. CASOLARO: Yes, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: Good. 

Both co workers have David there while David has himself in the apartment having sex with Catherine. When asked by both Prosecution and Defense if they were certain that on Nov 27, 2005 the police had shown up roughly 15 minutes after David left, they both said they were. Ali describes that David was wearing a hooded sweat shirt and jeans which is clearly not what he was wearing at 4:59 caught on CCTV out front (white tshirt), nor is it the same thing he is wearing at the police station. According to David, he changed out of his uniform (1), then he later changed into the clothing he was wearing at the station, specifically described as jeans, black Addidas, and a black tshirt over a white tshirt. 

David called 911 at 6:56. Police hadn’t even shown up until the 7pm hour and David was taken down to the station by 8:45pm. He remained there being interviewed for hours. The co workers’ timeline must be discarded since we know that the police were not there until much, much later, if not the following day, which seems more in line with both their statements. Because they both corroborated one another that David was there and the police arrived 15 minutes after David had gone, it appears that his co workers could’ve gotten their days mixed up.  Because of it, and the fact that were it true it would mean David lied yet again and changed clothes twice, David Haughn has no solid, confirmed alibi. He cannot prove that he was where the claimed to be.  

• 6 pm – (6:30pm) – Brad Stewart leaves to walk his dogs  More

 Police Report: Brad Stewart “On 11/27/05 the u/s spoke to Mr. Brad Stewart who lives in apt 2J was home since approx 1100 hrs and he did not hear anything. At approx 1800 hrs Brad went out to walk his dog, as he was outside in the vestibule area he saw a dog there that was not on a leash, the dog by its self shaking, Brad leashed the dog and took it into the building, Brad knew that the dog belonged to the male that lives in apt 2D. The dog appeared to be frightened and did not want to go back into the building. Brad went into the building with the dog and knocked on apt 2D but there was no answer so he went to his apt and told his girlfriend.”  

Police Report Re-Interview Brad Stewart “…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.”

Both Brad Stewart and his girlfriend Julia Jeon provide the general “6-6:30″ window, but using the last encounter between Brad and David to correspond with David’s account of encountering Brad and the events leading to the 911 call in the immediate window, the time that Brad leaves to walk the dogs, finds the lab loose downstairs at the gate (inside), going to collect the dog and his first attempt to try apartment 2D (assuming David’s version of events is true) must have been after 6:25pm and before 6:45pm, which is reasonable given the description of events and why he got no response when he knocked.

6:32 pm (four minutes later) – David at jobsite talking with co workers  More

 David Haughn Statement “A conversation started about scheduling for the holidays. There was some conflict because a few people wanted Christmas off including me. I told Ali that when I got back me and him could work it out. I would say I was there five minutes at the most.”

• 6:33 pm (THREE MINUTES LATER) – Paul calls Catherine (1s) Loc: 354 E 84th St 

6:33 pm (one minute later) – David leaves jobsite, goes to car  More

 David Haughn Statement “I went to my car, unlocked it. I attached the steering wheel, started the car. I let it run for a few minutes, I put the radio in the dash, started looking for a CD to play but I couldn’t find it. It was a burnt CD of “Ludicris”.”

• 6:34 pm (ONE MINUTE LATER) – These people walked in front of the apartment building

6:34pm

6:38 pm (five minutes later) – David preparing to leave jobsite, looks for music  More

 David Haughn Statement “I put in a Beastie Boys CD, someone pulled up and asked if I was moving and could they have the spot? I said “yeah” and pulled out. I didn’t know the person, and I don’t remember what kind of car it was.” 

• 6:40 pm (SEVEN MINUTES LATER) – Andrew Gold and Donna Propp end call  More

Andrew Gold Phone Records

6:42 pm (two minutes later) – David leaves from picking up car More

 David Haughn Statement “I drive to Second Ave, I turn left. Left again on 86 St. I took out my phone and called her (Catherine’s) cell phone. I didn’t get no answer. I let it ring a bunch of times.”

•6:43 pm – 6:45 pm (FIVE MINUTES LATER) – Andrew Gold investigates, leaves for appointment  More

 Police Report: Andrew Gold “He said after he hung up he went out to the hallway and yelled out asking if everyone was okay. He said he looked out the hallway window onto E86 st. and saw no Police so he thought everything was okay. He said he also looked down the stair way and saw or heard noone. He said he then went into his apt and got his keys and coat and left taking the elevator down and left the bldg. He told me that he was very aware of the time because he was looking at his cable box in his living room to keep track of the time so he would not be late in meeting his parents.” 

6:45 pm – David parks the car out front  More

 David Haughn Statement “I didn’t see no where to park so I made a U-turn and parked by the fire hydrant.”

