Scott Dyleski-- please read, need opinions [Archive] - Page 2

Carrot

11-05-2007, 07:54 PM

Framing is but one possibility.

What I want to know is when were the notes written? If the notes did relate to the murder why were they left behind?
I don't see any straight lines between the notes and the murder. One has to make the notes "fit" the murder in order to believe they are a part of the murder. I just don't think that is enough to convict to life without a chance of parole. :shrug:

IMO

Hi Awakening,

Well, you've got me thinking. I have pretty much assumed the notes were written fairly close to the murder. That fits with my interpretation of the facts. But you have a point that we really don't know for sure when they were written. We have no evidence one way or another for that.

I do believe that it was SD that wrote the notes (handwriting, same paper, fingerprints, his dresser, not something a framer could pull off). At the very least it shows me what was on his mind at some point -- that he even thought of knocking someone out and put it in writing is beyond coincidence for me in that this is how the murder of Pamela Vitale started. Just how I see it I guess.

I agree with you that if the case were based on these notes by themselves, it might not be enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. But SD was convicted based on all the evidence together, not just one piece alone. That's a point I think Leonida and Jewett argued in their closing statements. She said zero + zero + zero = zero. He said you can't pull a carrot out of a pot of stew and say, "that's not stew", then pull out an onion and say "well that's not stew". You have to take it all together and see that it does equal stew. guess i'm a stew person.:shrug:

Carrot

11-05-2007, 08:03 PM

Does it seem logical that someone would plan a murder and then not have a murder weapon?

No, you're right, that wouldn't be logical.

I think he did bring a weapon with him, though. Actually two. He brought the rock to implement the "knockout" part of his plan. If he had walked around those hills as much as people say he did, he would have known all about the quarry rocks lying around everywhere. Probably had the knife with to take care of the murder part (dirty work) when it got to that point. But then things didn't really go the way he predicted. Hitting her on the head with the rock didn't knock her out right away. She surprised him and was able to fight back. So now he was in a fight and he had the rock in his hand still so that's what he kept using. The adrenaline must have really been pumping at that point. And in the end, he never could carry out the rest of his plan. She was dead within a few minutes -- so no opportunity to kidnap, question, confirm pin, etc.

Just a possible scenario for how things may have played out.

awakening2lite

11-05-2007, 09:07 PM

Hi Awakening,

Well, you've got me thinking. I have pretty much assumed the notes were written fairly close to the murder. That fits with my interpretation of the facts. But you have a point that we really don't know for sure when they were written. We have no evidence one way or another for that.

I do believe that it was SD that wrote the notes (handwriting, same paper, fingerprints, his dresser, not something a framer could pull off). At the very least it shows me what was on his mind at some point -- that he even thought of knocking someone out and put it in writing is beyond coincidence for me in that this is how the murder of Pamela Vitale started. Just how I see it I guess.

I agree with you that if the case were based on these notes by themselves, it might not be enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. But SD was convicted based on all the evidence together, not just one piece alone. That's a point I think Leonida and Jewett argued in their closing statements. She said zero + zero + zero = zero. He said you can't pull a carrot out of a pot of stew and say, "that's not stew", then pull out an onion and say "well that's not stew". You have to take it all together and see that it does equal stew. guess i'm a stew person.:shrug:

Hi Carrot!
In order to be a stew the carrot must be a carrot and an onion must be an onion.

There is no evidence on her body that she was hit with a rock. No fragments. The glove, which was found, had no fragments of a rock in it. No rock fragments found in the duffle bag or on the other clothing. No fragments found in the house. The rock is only brought into the story by the DA. It is his "guess" that a rock was used.
In fact, he brought that into the picture because there was no murder weapon found. There were a couple of flashlights mentioned but not determined to be the murder weapon.

There are some large holes that are only filled by assumption. Assumption is not a fact, not evidence, not a carrot and not enough to relieve doubt.

IMO

Mysteri

11-06-2007, 10:39 AM

No, you're right, that wouldn't be logical.

I think he did bring a weapon with him, though. Actually two. He brought the rock to implement the "knockout" part of his plan. If he had walked around those hills as much as people say he did, he would have known all about the quarry rocks lying around everywhere. Probably had the knife with to take care of the murder part (dirty work) when it got to that point. But then things didn't really go the way he predicted. Hitting her on the head with the rock didn't knock her out right away. She surprised him and was able to fight back. So now he was in a fight and he had the rock in his hand still so that's what he kept using. The adrenaline must have really been pumping at that point. And in the end, he never could carry out the rest of his plan. She was dead within a few minutes -- so no opportunity to kidnap, question, confirm pin, etc.

Just a possible scenario for how things may have played out.

Good going. 'weapons', very solid, hard ones are all over that area; so much so that one must be careful not to trip over them.

imo

Jadedblueeyes

11-06-2007, 11:46 AM

Does it seem logical that someone would plan a murder and then not have a murder weapon?

HiYa a2l, nice to see you!

How do we know he did not bring a weapon? Just because the weapon or weapons were never found doesn't mean he didn't have them.:confused:

The crux of this case to me it is just so illogical that this crime involved any type of planting. It that were so then so many of the parties that testified in the case would have had to conspire to carry this through including Scott Dyleski himself when he uttered various stories about the "woman". He never stayed consistent and bounced all around. He said some very bizarre things the very day his neighbor was murdered. He took these very shoes with him hours after the murder.

imoo

Jadedblueeyes

11-06-2007, 11:53 AM

awakening2lite

11-06-2007, 01:45 PM

There are many type of rocks that have a much harder interior and exterior that they do fragment even when being used as a tool to pound something like a stake in the ground for instance. Imo it wasn't necessarily the force of the blows that killed Pamela but the repeated blows.......they all began to add up to disaster.

The texturing of the rock formation did match some of the wounds on the scalp. Didnt the ME say they could have come from a rock striking the head?

imoo

Hi Ocean!

Here is a reference to Dr. Brian Peterson, a forensic pathologist and his statements at trial : http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060817/ai_n16641207

EXCERPTS (no statements about rock fragments found anywhere)
Colored fragments of pottery were found in Vitale's blood-soaked hair -- shards of a vase that had been given to Horowitz and Vitale as a wedding gift.

EXCERPT
Vitale's scalp contained a number of large, deep cuts. Peterson said she died from bleeding on her brain, but the blows did not fracture her skull.

EXCERPT
While a murder weapon has not been found -- Dyleski's knife did not test positive for Vitale's DNA -- Jewett presented a new hypothesis Wednesday. He grabbed two fist-sized stones from his table and walked toward Peterson. One stone was larger than the other, and had a sharp edge. In previous testimony, witnesses who lived in Hunsaker Canyon said shards of sand and limestone are on hiking trails throughout the canyon -- leftovers from when a rock quarry operated there.

Jewett asked whether items similar in weight, shape and density could have been used to inflict Vitale's wounds.

"Either one of these objects would have worked just fine," Peterson said.
=================
Please note Jewett asked the Dr if the stones could have caused the injury. He did not ask if they did. He did not ask if limestone sand or shards of rock were found on her or in the crime scene. Jewett only asked if being stricken by a rock would/could have killed a person. My own opinion is this is common knowledge and we did not need a Dr to tell us a blow to the head with a rock could kill you. It was done IMO because there was no murder weapon and it drew emotion from the jury and national tv coverage.

Here is a reference to Limestone: http://itc.gsw.edu/faculty/tweiland/sedrx2.htm
EXCERPT
# Limestone is a biochemical rock formed by the accumulation and consolidation of macroscopic calcite fossils. Shell beds and reef deposits commonly form fossiliferous limestone deposits in areas of warm, shallow, clear, marine conditions. Sediment type: biochemical
# Composition: calcite
# Grain Size: medium to coarse grained
# Common Sedimentary Environments: warm, clear, shallow marine
# Other Characteristics: low hardness and reactivity to acid of calcite combined with the presence of visible fossils

----------
Limestone isn't one of the hard rocks and it breaks down from exposure on the surface of the ground. My personal experience with raw limestone (growing up in an area that was built upon limestone) is that is will often produce bits of sand on the hands when it is handled.

Nevertheless, it was a last minute unproven introduction by the DA in the absense of a murder weapon.

No evidence whatsoever that it was used in the murder.

I do hope, if someone has evidence that was introduced to prove a limestone rock was used, (that is other than the inference of the DA) I will be very glad to read it. Please post it.

TIA

packy

11-06-2007, 02:39 PM

IMO

I fully understand that you are not positive he's guilty..so you look for scenarios that point to innocence..please keep in mind that judges instruct Juries to adopt the reasonable interpretation of the evidence and reject the unreasonable interpretation of the evidence...IMO, so far all the interpretations I heard that point to innocence are far-fetched and totally unreasonable..!! so the jury had no choice but to convict..

What do you think of this?

-After committing the murder..the killer carried Pamela's blood around..went to the Curiel's property searching for Dyleski's clothings and shoes to plant Pamela's DNA..somehow he just knew where and what to look for!!!..not only that..but he was able to find items that could be used in murder..such as the ski mask..
-The killer was somehow able to identify the items that belonged to Dyleski..
-Dyleski COINCIDENTALLY packed the very shoes that had Pamela's DNA that was planted by the killer...he packed them and gave them to his girlfriend to hold for him...
-The killer wrote a to-do list to frame Dyleski...yet rather than describing the way the murder occurred he simply changed it to a kidnapping..
-Somehow the killer was able to get access to Dyleski's dresser and plant those papers..in addition.. he waited until January of 2006 to plant them...
-ETC...Etc..Etc.. I have already discussed the inconsistencies in Dyleski's encounter story that indicate total FABRICATION..

Is this reasonable interpretation of the evidence?

I am so far behind with this thread. I apologize if I did not respond to anyone.

Not too reasonable I agree.

But could the real killer? who had a plan and could've actually worn those clothes and knew where they were to begin with. And some items could have been contaminated even accidently, maybe the shoes. I believe the stains were presumptive for blood and there was testimony that other types of stains may test presumptive for blood also. And as we know there was unknown dna involved too.

The list may have been written by Scott, but as Awakening2lite mentioned there is question about when it was written. Playing around with the dark side could include fantastic plans and strategies that were never meant to really be carried out.

The story of the encounter changing seems to point to guilt, but could it be the kind of guilt that was preconceived in Scott's mind, because he knew he was involved in the scam and feeling paranoid that they would come down on him. So could his story have changed because he knew by his original statement that it made him look worse so he tried to doctor it? Can we rely on what witnesses claim they actually heard and when they heard it is another question.

Beebee

11-06-2007, 02:51 PM

Hi Carrot!
In order to be a stew the carrot must be a carrot and an onion must be an onion.

There is no evidence on her body that she was hit with a rock. No fragments. The glove, which was found, had no fragments of a rock in it. No rock fragments found in the duffle bag or on the other clothing. No fragments found in the house. The rock is only brought into the story by the DA. It is his "guess" that a rock was used.
In fact, he brought that into the picture because there was no murder weapon found. There were a couple of flashlights mentioned but not determined to be the murder weapon.

There are some large holes that are only filled by assumption. Assumption is not a fact, not evidence, not a carrot and not enough to relieve doubt.

IMO

We know Pam died from blunt force trauma to the head that caused bleeding in the brain-- but did not crack her skull.

I don't buy the speculation that the murder weapon was not recovered. A piece of bloody crown molding at the scene had a corner with large swipe of hair that was literally ripped right off of Pamela's scalp. Imagine the force. Other weapon items with blood included two large utility flashlights, described as "covered in blood".

It's obvious to me the killer did not bring a weapon with them.

Wake here is something else I've wondered about.... we know Pam was hit in the head or face with the vase because pottery shards were in her hair and on the couch. When do you suppose that happened? If the shards are on the couch then she was hit while sitting on the couch.

It was a wedding present with her name engraved.... personal imo.

I think Horowitz flew into a rage over something and picked up the vase first and hit her in the face/head area... off go the glasses. While his hands were still clean he moved the TV to block her access to the guns and then chased her down, including to the bathroom area. I think he grabbed the closest thing first which was the crown molding and then the flashlights because he knew where they were and could retrieve them quickly. Large flashlights could and did deliver the fatal blows, imo. I think the only reason Jewett went into his ridiculous rock speculation is because it makes no sense that Scott Dyleski-- or anyone else --- would plan a kill and then not bring a weapon. How do they explain Pam being murdered with household items when they are not asserting it was a domestic battle gone bad??

But it was.

My speculation only.

Beebee

11-06-2007, 03:28 PM

Something else I find interesting... is on the big screen TV entertainment center that got moved in front of the bedroom door.... the items were not disturbed.... or bloody.

From the prelim:

11 Q. Now, there were a -- were there a number of other

12 items on the television set, also?

13 A. Yes, there were.

14 Q. Were they kind of a variety of different items,

15 kind of stacked up in various ways?

16 A. I believe it was a -- all kinds of audiovisual,

17 probably stereo, VCR items, like that.

18 Q. Tapes, things like that?

19 A. I believe so.

20 Q. Were any of those knocked over, disturbed or

21 blood-stained that you observed?

22 A. No.

You would think a crazed random killer would disturb the items.... even pick them up as weapons. Why not throw the VCR at her or the other electronic items. Why not push the entertainment system over and let the items fall on her? We know other items, boxes and many things were disturbed.

So why was the entertainment system with the expensive electronics spared? Why the laptop? In fact the laptop would have been a good weapon choice.

It's because the killer owned and valued those items, IMO

awakening2lite

11-06-2007, 03:47 PM

Something else I find interesting... is on the big screen TV entertainment center that got moved in front of the bedroom door.... the items were not disturbed.... or bloody.

From the prelim:

You would think a crazed random killer would disturb the items.... even pick them up as weapons. Why not throw the VCR at her or the other electronic items. Why not push the entertainment system over and let the items fall on her? We know other items, boxes and many things were disturbed.

So why was the entertainment system with the expensive electronics spared? Why the laptop? In fact the laptop would have been a good weapon choice.

It's because the killer owned and valued those items, IMO

Oh my goodness, Bee.

We know what murders can do to property values. The trailer had to be dismantled and hauled away. Imagine, the mansion (her Dream Home) was scheduled to be completed within just a few months. Had she been murdered there it would have had a truly horrific effect on the value. It's also possible it would have been known (locally) as the haunted mansion on the top of the hill. (straight out of a horror show, don't you think?)

What a pity PV was smashed with the least valued items in the house. :rose:

IMO (speculating)

Carrot

11-06-2007, 06:18 PM

IMO

I noticed that in order to believe Dyleski is innocent the OBVIOUS must be ignored and far-fetched scenarios must be adopted...!

SNIP

After reading through the posts from today so far, I have to come back to what you wrote in this post. It pretty much sums things up, and I get what you're saying now.

There is just too much obvious evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott Dyleski is guilty. Additionally, I just haven't seen any believable evidence than anyone else committed this murder. None.

I read about little bits and pieces of theories about framing, but there seems to be no one framing theory that connects all the dots . . . from start to finish. . . that is being offered. :shrug:

IMO, it would involve too many people that would have to have been in on it. It would have to prove access to places and items that is highly improbable if not downright impossible. It would have to explain all the ways in which Dyleski incriminated himself (the list, the strange changing story, packing the shoes, etc.).

Thanks for your posts on this - they helped clear stuff up for me.

sunbeam

11-06-2007, 08:42 PM

After reading through the posts from today so far, I have to come back to what you wrote in this post. It pretty much sums things up, and I get what you're saying now.

There is just too much obvious evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott Dyleski is guilty. Additionally, I just haven't seen any believable evidence than anyone else committed this murder. None.

I read about little bits and pieces of theories about framing, but there seems to be no one framing theory that connects all the dots . . . from start to finish. . . that is being offered. :shrug:

IMO, it would involve too many people that would have to have been in on it. It would have to prove access to places and items that is highly improbable if not downright impossible. It would have to explain all the ways in which Dyleski incriminated himself (the list, the strange changing story, packing the shoes, etc.).

Thanks for your posts on this - they helped clear stuff up for me.
I totally agree with you and AW2B. Her post hit the nail on the head and I was about to quote the exact phrase of her post that you quoted too! In order to adopt the "delusion" aka- "conclusion" that Dyleski is innocent, you must ignore the facts, the dna found in this case, and adapt the theory that it was a framer. That is a theory built on a mind that trys to twist and contort the facts of this case. Which so obviously points to Dyleski's guilt. Dyleski is where he should be now. He was a 16 year old who wanted to kill. He had an interest in killing someone. I read somewhere that he was always talking to one of his friends about what it would be like to kill someone and cause them pain. ( I read that somewhere, but don't have a link. I can go look for one if someone would like like to see the article.) He had the mind of a serial killer, and if he'd have gotten away with this, he would be a seriel killer today, no doubt. He'd be addicted to killing, like Jeffrey Dahmer was. That was his type of mind.

attorneywan2be

11-06-2007, 08:44 PM

I am so far behind with this thread. I apologize if I did not respond to anyone.

Not too reasonable I agree.

But could the real killer? who had a plan and could've actually worn those clothes and knew where they were to begin with. And some items could have been contaminated even accidently, maybe the shoes. I believe the stains were presumptive for blood and there was testimony that other types of stains may test presumptive for blood also. And as we know there was unknown dna involved too.

Pamela's DNA was found on both shoes..the expert testified that he was able to get a SINGLE COMPLETE profile of Pamela Vital...

Note: 22-1H = sample taken from the left shoe...22-1P = sample taken from the right shoe..

A. On two of the samples, 22-1H and 22-1P, I obtained a

full profile that was from a single source female, from one

individual, and that profile matches Ms. Vitale.

Q. And when you say a full and complete profile, are you

talking about that 43 quadrillion number you had mentioned

previously?

A. The numbers better 1 in 62 quadrillion

African-Americans, 1 in 13 quadrillion Caucasians, and 1 in

4.2 quintillion Hispanics.

The list may have been written by Scott, but as Awakening2lite mentioned there is question about when it was written. Playing around with the dark side could include fantastic plans and strategies that were never meant to really be carried out.

Let's picture this scenario: he writes a murder plan that involves getting a PIN number (credit card or ATM card?)..+..then he actually commits a Fraud that involves a credit card..+..then the person who lived at the address he used as the billing address for that credit card gets killed..coincidence?!!! I think not..I think when we add them up = Dyleski did it..

The story of the encounter changing seems to point to guilt, but could it be the kind of guilt that was preconceived in Scott's mind, because he knew he was involved in the scam and feeling paranoid that they would come down on him. So could his story have changed because he knew by his original statement that it made him look worse so he tried to doctor it? Can we rely on what witnesses claim they actually heard and when they heard it is another question.

Let me start by asking this question because it would help us define which crime he was consciously guilty about..:

What was the objective of his encounter story? what was it he was hoping to accomplish by telling his encounter story?

Well, he was hoping that his encounter story would explain away the presence of his DNA on Pamela..it has nothing to do with the CC Fraud..it has everything to do with the murder..so yes it points to his guilt as to the murder...!

Jadedblueeyes

11-06-2007, 10:18 PM

Hi Ocean!

Here is a reference to Dr. Brian Peterson, a forensic pathologist and his statements at trial : http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060817/ai_n16641207

EXCERPTS (no statements about rock fragments found anywhere)
Colored fragments of pottery were found in Vitale's blood-soaked hair -- shards of a vase that had been given to Horowitz and Vitale as a wedding gift.

EXCERPT
Vitale's scalp contained a number of large, deep cuts. Peterson said she died from bleeding on her brain, but the blows did not fracture her skull.

EXCERPT
While a murder weapon has not been found -- Dyleski's knife did not test positive for Vitale's DNA -- Jewett presented a new hypothesis Wednesday. He grabbed two fist-sized stones from his table and walked toward Peterson. One stone was larger than the other, and had a sharp edge. In previous testimony, witnesses who lived in Hunsaker Canyon said shards of sand and limestone are on hiking trails throughout the canyon -- leftovers from when a rock quarry operated there.

Jewett asked whether items similar in weight, shape and density could have been used to inflict Vitale's wounds.

"Either one of these objects would have worked just fine," Peterson said.
=================
Please note Jewett asked the Dr if the stones could have caused the injury. He did not ask if they did. He did not ask if limestone sand or shards of rock were found on her or in the crime scene. Jewett only asked if being stricken by a rock would/could have killed a person. My own opinion is this is common knowledge and we did not need a Dr to tell us a blow to the head with a rock could kill you. It was done IMO because there was no murder weapon and it drew emotion from the jury and national tv coverage.

Here is a reference to Limestone: http://itc.gsw.edu/faculty/tweiland/sedrx2.htm
EXCERPT
# Limestone is a biochemical rock formed by the accumulation and consolidation of macroscopic calcite fossils. Shell beds and reef deposits commonly form fossiliferous limestone deposits in areas of warm, shallow, clear, marine conditions. Sediment type: biochemical
# Composition: calcite
# Grain Size: medium to coarse grained
# Common Sedimentary Environments: warm, clear, shallow marine
# Other Characteristics: low hardness and reactivity to acid of calcite combined with the presence of visible fossils

----------
Limestone isn't one of the hard rocks and it breaks down from exposure on the surface of the ground. My personal experience with raw limestone (growing up in an area that was built upon limestone) is that is will often produce bits of sand on the hands when it is handled.

Nevertheless, it was a last minute unproven introduction by the DA in the absense of a murder weapon.

No evidence whatsoever that it was used in the murder.

I do hope, if someone has evidence that was introduced to prove a limestone rock was used, (that is other than the inference of the DA) I will be very glad to read it. Please post it.

TIA

Since the weapon was never recovered all the DA can do is have a reasonable theory and put forth that theory to the jury. He does not know what kind of rock he used or even if a rock was used. The ME said that the wounds could have been inflicted by a rock. That is all he can do is give his experienced professional opinion since the weapon wasn't recovered and the ME himself wasn't there when it happened to see it.

I have been told by others that live in the area that there all sorts of rocks in the Hunsaker area. Any rock with irregular shapes and points could have inflicted these blows.

It convinces me that her killer was small. He didn't have enough power to crush her skull but he did have the ability to wield repeated blows until she died. Dan Horowitz was in great physical shape. He had a gym built on his property and he belonged to a gym in town. In fact I think he went the very day this happened. If he had been wielding those blows her would have crushed her skull but a skinny weak kid would not and I think the coward kept hitting her way after she was face down on the carpet and that is how she got the facial damage.

