She Wanted To Be A Dancer. She Became A Murder Victim.

I just finished another really awesome true crime book by Paul LaRosa entitled Death of a Dream, which he co-wrote with Erin Moriarty.

In Death of a Dream, readers are invited into the secret life of Catherine Woods, a Ohio native who traveled to the big city of New York to seek out her fame and fortune as a dancer.

Unfortunately, those dreams would be cut short when young Catherine would die at the hands of a vicious murderer at the tender age of twenty-one; leaving friends and family to wonder who and why.

LaRosa and Moriarty provides readers with an step by step of how the crime (theoretically) occurred; a method that sucks readers in immediately, making it difficult not to turn the pages in anticipation of the next step.

Soon afterwards, readers meet the two of the many men in Catherine's life: David Haughn and Paul Cortez, both who quickly come under suspicion for Catherine's murder.

Yet, in the end, only one is arrested, tried and convicted: Paul Cortez.

The question is why was Paul Cortez "the choosen one"? David Haughn depended on Catherine for shelter, food and financial support despite the fact that she had recently told him to move out and their relationship was, at best, a one sided roommate situation. Paul, on the other hand, is articulate, educated, and extremely mild mannered - and claims that he and Catherine had a romantic relationship, despite recents lovers' spats.

In my opinion (isn't that what you're here for anyway!) is that Paul Cortez, for all of his charisma, did commit the brutal murder that took Catherine's life. I believe that the Police's theory that he killed her is dead on target. However, if I had been a member of that jury, I do not believe, based on the information provided to me in Death of a Dream, that I could have voted to convict Cortez. Why?

WARNING - WARNING: SPOILERS MAY BE REVEALED IN THE FOLLOWING TEXT

The hairs found in Catherine's hand following her murder were never tested for DNA. Even if the roots were not attached, a pretty in-depth profile could still have been developed that would have provided vital clues to the identity of the murderer. The fact that they were not would have been enough to leave reasonable doubt for me, and I would have resulted in a hung jury.

That testing was not done points to sloppy, disorganized, and narrowmindedness on part of the NYPD. They focused on two guys, Paul and David, and completely disregarded the possibility of anyone else. I cannot and would not send a man to prison when there is a large, looming unanswered question such as this one. I'm a strong believer in the old saying, "It's better to set ten guilty men free than to convict one innocent man."

As I said, however, while I may not have convicted based on the evidence, I do believe they got the right man. Paul Cortez is a manipulator, obsessive, and unaccustomed to people not "taking a shine" to him.

This time, the wolf in sheep's clothing was exposed.

For more on this case (including other viewpoints), visit the following sites:

• Excerpts from Paul Cortez's journals

• Gothamist

• Spartacus

• Freepaulcortez.org