Paul Zumot was found guilty for the murder of his girlfriend Jennifer Schipsi. There was no smoking gun, no physical evidence, no confession, no videotape proving his guilt.

There were videotapes showing he had an alibi at the time of the murder and arson, he was miles away from the crimescene. But of course the prosecution could not use that to convict him.
A restraining order against two men just a week before her murder, because Jennifer feared for her and Paul's life. But of course the prosecution could not use that to convict him.
Although there was a taped phonecall of Jennifer complaining about Paul, there was also a tape of Jennifer talking about how she was sexually abused by her own father. Maybe that's why Paul called Jim Schipsi a monster at his sentencing trial?  But of course the prosecution could not use that to convict him.

What remained was circumstancial evidence. So called heated text messages exchanged between Paul and Jennifer was supposed to show Paul was emotionally and physical abusive towards Jennifer. I say so called, because Jennifer was the one ranting on and on and Paul was just trying to calm her down. But even if he did,  who hasn't sent an angry text message to a girlfriend before? Better think again. A few heated text messages could get you convicted.

​

On October 29 Paul Zumot was sentenced to 25 years to life for the murder of Jennifer Schipsi and an additional 8 years for arson. He didn't receive life without parole, but still it is 33 years too long because he did not do the crime. At his sentencing Paul spoke out.

To the judge: " You are corrupt. You always sided with the DA and you abused your power."
To Sunseri: "Shame on you. How do you sleep at night? You know you framed me. I am an innocent man!"
To Maloney: "You all are liars, corrupt. I am innocent. I did not commit any crime. The truth will come out and I will be free."

Of course prosecutor Chuck Gillingham twisted Paul's outburst to his own advantage:

"That was a unique experience, but I'm not altogether surprised that he would react that way. That was all gamesmanship-to have him be in charge. But he didn't have the control, the judge did."



Paul's outburst was what it was; An innocent man crying out for justice.
Justice hasn't been served. The fight continues.

www.paulzumot.com

I am innocent!

The fight continues

 

Paul Zumot is trying to get accustomed to prison life. For now that is, because Paul is not giving up the fight. His attorneys filed his appeal and the hope of him getting out grows stronger. With the prosecution’s case based on nothing, the only outcome can and will be that he will soon walk out of prison.

The content of his appeal is quite clear and while reading it, I cannot believe Paul is in prison at all.
At the time of his trial there was no evidence, no DNA, no motive linking Paul to the murder. Paul even had an alibi. So the prosecution played the only card they had; they based their entire case on domestic violence. Jennifer was known to file false reports. She was known to use abusive language towards Paul Zumot, just to get his attention. She had claimed before that Paul threatened to kill her and would then burn their house. But she later stated to the police that it wasn’t Paul calling her with these threats, because she didn’t recognize the voice on the phone and the call was made from a restricted number Paul did not have. But of course the prosecutor did not mention this during trial. He stated that if the jury believed the domestic violence, they could therefore also assume he killed his girlfriend. The court later instructed the same to the jury.

 

The prosecution had built their entire case on hearsay, nothing more. The defense could not question Jennifer about the accusations she made, so therefore it was also ungrounded that the prosecution used these accusations as evidence. There was no evidence of domestic violence; it was all based on hearsay. And to allow the prosecution to state that if the jury believed domestic violence, they could also assume Paul had killed Jennifer is a complete outrage. It is appalling that the court would instruct the jury to find Paul guilty of first degree murder if they believed there was any domestic violence while Jennifer was alive. And there was no actual evidence of domestic violence, but the jury only had to believe and not considered it proven.  It is like finding someone guilty of armed bank robbery if the jury believed he stole a candy bar in the supermarket.


Jennifer was strangled to death. Police stated she was found on her bed in a position that would imply a struggle before she had fallen back. The murderer would have had scratches and cuts on him, because Jennifer had tried to defend herself and put up quite a struggle. Paul had none on his body.
Paul had an alibi during the time of the arson. It would be impossible for him to be at two places at the same time. The police tried to find evidence of Paul buying gasoline that was used in the arson. They never found it.
The prosecution stated that Paul killed Jennifer at the beginning of the afternoon, when he returned home. They could not state anything else, because Paul had an airtight alibi.

Thinking rationally about it, if Paul actually had murdered Jennifer, why would he first murder Jennifer, then leave the house to return again in the evening to set the house on fire? Why would he risk being seen? If he would do that cover up his tracks, what would he be afraid of; his fingerprints, his DNA? He lived there, so his fingerprints and DNA were supposed to be there. He would not gain anything by setting the house on fire, it could have only hurt him more if he was seen. There was a witness that all of a sudden seemed to recall seeing Paul fleeing the scene in his car. He drove away with high speed, but she was able to see it was Paul in his black SUV. Unfortunately for her, Paul’s black SUV was at the garage that day, so he was driving a silver SUV that day instead.  It really doesn’t make any sense to me he would murder her early in the day, to leave her body for hours and risking she would be found in the meanwhile and then return in the evening to set fire to the house and then hurry back again to work. Besides the fact it is impossible according to the timeframe for him to do this, it just doesn’t make any sense. It is not logical at all. What does make sense to me is that someone else murdered Jennifer in the early evening and right after that set the house on fire to make sure any evidence against the murderer would disappear in the fire. Jennifer had made quite some enemies in her life. If you would put all these people together, Paul would be the least likely suspect. But the police only considered one person to be a suspect and concluded just hours after the discovery of Jennifer’s body that Paul was the murderer. They didn’t gather evidence and then came to their conclusion. They first came to their conclusion and then tried to gather evidence. The coroner wasn’t called for 18 hours after the body was discovered. The coroner testified that this may have impacted his ability to determine the time of death. He could only determine that she died before the arson at the beginning of the evening.  How convenient. Because the police failed to do their job, didn’t go after other persons of interest, didn’t go after other leads, the prosecution tried to build a case against Paul based on circumstantial evidence and hearsay. But honestly there was and is no case at all.