I do not think the pottery was thrown at PV at all. I believe as she fell her head crashed into the pot shattering it.

Do you really expect any DNA to be found on a knife belonging to a kid that had been arrested for murder when his own mother was in possession of that knife for three days before turning it over to LE? Imo Ester boiled the crap out of that knife or cleaned it with something else before she turned it in. No mother of a kid that has been charged with First Degree Murder forgets she has his darn knife in her pocketbook when she knew LE was looking for a weapon. She should have her butt in jail too for destroying evidence.

What she destroyed had nothing to do with the credit card scam. One doesn't want to get rid of books on serial killers and destroy diaries or journals of their dark brooding son's thoughts over a credit card scam. We will never really know what all was destroyed imo.

Of all the cases that I have been interested in over the last few years on this one there was no mystery. It was blatantly obvious for whatever sick reason Scott Dyleski unmercifully kill this woman in cold blood.

imoo

sunbeam

11-06-2007, 10:20 PM

The Address of Satan’s Followers?

Moraga is a high end Contra Costa County residential community not far from the Vitale death site. In September, the Moraga police investigated an illegal shed and tree house, apparently placed there without the owner’s knowledge.

In a Blair Witch Project moment, investigators were startled to find a recently decapitated calf’s head and a hand saw (with bits of fur) nailed to the shed wall. Recall one of the pictures that Scott Dyleski made for art class: It depicted a human or humanoid figure with an animal head holding two severed human heads, one head in each hand.

His “morally neutral” art teacher gave him excellent grades.

Prior to the gag order, Sheriff’s investigators had disclosed some interest in the site because of its Satanic implications, but indicated they had ruled out any connection to the Vitale killing. We heard no more about this at trial.

Scott and His Fascinations

Recall the Cross Examination and Redirect of Scott’s girlfriend:

Defense question: “Is a lot of Scott’s art similar to Velvet Acid Christ art?” [Velvet Acid Christ is apparently SD’s favorite Goth rock band.]

Answer: “Yes.”

Here’s what the DA was not allowed to do with this.

Sample Lyrics from Velvet Acid Christ:

Pray For Life

“do you pray for life do you kick and scream …now i let go of the flow in my heads i see you die my vision make me want to cry forever lost in time spinning twitching losing control the rage of existence shooting my soul the crazy deeds of society batter my mind kill everything the edge of knife splatters my life kicks me in the head and leaves me dead for reason’s unknown the clock spins backwards reversing time and space no time is left to contemplate pray for life pray for life when souls are tortured life is a mess and everything is just your best as always lost in dreams and visions i let go of the flow in my head i see you die goodbye goodbye goodbye spinning twitching …”

Dead Tomorrow

”Don’t you understand me? …All my life waiting for the answers to these dreams alone of the knife that’s cutting from my life… Dead Tomorrow, dead tomorrow, You’ll be dead tomorrow

Dead Tomorrow, You’ll be dead tomorrow, Dead Tomorrow…”

Dead (Death Wish Mix)

“… life for you is a broken dream and i’ll spout it out your sick dream has come to me now for the end we’ll always pretend yeah where do you go what do you want it’s nothing at all feel the machines implanted in your thoughts mangled nervs twist and turn form new paths in your brain pull out all the wires and push them into your heart yeah push it into your heart yeah push it into your heart…so shoot it out your sick life has come to me your life ends you’ll never cry or breath again.”

I do not presume the role of art critic here. Whatever the poetic merit of these lyrics, their impact on a loopy, mixed-up teenage male with “issues” was gravely unhealthy, and -- given young Dyleski’s sufficiently receptive mind – actually and actively malevolent.

Defense Question: “You ever see him fly into a rage?”

Answer: “No” He is “calm and collected. He didn’t lose his temper.”

As I recall, Jack the Ripper and other serial killers were reportedly methodical and cool about their “craft”.

The DA asked Ms.. Reddy whether she had discussed God and the devil with Scott. Yes, she answered. Scott apparently believed in both and saw good and evil in each. That was manifestly not an innocuous answer.

During her redirect examination by the prosecution, Dyleski’s girlfriend looked at some of the defendant’s artwork, and identified the two armed cross or “H” figure. It was Scott’s symbolic signature.

We don’t need to hire one of the characters in Dan Brown’s “DaVinci Code” to uncover the secret mysteries here. I doubt that young Dyleski was aware of all the history associated with this particular symbol. [For example, a simple form of the character is used in botany to this day as a symbol of a very poisonous plant.] But I am convinced that he inhabited an anti-moral universe in which this symbol represented something dreadful. The key – as far as this killing and the underlying mental state of the killer is concerned - is the confusion and intermingling of good and evil in a single holy figure. This confers psychological permission to do dreadful things.

Some Informed Speculation

Dyleski’s reported taste in music and his other dark predilections make me strongly suspect that he was familiar with the “industrial noise” musician Boyd Rice. His acid icon, Mr. Rice, was made a High Priest in the Church of Satan (it was founded by the nut case Anton LaVey) and wears a version of the two armed cross. He is a stone cold misanthrope. His “think tank”, the Abraxas, is said to promote the following ethos:

“The strong rule the weak, and the clever rule the strong”.

This might be an accurate description of the social climate in the nation’s capital, but it is not a moral sentiment. This is the nihilist’s creed. Moreover Mr. Rice and followers apparently support human depopulation by any means necessary. Rice’s followers are told that they transcend good and evil. That’s at least half true - the good has certainly been “transcended” (in the left-behind sense).

Whether SD inhaled this noxious stuff directly, he clearly sniffed something like it. The teen culture teems with this kind of thing. These notions are actually evil in my moral universe. They operate like a moral virus, infecting those with the most compromised immune systems. Modern teens, especially those raised in the New Age culture, have compromised moral immune systems.

[A note: I’ll return to this theme again as the full picture emerges. But I want to stress that in my moral universe, people are not automatons, sleepwalkers at the mercy of cultural forces. They are accountable as moral agents.]

The key of all these half baked, anti-life ideas is the tendency to blend good and evil, obscuring their differences. As Rice has written:

“Interestingly, the gods mentioned herein seem to be viewed as co-equal, with the ruler of the underworld being called upon in the same breath as he who created the Earth and heavens. In this context, Jesus (the “demon of the dead”), although being conjured, seems to be an intermediary between man and the gods.”

http://jaygaskill.com/Malogens.htm

sunbeam

11-06-2007, 10:26 PM

The Mark of Satan?

The mark carved into Pamela Vitale’s body by her killer has been variously described as an “H” or as a “double T”, but both descriptions could easily depict the same thing. One correspondent has asked me whether the killer carved the “Cross of Lorraine” onto Ms. Vitale’s back. That emblem represents two crosses sharing the same center pole; and seen on edge, the symbol makes a credible “H”.

Only the killer knows what symbolism was actually intended. But it is clear enough that some symbolic meaning was meant – this mark was not the random gibberish of a drooling idiot, but the calculated sign of someone who was visiting the dark side.

Ancient alchemists used this symbol to denote a powerful poison.

In Medieval France, certain conspirators against the regime used the symbol, as the “Cross of Lorraine”, a heraldic motif that depicted both the “arms of Christ” and the “arms of Satan”. Hence the “Satanic” overtones.

Since it was the killer (and not some innocent bystander) who inscribed this symbol, we can readily and reasonably conclude that its intended meaning was malevolent. Just what specific malevolent meaning did it hold for the fevered mind of Pam’s killer? We can only speculate at this point. But given the macabre nature of the whole event, it is hardly out of the ballpark to use the word “Satanic” at least in the metaphoric sense.

Given the signature nature of the killing, it should hardly come as a surprise that, at some point, the killer had adopted the dress code of the “Goth” subculture. Of course, most teenagers who dress like a character in an Anne Rice vampire novel are not killers. And, yes, there is a lot of understandable defensiveness about the topic, driven by the prevailing multicultural ethos taught in school and the general observation that teens have been dressing and acting out in rebellious ways ever since we adults started keeping track of such things.

But there are extreme and very disturbing examples, such as the 1996 murders committed by a “Goth” teenage male in Kentucky who played Dungeons and Dragons, was upset by his mother’s divorces, walked cemeteries at night pretending to be a 500 year old vampire. This eventually led him to found to a vampire cult, commit two senseless murders and receive a death sentence handed down by a New Orleans Judge.

I have no reason to suspect that Pam’s killer was acting under the influence of some shadowy cult figure. But I do believe that the dark imagery and symbolism of some anti-life subculture (however it ends up being described) were operating in the web of this killer’s homicidal motivation.

This event illuminates something much more serious than one more Charlie Mason cult. In this early 21st century cyber-culture, susceptible young men and women no longer have to fall into some sinister cult, or join some criminal cohort to become infected with evil. All sorts of bizarre and ultimately malevolent ideation, fantasies and dark power-ideologies are floating through our culture, just below of the radar of most adults.

These ideas act like an odorless and colorless toxic gas that primarily affects the emotionally, morally and intellectually vulnerable among us. Regrettably, that vulnerable population includes a disproportionate number of teenagers. And this presents the grave and growing problem for modern parents: In the current culture, those whose moral compasses have been damaged by the disempowerment of religious and other robust ethical traditions include more young people than ever before. This social problem will not soon go away.

http://jaygaskill.com/Malogens.htm

(I thought I'd go ahead and put this info. up for everyone to read.)

Beebee

11-07-2007, 08:04 AM

I read about little bits and pieces of theories about framing, but there seems to be no one framing theory that connects all the dots . . . from start to finish. . . that is being offered. :shrug:

IMO, it would involve too many people that would have to have been in on it.
Thanks for your posts on this - they helped clear stuff up for me.

It flows pretty welll to me.

I think ONE person framed Scott, only one.

Only that person knows all the details and all of what they did. I don't expect to be able to figure out their every last move..... but I see motive, opportunity and means all coming from Dan Horowitz. JMO.

I also think he had the right legal connections to tweak certain things in his favor... in fact I have no doubt on that... not only in the legal community but in the media as well.

IMO

Carrot

11-07-2007, 08:06 AM

Since the weapon was never recovered all the DA can do is have a reasonable theory and put forth that theory to the jury. He does not know what kind of rock he used or even if a rock was used. The ME said that the wounds could have been inflicted by a rock. That is all he can do is give his experienced professional opinion since the weapon wasn't recovered and the ME himself wasn't there when it happened to see it.

I have been told by others that live in the area that there all sorts of rocks in the Hunsaker area. Any rock with irregular shapes and points could have inflicted these blows.

It convinces me that her killer was small. He didn't have enough power to crush her skull but he did have the ability to wield repeated blows until she died. Dan Horowitz was in great physical shape. He had a gym built on his property and he belonged to a gym in town. In fact I think he went the very day this happened. If he had been wielding those blows her would have crushed her skull but a skinny weak kid would not and I think the coward kept hitting her way after she was face down on the carpet and that is how she got the facial damage.

I do not think the pottery was thrown at PV at all. I believe as she fell her head crashed into the pot shattering it.

Do you really expect any DNA to be found on a knife belonging to a kid that had been arrested for murder when his own mother was in possession of that knife for three days before turning it over to LE? Imo Ester boiled the crap out of that knife or cleaned it with something else before she turned it in. No mother of a kid that has been charged with First Degree Murder forgets she has his darn knife in her pocketbook when she knew LE was looking for a weapon. She should have her butt in jail too for destroying evidence.

What she destroyed had nothing to do with the credit card scam. One doesn't want to get rid of books on serial killers and destroy diaries or journals of their dark brooding son's thoughts over a credit card scam. We will never really know what all was destroyed imo.

Of all the cases that I have been interested in over the last few years on this one there was no mystery. It was blatantly obvious for whatever sick reason Scott Dyleski unmercifully kill this woman in cold blood.

imoo

Hi Ocean,

Since it looks like you've followed a lot of cases, what do you think the chances are with an appeal? Just standard procedural stuff, but in the end will go nowhere? What usually happens? Have you ever seen a case where guilt is obvious go on to have an appeal that is surprisingly successful?
Thanks!:seeya:

Beebee

11-07-2007, 08:12 AM

Let me start by asking this question because it would help us define which crime he was consciously guilty about..:

What was the objective of his encounter story? what was it he was hoping to accomplish by telling his encounter story?

Well, he was hoping that his encounter story would explain away the presence of his DNA on Pamela..it has nothing to do with the CC Fraud..it has everything to do with the murder..so yes it points to his guilt as to the murder...!

Here is how I answer the same question.

His objective in telling the "encounter story" was that he was answering questions given to him by Kim and Fred as they interrogated him on the cc fraud.

That's it. Nothing more. Before it became the big "encounter story" it was merely a teenager busted for cc fraud answering questions for two very angry adults.

The fact is Scott saw Pam on his walk that morning. Nothing more, nothing less.

except for that tiny problem of Pam's rigged computer forensics.

MOO

Beebee

11-07-2007, 08:16 AM

It convinces me that her killer was small. He didn't have enough power to crush her skull but he did have the ability to wield repeated blows until she died. Dan Horowitz was in great physical shape.

I agree with these three sentences.

Beebee

11-07-2007, 08:18 AM

(I thought I'd go ahead and put this info. up for everyone to read.)

Thanks. I really feel like I know Scott Dyleski now.

:rolleyes:

Beebee

11-07-2007, 08:26 AM

attorneywan2be

11-07-2007, 08:29 AM

Here is how I answer the same question.

His objective in telling the "encounter story" was that he was answering questions given to him by Kim and Fred as they interrogated him on the cc fraud.

That's it. Nothing more. Before it became the big "encounter story" it was merely a teenager busted for cc fraud answering questions for two very angry adults.

The fact is Scott saw Pam on his walk that morning. Nothing more, nothing less.

except for that tiny problem of Pam's rigged computer forensics.

MOO

IMO

The evidence indicates that Dyleski fabricated the encounter story..I mentioned in my previous posts why I believe so..

If anything Fred told Dyleski NOT to worry about being implicated in the murder because the killer's DNA would surely be on Pamela... only then he mentioned his encounter story and the arm grabbing/scratching incident..and we know that he was asked about the scratches on Saturday but he didn't utter a word about the so called encounter...there is no doubt in my mind had the encounter occurred he would have mentioned it on Saturday..

Beebee

11-07-2007, 08:41 AM

IMO

The evidence indicates that Dyleski fabricated the encounter story..I mentioned in my previous posts why I believe so..

If anything Fred told Dyleski NOT to worry about being implicated in the murder because the killer's DNA would surely be on Pamela... only then he mentioned his encounter story and the arm grabbing/scratching incident..and we know that he was asked about the scratches on Saturday but he didn't utter a word about the so called encounter...there is no doubt in my mind had the encounter occur he would have mentioned it on Saturday..

He didn't have to fabricate anything.

If he took precautions not to leave dna, which he would have HAD to do, imo, then Fred bringing up dna would not freak him out because he would have already been prepared.

I know you don't see it this way at all, and that's okay, even though it's kind of strange to be on such opposite sides of the fence with you on this case.

It's my opinion he answered the questions for them as best he could.

I so wish Scott would have taken the stand in this case. He didn't know any better though and followed the advice of his appointed lawyer.

attorneywan2be

11-07-2007, 09:05 AM

I know you don't see it this way at all, and that's okay, even though it's kind of strange to be on such opposite sides of the fence with you on this case.

I know exactly what you mean BeeBee ..we have been on the same side of the fence in other cases...so it's okay to disagree once in a while..:D

Jadedblueeyes

11-07-2007, 10:16 AM

Hi Ocean,

Since it looks like you've followed a lot of cases, what do you think the chances are with an appeal? Just standard procedural stuff, but in the end will go nowhere? What usually happens? Have you ever seen a case where guilt is obvious go on to have an appeal that is surprisingly successful?
Thanks!:seeya:

Good Morning Carrot:seeya:

I don't think anyone can say with 100% certainty but imho his appeal will be denied. Whatever errors the Judge may have made they would have to be so egregious that the outcome could have had a different result.

I do not think the Courts will think he had incompetent counsel. LOL Other defendants who I thought had a right to complain about their crappy lawyers have been turned down by the Court when they used that reason. Even lawyers who actually slept through part of the trial were not deemed incompetent.

I have found when the suspect has the blood of his victim on his own shoes, clothing and possessions the case will not be appealed successfully.

In fact I saw logical rulings made by the Judge for SD. She refused to allow Dan Horowitz heart shattering 911 call into the case due to the prejudicial factor it would have against SD. Usually cases are appealed more often because of Judicial error. Imo none was made by the Judge in this case.

The case was very well within the norm of other cases similar to this one where the forensics were a big part. It reminds me somewhat of the Michael Peterson case and his wife's blood on the underneath layer of his walking shorts. When blood ties both the defendant and the victim together usually the appeal is turned down.

In this case they had it all. Many witnesses that testified against SD and evidence that bolsters he was indeed the murderer and no one else.

We all have seen the cold cases that were solved. Sometimes it is one tiny spot of the victim's blood overlooked or undetected all those years that when found later makes all the difference in the world and the murderer is arrested and most of the time sent to prison for life.

The simple and most logical conclusion is Scott Dyleski should not have had any of Pamela's blood on anything pertaining to him. That was not the case. He did and there is no logical explanation for that except he was the one there with her as her blood flowed from her body as he pummeled her to death.

imoo

Jadedblueeyes

11-07-2007, 10:39 AM

It flows pretty welll to me.

I think ONE person framed Scott, only one.

Only that person knows all the details and all of what they did. I don't expect to be able to figure out their every last move..... but I see motive, opportunity and means all coming from Dan Horowitz. JMO.

I also think he had the right legal connections to tweak certain things in his favor... in fact I have no doubt on that... not only in the legal community but in the media as well.

IMO

I never have understood that part of your theory Bee. Dan had connections in the legal community? Dan Horowitz was a defense attorney. He was the thorn in the side of the Prosecutors/ADA and LE for almost 20 years and you think they are all participating all of a sudden in being his best buddy and willing to commit criminal acts themselves?:confused: :confused: That absolutely makes no sense to me and never has.

If they thought him guilty of this crime it would have been a perfect time to shut him up and down for good in their town and go out and celebrate that one more defense attorney had bit the dust. What a feather in their cap that would have been for them.

But they cant make him guilty. They cant take their biases and use it unfairly. They have to go in the direction where the investigation is leading them and that was right to Scott Dyleski's door.

imoo

awakening2lite

11-07-2007, 11:25 AM

Beebee

11-07-2007, 11:33 AM

I never have understood that part of your theory Bee. Dan had connections in the legal community? Dan Horowitz was a defense attorney. He was the thorn in the side of the Prosecutors/ADA and LE for almost 20 years and you think they are all participating all of a sudden in being his best buddy and willing to commit criminal acts themselves?:confused: :confused: That absolutely makes no sense to me and never has.

If they thought him guilty of this crime it would have been a perfect time to shut him up and down for good in their town and go out and celebrate that one more defense attorney had bit the dust. What a feather in their cap that would have been for them.

But they cant make him guilty. They cant take their biases and use it unfairly. They have to go in the direction where the investigation is leading them and that was right to Scott Dyleski's door.

imoo

Ocean,

Back when Horowitz got a restraining order on Dough Schneider (claiming he also feared for the safety of his then wife who was home alone) he got that RO without a single thing proving Schneider violent in any way, or even a threat... Karen Schneiders letters on file with the court are very telling to the attitude and power Horowitz has in the legal community. Back then he got cops to write letters on his behalf, and mentioned all his numerous civic affiliations.

I think Dan is very tucked in, and that people indeed do favors.

As far as I am concerned Jason Barnes and DDA Clark DID break the law when they got the search/arrst warrant for Scott Dyleski. They both blatantly LIED to a judge!!!

But we won't use the word LIE.... we'll call it "mistaken".

This is the kind of help Horowitz had, IMO....... I also think Leonida being put on the case was a favor to him, but that is JMO.

attorneywan2be

11-07-2007, 11:34 AM

awakening2lite

11-07-2007, 11:38 AM

The rock was NOT a murder weapon.

No one has posted anything that indicates when the todo list was written or how it factually related to the murder. Actually, it sounds closer to one of the Law and Order episodes than this murder.

The time line is really tough to believe even after Jewett sat down the witnesses and corrected their recollection of the time. That was a lot to accomplish in 33 minutes.

Has anyone discovered how he managed to clean up before putting on clean clothing?

It's been pointed out that PV attended a house warming party and that SD did know her. So mistaken idenity can be ruled out.

The dog died two days after the murder and I haven't seen any statistics on murderers revenge killing before the death of a beloved pet or loved person. That rules out the dog motive.

SD spoke on the phone with the cc company and he knew nothing was to be delivered to PV's trailer. He didn't go there to pick up anything.

However, the DA does not have to prove motive. Only that the accussed murdered the victim, and he must do that beyond a reasonable doubt.

So what does the DA have? He has DNA.

That is factual evidence and I would really like to read a discussion involving it.

TIA to all who have knowledge and to all who post references.

IMO

Jadedblueeyes

11-07-2007, 11:45 AM

Ocean,

Back when Horowitz got a restraining order on Dough Schneider (claiming he also feared for the safety of his then wife who was home alone) he got that RO without a single thing proving Schneider violent in any way, or even a threat... Karen Schneiders letters on file with the court are very telling to the attitude and power Horowitz has in the legal community. Back then he got cops to write letters on his behalf, and mentioned all his numerous civic affiliations.

I think Dan is very tucked in, and that people indeed do favors.

As far as I am concerned Jason Barnes and DDA Clark DID break the law when they got the search/arrest warrant for Scott Dyleski. They both blatantly LIED to a judge!!!

But we won't use the word LIE.... we'll call it "mistaken".

This is the kind of help Horowitz had, IMO....... I also think Leonida being put on the case was a favor to him, but that is JMO.

But Bee, come on...getting a RO on a guy that was known to be a drug and alcohol addict is nothing like having favors extended to them in a darn first degree murder case.

That is just ridiculous imo. That is like saying someone may know someone that will do them a favor and try to fix a traffic ticket for them so therefore the same someone would be willing to be an accomplice in covering up a murder.