• 6:46 pm – Paul calls voicemail (42s) Loc: 1843 1st Ave/339 E 95th St  More

 

Map Paul A

The State, using the marker colored phone record with numbers blacked out, shows this call to voicemail with no location provided. Paul Cell Records A

In other phone records for Paul, both the number and the cell tower location are provided:

Paul Phone Records Ex8

and shows the cell tower information for the number dialed is the same for the call that is shown at 6:50pm, fielded from the tower on 95th St. That’s a difference, then, of 4 minutes, and shows Paul’s general location was nowhere near Catherine’s apartment by 6:46pm.  The conservative walk time between the two towers is 13 minutes. That means for Paul to have made it to an area where the 95th St tower picked up the 6:46pm phone call, he would’ve had to leave precisely at 6:33pm. If the attack began at 6:23pm and lasted 5-7 minutes, but also providing David’s version of events is true, it would mean Paul was inside the apartment while David and Catherine were having sex because none of this happens instantaneously.

The crime scene shows evidence of two attacks with a span of time between them, and staging with the boot prints, and a requirement to clean up of any visible, loose blood before exiting. When we add this to the equation, and account for this time to carry out, then it means Paul would’ve had to leave the apartment before the attack began in order to be near 95th st to make the 6:46pm call. The 6:50pm call is only 4 minutes later, and proves beyond any shadow of doubt that Paul was over in the area of 95thSt as of 6:46pm, and could not have been Catherine’s killer. 

No matter how insistent the State may be that Paul committed this crime, Paul Cortez is still not a ninja and he would’ve had very real obstacles to overcome, namely the locking front gate that even David, himself, acknowledges needed a key to let himself in to go back upstairs and see what was keeping Catherine. The state concealed this specific record showing the tower and blotted it out so the jurors would not connect the dots or do the math. They used a marked up document provided by investigators or legal staff and not the actual documents supplied by cell phone companies that gave the full details of location information and accurate times, and withheld this information from jurors.

• 6:47 – 6:48 pm (TWO MINUTES LATER) – David calls Catherine cell 88 Loc 401 E 86 St   More

 David Haughn Statement “Once the car was stopped I called her again and again there was no answer.” 

• 6:49 pm (ONE MINUTE LATER) – David goes to gate to buzz in  More

 David Haughn Statement “I got out of the car and left it running. I went up to the gate and buzzed two or three times and got no answer. I waited a little bit and then buzzed two or three more times. Still no answer so I go back to turn my car off so that I can go see where she is.”

• 6:50 pm – Paul makes phone call (44s) Loc: 1843 1st Ave/339 E 95th St

• 6:51 pm – Paul makes phone call (44s) Loc: 1843 1st Ave/339 E 95th St

• 6:52 pm (TWO MINUTES LATER) – David encounters Brad Stewart with lab  More

 David Haughn Statement “When I get to the gate I meet one of my neighbors at the gate. Before I even put the key in. He lives on my floor, I don’t know his name, he lives at the very end of the hallway to the right, if you’re facing my door. It’s all the way down to the left and it’s the corner door. He tells me “Your dog was out.” I say “what dog?”. He tells me “the black Lab.” He said the dog was running on First Ave and he caught the dog and brought it back. He was coming in with his two Huskies when I met him. We go in the building together.”

Police Report: Brad Stewart “Brad then went back to Apt 2D and knocked again at which time a male entered the hall, Brad asked the male if the dog was his. The male stated that he has been trying to buz his Apt so his girlfriend would let him in. He also stated that his brother was watching the dog and he did not understand why the dog was outside. The male also stated to Brad that he went to get the car and that he was gone for twenty minutes.”

Police Report Re-Interview Brad Stewart “…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.”

• 6:53 pm (ONE MINUTE LATER) – David takes lab, returns to apartment  More

 David Haughn Statement “We go in the building together. When we get to the second floor I see the Lab on the second floor and I thank him for getting the dog. The apartment door was closed but unlocked. I went into the apartment. The dog went in front of me. I could see my Chihuahua on the futon. I see the bed from the bedroom pushed up against the walkway. I seen blood on the sheets on the bed, blood on the walls, and a lot of blood on the floor. Then I see Catherine on the floor so I start calling to her.” 

Police Report: Julia Jeon “Ms Jeon stated that on 11/27/05 between the hours of 1800-1830 her boyfriend Brad had come home complaining of David’s dog that was running around the building and he had confronted him saying why did you let your dog out. David had said my brother was supposed to be watching him. She states David then walked towards his apt as her boyfriend left her apt to walk their dogs.” 