The United States is supposed to be the land of opportunities. When Paul came to the States from Jordan, he worked hard to achieve his goals, he had built his own business, he was in love with Jennifer and planned on proposing to her. He was happy with his life and was looking forward to a future together with his soon to be wife. But because the police was too lazy, didn’t feel like doing their job, because the prosecutor wanted to give his career a boost and didn’t want to admit there was no case against Paul at all, they decided to ruin a life to gain from it themselves.  The United States is the land of opportunities all right; for the people pulling all the strings.

Will you take 5 minutes to save a life?​

​​Everyone deserves a fair trial. In a perfect world we don't make mistakes. In the trial of Paul Zumot many mistakes were made. Even worse, they were made on purpose. The prosecution wanted a conviction at any cost, so held back important evidence proving Paul's innocence.They succeeded. Despite the overwhelming evidence Paul is innocent, he was found guilty and is now awaiting his sentencing trial. He could face life without parole. If we stand by and do nothing, Paul could end up behind bars for the rest of his  life. If you could take 5 minutes of your time and copy this letter and send it to the below addresses, you could ensure a new trial for Paul and save his life.

We refuse to give up hope. So we hope you will give us 5 minutes, just 5 minutes to save a life. Will you?



Letter

On October 15th 2009 Jennifer Schipsi was murdered and her body was set on fire in the cottage she shared with her boyfriend Paul Zumot.
Paul Zumot was found guilty of her murder. His sentencing trial will take place on his birthday; October 14th 2011. He could face a life sentence.

 

We would like to ask your attention for the following facts that havent been properly presented during his trial:

 

At the morning of Jennifer's murder, Paul left the cottage and didn't return until he received the news the cottage was on fire. A witness confirmed hearing her voice right before Paul left. He could prove his whereabouts by surveillance cameras and witnesses during that day. Therefore Paul Zumot had an alibi he couldn't have murdered Jennifer.

The prosecution stated that Paul didn't cooperate during interrogations, but at the same time refused to show the jury the tapes of the interrogations. After Paul was found guilty, the tapes were released and show that Paul was very cooperative. The tapes also show how Paul fell down crying uncontrollably, when he heard Jennifer was murdered.

When the cottage caught fire, Paul was in the shop he owned, 1,5 miles away from the crime scene. There were 2 witnesses confirming this. With 16 traffic lights and stop signs it took Paul 20 minutes to get to the cottage, when he received the news his house was on fire. The prosecution claims it took him 2 minutes to drive from the cottage to his shop.



Jennifer had made quite some enemies during the years. She got a restraining order against 2 men a week before her death, because she was afraid for her and Paul's life.

The police and prosecution never fully investigated other possible suspects.

Paul didn't have a motive. He was planning on proposing to Jennifer and wanted to build a future with her. It isn't in his character to murder anyone, let alone to murder the woman he loved.

The prosecution withheld important evidence that would jeopardize a conviction.

Most importantly; there is no physical evidence at all to link Paul to the murder. There were no witnesses seeing Paul at the scene of the crime during the murder or the fire.

The prosecution based their entire case on hearsay. With an alibi, no physical evidence and no witnesses seeing him at the crime scene, Paul Zumot should have been found innocent. The prosecution's job was to prove his guilt without any reasonable doubt. By not allowing all of the evidence to be shown during the trial, the jury made a decision based on what the prosecution wanted them to see. If the jury would have seen all the evidence, there would be more than reasonable doubt and Paul would have been released.

Based upon the above and more facts not even mentioned in this letter, we find that Paul Zumot deserves a fair trial. Therefore we urge you to review Paul's case again and give him a new trial.



People to contact:

Head of wrongful convictions department : dangel@da.sccgov.org
District Attorney: jrosen@da.sccgov.org
mgreenwo@pdo.sccgov.org
the Governor: http://gov.ca.gov/m_contact.php
Honorable Judge David Cena: sscriminfo@scscourt.org



Jeffrey F. Rosen
District Attorney
70 W. Hedding Street, West Wing
San Jose CA 95110
Phone: (408) 299-3099
Fax: (408) 286-5437



Jay Boyarsky
Chief Assistant District Attorney
Phone: (408) 299-3099



TOP RANKING ASSISTANTS
David Angel
Special Assistant District Attorney
Phone: (408) 792-2857