That is just apples and oranges Bee.

imo

awakening2lite

11-07-2007, 11:47 AM

Ocean,

Back when Horowitz got a restraining order on Dough Schneider (claiming he also feared for the safety of his then wife who was home alone) he got that RO without a single thing proving Schneider violent in any way, or even a threat... Karen Schneiders letters on file with the court are very telling to the attitude and power Horowitz has in the legal community. Back then he got cops to write letters on his behalf, and mentioned all his numerous civic affiliations.

I think Dan is very tucked in, and that people indeed do favors.

As far as I am concerned Jason Barnes and DDA Clark DID break the law when they got the search/arrst warrant for Scott Dyleski. They both blatantly LIED to a judge!!!

But we won't use the word LIE.... we'll call it "mistaken".

This is the kind of help Horowitz had, IMO....... I also think Leonida being put on the case was a favor to him, but that is JMO.

Hi BeeBee,

I'm glad you brought up the search warrent.

I read the testimony given for the warrent and you are completely correct. There were "mis-truths". It's really scary to know a search warrent could be used this way.

What was the Judges ruling on this? Do you have it? Could you post it?

With all the current discussions in the news regarding our privacy and the war against terrorism, I would really like to know how our courts are protecting us from unlawful intrusions.

TIA

IMO

awakening2lite

11-07-2007, 11:49 AM

But Bee, come on...getting a RO on a guy that was known to be a drug and alcohol addict is nothing like have the favors extended to them in a darn first degree murder case.

That is just ridiculous imo. That is like saying someone may know someone that will do them a favor and try to fix a traffic ticket for them so therefore the same someone would be willing to be an accomplice in covering up a murder.

That is just apples and oranges Bee.

imo

Is that a standard among LE as to when that line of favors is crossed or it case by case?

Beebee

11-07-2007, 11:51 AM

IMO

They don't need a murder weapon to convict him..the facts in this case warrant a conviction..

You don't know all the facts in this case.

The jury never heard all the facts in this case.

If you can't answer basic questions, then you don't know all the facts. Without all the facts, your conclusions may be wrong.

Explain to me how it would be humanly possible for Scott to rage kill with the glove found, and not leave his dna in that glove?? Do you think he would not sweat? Bleed? Have force and friction applied to his skin, thus displacing skin cells? ANY injury to his hand would result in the shedding of biological cells.

Now tell me why his dna is not in that glove??

Beebee

11-07-2007, 11:59 AM

So what does the DA have? He has DNA.

That is factual evidence and I would really like to read a discussion involving it.

TIA to all who have knowledge and to all who post references.

IMO

Wake,

You are correct. He has dna.

If I ever want to frame somebody for murder, you can bet I would plant the victims dna.

But yes.... let's discuss the dna. It ALL has baggage, because it was planted, you will see it in the science.

Where do you want to start??

The glove.

It has areas where a reddish tint was observed in the fingers, and the swabs from those areas tested postitive for Pam's dna. When the numbers are in the bazillions, I think it's safe to conclude it's her dna.... so Pam's dna is on that glove.
Scott's dna is not. So what does that mean??

Beebee

11-07-2007, 12:01 PM

But Bee, come on...getting a RO on a guy that was known to be a drug and alcohol addict is nothing like having favors extended to them in a darn first degree murder case.

That is just ridiculous imo. That is like saying someone may know someone that will do them a favor and try to fix a traffic ticket for them so therefore the same someone would be willing to be an accomplice in covering up a murder.

That is just apples and oranges Bee.

imo

Are you saying Doug Schneider was a drug and alcohol addict??

Jadedblueeyes

11-07-2007, 12:03 PM

>snipped<

Hi Ocean!

Still, with all your apt reasoning applied, there is no evidence a rock was the murder weapon. If all we ever needed do is go by the "experienced professional opinion" of DA's to determine facts and evidence of guilt, why in the world would we need Judges or Juries?

There is nothing that was ever produced (except Jewett's remarks) that ever indicated a rock was used.

I would really like to see the factual evidence discussed and cut out all the hoopla that was added to incite the jury.

Can't the case be proven on the factual evidence alone?

TIA

IMO

Yes and it was proven on factual evidence.

I am not sure what you are saying about the rock. Are you saying that if the weapon is never recovered or known you think the defendant should go free because he either hid it or took it from the premises leaving LE unable to recover it?:confused: Both DAs and Defense Attorneys are allowed by law to put forth their theory to the juries.

It was never proven that the blow-poke was used to kill Kathleen Peterson, Michael Peterson's wife. It was consistent however with the wounds inflicted on her skull and was allowed into MPs trial. Sometimes especially in bludgeoning murders the weapon(s) are never recovered.

It does not negate the crime or increases the burden on the state. They have to prove that the human being killed was indeed Pamela Vitale and her death was due to a homicide (I think that is self evident) and Scott Dyleski did it BARD. All 12 jurors who are the trier of the facts, unanimously agreed that he is indeed guilty of the crime.:shrug: No where is the State required to produce the weapon itself.

imoo

Jadedblueeyes

11-07-2007, 12:07 PM

Are you saying Doug Schneider was a drug and alcohol addict??]]

Oh I am sorry. I had a momentary blip.:o I was thinking of Joe Lynch. I never knew anything about Shneider.

I did hear that other neighbors were complaining about JL coming into homes around there uninvited.

Was he the neighbor that had things stolen while he was away from his property?

imoo

Beebee

11-07-2007, 12:09 PM

Hi BeeBee,

I'm glad you brought up the search warrent.

I read the testimony given for the warrent and you are completely correct. There were "mis-truths". It's really scary to know a search warrent could be used this way.

What was the Judges ruling on this? Do you have it? Could you post it?

With all the current discussions in the news regarding our privacy and the war against terrorism, I would really like to know how our courts are protecting us from unlawful intrusions.

TIA

IMO

I share your concerns, believe me.

The judge that issued the warrant was Kolin.... I think you may want the Skelton transcript, since that is the transcript of the hearing to get the warrant... if so you can find it here -- just scroll down and you can open the pdf file.

http://justiceforscottdyleski.com/leaddetectivelies.html

What was really amazing to me is when the Curiel's filed their civil suit, the federal judge who pretty much threw it out STILL had misinformation!!!

You can read that here: http://justiceforscottdyleski.com/curielvsccc.html

scroll down to judge Alsup's decision. He based some of it on the same lies!

awakening2lite

11-07-2007, 12:18 PM

Yes and it was proven on factual evidence.

I am not sure what you are saying about the rock. Are you saying that if the weapon is never recovered or known you think the defendant should go free because he either hid it or took it from the premises leaving LE unable to recover it?:confused: Both DAs and Defense Attorneys are allowed by law to put forth their theory to the juries.

It was never proven that the blow-poke was used to kill Kathleen Peterson, Michael Peterson's wife. It was consistent however with the wounds inflicted on her skull and was allowed into MPs trial. Sometimes especially in bludgeoning murders the weapon(s) are never recovered.

It does not negate the crime or increases the burden on the state. They have to prove that the human being killed was indeed Pamela Vitale and her death was due to a homicide (I think that is self evident) and Scott Dyleski did it BARD. All 12 jurors who are the trier of the facts, unanimously agreed that he is indeed guilty of the crime.:shrug: No where is the State required to produce the weapon itself.

imoo

Ocean, I thought I was very clear.

There is no evidence that a rock was used to murder PV.

I hate to waste band width just to repost, so if you scroll up you will find references to Jewett introducing a couple of rocks and asking the Doctor IF similar rock(s) could have killed her.

The doctor responds, either could have. He DIDN'T say a rock killed her. (did we need a doctor to tell us a rock to the head could be fatal?)

Other than Jewett reaching for something that was not in evidence and introducing a couple of rocks, there is nothing.

There was nothing on PV to indicate a rock killed her.

Nothing was found in the crime scene to indicate a rock was used

and no bloody rock was ever found.

If Jewett hadn't thought up the idea of a rock, it never would have been in the transcript. Period.

Please note, too, that Jewett did not say a rock was the murder weapon. He was careful in his choice of words. IMO

Please, please, please post whatever you have that is evidence of a rock being used. TIA

IMO

awakening2lite

11-07-2007, 12:27 PM

I share your concerns, believe me.

The judge that issued the warrant was Kolin.... I think you may want the Skelton transcript, since that is the transcript of the hearing to get the warrant... if so you can find it here -- just scroll down and you can open the pdf file.

http://justiceforscottdyleski.com/leaddetectivelies.html

What was really amazing to me is when the Curiel's filed their civil suit, the federal judge who pretty much threw it out STILL had misinformation!!!

You can read that here: http://justiceforscottdyleski.com/curielvsccc.html

scroll down to judge Alsup's decision. He based some of it on the same lies!

Thanks, Bee.
That transcript of the testimony for the search warrent is what I based my question on. I also read the Motion to Quash. Do you happen to have the ruling on the Motion to Quash?

I'd like to read how the judge justified the mis information contained in the search warrent.

TIA

Carrot

11-07-2007, 12:29 PM

I've noticed that people that are unable to address the issues that go to Dyleski's innocence and the possible guilt of Horowitz end up posting along the lines of ... Well, it doesn't matter, his appeal will not be successful, he won't be getting out of jail.....

Well carrot you just never know what is going to happen. Dig around. There are many cases where somebody gets convicted of murder, even sentenced to death, and then the real killer is found and the truth comes out. There is no statute of limitations on murder.

Ouch. That seems uncalled for. I was merely asking Ocean for her opinion on appeals, as she's followed more trials than I have.

I think I've been contributing to the discussion here on the issues right along with everyone else. :confused:

Beebee

11-07-2007, 12:40 PM

Thanks, Bee.
That transcript of the testimony for the search warrent is what I based my question on. I also read the Motion to Quash. Do you happen to have the ruling on the Motion to Quash?

I'd like to read how the judge justified the mis information contained in the search warrent.

TIA

The Court hears argument on Defense's motion to Traverse the
search warrant, motion to quash search warrant and to suppress
.- evidence. Counsel submits the matter to the Court. The Court
rules the Defense did not make a preliminary showing. The motion
to Traverse is denied. The Court rules there was sufficient
evidence for a search warrant. The Court denies the motion to
quash. The following People's exhibits are marked for identification and
admitted into evidence.
2m- Search Warrant.
3m- Search Warrant.
4m Skeleton transcript.
The Court takes a mid afternoon break.

The warrant was clearly illegal, IMO.... but this judge (Zuniga) wasn't about to toss the evidence from the van.... SO WHAT if basic rights were violated :flamemad:

The biotch did what she wanted, because she could. IMO

Beebee

11-07-2007, 12:43 PM

Ouch. That seems uncalled for. I was merely asking Ocean for her opinion on appeals, as she's followed more trials than I have.

I think I've been contributing to the discussion here on the issues right along with everyone else. :confused:

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound rude. That wasn't my intent. Please keep contributing. I'm glad you are. I hope everbody does.

awakening2lite

11-07-2007, 12:53 PM

The warrant was clearly illegal, IMO.... but this judge (Zuniga) wasn't about to toss the evidence from the van.... SO WHAT if basic rights were violated :flamemad:

The biotch did what she wanted, because she could. IMO

Bee,
What does that mean "Defense did not make a preliminary showing"?

TIA

attorneywan2be

11-07-2007, 12:55 PM

You don't know all the facts in this case.

The jury never heard all the facts in this case.

If you can't answer basic questions, then you don't know all the facts. Without all the facts, your conclusions may be wrong.

Explain to me how it would be humanly possible for Scott to rage kill with the glove found, and not leave his dna in that glove?? Do you think he would not sweat? Bleed? Have force and friction applied to his skin, thus displacing skin cells? ANY injury to his hand would result in the shedding of biological cells.

Now tell me why his dna is not in that glove??

IMO

I think I mentioned before that the absence of trace DNA in the glove doesn't exonerate him..the expert testified that he could not get a complete profile for Dyleski or anyone for that matter EXCEPT for Pamela..here is the question: was this glove worn before by someone..anyone? I think so..then why the expert was not able to get a complete profile for whoever wore that glove at one point? he was only able to get a partial profile..
It is a moot point really..

There wasn't a shred of evidence that Pamela's DNA was planted ..yet you speculate that the killer..specifically.. "Dan Horowitz" did that...let me see if I can speculate why Dyleski's DNA was not present in the glove:

Maybe Dyleski wanted to frame a neighbor (wheeler) by planting the glove used in the murder..in order to do that maybe he wore some type of plastic gloves beneath the black gloves to ensure he would not leave his own DNA in it..maybe he dropped one bloody glove (like in OJ's case) at Wheeler's property to make it look like Wheeler dropped one glove by mistake as he was returning to his home after the murder..maybe Wheeler found the bloody glove and got rid of it before the police searched his property..he got rid of it for fear of being accused of murder..maybe ...maybe..maybe..

BTW..my speculation is consistent with some facts:
1-Tracking dogs led the police to Wheeler's residence
2-One Glove is indeed missing..

sunbeam

11-07-2007, 01:06 PM

sunbeam

11-07-2007, 01:21 PM

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound rude. That wasn't my intent. Please keep contributing. I'm glad you are. I hope everbody does.
I didn't think you were rude sounding at all.

Carrot

11-07-2007, 01:34 PM

Carrot

11-07-2007, 01:36 PM

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound rude. That wasn't my intent. Please keep contributing. I'm glad you are. I hope everbody does.

Thanks Bee. I guess it's easy to misunderstand the tone of posts sometimes.:seeya:

awakening2lite

11-07-2007, 01:41 PM

Didn't his mom burn a box of latex gloves that he put into his backpack with the shoes, journal, and other stuff?

Yes, she did. IIRC

attorneywan2be

11-07-2007, 01:45 PM

Didn't his mom burn a box of latex gloves that he put into his backpack with the shoes, journal, and other stuff?

Yep! there was a box of gloves in the backpack....his mother and her sister testified that she burned a box of gloves that was UNOPENED...

Beebee

11-07-2007, 02:24 PM

IMO

I think I mentioned before that the absence of trace DNA in the glove doesn't exonerate him..the expert testified that he could not get a complete profile for Dyleski or anyone for that matter EXCEPT for Pamela..here is the question: was this glove worn before by someone..anyone? I think so..then why the expert was not able to get a complete profile for whoever wore that glove at one point? he was only able to get a partial profile..
It is a moot point really..

Moot point?? This is basic science 101. It does not agree with your logic.

Partial profiles are everywhere. They represent organic biological matter.... I think of it as bio-dust... but things need to be put into context.

The lack of a complete dna profile (which only requires a single human cell) in the glove goes to the planting of Pam's dna.

One might not expect dna profiles from very casual contact, especially if the glove was never put on a hand for any length of time.... as in this case. The glove came from a box of left-over clothing from a costume shop.

Where is the killers dna??

Why do you keep saying "trace" dna?? There is nothing "trace" about secretions due to exertion and cells displaced due to high energy impact... which by all the laws of nature should be in that glove if it was used to beat Pam to death.

Here are some of the prosecutions witness testimony that touches on that:

Leonida with Stockwell-

Q. The purpose of that was to get a substrate sample?

A. I was attempting to collect material of a background DNA nature. If someone is wearing that glove, presumably you would wear it where your hand is on the inside of the glove. I was attempting to collect material of anyone who had done so.

Q. And a person who had worn a glove, especially if they wore the glove under circumstances where they were exerting themselves, could leave sweat or skin cells on the glove; true?

A. Yes.

Q. Or saliva, because people tend to touch their mouths a lot and it gets on their fingers?

A. In terms of a tertiary transfer, yes. That is possible.

Q. So that's what you were looking for, evidence of who was wearing the glove?

A. Yes.

Q. And you did find evidence that there was somebody's DNA other than Ms. Vitale's on there?

A. Yes.

Q. You found a minor profile; true?

A. Yes.

Q. And that minor profile does not match Scott Dyleski; also true?

A. Assuming a single contributor, that is correct.

Q. Now, you had talked about where DNA comes from generally; blood, saliva, perspiration. True?

A. Yes.

Would Dyleski have injury to his hand?? This is Dr. Peterson, prosecution witness:

MR. JEWETT: Q. Is there any kind of injury that you might expect or that would be -- you would deem to be consistent with a person who would inflict those kinds of injuries?

A. Would I expect that person to have injury? Sure. That's the easy answer. The harder one is to specify exactly what type of injury, and that would depend on so many things. You mentioned a glove. It would depend on the kind of glove. And with respect to object, it would depend on the kind of object being used. Now, I think, based on the variation and shape and size of these injuries, that the object was irregular. If an object were irregular to me, that would imply that it's not only irregular with respect to the surface that hits the victim, it's also irregular with respect to the surface that's in the hand. That being the case, with this many blows and this much energy being delivered, I would expect, say, pain, bruising.

Please don't say moot point, because it is not, and tell me why Dyleski's dna... or ANY killer dna is not in that glove.

Thanks.

Beebee

11-07-2007, 02:34 PM

Yes, he could have worn a latex glove easily.

So now he is wearing latex gloves under the long black evening glove??

OMG.... this is unreal.

First of all, latex gloves contain a lot of latex powder. I know this because I am a surgical nurse and I developed a sensitivity to the powder and had to educate myself on the matter and change to very expensive gloves via my employer to keep working. It is common and people in health care know this. If latex gloves were worn under the nylon gloves latex powder would be there too.

Secondly.... for those wondering why Scott had latex gloves (unopened pack) in that bag.... go dig around on how people handle marijuana when it is being prepared to be smoked out of a vaporizer. Pot plants/buds are quite sticky and the oils rub off on skin.....

Beebee

11-07-2007, 02:37 PM

Yep! there was a box of gloves in the backpack....his mother and her sister testified that she burned a box of gloves that was UNOPENED...

Thanks.

Unopened.

The vaporizer was kept at Robin's house.

Please see my post on latex powder and let me know what you think.

Beebee

11-07-2007, 02:58 PM

Bee,
What does that mean "Defense did not make a preliminary showing"?

TIA

I think it's some BS grey area for judges to turn things down when ever they feel like it, yet they have a "legal reason" so the system works in their favor.

It's not about a search for the truth, that much is clear.

JMO

attorneywan2be

11-07-2007, 03:16 PM

Please don't say moot point, because it is not, and tell me why Dyleski's dna... or ANY killer dna is not in that glove.

Thanks.

BeeBee.. of course you are entitled to your opinion as I'm entitled to mine..

I think it is a moot point because the expert could not find a complete profile of whoever wore that glove at one point..meaning, that the absence of Dyleski's DNA doesn't necessarily mean he didn't wear that glove...where is the DNA of whoever wore that glove?

Jadedblueeyes

11-07-2007, 04:49 PM

BeeBee.. of course you are entitled to your opinion as I'm entitled to mine..

I think it is a moot point because the expert could not find a complete profile of whoever wore that glove at one point..meaning, that the absence of Dyleski's DNA doesn't necessarily mean he didn't wear that glove...where is the DNA of whoever wore that glove?

The lack of DNA is a moot point. As I said a couple of weeks ago in the trial of the college girl that was found in her dorm room in her panties there was no DNA found on her own panties......not even DNA belonging to her or the killer.

It also flies in the face of the framing theory also. If this was a plant job wouldn't the killer make sure SDs DNA was inside the glove and mask of all things since it was a bludgeoning murder? Many things in all cases are never answered or explained away. Imo, mostly that is because the murderer will not divulge how they did their crime.

imoo

attorneywan2be

11-07-2007, 05:37 PM

Moot point?? This is basic science 101. It does not agree with your logic.

IMO

Quote:

[• Variable shedding refers to the extent to which different people shed their skin cells in different quantities under different circumstances. Some people are more likely than others to leave behind their DNA in the form of skin cells. Through research at the FSS, it has been found that there are, for example, “heavy shedders,” “medium shedders,” and “light shedders.” Thus, the last person to touch a particular object may not leave the most DNA or strongest profile.
• The amount of DNA deposited can also be affected by certain actions taken by the individual. Washing of one’s hands will, for a period of time, decrease the amount of skin cells a person deposits on other objects. Additionally, the amount of perspiration exerted at the time the object is being held may also affect the amount of skin cells that are deposited. Both of these scenarios could adversely affect results upon LCN-DNA analysis.]

This indicates that there could be different scientific reasons that would explain the lack of DNA in the glove..what if Dyleski is a light shedder? what if Dyleski washed his hands immediately before committing the crime? the amount of perspiration exerted varies among individuals?...that one single issue could not be used to refute all the other powerful evidence in this case..

Carrot

11-07-2007, 05:50 PM

So now he is wearing latex gloves under the long black evening glove??

OMG.... this is unreal.

First of all, latex gloves contain a lot of latex powder. I know this because I am a surgical nurse and I developed a sensitivity to the powder and had to educate myself on the matter and change to very expensive gloves via my employer to keep working. It is common and people in health care know this. If latex gloves were worn under the nylon gloves latex powder would be there too.

Secondly.... for those wondering why Scott had latex gloves (unopened pack) in that bag.... go dig around on how people handle marijuana when it is being prepared to be smoked out of a vaporizer. Pot plants/buds are quite sticky and the oils rub off on skin.....

Good information on the use of the latex gloves. I didn't know that about their usefulness in handling and smoking marijuana with a vaporizer. My experience with that is limited to college days (hundreds of years ago) when we passed around the occasional joint and used a roach clip. Shhhh. Don't tell.;)

A couple of questions that have bubbled up ---
He probably had latex gloves around more than just this one "unopened" box, if he used them on a regular basis for marijuana reasons. If he was then planning a murder and trying to make sure he didn't leave dna behind, it wouldn't be a stretch that he would think to use them for that purpose, too. He had them right there.

I believe you about the powder -- but if forensics didn't test for it then we wouldn't know if it was on the black evening glove or not. Was there testimony that they did test for latex powder and found none?

I don't think lack of dna being on the black glove is an issue as there are lots of reasons why they might not be able to get a good enough sample (I think Ocean and AW2B have mentioned those). But one of the reasons could be that he had a latex glove on underneath.

Maybe the box was unopened. Maybe not. It depends upon if we can fully believe Esther's testimony. And that will always be a matter of opinion.

Beebee

11-07-2007, 06:04 PM

BeeBee.. of course you are entitled to your opinion as I'm entitled to mine..

I think it is a moot point because the expert could not find a complete profile of whoever wore that glove at one point..meaning, that the absence of Dyleski's DNA doesn't necessarily mean he didn't wear that glove...where is the DNA of whoever wore that glove?