• 6:56pm – 6:59 pm (NINE MINUTES LATER) – David calls 911 cell 88 Loc 401 E 86 St  More

 David Haughn Statement “I’m calling “Baby, Baby, wake up” repeatedly. I’m calling to her loud enough to try and wake her up. I’m asking if she’s okay. At the same time I get my cell phone up and I call 911. The operator picked up real quick. I say that I see my girlfriend on the floor. I tell them that I don’t think that she’s alive, that there’s a lot of blood. I guess they took down the address, I remember giving them the address. I’m standing there looking down at her and the 911 operator asked me if I knew CPR and if she was breathing. I said I don’t think she’s breathing and that I didn’t know CPR. The operator says stay on the phone with me. I was afraid to touch her but I pulled on her sweater.  

She was face down so I pulled on the back of her sweater to see if she would react. I didn’t get no kind of reaction from her. I climbed over the bed. I wanted to go and get the neighbor because I didn’t want to be by myself. I noticed once I climbed over the bed, I turned around and saw a boot print with blood on the sheet that was on the bed. The boot print looked like it was exiting the bedroom. I tell the 911 operator about the print. I think that was pretty much the end of the call.”   

David’s 911 call 

• 7 pm (FOUR MINUTES LATER) – David goes to apartment of Brad Stewart and Julia Jeon  More

 David Haughn Statement “I went down the hall to get the neighbor. The same one that rescued the dog. He’s the one I felt comfortable with. Luckily I picked the right door. His wife or girlfriend answered the door. I told her “Something happened at my apartment, I think my girlfriend is dead.” I think she said “Oh my god!”, she walked back to the apartment with me.”

Police Report: Julia Jeon “Ms Jeon stated approx 5 minutes later David came back to her apt knocking, he stated to her, she’s not breathing, there’s blood everywhere. Ms Jeon said who the dog, he said no can you come with me. Ms Jeon asked David if he called the police and he said yes.”

• 7:03 pm (THREE MINUTES LATER) – David and Julia Jeon go to Catherine’s and his apartment  More

 David Haughn Statement “As we got to the door the Lab got out, I chased after the dog. The dog looked like it was afraid, like it literally did not want to be in that apt. It was trying to get down the stairs. I went after the dog and caught up with it by the second set of doors. I heard the police radios and I realized that the police and paramedics were there. I opened the gate for them.”

Police Report: Julia Jeon “Ms Jeon went with David to his apt and she opened the door by turning the knob and pushed the door with her left arm. Ms Delon [sic] stated as she walked into the victim’s apt she saw that the TV was on and when she looked towards her right she could see blood all over, she noticed that bed was turned. Ms Delon [sic] states she immediately exited the apt and did not see the victim. She states David said did you see the boot print on the bed. She did not. Ms Delon states at that point the police and the ambulance had came and started to talk with her boyfriend Brad. Ms Delon [sic] believed that David had been wearing a black heavy cloth style jacket and she did not re-call seeing any blood on him.” 

• 7:06 pm (TEN MINUTES LATER) – First responders & EMS arrive on scene  More

 David Haughn Statement “I went upstairs with the police. I gave the Lab to the neighbor and went into the apartment with the police and paramedics. They were checking it out and then they started taking my information. I gave the[sic] Catherines information as best I could. I met one of the detectives, a slim guy with a blue shirt. 

Police Report: EMS First Responders “Mohammed #7138 received a call of cardiac arrest at location. partner was female-Salazar #7838. There was a dual responsive along with 10Victor: LAU#7140 and Guzman #6649. At the scene they were met by NYPD Police Officer Sheedy #12801 of the 19th precinct. Mohammed stated that they were also met by a male caller who was waiting at the gated entrance of building. The male caller (Male/White) stated there was blood everywhere. Mohammed and his partner took the elevator up to the 2nd floor. The other two responders in 10Victor along with Police Officer Sheedy walked up with the male caller. Upon entering, Mohammed observed blood on the rear wall of bedroom, and the bed from room across the entrance of the bedroom. The bedroom appeared to be in disarray.

The victim was found lying on her right side, with face to floor in a pool of blood. Victim was unresponsive and warm to the touch. Mohammed observed a laceration to the victims left arm. Mohammed also observed bloody footprints on bed and floor. Note: Mohammed was wearing a size 9 wide “Rocky” shoe. DOA was pronounced 1910hrs. Salazar concurs with Mohammed, adding that a blue laundry bag was moved from the door of bedroom and the bed was lifted up against the wall to get to the victim. Salazar was wearing a size 7 wide Magnum boot. Lau #7140 assigned to 10Victor along with Guzman #6649. Lau stated that they were met by the male caller at the gate.

