And the truth shall set you 
On February 10th 2011, Bulos Zumot was convicted of a murder someone else committed. Bulos (Paul in English) was the first in the State of California to be convicted based on the newly enacted hearsay rule 1390, and absent of any physical evidence.

On October 15th 2009, Paul's girlfriend and would-be fiance Jennifer Schipsi was murdered, and her body was set on fire at the cottage they shared together in Palo Alto.

The Santa Clara county assistant District Attorney, Charles (Chuck) Gillinham, and the Palo Alto police secured a conviction of an innocent man by playing on the jury's emotions, hiding exculpatory evidence, hiding the mental history of the victim, lying, and hiding the fact that the victim had many enemies who wanted her hurt or dead. By demonizing a decent respectable human being, and painting him as a monster, an innocent man was wrongly accused of a crime
The jury was prevented from seeing that Jennifer had filed a declaration the week of her death, asking for protection from two individuals whom she claimed have threatened her and Paul's lives, and who told her, according to her declaration, that "they would either kill Paul or lock him up for life."

The jury was not allowed to see other restraining orders and domestic violence that Jennifer had filed against ex-boyfriends and neighbors. 

Citing the newly enacted California Evidence Code Section 1390, Judge David Cena ruled in favor of the prosecution, allowing hearsay testimonies in the trial. He based his ruling on domestic violence and threat allegations that PAPD and Chuck Gillingham knew never existed. Evidence that supported Paul was destroyed by PAPD. New evidence that corroborates Paul's claims has since emerged. 

 All the hearsay the judge admitted was based on a false claim by the victim.  PAPD KNEW about the false claim and had the proof on hand at the time they testified to the contrary.  PAPD destroyed the tape that proves that Paul NEVER threatened Jennifer, and they did not share Jennifer's emails with the defense; emails that prove that she lied to friends about Paul to get back at him for wanting to break up with her, and emails that show she was in constant fear for her life even before she knew Paul, and emails that show affairs with powerful men.  PAPD hated Paul because he called them whenever drunks walked in to his shop. Listen to Jennifer in her own words talk about them wanting to handcuff him two months before she got murdered, even though they knew he was unsuspecting innocent man.

Chuck Gillingham fought to the bitter end, and won, concealing the interrogation tape from the jury. The tape shows how Paul Zumot was cooperative with Police and did not hide facts like Chuck claimed in court. It also shows the hysterical reaction of Paul after learning of Jen's death.

Paul's Graduation Day in 2000 from Washington State University in Mechanical Engineering.

Contact Us
Copyright 2011 The Wrongful Conviction of Paul Zumot: Paul Zumot. All Rights Reserved

Paul Zumot - An Innocent Man Convicted of Murder

​                Update: 12/12/2013

********* WIN WIN WIN for Paul **************

           The Sixth District Court of Appeal ordered the State of California to show cause.  

The new evidence:

1- Paul WAS at the shop the time the fire started and not eight minutes later as the DA claimed
2- The threatening phone call that they convicted him based on has been made by Roy Endemann       and not Paul.  Paul never threatened Jennifer  just as he testified. A CD of the call made by 
    Jennifer to Paul in the presence of Police  that clearly shows Paul had NOT threatened Jennifer       or even called her on that day was destroyed by PAPD.
3-  PAPD had the evidence all along that Paul did not call Jennifer on that day but never shared that
    with the jury or the defense.  They also deleted and hid text messages from the defense to frame     Paul.

March 10 2014: DA asks for yet another 60 day extension after 60 days he initially asked for.  Unless working on falsifying more evidence no amount of time would be enough to bury the truth. Charging an innocent man took them 2 days, but finding an answer to two simple questions needs five months?