Partial profile dna can be found on newly packaged clothing... it means nothing. Partial profile dna is everywhere. That is my point to you, the killers dna was not found in the glove!! The killer did not leave a single human cell!

The glove was not worn by anybody beyond superficial touching, otherwise dna would be there. The prosecution expert witnesses pretty much admitted that much.

Do you think the killers hand did not sweat???

Beebee

11-07-2007, 06:09 PM

It also flies in the face of the framing theory also. If this was a plant job wouldn't the killer make sure SDs DNA was inside the glove and mask of all things since it was a bludgeoning murder?

How could the killer have access to Scott Dyleski's dna???

The dna evidence in this case is ALL Pam's dna.... and the reason is because the killer had access to Pam's dna- obvioulsy, but not Scott's dna.

Beebee

11-07-2007, 06:22 PM

IMO

Quote:

[• Variable shedding refers to the extent to which different people shed their skin cells in different quantities under different circumstances. Some people are more likely than others to leave behind their DNA in the form of skin cells. Through research at the FSS, it has been found that there are, for example, “heavy shedders,” “medium shedders,” and “light shedders.” Thus, the last person to touch a particular object may not leave the most DNA or strongest profile.
• The amount of DNA deposited can also be affected by certain actions taken by the individual. Washing of one’s hands will, for a period of time, decrease the amount of skin cells a person deposits on other objects. Additionally, the amount of perspiration exerted at the time the object is being held may also affect the amount of skin cells that are deposited. Both of these scenarios could adversely affect results upon LCN-DNA analysis.]

This indicates that there could be different scientific reasons that would explain the lack of DNA in the glove..what if Dyleski is a light shedder? what if Dyleski washed his hands immediately before committing the crime? the amount of perspiration exerted varies among individuals?...that one single issue could not be used to refute all the other powerful evidence in this case..

From your article:

Thus, the last person to touch a particular object may not leave the most DNA

This glove (if it's the murder glove) was not "touched"....

It would have been through the war so to speak in the rage battle with Pamela, with the hands that were very much a part of this murder. She was BEAT to death.

ALL "single" issues matter.

When are you going to start adding them up in this case?

attorneywan2be

11-07-2007, 06:30 PM

How could the killer have access to Scott Dyleski's dna???

The dna evidence in this case is ALL Pam's dna.... and the reason is because the killer had access to Pam's dna- obvioulsy, but not Scott's dna.

BeeBee..if the killer had access to Dyleski's clothings as you suggested..he had access to Dyleski's DNA..

Quote:

These developments will bring more DNA evidence to court in a wider variety of cases and may well open new lines of defense. A key issue will be the potential for inadvertent transfer of small amounts of DNA from one item to another, a process that could easily incriminate an innocent person. Studies have documented the presence of typeable quantities of human DNA on doorknobs, coffee cups and other common items. Studies have also documented the inadvertent transfer of human DNA from one item to another. Primary transfer occurs when DNA transferred from a person to an item. Secondary transfer is when the DNA deposited on one item is transferred to a second item. Tertiary transfer is when the DNA on the second item is, in turn, transferred to a third. There are published studies that document secondary transfer of DNA (in quantities that can be detected by STR tests) from items that people simply touched to other items.

Beebee

11-07-2007, 06:37 PM

I believe you about the powder -- but if forensics didn't test for it then we wouldn't know if it was on the black evening glove or not. Was there testimony that they did test for latex powder and found none?

Q. Moving to page 3 of 19C, please. Let me ask you, is there an area here, and more specifically was there an area on the black glove that had a fluorescent kind of reaction during your examination?

A. Yes, there was.

Q. What's the significance of a fluorescent response?

A. The fluorescence response is going to be numerous materials. It could be makeup, it could be a biological fluid, some man-made fibers or materials for us.

Q. When you say "biological fluids," are you talking about biological fluids other than blood?

A. Yes.

Q. For instance, semen?

A. Semen and perspiration.

Q. Is there an area with respect to the glove that you somehow identified as an area that fluoresced?

A. Yes, there was.

Q. And do we see that on page 3 of People's Exhibit 19C?

A. Yes, we do.

Q. And where do we see that?

A. It was on the back of the middle finger of that glove.

Q. And how did you designate or separate that area from areas testing positive for blood on your diagram?

A. I outlined the area and shaded it with parallel lines.

Q. With kind of a crosshatch, the parallel lines?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you please put a little key on that diagram with a crosshatch of parallel lines and the word fluorescent, so that we can distinguish those areas from areas of presumptively positive blood?

A. Yes. (Witness drawing on exhibit.) Done.

Q. Moving to the next page, 4.

Jewett is very good at what he does (manipulating) but I'm going to assume you are smart enough to see his attempts to explain away the lack of forensics on the TESTED glove are lame.

The glove was tested.

No powder. It would have showed up in a heart beat.

Otherwise, Jewett would have attempted this excuse. He did not. That alone should tell you something.

Beebee

11-07-2007, 06:44 PM

BeeBee..if the killer had access to Dyleski's clothings as you suggested..he had access to Dyleski's DNA..

Quote:

These developments will bring more DNA evidence to court in a wider variety of cases and may well open new lines of defense. A key issue will be the potential for inadvertent transfer of small amounts of DNA from one item to another, a process that could easily incriminate an innocent person. Studies have documented the presence of typeable quantities of human DNA on doorknobs, coffee cups and other common items. Studies have also documented the inadvertent transfer of human DNA from one item to another. Primary transfer occurs when DNA transferred from a person to an item. Secondary transfer is when the DNA deposited on one item is transferred to a second item. Tertiary transfer is when the DNA on the second item is, in turn, transferred to a third. There are published studies that document secondary transfer of DNA (in quantities that can be detected by STR tests) from items that people simply touched to other items.

Let's stop here for a minute so you can tell me again why Scott Dyleski's dna wasn't in the alleged murder glove???

Now suddenly any item associated with a person's touch is a source rich in dna that can be harvested and planted??

awakening2lite

11-07-2007, 06:47 PM

I think it's some BS grey area for judges to turn things down when ever they feel like it, yet they have a "legal reason" so the system works in their favor.

It's not about a search for the truth, that much is clear.

JMO

Bee, you just might be right! I have searched for an hour or two and can't find a clue as to what "preliminary showing" might actually be.

I'm now asking all the board to help out. If anyone knows the meaning of "preliminary showing" please post it.

TIA :read:

Beebee

11-07-2007, 07:07 PM

Bee, you just might be right! I have searched for an hour or two and can't find a clue as to what "preliminary showing" might actually be.

I'm now asking all the board to help out. If anyone knows the meaning of "preliminary showing" please post it.

TIA :read:

I hope you get an answer.....

I mean, let's see.... Jason Barnes and DDA Clark lied to a judge to get the warrant.... from what I saw Leonida pointed that out in her motion to quash loud and clear....

There was no defense because it was/is a blatant lie, (to get the warrant) so I too would like to know what "preliminary showing" is supposed to mean and how that wasn't established or whatever Zuniga meant....

sunbeam

11-07-2007, 07:18 PM

attorneywan2be

11-07-2007, 07:20 PM

Let's stop here for a minute so you can tell me again why Scott Dyleski's dna wasn't in the alleged murder glove???

Now suddenly any item associated with a person's touch is a source rich in dna that can be harvested and planted??

I don't believe any planting of any kind occurred..you asked how would the killer get Dyleski's DNA..I provided you with a quote that explained how DNA could be transferred from one item to another...as I mentioned before..I don't think it is important that his DNA was not in the glove due to unknown variables..we have no idea what Dyleski did before wearing those gloves..we don't know if he is a light shedder...etc..etc..

BeeBee..the ski mask..shirt..coat are not items that Dyleski would have only touched..they are items he would have worn possibly for hours at a time..you would definitely expect a large amount of his DNA on them...

sunbeam

11-07-2007, 07:26 PM

Let's stop here for a minute so you can tell me again why Scott Dyleski's dna wasn't in the alleged murder glove???

Now suddenly any item associated with a person's touch is a source rich in dna that can be harvested and planted??
You don't have to work in the medical field to be aware of the 2 different types of latex gloves- powder and powder free. I don't work in the medical field, but am required to wear gloves and wear the powder free. That is common sense. Eveyone that works with latex gloves at my job gets the choice between powder and powder free latex gloves. I didn't know the powder-free costs more? Oh well..

Beebee

11-07-2007, 07:27 PM

I know about latex gloves too because I have to wear gloves at my job too. They have POWERED and POWERED FREE. I am allergic to the powered kind, so I too choose the POWERED FREE gloves at work.
I'm sure that's the kind a killer would purchase, so not to get the powder on anything.

Oh okay.... so now we have Scott Dyleski purchasing powder free gloves :rolleyes:

sunbeam

11-07-2007, 07:30 PM

If Scott actually had a box of latex gloves that were burnt, there is no doubt in my mind he is the killer. :(and he wore powder-free latex gloves under the big black one.)

sunbeam

11-07-2007, 07:32 PM

Oh okay.... so now we have Scott Dyleski purchasing powder free gloves :rolleyes:
Why in the holy heck would he choose to purchase the powdered kind?

Beebee

11-07-2007, 07:33 PM

I don't believe any planting of any kind occurred..you asked how would the killer get Dyleski's DNA..I provided you with a quote that explained how DNA could be transferred from one item to another...as I mentioned before..I don't think it is important that his DNA was not in the glove due to unknown variables..we have no idea what Dyleski did before wearing those gloves..we don't know if he is a light shedder...etc..etc..

BeeBee..the ski mask..shirt..coat are not items that Dyleski would have only touched..they are items he would have worn possibly for hours at a time..you would definitely expect a large amount of his DNA on them...

Scott's dna did not incriminate him. Pam's dna was the incriminating dna.
So, I never thought Scott's dna was planted in the first place. His dna was not at the scene or on Pamela. :confused:

Anyhow--

Speaking of shedding, how do you suppose he would shed in that glove during a rage battle with his hands??

Beebee

11-07-2007, 07:50 PM

If Scott actually had a box of latex gloves that were burnt, there is no doubt in my mind he is the killer. :(and he wore powder-free latex gloves under the big black one.)

There was no evidence of latex period!

Forget the powder, it still doesn't fly. Any glove worn to beat Pam would indeed contain forensic evidence of a latex glove if that glove was under the murder glove.

I gave you the info that the glove was tested. It was negative for everything except Pam's dna.

Hipcheck

11-07-2007, 07:52 PM

.

The glove was tested.

No powder. It would have showed up in a heart beat.

.

Could a powderless latex glove been used?

Carrot

11-07-2007, 07:56 PM

Carrot

11-07-2007, 08:06 PM

There was no evidence of latex period!

Forget the powder, it still doesn't fly. Any glove worn to beat Pam would indeed contain forensic evidence of a latex glove if that glove was under the murder glove.

I gave you the info that the glove was tested. It was negative for everything except Pam's dna.

Hi Beebee
I read through the testimony you posted, and I don't see anything in there that shows there was or was not latex. :shrug:

In fact, it showed make-up could cause fluorescence. How about latex powder? They didn't have an exhaustive list of items that would have caused fluorescence -- just gave a few examples.

Sorry - just didn't see anything in the transcript excerpt you posted that convinces me he couldn't have worn latex gloves -- powdered or not.

Jadedblueeyes

11-07-2007, 08:19 PM

How could the killer have access to Scott Dyleski's dna???

The dna evidence in this case is ALL Pam's dna.... and the reason is because the killer had access to Pam's dna- obviously, but not Scott's dna.

But the killer wouldn't have access to the shoes or other items that were in SDs possession, or ma's or those given to his girlfriend unless SD is the killer. From what I recall Ester said she saw Scott putting the duffel bag in the vehicle on Monday.

Scott Dyleski left the bloody print of his shoe in that home then a short time later he removed THOSE shoes and specifically took them with him when he left the neighborhood surrounding the crime scene.

imoo

awakening2lite

11-07-2007, 08:37 PM

The warrant was clearly illegal, IMO.... but this judge (Zuniga) wasn't about to toss the evidence from the van.... SO WHAT if basic rights were violated :flamemad:

The Court hears argument on Defense's motion to Traverse the
search warrant, motion to quash search warrant and to suppress
.- evidence. Counsel submits the matter to the Court. The Court
rules the Defense did not make a preliminary showing. The motion
to Traverse is denied. The Court rules there was sufficient
evidence for a search warrant. The Court denies the motion to
quash. The following People's exhibits are marked for identification and
admitted into evidence.
2m- Search Warrant.
3m- Search Warrant.
4m Skeleton transcript.
The Court takes a mid afternoon break.

The biotch did what she wanted, because she could. IMO

Ok, I think I found it.
I think the Judge is saying the defense did not present enough information sufficent to prove it.
ref: http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:4UNFFhx_BfsJ:www.wisbar.org/AM/TemplateRedirect.cfm%3Ftemplate%3D/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm%26ContentID%3D50865+search+warr ant,+preliminary+showing&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a

See page 4, IX Franks motions
A.
False statements in search warrant affidavits made
intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth may lead to
the suppression of evidence seized under a warrant. Franks v.
Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978); State v. Anderson, 138 Wis.2d
451, 406 N.W.2d 398 (1987); State v. Manuel, 213 Wis.2d 308,
570 N.W.2d 601 (Ct. App. 1997).
B.
Substantial preliminary showing must be made by moving
party.
C.
Applies to facts that are misrepresented or omitted.
D.
To warrant an evidentiary hearing, the challenge or attack
must be more than conclusory.
E.
No hearing is required if, when the material that is the subject
of the alleged falsity is removed, or omitted facts were added,
there still remains sufficient content in the warrant to support a
finding of probable cause.
F.
Offer of proof.
------
and this ref: http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/2006/02/ninth-upholds-sealed-search-warrant.html

Although both of these deal with issues of informants identity, it is clear they are also referring to that lack of information preventing them from providing the court with an adequate premininary showing.

--------
My conclusion: The defense did not provide the court with enough information to sucessfully argue in the preliminary showing.

Anyone else see it differently?

TIA to all who have input or references.

awakening2lite

11-07-2007, 08:57 PM

Ocean,
Are you sure about Scott putting the bag into the van on Monday?
I thought E said, on the 17th they (with Lynch and SD) were out cutting brush and that is when she looked in the van and asked SD what was in the duffle bag. His reply: Old clothes.

ref: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060216/ai_n16208840

Carrot

11-07-2007, 09:10 PM

Ok, I think I found it.
I think the Judge is saying the defense did not present enough information sufficent to prove it.
ref: http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:4UNFFhx_BfsJ:www.wisbar.org/AM/TemplateRedirect.cfm%3Ftemplate%3D/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm%26ContentID%3D50865+search+warr ant,+preliminary+showing&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a

See page 4, IX Franks motions
A.
False statements in search warrant affidavits made
intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth may lead to
the suppression of evidence seized under a warrant. Franks v.
Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978); State v. Anderson, 138 Wis.2d
451, 406 N.W.2d 398 (1987); State v. Manuel, 213 Wis.2d 308,
570 N.W.2d 601 (Ct. App. 1997).
B.
Substantial preliminary showing must be made by moving
party.
C.
Applies to facts that are misrepresented or omitted.
D.
To warrant an evidentiary hearing, the challenge or attack
must be more than conclusory.
E.
No hearing is required if, when the material that is the subject
of the alleged falsity is removed, or omitted facts were added,
there still remains sufficient content in the warrant to support a
finding of probable cause.
F.
Offer of proof.
------
and this ref: http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/2006/02/ninth-upholds-sealed-search-warrant.html

Although both of these deal with issues of informants identity, it is clear they are also referring to that lack of information preventing them from providing the court with an adequate premininary showing.

--------
My conclusion: The defense did not provide the court with enough information to sucessfully argue in the preliminary showing.

Anyone else see it differently?

TIA to all who have input or references.

Your conclusion sounds reasonable to me. I was trying to find some legal dictionary on-line to help with that terminology but was coming up blank.

awakening2lite

11-07-2007, 09:15 PM

Your conclusion sounds reasonable to me. I was trying to find some legal dictionary on-line to help with that terminology but was coming up blank.

Thanks Carrot for confirming my conclusion.

Believe me I tried every legal dict I could find first and didn't fare any better than your efforts.

Carrot

11-07-2007, 09:26 PM

Thanks Carrot for confirming my conclusion.

Believe me I tried every legal dict I could find first and didn't fare any better than your efforts.

You think it would be easier to get basic legal terminology online! Maybe someone will tell us some good link for that kind of thing. Have a good evening!

Beebee

11-07-2007, 09:32 PM

Ok, I think I found it.
I think the Judge is saying the defense did not present enough information sufficent to prove it.
My conclusion: The defense did not provide the court with enough information to sucessfully argue in the preliminary showing.

Anyone else see it differently?

TIA to all who have input or references.

The way I understand it, the defense... Leonida... did not provide the court with enough information.

My question is what more does "the court", Zuniga, need??!?

Barnes and Clark lied. There is no getting around it for me.

I know the prosecution claimed Barnes was mistaken because he didn't have his paperwork in front of him.... GMAB, that is NO excuse, the DA's office was giving Robin Croen immunity for the cc fraud at the same time!! :flamemad: Are we to believe they give immunity without knowing the facts of the case?! :cuss:

Beebee

11-07-2007, 09:35 PM

Thanks Carrot for confirming my conclusion.

Believe me I tried every legal dict I could find first and didn't fare any better than your efforts.

It is a grey area that Zuniga exploited, imo...

The TRUTH should matter, not Leonida's wording of how Barnes and Clark lied.

The system sucks, imo.

attorneywan2be

11-07-2007, 09:48 PM

But the killer wouldn't have access to the shoes or other items that were in SDs possession, or ma's or those given to his girlfriend unless SD is the killer. From what I recall Ester said she saw Scott putting the duffel bag in the vehicle on Monday.

Scott Dyleski left the bloody print of his shoe in that home then a short time later he removed THOSE shoes and specifically took them with him when he left the neighborhood surrounding the crime scene.

imoo

IMO

Hi mother found the duffel bag in the van on Monday..then she checked with him about the bag..according to her statement to the police Dyleski told her that it was old anyway and he left it up there..so it's clear to me Dyleski was the one who put it in the van...

Q. Well, Mrs. Fielding, after you found this bag in the

van, did you go back to the house and ask Scott about it?

A. Yes, some time later.

Q. Later that day?

A. Yeah. I think it was Monday.

Q. And when you went back and talked to them about it,

what did he say?

A. I think he said something about old clothes.

Q. Did he say to you it was old anyway, and I just left it

up there?

A. He could have.

Q. Did he say words to that effect?

A. Words to that effect.

Q. And whatever words he used leave you with the

impression that your son, Scott, left this bag with this

overcoat up in the van?

A. I'm not absolutely sure.

Q. What do you mean you are not absolutely sure?

A. Well, you are asking a very specific question about

what I was thinking at the time and I don't recall. The

impression that I got was that he didn't care about it.

Q. Did he tell you that he put it up there?

A. No.

MR. JEWETT: If I may just have a minute, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

(Pause in proceedings.)

Q. Okay. I want to return to that

interview, the taped interview that you had with the sheriff's

office and direct your attention to page 18 of 21 of Cary

Goldberg's police report and have you read to yourself the third

full paragraph, and ask you if that refreshes your memory about

what you said about what Scott says about that bag.

A. (Witness reviewing report.)

Q. Mrs. Fielding, have you had a chance to look at that?

A. Ah, yes.

Q. Does that refresh your memory as to whether or not, at

least, you told Detective Goldberg on the question of, it was

old any way and I just -- referring to what your son said -- it

was old any way and I just left it up there?

MS. LEONIDA: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I think so.

awakening2lite

11-07-2007, 10:01 PM

The way I understand it, the defense... Leonida... did not provide the court with enough information.

My question is what more does "the court", Zuniga, need??!?

Barnes and Clark lied. There is no getting around it for me.

I know the prosecution claimed Barnes was mistaken because he didn't have his paperwork in front of him.... GMAB, that is NO excuse, the DA's office was giving Robin Croen immunity for the cc fraud at the same time!! :flamemad: Are we to believe they give immunity without knowing the facts of the case?! :cuss:

Ok, I am scratching my head now. Wasn't Barnes paperwork attached to the Motion to Quash?

If it is it clearly shows his "mistake". IMO

Seriously, that is important and a qualified Experienced attorney should to look into it.

attorneywan2be

11-07-2007, 10:11 PM

Scott's dna did not incriminate him. Pam's dna was the incriminating dna.
So, I never thought Scott's dna was planted in the first place. His dna was not at the scene or on Pamela. :confused:

Anyhow--

Speaking of shedding, how do you suppose he would shed in that glove during a rage battle with his hands??

IMO

BeeBee..I guess we simply have to agree to disagree on that one..that's totally fine..again..the absence of DNA in the glove doesn't mean anything to me because it could be due to a variety of reasons...

The evidence against him is overwhelming..the consciousness of guilt..+..Pamela's DNA on the duffel bag..ski mask..glove..and his shoes..
I would not accept the theory that the killer (Horowitz) carried around Pamela's blood and a lid..went inside the property searching for Dyleski's stuff..recognizing his clothes and shoes..then coincidentally Dyleski decided to pack those particular shoes in the backpack that he gave to his girlfriend to hold for him..the backpack he packed after his mother told him to get rid of incriminating evidence from his room...

I'm totally convinced that Dyleski murdered Pamela...

Beebee

11-07-2007, 10:25 PM

IMO

BeeBee..I guess we simply have to agree to disagree on that one..that's totally fine..again..the absence of DNA in the glove doesn't mean anything to me because it could be due to a variety of reasons...

.

PLEASE list the reasons.

attorneywan2be

11-07-2007, 10:47 PM

PLEASE list the reasons.

The expert testified that there was a very limited amount of DNA recovered from that area..

Degraded mixture of DNA..

If there were three contributors Dyleski is not excluded..he could still be present..so if someone else wore that glove then we would have 3 contributors..Pamela + Dyleski + whoever wore the glove at one point..in other words..the results would be inconclusive..

Dyleski wore other gloves beneath the black gloves..

Dyleski is very light shedder

Dyleski washed his hands immediately before committing the murder..

Beebee

11-07-2007, 10:58 PM

The expert testified that there was a very limited amount of DNA recovered from that area..

Degraded mixture of DNA..

If there were three contributors Dyleski is not excluded..he could still be present..so if someone else wore that glove then we would have 3 contributors..Pamela + Dyleski + whoever wore the glove at one point..in other words..the results would be inconclusive..