The male stated “She’s all cut up”. Male stated that he had left to go out, he was gone about 20 minutes and returned to find blood everywhere. The male added “she had a problem with some guy.” Lau observed the victim lying in a pool of blood on her right side, right arm underneath her. Lau assisted in lifting the bed up from the floor, leaning it on wall, away from fvictim. Lau was wearing size 6.5 Sketcher shoe. Guzman #6649 concurs with Lau adding that he himself turned the body, which was face down, onto its back, observing the laceration to neck (throat). Guzman was wearing a size 7.5 wide Bates.” 

Police Report: EMS First Responders “On 11/27/05 at approx 1920 hrs the u/s was present at 355 E 86st. and spoke to Police Officers Sheedy #12801 and Guiheen #12726 who received a job 10/54 unconscious. When the officers arrived they observed a female in apt 2D lying face down on right side (on her right side) in the bedroom. The bed was in front of the entrance to the bedroom. EMS had to move the bed out of the way to get to the DOA. EMS turned the body to the lying face up position and then pronounced the body. The DOA’s boyfriend was present at this time. The apt door was closed but not locked when the police arrived.”

Police Report: Det. Steven Goetz “In the 2nd floor hallway at the location also was a male white identified as David Haughn who said he was the boyfriend of the victim. I asked David Haughn what happened when he arrived at apartment 2D and he stated the following. “I don’t know what happened, I left to get the car, I was suppose to drive my girlfriend to work and when I got in front of the apartment building I called her and she didn’t answer her phone. When she didn’t answer I got worried, I knew something was wrong. There is this guy who is stalking her, I knew something was going to happen.” I immediately asked Detective Larick to transport David Haughn to the 19th Pct.” 

Police Report: Steven Goetz re Dan Olin/Russell Paisley “On this date (11/27/05) at approx 1935 hours I received two separate phone calls from Dan Olin and Russell Paisley. Dan Olin called and asked if there was a David Hogan at the 19th Precinct and if he was being charged with a crime. I stated to Mr. Olin that David Hogan was at the 19th PDS and was not being charged with a crime. Mr. Olin did not ask anymore questions and hung up the phone.

Russell Paisley called and stated that he did not know what is going on was contacted by friends of David Haughn and that David Haughn’s family wants Mr. Paisley to represent David Haughn. After receiving the phone calls I asked David Haughn if he knew whether or not his family contacted a lawyer on his behalf. David Haughn stated that he did not know whether or not his family contacted a lawyer, asked David Haughn if he wished to continue speaking to me and other Detectives of the 19th PDS. David Haughn stated that he wanted to continue speaking to the Police.” 

Court Transcript Excerpt: Police Officer Sheedy
Q. When you arrived there, was the gate opened or closed?
A. It was locked.
Q. Okay. Did you meet anyone at that gate?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you know the name of the person you met?
A. Upon investigation, yes.
Q. Okay. What was the name of the person you met?
A. David Haughn.
(snip)
A. We were trying to gain access into the apartment building which is by a keypad. It was myself and the EMTs. David Haughn approached us stating that he had called the police for his girlfriend. He had stated that he — he didn’t think she was alive, that she was dead and he didn’t know what had happened so he opened the door for us.
Q He opened the door or the gate?
A. He opened the gate and then allowed us into the apartment building.
Q. Once you get past the gate, where do you go?
A. Up to his — up to the apartment that the two of them had shared.

• 7:10 pm (FOUR MINUTES LATER) – Catherine pronounced dead at scene 

• 7:16 pm – Paul makes phone call (8m 11s) Loc: 1774 Lexington Ave

• 7:55 pm – Paul makes phone call (2s) 179 E 105th St (home area)

David Haughn Statement “They took me outside and two women police officers took me to the stationhouse. While I was on the way to the station I tried to call Catherines parents twice but got no answer. Before I began to tell the detectives this story tonight at 10:00pm they talked to me about a lawyer calling. Earlier they said a lawyer called but I said I didn’t need one because I knew I didn’t do anything wrong. When they said that the lawyer called again I told them I would answer questions because I had nothing to hide and wanted to help any way I could.” 

• 8:41pm David calls voicemail – (tower 13: 201 E 69th St)
• 8:42pm David calls voicemail – (tower 13: 201 E 69th St)
• 8:42pm David calls voicemail – (tower 13: 201 E 69th St)
• 8:43pm David calls voicemail – (tower 13: 201 E 69th St)

 There are no calls to Catherine’s parents. 

David also only makes one call to Catherine’s phone. Not three.

David Haughn Phone Records Ex1