Dyleski wore other gloves beneath the black gloves..

Dyleski is very light shedder

Dyleski washed his hands immediately before committing the murder..

That "area"..... you mean the MURDER GLOVE??.... it should have been griped with great force in multiple areas.... palm, fingers, wrist/hand flexation...

What gloves did he wear under the murder glove? Why would he do that??

Why were there no traces of a second glove?? Trauma and injury would displace skin AND latex/plastic.

Can we be reasonable here??

Tell me the tale of latex gloves and nylon gloves and why both were picked and why ONE nylon glove is placed in a bag with his name????

awakening2lite

11-07-2007, 11:20 PM

Beebee

11-07-2007, 11:30 PM

Is it true?
The bloody gore of the murder scene had been described as having:
blood soaked rugs
Blood on the ceilings
Blood on the walls
Blood on the front door
Blood on the bathroom shower walls
Blood on the Bath water levers
Blood on towels
Blood on broken cup, and bowl

Yet, only one (of a pair) glove is found and it only has a tiny speck of blood on it?

How could that be possible in such a blood bath?

TIA

YES, You are right.... it was a blood bath. Dan Horowitz said "party of blood"... Blood soaked carpet in front of the door.

Why is there only "blood" on one shoe???

Why aren't they COVERED and dna in the groves of the soles as would be expected per prosecution witness Stockwell??

attorneywan2be

11-07-2007, 11:30 PM

That "area"..... you mean the MURDER GLOVE??.... it should have been griped with great force in multiple areas.... palm, fingers, wrist/hand flexation...

What gloves did he wear under the murder glove? Why would he do that??

Why were there no traces of a second glove?? Trauma and injury would displace skin AND latex/plastic.

Can we be reasonable here??

Tell me the tale of latex gloves and nylon gloves and why both were picked and why ONE nylon glove is placed in a bag with his name????

IMO

For example..trace DNA could have been damaged due to being in a van exposed to ultraviolet..heat..etc..

I noticed you ignored the part about possible 3 contributors..that glove was most likely worn by someone else at some point..so this would mean Dyleski would not be excluded..it's inconclusive..meaning it is a moot point..

BeeBee..I think I'm more than reasonable..I consider the framing theory unreasonable..I simply cannot picture this happening..in addition there isn't one shred of evidence of planting..all the evidence points to Dyleski!

Can we please agree to disagree..we don't have to agree on everything ..do we?

Beebee

11-07-2007, 11:43 PM

IMO

For example..trace DNA could have been damaged due to being in a van exposed to ultraviolet..heat..etc..

I noticed you ignored the part about possible 3 contributors..that glove was most likely worn by someone else at some point..so this would mean Dyleski would not be excluded..it's inconclusive..meaning it is a moot point..

BeeBee..I think I'm more than reasonable..I consider the framing theory unreasonable..I simply cannot picture this happening..in addition there isn't one shred of evidence of planting..all the evidence points to Dyleski!

Can we please agree to disagree..we don't have to agree on everything ..do we?

Your first sentence makes no sense. Being in a van protects from ultraviolet.... ?? There was no dna from Scott in the alleged murder glove. That is not in dispute.

Do you think the killer sweat in the glove? Do you think force was used in the blows?

I'm just wondering to what extent we are disagreeing on....

attorneywan2be

11-07-2007, 11:55 PM

I'm just wondering to what extent we are disagreeing on....

I think:

You think Dyleski was excluded..

I think the results were inconclusive.. he was neither ruled out nor ruled in..

Aslan

11-08-2007, 01:12 AM

attorneywan2be

11-08-2007, 05:23 AM

Your first sentence makes no sense. Being in a van protects from ultraviolet...

Ultraviolet can penetrate auto/van windows..and we know that UVA and UVB damage DNA..so a trace DNA in the glove would most likely be severely damaged for being in the van exposed to ultraviolet for few days..

Quote:

Only UVA rays penetrate glass -- and these rays are particularly damaging. They can be 1,000 more intense than UVB rays, invading deeply into the underlying tissue. Besides leading to cancer, UVA rays are the primary cause of photo skin aging -- wrinkles, dryness, and age spots.

In addition, children are especially vulnerable to the UVA rays streaming through auto windows.They frequently sit in the back of the car, where the intensity of these rays is highest.

Carrot

11-08-2007, 07:47 AM

snip

Why is there only "blood" on one shoe???

snip

I thought the testimony (posted by attorneywan2be) showed her dna was found on both shoes?

Beebee

11-08-2007, 07:52 AM

Couple of thoughts.

If he bought the latex gloves in order to handle his pot (a sticky plant, you say?) then of course he would purchase the powder free kind. Who wants latex powder in their joint?

Also (forgive me if this has been asked and answered, it's been bugging me) is there any way possible that he didn't wear that ladies glove? Is it at all possible that he got rid of what he did wear after the murder and the black glove had DNA on it because it came into contact with the murder shoes in his duffel bag?

Just wondering.

I think you are misunderstanding why latex gloves contain powder.

Dusting powder is an important component in many finished disposable glove products. But because of the adverse health effects it can cause, work environments are increasingly going powder-free.

Powder performs as a lubricant, making it easy to don and remove latex gloves. It also keeps the gloves from sticking together inside the box for easier dispensing. Plus, powder helps prevent decay so latex gloves will last longer.

more at link: http://www.dontheglove.com/latexgloves/lgarticles/usepf.html

The only reason they make powder free gloves is because some people are allergic or develop a sensitivity (like in my case). Work environments need to have an alternative in those cases.

To tell you the truth I don't think I've ever seen powder free latex gloves in the store... I only see them at work, and they are only worn by those of us with allegies/sensitivities. People that don't have those issues prefer the regular, and they are cheaper.

In a case like this, the powdered gloves would be the preferred anyway. The lubricant effect keeps the oils from from the pot plant from sticking to the skin. That's the whole point.

People are forgetting that Scott and Robin were into smoking and wanting to cultivate marijuana. They already had some supplies and were actively using the vaporizer. I have no doubt the box of gloves was purchased to handle marijuana. Have you ever touched fresh marijuana buds? My guess is no. They are very sticky.

MOO

Carrot

11-08-2007, 07:53 AM

Beebee

11-08-2007, 07:58 AM

I thought the testimony (posted by attorneywan2be) showed her dna was found on both shoes?

Pam's dna was only found on one shoe.

I know AW2B is not under that impression, and I was going to comb through the testimony and lay it all out, but then I decided I didn't feel like taking the time. It wouldn't matter anyway if I did post it. I think her mind is made up.

It is a lot of work to spoon feed information to people....

Do your own research on the shoe and let us know what you come up with.

Beebee

11-08-2007, 08:01 AM

It could also have been that he still had the glove on when he rinsed his knife off in the bathtub and thus rinsed a lot of blood off of the glove in the process. He didn't want his dna to be found, so he probably would not have taken it off while at the murder scene.

So your explanation for Scott's dna not being in the glove is he washed it off the glove??

Am I reading that right??

Carrot

11-08-2007, 08:18 AM

Pam's dna was only found on one shoe.

I know AW2B is not under that impression, and I was going to comb through the testimony and lay it all out, but then I decided I didn't feel like taking the time. It wouldn't matter anyway if I did post it. I think her mind is made up.

It is a lot of work to spoon feed information to people....

Do your own research on the shoe and let us know what you come up with.

What's with the spoon-feeding comment?

The testimony posted was clear. I don't see how it could be read in any other way than Pamela Vitale's dna was found on both shoes. I'm not just accepting someone else's opinion -- I read it for myself and came to the same conclusion as AW2B.

Carrot

11-08-2007, 08:32 AM

So your explanation for Scott's dna not being in the glove is he washed it off the glove??

Am I reading that right??

No. I think there are many reasonable explanations for not getting SD's dna off the glove, as have been outlined by other posters (wore a glove underneath or light shedder or degraded dna, etc.)

No, I don't think he "washed" the glove.

I was responding to what Aslan wrote, and I may have misread his/her post. I thought Aslan was wondering why there wasn't more of Pamela's blood on the glove, and I thought that could be due to him still having the glove on when he rinsed the knife off in the bathtub. Some of the blood on the glove would have rinsed off in that process. (not washed. rinsed.)

Now, I'm not saying this is exactly what I think happened -- just having a back and forth conversation about possibilities. Isn't that what we're all doing here?:shrug:

Beebee

11-08-2007, 08:46 AM

Ultraviolet can penetrate auto/van windows..and we know that UVA and UVB damage DNA..so a trace DNA in the glove would most likely be severely damaged for being in the van exposed to ultraviolet for few days..

The glove was inside a bag.

Are you saying the ultraviolet light penetrated the bag too and destroyed Scott's dna in the glove?

sunbeam

11-08-2007, 09:34 AM

I think you are misunderstanding why latex gloves contain powder.

more at link: http://www.dontheglove.com/latexgloves/lgarticles/usepf.html

The only reason they make powder free gloves is because some people are allergic or develop a sensitivity (like in my case). Work environments need to have an alternative in those cases.

To tell you the truth I don't think I've ever seen powder free latex gloves in the store... I only see them at work, and they are only worn by those of us with allegies/sensitivities. People that don't have those issues prefer the regular, and they are cheaper.

In a case like this, the powdered gloves would be the preferred anyway. The lubricant effect keeps the oils from from the pot plant from sticking to the skin. That's the whole point.

People are forgetting that Scott and Robin were into smoking and wanting to cultivate marijuana. They already had some supplies and were actively using the vaporizer. I have no doubt the box of gloves was purchased to handle marijuana. Have you ever touched fresh marijuana buds? My guess is no. They are very sticky.

MOO
The point wasn't about the latex, it was about the possibility that Scott didn't wear that particular glove. You didn't have an answer for that part of the post, I noticed.

sunbeam

11-08-2007, 09:38 AM

If there were three contributors Dyleski is not excluded..he could still be present..so if someone else wore that glove then we would have 3 contributors..Pamela + Dyleski + whoever wore the glove at one point..in other words..the results would be inconclusive..

Bingo! You just solved the puzzle!

Beebee

11-08-2007, 10:14 AM

What's with the spoon-feeding comment?

The testimony posted was clear. I don't see how it could be read in any other way than Pamela Vitale's dna was found on both shoes. I'm not just accepting someone else's opinion -- I read it for myself and came to the same conclusion as AW2B.

Hey Carrot,

I need to apologize for the spoon feeding comment, because I went back and checked and AW2B was right, ultimately Stockwell found Pam's dna on both shoes. It has been a long time since I reviewed the testimony of Collins/Stockwell side by side, and to be honest, I can't remember how/why I concluded dna was only on one shoe.... I stand corrected. It was on both.

I counted at least 17 different samples taken by Collins on the shoes. Of all those samples only 4 had dna. One gave no typing results, that was on the right shoe, one gave the degraded mixture, that was from the sole of the left foot, then the 2 areas from each shoe that tested positive for Pam's dna.

So it looks like the person who smeared those shoes did have access to both. Maybe that makes more sense.

IMO

awakening2lite

11-08-2007, 10:44 AM

Couple of thoughts.

Also (forgive me if this has been asked and answered, it's been bugging me) is there any way possible that he didn't wear that ladies glove? Is it at all possible that he got rid of what he did wear after the murder and the black glove had DNA on it because it came into contact with the murder shoes in his duffel bag?

Just wondering.>snipped<

The shoes were not found in the duffel bag.

awakening2lite

11-08-2007, 10:48 AM

Good point!!!!

That could be possible.

It could also have been that he still had the glove on when he rinsed his knife off in the bathtub and thus rinsed a lot of blood off of the glove in the process. He didn't want his dna to be found, so he probably would not have taken it off while at the murder scene.

Isn't it a shame they didn't pull those drains for testing?

I know NG pointed it out and asked that question and she was right. How could they have missed that?

awakening2lite

11-08-2007, 10:57 AM

YES, You are right.... it was a blood bath. Dan Horowitz said "party of blood"... Blood soaked carpet in front of the door.

>snipped<

Yes, a blood bath. This was close personal one on one fight with PV's blood everywhere.
I just don't understand there being so little blood on what was found on the items in the bag and on the shoes.

One would think with all the resources that county had at it's disposal they could have created an animation to explain it. :shrug:

I know from handling minor cuts and injuries that it's almost impossible not get blood somewhere on you. Doctors and nurses wear protective clothing and goggles and more to keep themselves from being contaminated during surgery and that isn't a violent arena like that murder scene was.

Does that puzzle anyone else?

TIA

Beebee

11-08-2007, 11:08 AM

>snipped<

Yes, a blood bath. This was close personal one on one fight with PV's blood everywhere.
I just don't understand there being so little blood on what was found on the items in the bag and on the shoes.

One would think with all the resources that county had at it's disposal they could have created an animation to explain it. :shrug:

I know from handling minor cuts and injuries that it's almost impossible not get blood somewhere on you. Doctors and nurses wear protective clothing and goggles and more to keep themselves from being contaminated during surgery and that isn't a violent arena like that murder scene was.

Does that puzzle anyone else?

TIA

Yes.

I think we can all agree that whoever killed Pam left that place a blood soaked mess themselves. There was much person to person contact in this kill.

So where did that person go to clean up?? I would think one would need at least some water, and a way to change clothes.

attorneywan2be

11-08-2007, 11:41 AM

The glove was inside a bag.

Are you saying the ultraviolet light penetrated the bag too and destroyed Scott's dna in the glove?

Ultraviolet radiation can penetrate fabrics..so IMO it could damage trace DNA..

attorneywan2be

11-08-2007, 12:01 PM

So it looks like the person who smeared those shoes did have access to both. Maybe that makes more sense.

IMO

IMO

BeeBee..I think you initially said that the fact the DNA was found on one shoe is consistent with the framing theory.. because if those shoes were worn as the murder was being committed we would expect to find DNA on both shoes...are you saying now that the DNA being on both shoes makes more sense as to the framing theory?

I think it is further proof that Dyleski was indeed wearing them as he was committing the murder...that would explain why he removed them from the area that was going to be searched...

Beebee

11-08-2007, 01:58 PM

IMO

BeeBee..I think you initially said that the fact the DNA was found on one shoe is consistent with the framing theory.. because if those shoes were worn as the murder was being committed we would expect to find DNA on both shoes...are you saying now that the DNA being on both shoes makes more sense as to the framing theory?

I think it is further proof that Dyleski was indeed wearing them as he was committing the murder...that would explain why he removed them from the area that was going to be searched...

Somehow during the trial... long before transcripts were available, it was discussed on CTV that only one shoe had dna and I assumed it was true.

I remember the point being made to me that if somebody was going to plant dna why wouldn't they plant it on both shoes, because that would make more sense given the killer would have been walking in blood with both feet.

I countered that maybe the killer only had access to one shoe when he did the planting and couldn't find the other. I could only speculate as to when.... and even now, I'm not sure. Given the print pattern in the blood on the lid that looks similar to Scott's shoe, I very much lean towards the planting taking place the same day as the murder. But it is possible that the print pattern on the lid didn't come from Scott's shoe. For one, if it did, why couldn't they determine an EXACT match?? And second, where is the dna that should be in the recessed areas of the soles on BOTH shoes??

None of the dna evidence in this case is without questions and baggage.

By the way, do you seriously believe that ultraviolet light coming into the van windows destoyed Scott's dna in the glove while it was packed inside a bag??

attorneywan2be

11-08-2007, 02:29 PM

By the way, do you seriously believe that ultraviolet light coming into the van windows destoyed Scott's dna in the glove while it was packed inside a bag??

The expert testified that he was able to get a limited amount of recovered DNA for testing from that area of the glove with the major component being Pamela's..the minor component was a mixture of trace alleles..so I'm saying that exposure to ultraviolet could have contributed to its further degradation..

The bottom line is: the glove was most likely worn by other people at one point..maybe even children played with it..according to his mother's testimony that glove was in a costume box along with other costume stuff for kids to play with..so I would say there were at least 3 contributors if not more..---> DNA results of that area of the glove would be inconclusive.---> Dyleski could neither be ruled in nor ruled out..

Jadedblueeyes

11-08-2007, 02:30 PM

Somehow during the trial... long before transcripts were available, it was discussed on CTV that only one shoe had dna and I assumed it was true.

I remember the point being made to me that if somebody was going to plant dna why wouldn't they plant it on both shoes, because that would make more sense given the killer would have been walking in blood with both feet.

I countered that maybe the killer only had access to one shoe when he did the planting and couldn't find the other. I could only speculate as to when.... and even now, I'm not sure. Given the print pattern in the blood on the lid that looks similar to Scott's shoe, I very much lean towards the planting taking place the same day as the murder. But it is possible that the print pattern on the lid didn't come from Scott's shoe. For one, if it did, why couldn't they determine an EXACT match?? And second, where is the dna that should be in the recessed areas of the soles on BOTH shoes??

None of the dna evidence in this case is without questions and baggage.

By the way, do you seriously believe that ultraviolet light coming into the van windows destroyed Scott's dna in the glove while it was packed inside a bag??

I am lost again. lol

Ok the planting happened that day. She was supposed to be killed somewhere around 10:12 am in the morning and Scott left his premises with the shoes very early in the same day. What time did Jenna say she picked Scott up? She was the one that came and got him, right? Or was it someone else, I have forgotten, sorry.

So not only were 12 people living in that dwelling but Jenna was there at some period of time. So you think in broad daylight "someone" is walking right up to the front porch and van to plant the blood?

Can the Cruiel's porch be seen from Hunsaker Road? I thought someone said that LE on Monday had seen SD around the van when they were still in the crime scene area? Don't you think that is a little far fetched that "someone" would be planting in plain sight when everyone knew who he was by sight in that area?:confused: :confused:

Did Scott say he put the duffel bag in the van on Saturday? If he did he sure seemed to be a busy bee with clothes and shoes before leaving and it wasn't even spring cleaning time. :D

imoo

attorneywan2be

11-08-2007, 02:47 PM

I am lost again. lol

Ok the planting happened that day. She was supposed to be killed somewhere around 10:12 am in the morning and Scott left his premises with the shoes very early in the same day. What time did Jenna say she picked Scott up? She was the one that came and got him, right? Or was it someone else, I have forgotten, sorry.

So not only were 12 people living in that dwelling but Jenna was there at some period of time. So you think in broad daylight "someone" is walking right up to the front porch and van to plant the blood?

Can the Cruiel's porch be seen from Hunsaker Road? I thought someone said that LE on Monday had seen SD around the van when they were still in the crime scene area? Don't you think that is a little far fetched that "someone" would be planting in plain sight when everyone knew who he was by sight in that area?:confused: :confused:

Did Scott say he put the duffel bag in the van on Saturday? If he did he sure seemed to be a busy bee with clothes and shoes before leaving and it wasn't even spring cleaning time. :D

imoo

Jena Reddy, his girlfriend, testified that Dyleski wore those shoes on Sunday when they went to the Renaissance Faire..that same evening he packed them along with other stuff and gave the backpack to her..she was not sure if he was wearing them when she saw him on Saturday..

Beebee

11-08-2007, 03:05 PM

The expert testified that he was able to get a limited amount of recovered DNA for testing from that area of the glove with the major component being Pamela's..the minor component was a mixture of trace alleles..so I'm saying that exposure to ultraviolet could have contributed to its further degradation..

The bottom line is: the glove was most likely worn by other people at one point..maybe even children played with it..according to his mother's testimony that glove was in a costume box along with other costume stuff for kids to play with..so I would say there were at least 3 contributors if not more..---> DNA results of that area of the glove would be inconclusive.---> Dyleski could neither be ruled in nor ruled out..

Yes, it is possible children played with the glove, or trace alleles could even be present from the manufacturer. We don't know. However, one can make determinations as to what you would expect to find given a certain set of circumstances. The beating with that glove on the hand.

Can you point me to some studies or info that would support your argument that after sweating, massive and repeated exertion and expected injury to the hand-- that it would be possible not to leave a single cell behind.

ONE cell from Scott Dyleski would have given a FULL profile.

The fact that not even ONE cell was left behind needs to be expained, imo.

Beebee

11-08-2007, 03:21 PM

Jena Reddy, his girlfriend, testified that Dyleski wore those shoes on Sunday when they went to the Renaissance Faire..that same evening he packed them along with other stuff and gave the backpack to her..she was not sure if he was wearing them when she saw him on Saturday..

Let's be honest about what Jena Reddy's memory is on the shoes. This is her cross with Leonida:

Q. When you looked at the items in the bag, at some point you looked at the stuff in the bags that Scott had given you?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you examine it very closely?

A. No.

Q. But you did look at it?

A. Yes.

Q. So you were familiar with it when you talked to the police in October?

A. Yes.

Q. You had seen the shoes?

A. Yes.

Q. And I think you have already said, but I just want to ask again, your memory was clearer in October than it is now?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you remember in October telling the police that you think those were the shoes that he wore, but you weren't sure?

A. Yes.

Q. Would it be accurate to say that Scott has -- all of his shoes are black?

A. Yes.

Q. And he has several pairs of shoes, not just two?

A. I would assume so, yes.

Q. Okay. You don't study his shoes?

A. No.

Q. And I assume you had no particular reason to examine the shoes that he wore to the Renaissance Faire?

A. No.

Q. Scott has, for example, more than one pair of slip-on shoes; correct?

A. Possibly, yes.

Q. Again, is your hesitancy because you haven't examined all of his shoes?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you familiar, for example, with some vegetarian shoes that he has?

A. No.

Q. Anything call Moo shoes?

A. I'm not sure.

Q. But on Sunday, again before you went to the Renaissance Faire and while you were at the Renaissance Faire, you weren't examining his shoes to see what he was wearing, were you?

A. No.

Q. So you are not sure whether the shoes in the bag were the shoes he wore on Sunday --

A. Right.

Jena did not pick Scott up on Saturday. Scott left the Curiel home with Esther and helped her move a dresser, and then she dropped Scott off at Jena's house.

Scott never came back home on Saturday night because the road was closed off and he stayed with Jena.

Ocean the only people home during the day on Saturday were Mike and his two young kids.

Beebee

11-08-2007, 03:27 PM

Don't you think that is a little far fetched that "someone" would be planting in plain sight when everyone knew who he was by sight in that area

imoo

I think he would be careful not to be seen.

People sneak around and commit crimes ALL the time and don't get caught.

There is nothing difficult or impossible about it. :shrug:

attorneywan2be

11-08-2007, 03:55 PM

Let's be honest about what Jena Reddy's memory is on the shoes. This is her cross with Leonida:

Jena did not pick Scott up on Saturday. Scott left the Curiel home with Esther and helped her move a dresser, and then she dropped Scott off at Jena's house.

Scott never came back home on Saturday night because the road was closed off and he stayed with Jena.

Ocean the only people home during the day on Saturday were Mike and his two young kids.

She described the shoes on direct..she stated that the shoes he wore on Sunday were the shoes he packed..in addition..Jena testified that as far as she remembers she picked him up on Saturday after work..

Q. Did you go to the Renaissance Faire that Sunday?

A. Yes.

Q. Was it just the two of you?

A. Yes.

Q. And how were the two of you dressed?

A. I was dressed in my renaissance outfit and he, I

believe, had black pants, a pair of shoes and, I believe, a

white shirt.

Q. Describe the shoes for me, please.

A. Black, without laces.

Q. Without laces?

A. Yes.

Q. And I'm going to get to it in a second.

But were these a pair of shoes that he gave to you,

along with a bunch of other things later on that Sunday evening?

Yes.

Q. I want to show you what's been marked as People's

Exhibit 23A.

Do you recognize these shoes?

A. Yes.

Q. Whose shoes are those?

A. Scott's.

Q. Are those the shoes that he was wearing on Sunday, when

you went to the Renaissance Faire?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall whether or not he was wearing those shoes

on Saturday?

A. I'm not sure.

Q. Sunday evening, did he give you these shoes amongst a

number of other items?

A. Yes.

awakening2lite

11-08-2007, 04:08 PM

It's safe to remark that Jena's testimony was back and forth on the shoes and the events on saturday.

Yes
No
Yes
No

IMO it makes her tesimony moot on the subject

awakening2lite

11-08-2007, 04:11 PM

I am lost again. lol

Can the Cruiel's porch be seen from Hunsaker Road? I thought someone said that LE on Monday had seen SD around the van when they were still in the crime scene area? Don't you think that is a little far fetched that "someone" would be planting in plain sight when everyone knew who he was by sight in that area?:confused: :confused:

Did Scott say he put the duffel bag in the van on Saturday? If he did he sure seemed to be a busy bee with clothes and shoes before leaving and it wasn't even spring cleaning time. :D

imoo

Hi Ocean,

IIRC there is testimony and/or articles that do state you cannot see the house from the street because of the trees.

It was in one of the police reports that E and lynch and a teenage boy were seen cutting brush that day. Apparently fires are a problem that time of year and the bushes tend to grown quick and thick.

IMO

attorneywan2be

11-08-2007, 04:23 PM

It's safe to remark that Jena's testimony was back and forth on the shoes and the events on saturday.

Yes
No
Yes
No

IMO it makes her tesimony moot on the subject

I agree as to whether or not he wore those shoes on Sunday..

However..we know for sure that the shoes that had Pamela's DNA were packed on Sunday and were indeed in the backpack..

Backpack/shoes chain of custody:

Dyleski ---------> Jena
Jena------------> his mother (she burned some items and left the remaining items at her sister's house)
His mother------> DA

Beebee

11-08-2007, 04:28 PM

Hi Ocean,

IIRC there is testimony and/or articles that do state you cannot see the house from the street because of the trees.

It was in one of the police reports that E and lynch and a teenage boy were seen cutting brush that day. Apparently fires are a problem that time of year and the bushes tend to grown quick and thick.

IMO

Here is a link to a Geraldo video clip where Mark Furhman goes up Hunsacker Canyon... it gives a good idea of the area.

http://sleuthingforjustice.com/viewtopic.php?t=828

Jadedblueeyes

11-08-2007, 04:29 PM

Beebee

11-08-2007, 04:36 PM

I agree as to whether or not he wore those shoes on Sunday..

However..we know for sure that the shoes that had Pamela's DNA were packed on Sunday and were indeed in the backpack..

Backpack/shoes chain of custody:

Dyleski ---------> Jena
Jena------------> his mother (she burned some items and left the remaining items at her sister's house)
His mother------> DA

You are correct on that so if the dna was planted on the shoes it had to be before Sunday night, or after Esther handed them over.

By the way, Esther gave them to a PI at her lawyers office. That guy supposidly went straight to the DA's office. The inspector at the DA's office got the shoes from him. The PI that drove the shoes to the DA's office never testified, so there is a break in the chain of custody as far as I am concerned. We have no way of knowing if that guy made any stops or not.

Leonida tried to object to the shoes being admitted because of it-- but it didn't matter to Zuniga.

Beebee

11-08-2007, 04:41 PM

Yes but the "planter" would have no way of knowing who was going to be there or where.

So he took these shoes when he left with his mother. I remember that he never returned home that day.

imoo

True Ocean, he wouldn't know. He would have to be careful and sneaky and stay outside. I have no doubt he could pull it off. He knows those trails. He knows the area. He is not afraid of danger.

JMO

awakening2lite

11-08-2007, 04:41 PM

I agree as to whether or not he wore those shoes on Sunday..

However..we know for sure that the shoes that had Pamela's DNA were packed on Sunday and were indeed in the backpack..

Backpack/shoes chain of custody:

Dyleski ---------> Jena
Jena------------> his mother (she burned some items and left the remaining items at her sister's house)
His mother------> DA

I hear ya on the chain of known custody of the shoes. However, there was opportunity for others to have handled them too. It was my understanding they all took off shoes and left them on the porch before entering the house. We don't know who may have handled or had access to the bag while Jena had it. Heck, I don't recall anyone asking her where she kept it or if she left the house with it or any questions pertaining to the contents being handled.
Jena's mother was also present at the burning. Then at his aunts house, as you point out, they were placed in a white bag and at some point turned over to the le. Who knows how many handled them once they were turned over. I don't recall that being questioned either.

The biggest problem in this case, IMO, was the lack of investigation and experts and on the part of the defense, experience. There are so many unanswered questions.

Please post correction where needed. TIA

attorneywan2be

11-08-2007, 05:10 PM

You are correct on that so if the dna was planted on the shoes it had to be before Sunday night, or after Esther handed them over.

By the way, Esther gave them to a PI at her lawyers office. That guy supposidly went straight to the DA's office. The inspector at the DA's office got the shoes from him. The PI that drove the shoes to the DA's office never testified, so there is a break in the chain of custody as far as I am concerned. We have no way of knowing if that guy made any stops or not.

Leonida tried to object to the shoes being admitted because of it-- but it didn't matter to Zuniga.

IMO

I must say that I agree with Zuniga's ruling..
Anyhow..I'm trying to understand your point..do you think that it's possible his attorney or the PI he hired would plant Pamela's DNA on Dyleski's shoes? plant the DNA on October 27?

Beebee

11-08-2007, 05:52 PM

IMO

I must say that I agree with Zuniga's ruling..
Anyhow..I'm trying to understand your point..do you think that it's possible his attorney or the PI he hired would plant Pamela's DNA on Dyleski's shoes? plant the DNA on October 27?

You agree that a proper chain of custody does not have to be established?

Please expalin why you agree with her ruling. I don't understand why Jewett didn't call him as a witness. Surely he was aware of this "loose end".

Anyway... I think anything is possible..... do you think it is out of the realm of possibility that a PI might know Dan Horowitz, and might want to "help" the case?? I don't.

Here is the thing, I think Pam's dna was planted on the shoes. I don't know exactly how or when..... there are many possibilities.

When you have no real chain of custody.... a lot can happen. Do you agree with that??

attorneywan2be

11-08-2007, 06:44 PM

You agree that a proper chain of custody does not have to be established?

Please expalin why you agree with her ruling. I don't understand why Jewett didn't call him as a witness. Surely he was aware of this "loose end".

Anyway... I think anything is possible..... do you think it is out of the realm of possibility that a PI might know Dan Horowitz, and might want to "help" the case?? I don't.

Here is the thing, I think Pam's dna was planted on the shoes. I don't know exactly how or when..... there are many possibilities.

When you have no real chain of custody.... a lot can happen. Do you agree with that??

I simply can't believe it..what chain of custody??

Are you saying that the state should be deprived of presenting evidence because of the way the defendant handled the evidence that incriminates him?? who had those shoes? Dyleski chose to hide them with Jena..his mother chose to give them to her lawyer who legally represented the family...her lawyer was legally authorized by the family to take possession of the shoes..he had the authority to select whichever means to transport them to the DA..from that moment forward the DA would be responsible for the chain of custody...

So yes..I fully agree with Zuniga's ruling..!!!!!

Aslan

11-08-2007, 08:58 PM

Thank you sunbeam,carrot and Beebee for your response :)

Beebee, I understand what you're saying and honestly I don't think the gloves (latex) fit into the picture but to all of a sudden say he may have had the powdered ones because he was dealing with trying to sell pot (which btw is illegal) probably isn't a good way to protest Scott as an innocent lamb.
I honestly don't think he wore that glove. Not to a killing. Awak2lite says the shoes weren't in the duffel. Was there anything else in the duffel that had her DNA? Because a nylon glove is thin and can certainly be in contact with something with the dna and absorb some. Was the mask in the bag?

Again, too many "why he did's" and not a nary credible "How he couldn't have"

As has been pointed out, DH was in pretty good shape and a blow from (yeah I agree, a rock) would do more damage immediately than a wiry 16 year old.

Also, perhaps when he went to see her she was eyeing the TV and wanted it moved. Is it possible he offered to help her do just that and then attacked?

All my opinion and just trying to piece together what 'could have' happened.

We won't know. She can't speak from the grave and he certainly isn't talking.

Edited to add: If she wanted the tv moved, he couldn't have been wearing the mask at the time. Who would ask mister ski mask to help them move a tv?
In his pocket maybe?

Also is it possible that he went looking for the waterfall to clean the stuff he had that was bloody? When it wasn't found he dropped it in a field that just happened to belong to Wheeler?

Again..just tossing out thoughts.

Aslan

11-08-2007, 09:53 PM

awakening2lite

11-08-2007, 10:31 PM

Here is a link to a Geraldo video clip where Mark Furhman goes up Hunsacker Canyon... it gives a good idea of the area.

http://sleuthingforjustice.com/viewtopic.php?t=828

Thanks, Bee

That's really beautiful country.

What do you know about why the burglary charge held up in court. Do you have any testimony regarding burglary? I feel it is worthy of discussion because it was the added charge that brought the lWOP.

I don't recall a forced entry or stolen items being a part of this, but maybe it was?

TIA

Jadedblueeyes

11-08-2007, 10:59 PM

awakening2lite

11-08-2007, 11:24 PM

From what I recall in California if someone enters a home without permission they can be charged with burglary even if they did not steal any items. It was obvious that whatever happened ............happened right at the front doorway. Imo she did not have the door locked. Dan said it was common for them not to lock their doors during the day. I think she was busy on her computer and he burst through the door surprising her.

imoo

Hi Ocean,

That is a really stiff penalty! That must mean that most burglars will have at least 2 strikes on conviction? One for entering without permission and the second for whatever they do steal.

I'm surprised any criminals manage to grow a long rap sheet.

I did find one reference and if interpreted correctly any residential burglary is a first degree (1 strike) however, burglary of a commercial business/building is a second degree felony without a strike.

Thanks for responding.

awakening2lite

11-08-2007, 11:36 PM

Also, did Scott ever give a good excuse as to why his right arm was swollen that day?
http://www.nbc11.com/news/9624541/detail.html

It probably wouldn't matter if he were left handed, but he isn't.

What a big coincidence.

Hi Aslan,

Thanks for posting that. I have been wondering if he was right handed and which hand the glove fit. Thanks to your post I did some googling and found out.
ref: http://www.courttv.com/news/horowitz/021406_ctv.html

EXCERPT
Collins said there was a blue knit ski mask, a black right-hand glove, a black raincoat, and a long-sleeve T-shirt in the duffel bag. An ID tag attached to the duffel, according to Collins, read "Dyleski, Scott."
------------------
Now, this just gives cause to wonder. He is right handed, the right wrist is injured and a glove for a right hand is found. Shouldn't the glove be torn or bloody? Shouldn't it contain some of his DNA? It will be even more odd if we learn the costume glove was a flimsy thin nylon type. Anyone know what that glove was made of?

TIA

Aslan

11-09-2007, 12:14 AM

Hi Aslan,

Thanks for posting that. I have been wondering if he was right handed and which hand the glove fit. Thanks to your post I did some googling and found out.
ref: http://www.courttv.com/news/horowitz/021406_ctv.html

EXCERPT
Collins said there was a blue knit ski mask, a black right-hand glove, a black raincoat, and a long-sleeve T-shirt in the duffel bag. An ID tag attached to the duffel, according to Collins, read "Dyleski, Scott."
------------------
Now, this just gives cause to wonder. He is right handed, the right wrist is injured and a glove for a right hand is found. Shouldn't the glove be torn or bloody? Shouldn't it contain some of his DNA? It will be even more odd if we learn the costume glove was a flimsy thin nylon type. Anyone know what that glove was made of?

TIA

Here's the thing. I don't think he wore that glove. It's a costume glove, yes? Didn't his own mother testify that the other children played with it and wore it too? Even if his dna wasn't found on it, shouldn't other dna have been found?

That's why I think (and could be completely wrong, just tossing out theories) that the glove was put in the bag with at least one other item that had the dna. I honestly do not think it's beyond the point of reason to think it would have rubbed off on a nylon glove that easily could have scrunched up and been placed near something that really did have the dna from the scene.

I'm sorry but it looks bad at every single angle. Went for a walk, time he returned is in question. DNA of his may or may not have been under her nails (was that ever clarified, btw?) Her addy was the one he gave for the ripped credit card. Here's a question, did she even know? Beebee says he didn't even know it was turned down..I think. Maybe not. Thought I read that. did SHE (Pam) know that her addy was used?
She's dead. He has scratches, duffel bag. He has a mother who burned stuff..

You have to admit, it does not look like a frame.

Again, what about his swollen wrist and arm the day of the killing?

Aslan

11-09-2007, 12:20 AM

Mysteri

11-09-2007, 01:10 AM

I thought his dna was found on her foot and that the mask had both of their dna on it?

DNA Mix Traced To Victim and Dyleski (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060816/ai_n16643728)

Of course it was.

Thanks for the link.

Beebee

11-09-2007, 08:21 AM

I simply can't believe it..what chain of custody??

What can't you believe?

Here is the objection:

MS. LEONIDA: My objection is that I believe there's a link missing in the chain of custody in that Mr. Beaudin hasn't testified Ms. Fielding gave some shoes to her lawyer and then a private investigator dropped off some shoes to Mr. Peterson.

THE COURT: Okay. If that is the basis of the objection, that objection is overruled. They are in. (People's Exhibit 23A was received in evidence.)

Every person involved with the shoes testified as to what they did with the shoes, every step of the way, except Beaudin.

IMO Beaudin should have testified, and I wonder why Jewett didn't call him.

Beebee

11-09-2007, 08:32 AM

Thanks, Bee

That's really beautiful country.

What do you know about why the burglary charge held up in court. Do you have any testimony regarding burglary? I feel it is worthy of discussion because it was the added charge that brought the lWOP.

I don't recall a forced entry or stolen items being a part of this, but maybe it was?

TIA

I have no idea how the burglary charge held up in court.

Here is what juror number 7 said:

Question from Karma: Welcome Peter. My question is: what convinced you that Dyleski went to Vitale's house to rob her?

Peter De Cristofaro: We had shoe print evidence. That was probably for me the most compelling. As to why he went there, as the jury pretty much concluded: mainly to secure credit card and PIN number information. There are other theories as to why he was there, of course. From all the testimony though the trial, other acts of robbery along those lines in that neighborhood.

And this:

Question from Rsh2Jgmnt: As you see it, what was Dyleski's motivation for the killing?

Peter De Cristofaro: This is the big question. When we first got into the deliberation room, and that door closed, I was one of the first ones to make a statement and it was this: "Okay, you're 16 years old, it's a crisp fall Saturday morning, perhaps there's nothing on TV of interest. You go outside for a walk, and go up the hill to the neighbor's house - and then bash her head in?? What is that?" I said that in a very loud voice. That's the question from a normal perspective, a 55 year-old guy's perspective, someone who's never gotten in any trouble, before - it just didn't make sense. Even the evidence, actual or circumstantial, to steal credit cards, still really doesn't explain especially how a teenager could brutally hit a woman in the head with a hard object. Scott could be the only one to answer that question. The why question is still frustrating. But as jurors we don't need to answer the why, we just need to answer the fact that it was done.

Really sad, IMO.

Beebee

11-09-2007, 08:43 AM

Imo she did not have the door locked. Dan said it was common for them not to lock their doors during the day.

Oh really, is that what Dan said??

Here is how her children described her:

To her family, she was also known as an accomplished musician, a one-time pre-med student her father nicknamed "Dr. Pam," and a single mom who slept in the living room for eight years so her children could have private bedrooms.

She was also someone paranoid about being harmed by strangers. When Vitale was pregnant with Mario, she escaped an attack in a Los Angeles parking garage by a man who followed her into an elevator.

"He held her by the neck and lifted her up, but she made it out by the time the elevator door closed," Mario Vitale said.

The experience made her hyperaware of her safety and contributed to her decision to leave L.A. for Northern California. The giant Italian villa she was designing at the top of rural Hunsaker Canyon Road was outfitted with high-tech cameras and panic buttons in every room.

http://www.courttv.com/news/horowitz/082906_ctv.html

Beebee

11-09-2007, 08:54 AM

Now, this just gives cause to wonder. He is right handed, the right wrist is injured and a glove for a right hand is found. Shouldn't the glove be torn or bloody? Shouldn't it contain some of his DNA? It will be even more odd if we learn the costume glove was a flimsy thin nylon type. Anyone know what that glove was made of?

TIA

yep.

Nylon.

Jewett avoided any questions or descriptions of the glove, I noticed that when I went searching for a description.

It came out in Esther's testimony.

Beebee

11-09-2007, 09:00 AM

Beebee says he didn't even know it was turned down..I think. Maybe not. Thought I read that. did SHE (Pam) know that her addy was used?

:confused:

Scott knew his cc order was tuned down. He knew that on Friday before Pam's death.

What he didn't know until after her death, IMO- is that he accidently used her house mailbox number and phone instead of Karen Schneiders when he was typing in the info on the billing section of the transaction.

Hope that made sense.

Aslan

11-09-2007, 09:07 AM

:confused:

Scott knew his cc order was tuned down. He knew that on Friday before Pam's death.

What he didn't know until after her death, IMO- is that he accidently used her house mailbox number and phone instead of Karen Schneiders when he was typing in the info on the billing section of the transaction.

Hope that made sense.

Ahh it sure did! Thank you for that. I apologize. I certainly didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I'm sorry about that.

Beebee

11-09-2007, 09:08 AM

And you know what? I think we need to remember who the real victim is here.

http://www.pamela-vitale.com/

Read some of the comments about her here. She was a very much loved woman. She had her jaw knocked almost out of her mouth.

Scott is still breathing.
Pam is not.

Aslan,

You are right, by all accounts Pam was loved by her family and friends. From what I've read about her she was an amazing and accomplished woman. I can't imagine she had any enemies.

This is exactly why the behavior of Horowitz when he supposidly found the body is strange to me. He did not exhibit any fear that the killer was still around. Since the area is so remote, and up a private road, a random attack seems unlikely, yet he wasn't afraid that he was the intended target.

Strange, imo.

Actually, I think he showed no fear because HE was the actual killer, so he knew he was safe. My opinion only.

Beebee

11-09-2007, 09:16 AM

Ahh it sure did! Thank you for that. I apologize. I certainly didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I'm sorry about that.

No problem Aslan!

By the way I wanted to add.... the Curiels had a sheet hanging in their house that had phone and address info for the neighbors-- Kim Curiel was part of the home association.

Pam and Dan had an unlisted number, which was on that sheet.

That phone number was also typed in when Scott was attempting to use Karen Schneiders card. The only way Scott could have gotten that number would be by looking at the homeowners association sheet.

That tells me he got the sheet looking for Karen Schneiders address and phone number and read the wrong line.

So much for the big "connection"....

It was nothing more than an error, and one he didn't even realize until the tuesday after Pam's murder.

Aslan

11-09-2007, 09:29 AM

Heya Beebee :D I appreciate your understanding. Thank you. Again I am sorry for misrepresenting what you said.

I think he's guilty:( I also think that if he is not, you and your belief in his innocence will play a HUGE part in getting someone to listen.

So the devils advocate part of me (the part that says just maybe he was framed..it's a quiet part) wants to point out something.

If indeed someone wanted to plant something, it would be someone so familiar with the rest of the household (holy crap..12 people lived there?) that his appearance that day was so not out of the ordinary that it didn't even come up or register with people when they were questioned.

Okay I'm done with that part.

-was his DNA found under Pam's nails?
-Swollen arm and wrist.

Aside from everything else that points directly to him, those 2 are the ones on my mind right now.

(Editing to add) Thing is, if his right arm was swollen, he can't possibly say a woman from the passenger side of a car did it. Not that a grab will make your arm swell in the first place, unless it breaks the skin and a couple of days later it becomes infected

IMO

Beebee

11-09-2007, 09:56 AM

His dna was not found under Pam's nails, or anywhere at the scene.

His right wrist was was sore from bracing a fall. Nothing major.

Scott didn't try to hide or deny his minor injuries, why would he?? It was perfectly reasonable.

I raised a male teen.... he is 23 now. At any given time during those years, and even now-- if his body was examined for minor injuries there would be minor injuries. Two days ago I noticed a cut on his hand that he got where he tends bar. Come to think of it.... my husband comes home on a daily basis with minor work injuries... I'm not kidding.

Now if Scott had gotten ANY injury to the right wrist during the killing of Pam Vitale with the long black right glove going up his arm, his dna would be in that glove.

Carrot

11-09-2007, 10:22 AM

Hi Beebee,

I have to disagree with a couple of your statements here:

His dna was not found under Pam's nails, or anywhere at the scene.

His dna was found at the scene. It was on the bottom of Pamela Vitale's foot.

Excerpt from NBC11 (http://www.nbc11.com/news/9691608/detail.html)
"Harmor was the second expert to analyze the DNA sample taken from the bottom of Pamela Vitale's right foot and compare it to Dyleski's DNA. He found that it was an exact match to all 17 distinct genetic markers that had been identified in Dyleski's DNA profile."

His right wrist was was sore from bracing a fall. Nothing major.

His wrist was more than just sore:

Exerpt from ABC 7 News (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=4469340):
"Earlier in the trial, witnesses testified that Dyleski had a cut on his nose, scratches on his cheek and arms and a swollen wrist and hand. According to Peterson, the alleged injuries to Dyleski's wrist and hand would be consistent with striking somebody with a rock or similar object."

Scott Dyleski also asked Marcus Miller-Hogg (Kim Curiel's brother) for advice on treating his injuries. Sounds like more than a minor injury to me if it bothered him enough to seek out help.

Excerpt from NewsMakingNews (http://www.newsmakingnews.com/kd,dyleski,8,7,06,statements.htm):
Next, Jewett called Marcus Miller-Hogg, Kim Curiel's brother to the stand. Miller-Hogg lives in Walnut Creek. He testified he telephoned the Curiel household on Saturday to talk with Esther Fielding, but she was at work. Instead he talked with Dyleski who told him he hurt his wrist and hand and they were swollen. He wanted advice on how to treat his injuries. Miller-Hogg told Dyleski to use ice and Arnica. Miller-Hogg asked Dyleski how he was injured and Dyleski said he was walking behind a barn to look at a waterfall on the Curiel property and fell into a ravine. Miller-Hogg testified that he is familiar with his sister’s property and he told Dyleski there is no waterfall in October, a dry time of year. Dyleski said, “I went to look at it anyway.”

Aslan

11-09-2007, 10:32 AM

Now if Scott had gotten ANY injury to the right wrist during the killing of Pam Vitale with the long black right glove going up his arm, his dna would be in that glove.

Thing is, I don't think he wore that glove.

Carrot

11-09-2007, 10:42 AM

Of course it was.

Thanks for the link.

Hi Mysteri!

Thanks! The more I dive in and learn about this case, the more I'm convinced that Scott Dyleski is the killer. There's just too much.

attorneywan2be

11-09-2007, 10:57 AM

What can't you believe?

Here is the objection:

Every person involved with the shoes testified as to what they did with the shoes, every step of the way, except Beaudin.

IMO Beaudin should have testified, and I wonder why Jewett didn't call him.

Do you realize that the chain of custody the DA is responsible for starts from the moment they receive the item from THE DEFENDANT side..the prosecution was not obligated to call Mr. Beaudin....IMO, Leonida had no basis for the objection..and if Zuniga granted her the objection it would have been totally unfair to the prosecution..

awakening2lite

11-09-2007, 11:13 AM

Beebee

11-09-2007, 04:48 PM

You are taking certain things out of context, and buying into media hype, imo.

Hi Beebee,

I have to disagree with a couple of your statements here:

His dna was found at the scene. It was on the bottom of Pamela Vitale's foot.

Excerpt from NBC11 (http://www.nbc11.com/news/9691608/detail.html)
"Harmor was the second expert to analyze the DNA sample taken from the bottom of Pamela Vitale's right foot and compare it to Dyleski's DNA. He found that it was an exact match to all 17 distinct genetic markers that had been identified in Dyleski's DNA profile."

A partial profile was found at the scene. It was rejected by CODIS. Stockwell couldn't do anything with it. Do you know what a partial profile is? It is less than one human microscopic cell. In this case, there were also stutter and saturation issues that pointed to levels so low it could have been contamination. In other words, the sample was a joke and in no way was there dna proof that Scott was there.

Had they found one microscopic cell of Scott Dyleski, they could say a " DNA Match".... the fact is, they did not.

YSTR is not like traditional dna testing by any means, and the "match on 17 distinct genetic markers" is very misleading when one is thinking "dna"....

Harmor's YSTR analysis could not exclude Dyleski, but by no means was it proof Scott Dyleski's dna was at the scene. If you need proof of that I can post the scientic info... it is quite a bit, and won't fit into this post, but I will post it if you want to read it.

His wrist was more than just sore:

Exerpt from ABC 7 News (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=4469340):
"Earlier in the trial, witnesses testified that Dyleski had a cut on his nose, scratches on his cheek and arms and a swollen wrist and hand. According to Peterson, the alleged injuries to Dyleski's wrist and hand would be consistent with striking somebody with a rock or similar object."

Scott Dyleski also asked Marcus Miller-Hogg (Kim Curiel's brother) for advice on treating his injuries. Sounds like more than a minor injury to me if it bothered him enough to seek out help.

Excerpt from NewsMakingNews (http://www.newsmakingnews.com/kd,dyleski,8,7,06,statements.htm):
Next, Jewett called Marcus Miller-Hogg, Kim Curiel's brother to the stand. Miller-Hogg lives in Walnut Creek. He testified he telephoned the Curiel household on Saturday to talk with Esther Fielding, but she was at work. Instead he talked with Dyleski who told him he hurt his wrist and hand and they were swollen. He wanted advice on how to treat his injuries. Miller-Hogg told Dyleski to use ice and Arnica. Miller-Hogg asked Dyleski how he was injured and Dyleski said he was walking behind a barn to look at a waterfall on the Curiel property and fell into a ravine. Miller-Hogg testified that he is familiar with his sister’s property and he told Dyleski there is no waterfall in October, a dry time of year. Dyleski said, “I went to look at it anyway.”

Dr. Peterson, the ME never examined Scott. His opinion doesn't mean squat. Good on Jewett's part though to ask him like it did matter- that's what juries hear, but as I said earlier his injury was minor and consistent with his explaination.

Beebee

11-09-2007, 04:49 PM

Thing is, I don't think he wore that glove.

I agree.

Beebee

11-09-2007, 04:56 PM

Do you realize that the chain of custody the DA is responsible for starts from the moment they receive the item from THE DEFENDANT side..the prosecution was not obligated to call Mr. Beaudin....IMO, Leonida had no basis for the objection..and if Zuniga granted her the objection it would have been totally unfair to the prosecution..

Yes, I do realize that Zuniga had legal grounds to deny the motion but I still wonder why Jewett didn't call Beaudin.

We have no way of knowing what Beaudin did with those shoes while he had them. He didn't testify.

Why would a seasoned prosecutor like Jewett leave that out??

That's really my only point on this.

attorneywan2be

11-09-2007, 05:45 PM

Yes, I do realize that Zuniga had legal grounds to deny the motion but I still wonder why Jewett didn't call Beaudin.

We have no way of knowing what Beaudin did with those shoes while he had them. He didn't testify.

Why would a seasoned prosecutor like Jewett leave that out??

That's really my only point on this.

That doesn't concern Jewett..his concern was to make sure the chain of custody at his end was well documented..what the defendant/his associates did with the evidence would not concern Jewett unless something illegal was done that would damage his case...on the other hand, if the defense had doubts about what Beaudin did with the evidence then Leonida should have called him to testify...

Beebee

11-09-2007, 06:20 PM

That doesn't concern Jewett..his concern was to make sure the chain of custody at his end was well documented..what the defendant/his associates did with the evidence would not concern Jewett unless something illegal was done that would damage his case...on the other hand, if the defense had doubts about what Beaudin did with the evidence then Leonida should have called him to testify...

A guy driving around with the shoes doing who knows what before he dropped them off shouldn't/didn't concern Jewett.... is that what you are saying??

I blame Scott's lame PD.

Leonida didn't touch Horowitz or any framing at all.

She pointed out the shoes were with somebody for an unknown period of time and the break in the chain of custody -- as far as testimony, and she was correct,
but that was it.

She failed Scott miserably, imo.

She should have presented an alternative suspect.... Horowitz!!! There is so much on him that she could have used..... but instead she went out of her way to keep him out of it, saying so in a motion and even kept juror number 7 (who proved himself to be a Horowitz supporter) on the jury when the guy SHOULD have gotten kicked off for some of his behavior like contacting the media while he was on the jury!!... Never mind I'm getting off track...

I am of the opinion that Ellen Leonida either let this case sink on purpose, as a favor or payback, or she is as stupid as a stone.

I can't figure out which yet... I've never talked to the woman.

I think very little of her, JMO.

Aslan

11-09-2007, 07:12 PM

It's impossible to study this case and not be very aware of who Pamela was and what she did for others and what she meant to her family.

Going over the case and the trial and questioning points in it does not take anything away from her or lessen the fact that she is gone. The truth is important for her, too.

I respectfully disagree with you. In all of these pages there have been numerous directs to the website all about Scott. I do think that's the first time she was humanized (for lack of a better word) for many folks, if they checked the link. That site was started by her daughter, btw. It doesn't seem her daughter feels the wrong person is in prison, but that's just my take on it.

She is the true victim here. She has no chance for an appeal.

Beebee I still think he's guilty, I just think the glove is a red herring. Again, too many 'how he did its' and nary a 'how he couldn't have'.

Again:
Did she know Scott used her address? That was the day before she was murdered, right? So if her husband for some unknown reason wanted to kill her and plant evidence, that at least would make..well no I don't think it would make sense.
However, did she know? Did the company call her and let her know?

Again and again and again..swollen arm and wrist the day of the murder. Thoughts?

attorneywan2be

11-09-2007, 07:23 PM

IMO

The fact they were not able to get a full profile of Dyleski doesn't necessarily mean that Dyleski didn't leave one complete cell on the bottom of her foot..

The expert testified that Pamela was the major contributor to the DNA found on the bottom of her foot....he also stated that there were some loci where Pamela and Dyleski shared the same allele..the DNA in that area was definitely a mixture..so if for example the amount from Pamela was 20 times in excess of Dyleski.. it would make it extremely difficult if not impossible to get a complete profile of Dyleski even if one complete cell from him was present..

The expert was able to get a partial profile of that minor contributor..let's look at that..he testified that every single allele in the minor component matched Dyleski..in addition.. he calculated how many individuals in the population would match that partial profile:

A. I would expect that approximately 1 in 81,000

African-Americans or 1 in 43,000 Caucasians or 1 in 23,000

Hispanics would have a genetic profile that could fit the

profile I observed in the minor component of sample 3-10.

-------------------------

A. For what is present in that partial profile, each and

every one of the alleles in that minor component matches

Mr. Dyleski.

-------------------------

A. Yes. And with respect to a partial profile, what that

means is that not all of the genetic information that is

actually present in the evidence specimen can be provided at the

end of the testing results, and there are several reasons for

this: One is that dilution -- or, excuse me, that ratioing

factor was so great that I could not expect to see genetic types

at every single locus from that minor contributor. So in a

sense, what you see is what you get. You interpret what you

see.

The second aspect of this is that even though these

genetic markers are quite variable among the population, for any

given set of genetic markers, there are some common traits; and

many times we see these reflected as sharing. So if you have

two individuals, it's not uncommon to have what's termed as

"masking." The major contributor has the same allele as the

minor contributor. You can't see the minor allele. It's lost

in that single typing result.

And so both of those features give rise to what's

called a partial profile, partial genetic information, but not

completed across all loci for all genetic traits.

awakening2lite

11-09-2007, 07:50 PM

I respectfully disagree with you. In all of these pages there have been numerous directs to the website all about Scott. I do think that's the first time she was humanized (for lack of a better word) for many folks, if they checked the link. That site was started by her daughter, btw. It doesn't seem her daughter feels the wrong person is in prison, but that's just my take on it.

She is the true victim here. She has no chance for an appeal.

Thoughts?

I still do not understand your point. If asking questions about the case is offensive to you, what can I say? This is a message board about the case and finding more about it is the point of posting here.

I haven't read any post which disrespected PV in any way.

Aslan

11-09-2007, 08:09 PM

awakening2lite

11-09-2007, 08:42 PM

How in the world did you get the impression I thought it was disrespectful? That was not my intent at all and reading what I posted, I'm lost on that.
My point was that Scott isn't the true victim here. The woman who was brutally beaten to death is. It wouldn't be a bad idea to remember that.

Kind of lost on your defensive attitude???

I said I disagreed in what you said, where you said that you know everyone knows that Pam was the victim. I disagreed in that no one had bothered to post a site about her, amidst all the 'free scott' site that keeps being posted.

And If I had a problem with posts, I would cease reading the thread.

I'm going to stand by my original response:

It's impossible to study this case and not be very aware of who Pamela was and what she did for others and what she meant to her family.

Going over the case and the trial and questioning points in it does not take anything away from her or lessen the fact that she is gone. The truth is important for her, too.

IMO

awakening2lite

11-09-2007, 08:57 PM

Aslan

11-09-2007, 09:00 PM

I apologize again if you think I was out of line in bringing up her website. In my experience people tend to forget the victims of murder and focus on the living.

That being said and since we are discussing facts of the case, I again ask about the testimony of Jena about his swollen arm and wrist.
Here are a couple of links to that.

http://www.newsmakingnews.com/kd,dyleski,8,6,06,bombshells.htm
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=4469340
http://cbs5.com/local/local_story_215224509.html

Also, from the abc link
Earlier today forensic serologist Gary Harmor testified that DNA found on the bottom of Vitale's right foot matched DNA taken from inside Dyleski's mouth, allegedly placing Dyleski at Vitale's house the morning she was murdered.

So..um. The killer planted that evidence?

attorneywan2be

11-10-2007, 02:28 AM

>snipped<
Hi AW2B,

Please help me understand this. I snipped all but the first "A" because that is where it loses me.
If Dyleski was hispanic would it have been a better match to the results?

TIA

Hi Awakening..

What the expert said is that every single allele he found in the partial profile matched Dyleski...in other words, the DNA data in that partial profile matched Dyleski 100%..according to the stats he mentioned.. 1 in 81,000 African-Americans would also match that partial profile..1 in 43,000 Caucasians would also match that partial profile..and 1 in 23,000 Hispanics would also match that partial profile...this is basically the statistical probability of finding somebody other than Dyleski that would match that partial profile in a random population sample...

Beebee

11-10-2007, 07:54 AM

Again:
Did she know Scott used her address?

Hi Aslan,

What did Scott use her address for??

If you answer that question I think it will become obvious that NO, Pam didn't know her house number was used in a billing error. Why would she??

All the cc company knew was the ship to and billing addresses were not adding up for Karen Schneider's account.

Why would they try to see who lived at 1901 Hunsacker Canyon?? They knew it number didn't match Karen Schneider's address associated with her account, and that's wll that concened them.

Vitale's accounts were never used, or attempted to be used.

The 1901 was a MISTAKE. Nothing more.

Carrot

11-10-2007, 08:02 AM

Hi Awakening..

What the expert said is that every single allele he found in the partial profile matched Dyleski...in other words, the DNA data in that partial profile matched Dyleski 100%..according to the stats he mentioned.. 1 in 81,000 African-Americans would also match that partial profile..1 in 43,000 Caucasians would also match that partial profile..and 1 in 23,000 Hispanics would also match that partial profile...this is basically the statistical probability of finding somebody other than Dyleski that would match that partial profile in a random population sample...

Hi!

Yes, and those are the odds from Stockwell's testimony where he had 10 distinct alleles (the others being shared by Pamela and the male dna sample). So then we turn to the testimony of Gary Harmor, the Seriologist from SERI. He was able to separate out the male dna from the female in sample 3-10. He was able to get 17 distinct genetic markers. He compared it with the swab from inside Dyleski's mouth. All 17 markers matched. In the preliminary hearing transcript you can read about how that is done. And the only other people with those same 17 markers would be Dyleski's father, grandfather, paternal brothers (if he had any), or other males descended from his father's, grandfather's, great-grandfather's line. This kind of dna testing is used by those into genealogy (http://www.smgf.org/pages/ychromosome.jspx). For male lines you look at y-chromosome dna. For female lines you look at mitochondrial dna.

Granted, it does not mean they can say 100% for sure it is Dyleski's dna, but look at the odds and all the other evidence to go with it. For me it is a matter of applying reason. At the very least, it does not rule him out of being the dna on the bottom of her foot.

Then, testimony showed she had a bruise on the bottom of her foot and her sock was up on her calf. Her foot was bare and she obviously kicked up at her attacker when she was on the floor which is how his DNA got on the bottom of her foot in the first place. Then look at the balaclava mask which showed Dyleski's dna (with 100% certainty and most likely saliva) in the mouth area, and Pamela's dna (100% certainty) too in the form of blood.

:seeya:

Beebee

11-10-2007, 09:04 AM

IMO

The expert was able to get a partial profile of that minor contributor..let's look at that..he testified that every single allele in the minor component matched Dyleski..in addition.. he calculated how many individuals in the population would match that partial profile:

He also testified:

A. In order to arrive at these numbers, I had to make an assumption, and that assumption is that the minor contributor was, in fact, one, and only one contributor. Now, nothing in the evidence tells me that, other than the fact that there are no more than four of these distinct markers, that each location in any given individual can only lend you two. So from that premise it fits a scenario of two contributors, but it is by no means absolute.

Then there were stutter and saturation issues-- and this is all still dealing with that same PARTIAL profile.

Q. And you used in your first example stutter, that's something that shows up in levels next to an allele?

A. Yes.

Q. If there's an actual little allele under the stutter, how do you tell?

A. You won't. There is no means of -- available to, my knowledge, that is going to allow the scientist to pick out what is true genetic material, from what is artifactual, and that is why I say it's ambiguous. We do not use ambiguous data to arrive at conclusions, so we dismiss it. It's better to dismiss it. It doesn't go into the overall comparison any longer. It's not that we disallow it. We don't forget. We know it's there, but we are not going to use it for inclusionary purposes.

Q. So it could be an allele that's covered by the stutter, you just act like it's not there, but you don't want to call it an allele, but it's not?

A. Right. We are using what some term as the conservative approach. No information at that position can be used for inclusion, cannot be used for exclusional information.

Q. But if it was an actual allele and not stutter, then it could be used for exclusion in comparing it to something that -- to somebody that didn't have an allele?

A. Now, you're going into the "if" statement, and --

Q. Hypothetically.

A. Even with a hypothetical you have to lay a foundation, and the foundation is, it's ambiguous. I would not give an answer based on an hypothetical to if on a situation that relies on ambiguous data.

Q. Okay. So I guess the bottom line that maybe we can agree on is, if there is an allele in the same place that there is stutter, you're not going to count that as an allele because you can't be sure if it's there?

A. If it is the threshold is set for the stutter at that locus, that is correct.

As she had Stockwell go through his report, there were questions about the thresholds. There was nothing clear cut about this at all.

CODIS rejected the sample because of insufficient profile.

Conclusion: Dyleski's dna was not found at the scene.

I'm not going to assumne his guilt and then try to make some partial profile fit by way of assumptions and tweaking thresholds.

I will assume his innocence and consider guilt when somebody can say-- HIS dna was found at the scene.

That could not be said in this case.

attorneywan2be

11-10-2007, 09:38 AM

He also testified:

Quote:
A. In order to arrive at these numbers, I had to make an assumption, and that assumption is that the minor contributor was, in fact, one, and only one contributor. Now, nothing in the evidence tells me that, other than the fact that there are no more than four of these distinct markers, that each location in any given individual can only lend you two. So from that premise it fits a scenario of two contributors, but it is by no means absolute.

Whose testimony is this? was it at the trial or prelim?

I can't find it in the TS of the trial?

TIA

Beebee

11-10-2007, 09:50 AM

Whose testimony is this? was it at the trial or prelim?

I can't find it in the TS of the trial?

TIA

This is Stockwell at the prelim.

Prelim transcripts are here:

http://justiceforscottdyleski.com/prelimtranscripts.html

attorneywan2be

11-10-2007, 10:20 AM

This is Stockwell at the prelim.

Prelim transcripts are here:

http://justiceforscottdyleski.com/prelimtranscripts.html

Thanks BeeBee..

True. Stockwell made the assumption that the minor contributor was only one male..but..he sent the sample to Gary Harmor to confirm his assumption..Gary Harmor testified that it was indeed from a single male contributor..

Harmor's testimony at the prelim 2/16/06

A. From the data that I developed from the evidence

sample on number 3-10, it appeared to be a single source. The

reason for that is that one type is detected in each marker, and

if you -- with a typical male profile, because it's only one

chromosome that contains the location, so only one type is

present at each location. If you see two, then you know that

there's a mixture of more than one person.

Q. And you did not see that in either the evidence

sample or the reference sample?

A. That's correct.

attorneywan2be

11-10-2007, 11:29 AM

As to the partial DNA profile from the sample of the bottom of Pamela's foot..Wheeler, Lynch, Horowitz and Jena were all excluded..on the other hand, Dyleski matched every single allele in that partial profile..looking at the whole picture : Pamela's DNA on Dyleski's shoes..ski mask + Consciousness of guilt evidenced by his inconsistent encounter story + Consciousness of guilt evidenced by his inconsistent explanation of the scratches he had on his body the day of the murder...+ the partial DNA profile found on Pamela that matched Dyleski 100% but excluded the other possible suspects = Dyleski is guilty
I simply can't find reasonable doubt in this case...I tried my best!

And it so happened that on the same day of the murder Dyleski had sctraches on his body..swollen wrist and hand..bruises.. etc...on the other hand, as far as I know, Horowitz didn't have any injuries on his body (please correct me if I'm wrong)..what I don't understand is why some people believe Dyleski is innocent in spite of the fact that overwhelming evidence points directly to him...on the other hand, they believe that Horowitz is guilty in spite of the fact that there is zero evidence that points to him?! :confused:

Beebee

11-10-2007, 11:40 AM

A couple things about Harmor.

He did not extract the sample.

Q. Now, when you -- going back to the testing that you did here. When you received the sample from Dave Stockwell, it was already extracted?

A. Yes. It was already extracted and prepared DNA from the evidence.

Q. So you didn't have anything to do with the actual evidence?

A. Correct.

Q. And you had nothing to do with the extraction?

A. Correct.

When Stockwell had the sample, he found contamination, the contamination was male.

THE WITNESS: Within testing that included specimen 3-10, there was a single analysis that I defined as having a contaminant. It was not the genetic marker testing that we have been speaking of. This was a previous test used to assess the quantitation, the quantitative aspect of the sample.

Q. And in that test, you found DNA in the reagent blank; true?

A. Yes. Well, when you say "the reagent blank," there's actually multiple specimens that are reagent blanks. So the reagent blank associated with item 3-10 had this contaminant, as did the amplification negative which is not associated with item 3-10. It is an independent test of the system.

Q. Did you ever find out what that contaminant was?

A. What do you mean by what -- I can certainly tell you that it's human DNA, and because of the type of test, I can tell you it was male DNA. As to whose DNA it is, I could not tell you. I did not do any additional work to try and clarify that. I simply removed that particular kit to which I had traced the contaminant from casework.

Q. And made no effort to find out the source of that DNA?

A. Correct.

Q. The -- when you quantified the DNA in this case the first time you did it with the contaminant, what was the weight in nanograms per microliter of DNA that you found?

A. .0181 nanograms per microliter.

Q. .0?

A. Oh, excuse me. I'm looking at the wrong specimen. .00816 nanograms per microliter.

Q. .00816?

A. I'm sorry, I have one too many zeros in that. Let me redo this again. The value is .0816.

Q. When you did that test again, what weight did you get?

A. .159 nanograms per microliter.

Q. Twice as much approximately?

A. Approximately. If you are trying to assess the variability of the system, yes. You would assess it as there was a twofold difference between them.

When Harmor got the sample he had to contact Stockwell:

Q. When you did go to quantitation, after you quantified it, you had someone from your lab contact Dave Stockwell; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you had to personally contact David Stockwell because you were concerned about a tenfold difference in the concentration?

A. Well, that's not exactly true, I -- it was about a tenfold. It was more like seven- or eightfold percent concentration that I obtained from the evidence versus what he obtained. He gave me two values of concentration of the DNA, and I ran my concentration which came out lower than his. And so we contacted him to find out what his actual data looked like.

Q. Okay. In the E-mail that your lab sent to him, you referred to a tenfold difference in concentration?

A. Yes. About that.

Q. And he responded to that E-mail?

A. Yes.

Q. And responded that he was pushing through as many samples as possible?

A. That's what he said, yes.

Q. And explained that his first run had been contaminated?

A. Yes. He had problems with his first run. He felt that there was DNA in his cocktails or blanks, I guess. So ....

Q. Okay.

A. So he discounted that run and did it again.

MS. LEONIDA: Thank you.

IMO this evidence is not credible. Not by a long shot. It is absolutely amazing to me that no efforts were made to determine the source of the Male DNA contaminant. What if the contamination came from Scott Dyleski's reference sample??

It reminded me of when OJ's Simpson's dna ended up in Nicole and Ron's reference vials. I'm just using that case as an example....
Partial profiles, contamination, data not adding up...

Not good enough for CODIS, not good enough for me.

IMO, If Scott Dyleski had been to Pam's home rage killing her, his FULL profile dna with no bagage such as contamination, stutter, saturation, and incorrect data would have played a part.

The prosecution WORKED to MAKE this SEEM to fit.

MOO

Beebee

11-10-2007, 11:49 AM

As to the partial DNA profile from the sample of the bottom of Pamela's foot..Wheeler, Lynch, Horowitz and Jena were all excluded..on the other hand, Dyleski matched every single allele in that partial profile..

You saw the numbers, and those numbers were based on assumptions. But look at the numbers! Weak at best!

Partial profiles are misleading and dangerous. Personally, I never consider them, JMO. I probably have partial profile dna on the bottom of my feet too just from walking around and picking up trace dna.

By the way.... Jewett said the partial profile sample eliminated Horowitz. Well I wonder, how do they eliminate the husband in a case like this where the husbands dna would be expected on the wife...

attorneywan2be

11-10-2007, 11:52 AM

IMO this evidence is not credible. Not by a long shot. It is absolutely amazing to me that no efforts were made to determine the source of the Male DNA contaminant. What if the contamination came from Scott Dyleski's reference sample??

It reminded me of when OJ's Simpson's dna ended up in Nicole and Ron's reference vials. I'm just using that case as an example....
Partial profiles, contamination, data not adding up...

Not good enough for CODIS, not good enough for me.

IMO, If Scott Dyleski had been to Pam's home rage killing her, his FULL profile dna with no bagage such as contamination, stutter, saturation, and incorrect data would have played a part.

The prosecution WORKED to MAKE this SEEM to fit.

MOO

If anything that makes me feel more comfortable with the results because they didn't use the one that had the contaminant....in other words, they were checking for contamination...Stockwell discounted that run and did it again..

Harmor's testimony:

THE WITNESS: Within testing that included specimen 3-10, there was a single analysis that I defined as having a contaminant. It was not the genetic marker testing that we have been speaking of. This was a previous test used to assess the quantitation, the quantitative aspect of the sample.

-------------------------

Q. And explained that his first run had been contaminated?

A. Yes. He had problems with his first run. He felt that there was DNA in his cocktails or blanks, I guess. So ....

Q. Okay.

A. So he discounted that run and did it again.

Beebee

11-10-2007, 11:55 AM

I simply can't find reasonable doubt in this case...I tried my best!

Just wanted to add.... I know you have. I appreciate you digging into this. I have had to limit my discussion with you so far to stuff I can post on a public forum.

Looking forward to my upcoming trip..... To say the least :D :D

attorneywan2be

11-10-2007, 11:58 AM

You saw the numbers, and those numbers were based on assumptions. But look at the numbers! Weak at best!

Partial profiles are misleading and dangerous. Personally, I never consider them, JMO. I probably have partial profile dna on the bottom of my feet too just from walking around and picking up trace dna.

By the way.... Jewett said the partial profile sample eliminated Horowitz. Well I wonder, how do they eliminate the husband in a case like this where the husbands dna would be expected on the wife...

It was a blood stain on the bottom of her foot...right? so why would her husband DNA be in that stain?

Beebee

11-10-2007, 12:00 PM

If anything that makes me feel more comfortable with the results because they didn't use the one that had the contaminant....in other words, they were checking for contamination...Stockwell discounted that run and did it again..

Harmor's testimony:

THE WITNESS: Within testing that included specimen 3-10, there was a single analysis that I defined as having a contaminant. It was not the genetic marker testing that we have been speaking of. This was a previous test used to assess the quantitation, the quantitative aspect of the sample.

-------------------------

Q. And explained that his first run had been contaminated?

A. Yes. He had problems with his first run. He felt that there was DNA in his cocktails or blanks, I guess. So ....

Q. Okay.

A. So he discounted that run and did it again.

The thing is.... when Harmor contacted Stockwell, he didn't talk about how careful he was.... he made excuses for his sloppy work.

Q. And he responded to that E-mail?

A. Yes.

Q. And responded that he was pushing through as many samples as possible?

A. That's what he said, yes.

Q. And explained that his first run had been contaminated?

What does that have to do with Harmor's question about the conflicting data???

Stockwell is making excuses instead of explaining the actual reason for the conflicting data.

attorneywan2be

11-10-2007, 12:01 PM

Looking forward to my upcoming trip..... To say the least :D :D

Same here...:D :beer:

Beebee

11-10-2007, 12:06 PM

It was a blood stain on the bottom of her foot...right? so why would her husband DNA be in that stain?

The source for the partial profile dna was never determined.... so no way to say it was blood.

I'm just confused-- where is Dan's dna?? They lived together. My husbands dna is all over me I'm sure. I just thought it strange he get's ruled out by way of this partial profile dna. I would expect his dna on her whether he killed her or not.

ETA-- unless they weren't spending much time together or engaging in close personal touch.

attorneywan2be

11-10-2007, 12:41 PM

The source for the partial profile dna was never determined.... so no way to say it was blood.

I'm just confused-- where is Dan's dna?? They lived together. My husbands dna is all over me I'm sure. I just thought it strange he get's ruled out by way of this partial profile dna. I would expect his dna on her whether he killed her or not.

ETA-- unless they weren't spending much time together or engaging in close personal touch.

Are you saying that a husband could never be excluded in a murder case via DNA testing of a sample taken from his wife's body?

I was just reading an article about a murder case ..they did exclude the husband based on the DNA testing of a sample taken from his wife's body..

Beebee

11-10-2007, 01:01 PM

Are you saying that a husband could never be excluded in a murder case via DNA testing of a sample taken from his wife's body?

I was just reading an article about a murder case ..they did exclude the husband based on the DNA testing of a sample taken from his wife's body..

No, not at all. Husbands could be excluded, depending on the circumstances.

I'm just confused in this case because supposidly the only male dna found was from that partial profile.

So where is Dan's dna?? Like I said, I would expect his dna whether he killed her or not.

attorneywan2be

11-10-2007, 01:09 PM

No, not at all. Husbands could be excluded, depending on the circumstances.

I'm just confused in this case because supposidly the only male dna found was from that partial profile.

So where is Dan's dna?? Like I said, I would expect his dna whether he killed her or not.

Horowitz DNA was probably in other locations on her body..but the blood stain found on the bottom of Pamela's foot didn't contain his DNA..he was excluded...

Beebee

11-10-2007, 01:39 PM

Horowitz DNA was probably in other locations on her body..but the blood stain found on the bottom of Pamela's foot didn't contain his DNA..he was excluded...

Right.

He was excluded from the partial profile on the foot.

Just for the record, the partial profile was not sourced, so it could have come from anywhere..... no way to know if the source was blood.

So here is my question... if Horowitz's dna was on other parts of her body, why didn't they find it?? Or maybe they did and we don't know :shrug:

I'm sitting here wondering how many partial profiles are on the bottom of my foot right now, and how many millions of people would not be excluded?

Hipcheck

11-10-2007, 02:26 PM

No, not at all. Husbands could be excluded, depending on the circumstances.

I'm just confused in this case because supposidly the only male dna found was from that partial profile.

So where is Dan's dna?? Like I said, I would expect his dna whether he killed her or not.

I wouldn't expect to find Dan's DNA on his wife's body unless he had sex with her recently.

I'm sure that Pam was a clean person who bathed at least once a day. What type of DNA would you find on her body from Dan? I'm sure he didn't bleed or spit on her.

So what type of DNA from Dan would you expect to find on her body?

attorneywan2be

11-10-2007, 03:24 PM

Just for the record, the partial profile was not sourced, so it could have come from anywhere..... no way to know if the source was blood.

Collins testified that he swabbed the majority of the sole of Pamela's foot which was well covered in blood..

Beebee

11-10-2007, 04:53 PM

Collins testified that he swabbed the majority of the sole of Pamela's foot which was well covered in blood..

Yes, I realize that, but no test was done to find the source of the partial profile. Just because her foot was bloody-- with her own blood.... doesn't mean the extracted foreign dna came from a blood source.

None of the dna in this case was sourced. Including Pamela's dna.

I guess I agree with Kate Dixon, who wrote this in one of her reports:

Leonida's cross-examination revealed this loose end in the laboratory testing. The specialists at the Contra Costa laboratory did not conduct confirmatory tests on samples to determine if they were in fact blood. The other fluids subject to a confirmatory test could have been semen, saliva, urine, vomit or fecal material. Identification of the fluids can corroborate information developed during an investigation. So when David Stockwell, a Senior Criminalist with the Contra Costa County Sheriff's office, did his DNA analysis of the samples, he merely assumed they were blood. He did not identify the nature of the material at all, simply referring to it as a "DNA” sample.

It is very important during the DNA testing in the Dyleski murder trial to determine if the DNA contained in the samples is from blood or saliva. Why? Dyleski did have scrapes and lacerations and an injury on his nose that was bleeding "drops” of blood on Saturday morning, the alleged time of the murder. So if Dyleski’s blood was found in the blood sample obtained from Vitale’s foot, or in the samples obtained from the objects in the duffel bag or those found in the backpack, it could have been blood he shed at the scene of the crime. If, on the other hand, Dyleski’s saliva, rather than blood were found in the blood sample from Vitale’s foot, an issue of whether it was planted is raised.

It is very difficult to plant blood because first it would be necessary to obtain the blood. No source of Dyleski’s blood, other than that occurring on the date of the crime, was found according to the testimony introduced so far. However, Dyleski’s saliva is, in comparison, abundant. It can be found on glasses, kitchen utensils or on envelopes, for example. In short, it can be obtained by anyone with access to Dyleski or access to items Dyleski used daily. The saliva could then be hypothetically planted on the victim’s foot or on other items of evidence.

However, the sample obtained from Pamela Vitale's foot was obtained and presumably secured. Although no testimony has been introduced to explain how it was secured and by whom or exactly when. Therefore, placing Dyleski’s saliva on a secured sample from the victim's foot would be difficult if not impossible. If however, the DNA found on the foot was saliva and not blood, it could have been spit or sneezed at the scene ending up on the victim's foot. If so, the presence of saliva indicates only that it was shed. The time it was shed has not been established.

Finally, in regard to items found in the duffel bag or in the backpack, if DNA is obtained from Dyleski’s saliva, rather than from his blood, the evidence is considered “background”. In other words, he might have at one time worn the item. But if the DNA discovered was established to be Dyleski's blood then he apparently shed some blood and it could have been shed during the beating of Pamela Vitale.

It is disturbing that the jury and the public will be left with merely presumptive blood tests and no confirmatory tests regarding blood and/or saliva. The prosecution is now requiring the jury to guess about the source of the DNA found by law enforcement. On the other hand, although defense counsel Leonida pointed out the presumptive nature of the tests and that they were not confirmatory, she did not introduce any expert testimony to emphasize that failure to rule in or rule out blood or saliva was damaging or fatal to the prosecution's case, thus raising reasonable doubt. It is a defense attorney's job to defend their client to the very best of their ability and, in this instance, Leonida abandoned her responsibility to do so.

http://justiceforscottdyleski.com/reportsfromcourt/looseends.html

attorneywan2be

11-10-2007, 06:35 PM

Yes, I realize that, but no test was done to find the source of the partial profile. Just because her foot was bloody-- with her own blood.... doesn't mean the extracted foreign dna came from a blood source.

None of the dna in this case was sourced. Including Pamela's dna.

I guess I agree with Kate Dixon, who wrote this in one of her reports:

http://justiceforscottdyleski.com/reportsfromcourt/looseends.html

I think her suggestion that saliva from Dyleski could have been planted on the bottom of Pamela's foot is a bit too much for me to accept..and why would the so called killer plant it on the bottom of her foot of all places!!!!

BTW, I think Stockwell testified at the prelim that skin cells and sweat are not a good source of DNA..skin cells are poor in cells that contain nuclea.. that also could explain the small amount of DNA mixture that was recovered from the glove...

Stockwell's testimony at the prelim:

Q. I want back up a little bit and ask a few

more general questions.

Can DNA come from any part of the body?

A. Virtually, DNA is contained within the nuclei

of the cell, at least the DNA I'm looking at in the

laboratory.

There are a few cells that do not have these

nuclei, such as red blood cells; however, in blood there

are many other cells, like white blood cells that carry

nuclei. The amount of DNA is going to depend heavily on

the transfer of those cells. So, for instance, on the

surface of your skin, there will be DNA, but it's in

much less quantity than in, say, a saliva specimen where

it would be rich in cells that contain the DNA.

Q. Okay. Can you get DNA from hair?

A. You can. The type of DNA, again, the nuclear

DNA I'm looking for would be found only in the root

structure of the hair. The hair shaft itself would not

contain that DNA.

Q. What about skin cells?

A. Skin cells, if we were talking about the very

top surface, what are called exfoliating cells,

typically they're a very poor source of DNA. Some of

them still have some residual DNA.

The process that the cells around the surface

are generating in the subdermal layer at that time they

had cell nuclei -- it's a number process -- as they move

from the lower layers to the top layer, they either shed

their newer layer to numerous degrades. That's why you

have much less DNA.

Q. So is there anything that -- is there any

activity or -- when would you expect to see skin cells

with DNA on an item of clothing, say?

A. I would not necessarily expect to see it. We

look for it. If there are enough cells, there will be

some population of those cells that still have residual

DNA that can be typed.

Q. What about sweat, is that something that

would leave DNA on an object?

A. It can. It's a glandular secretion. There

can be cells associated with it. It's hard to tell

whether or not it would be from the sweat material

itself, or considering the fact that it has to be exuded

on to the surface of the skin that you're not, in fact,

typing surface cells. I would not expect a great deal

of DNA in that type of material either.

Beebee

11-10-2007, 07:28 PM

I agree with you that Dyleski's saliva was not planted..... none of his dna was planted. The killer didn't have access to Scott's dna to plant it, imo.

I don't think Dyleski's dna was at the scene. There is no science that can tell me that.

But I think Kate makes a good point about the ease with which one could plant dna. I think it would be very easy. In fact this case has shown me that the planting of some dna will go a long way, even if the perp would have to be "a statistical aberration within a statistical anomaly" to have committed the crime.

And I know what you are thinking.... His injuries..... but I know it is nothing for 16 year old boys who are out walking/hiking to fall, especially if they are stoned. You have to admit, his injury was superficial, and consistent with the explaination.

The encounter...... He and Pam both lived on the same private road. It's not a stretch by any means that he might see her if they are both out at the same time. I would expect his recall to be slightly distorted due to the marijuana.

The cc scam. No real connection to Pamela. The number was used in error by looking at the wrong info on the homeowners association sheet.

I don't think Scott is a statistical aberration within a statistical anomaly. I think Dan Horowitz had the motive, means and opportunity for the murder, and ALSO for the frame. No aberration there.

MOO

Beebee

11-10-2007, 07:34 PM

ps- On Stockwell. Who does he work for???

He also admitted exertion would increase the likelihood that dna would be left behind.... I will never buy that Scott Dyleski's hand was in that glove as he beat Pam to death, but he shed no dna. No way.

Aslan

11-11-2007, 02:30 AM

Hi Aslan,

What did Scott use her address for??

If you answer that question I think it will become obvious that NO, Pam didn't know her house number was used in a billing error. Why would she??

All the cc company knew was the ship to and billing addresses were not adding up for Karen Schneider's account.

Why would they try to see who lived at 1901 Hunsacker Canyon?? They knew it number didn't match Karen Schneider's address associated with her account, and that's wll that concened them.

Vitale's accounts were never used, or attempted to be used.

The 1901 was a MISTAKE. Nothing more.

Hi BeeBee!

That makes sense. I actually was wondering if they called Pam to verify or if (and it's a longshot I know) they treated it the way some credit card companies do to let her know her address was being used.

Again though, what you said makes sense. For all they knew it was indeed a clerical error and there were no warning flags to call everyone and say something. They are a lightening company and I'm sure typos and such happen more often than not, so it wasn't so out of the ordinary. Especially since they declined the purchase.

Thanks for clearing that up :)

Carrot

11-11-2007, 12:19 PM

snipped
Just for the record, the partial profile was not sourced, so it could have come from anywhere..... no way to know if the source was blood.
snipped

Hi Beebee,

Respectfully, I think it's time we put this "partial profile" business to bed. Gary Harmor was able to separate the male dna from Pamela's dna and get a full profile. This full profile of male dna was from a single source -- just one person.

It doesn't matter whether the male dna was from blood or saliva or both. Pamela Vitale kicked her attacker in the face -- so both blood and saliva are possible as a result. What matters is that the dna found on the bottom of her foot matched Scott Dyleski's profile for all 17 of the distinct markers in the full profile. He cannot be excluded.

Jadedblueeyes

11-11-2007, 04:37 PM

Hi Ocean,

That is a really stiff penalty! That must mean that most burglars will have at least 2 strikes on conviction? One for entering without permission and the second for whatever they do steal.

I'm surprised any criminals manage to grow a long rap sheet.

I did find one reference and if interpreted correctly any residential burglary is a first degree (1 strike) however, burglary of a commercial business/building is a second degree felony without a strike.

Thanks for responding.

Its not only in California many states have these same statutes.

In LV where the OJ fiasco is going on he can be charged with burglary simply by entering the casino and room with intent to do a crime from what I understand. Just like he can be charged with kidnapping even though the victims were not made to leave the room with him for kidnapping purposes. To detain anyone where they cannot leave their premises or room is kidnapping. That too is found in many states. I remember in the Joesph Duncan murders... they first had him charged with three counts of kidnapping even though Brenda, Slade Greone and Mark Mckenzie were not taken from their home before they were murdered.

I think it has a lot to do with intent. Why would SD be inside of PVs home if it weren't for some criminal intent?

imoo

attorneywan2be

11-12-2007, 11:03 AM

I agree with you that Dyleski's saliva was not planted..... none of his dna was planted. The killer didn't have access to Scott's dna to plant it, imo.

I don't think Dyleski's dna was at the scene. There is no science that can tell me that.

Do you think it is a coincidence that the killer somehow picked Dyleski to frame?! ..Dyleski who happened to have scratches on his body and swollen wrist/ hand the day of the murder..Dyleski who also happened to match the profile found on Pamela's foot..Dyleski who could not be excluded as to the trace DNA found on the rim of the water bottle...keep in mind that Wheeler..Lynch..Horowitz and Jena were all eliminated as the source of DNA found on the bottom of Pamela's foot and the DNA found on the rim of the water bottle...Dyleski who happened to be involved in a CC Fraud that involved Pamela's address as the billing address of the credit card he was fraudulently using..a fraud he was involved in just one day before the murder...Dyleski who couldn't keep his story straight about the causes of his scratches..who couldn't keep his story straight about a strange encounter that he suddenly remembered the day Fred told him that it was guaranteed they will find the killer's DNA on Pamela..a strange encounter with supposedly Pamela who grabbed his arm sctratching it on the day of the murder...a strange encounter that he didn't utter a word about until Fred's discussion about DNA three days after the so called encounter supposedly took place..

Aslan

11-12-2007, 11:42 PM

awakening2lite

11-13-2007, 03:37 PM

I'll stop posting in here because I'm sure it's an irritant to Beebee and Awake .
>snipped<

I do not care where, what or when you post. You are not an "irritant" as far as I am concerned and I doubt you are an "irritant" for Beebee. either. You are entitled to post your opinion on the case, just as we all are.

packy

11-15-2007, 11:31 AM

>snipped<

I do not care where, what or when you post. You are not an "irritant" as far as I am concerned and I doubt you are an "irritant" for Beebee. either. You are entitled to post your opinion on the case, just as we all are.

I believe you're right, Awakening2lite. Disagreements are normal and can be very useful for all of us to keep thinking.

It's good to lay everything out and although it may seem things are going nowhere, who knows what could develop with a few observations.

Does anyone know if it was confirmed that Scott is right-handed?

awakening2lite

11-15-2007, 11:31 AM

BTW, I think Stockwell testified at the prelim that skin cells and sweat are not a good source of DNA..skin cells are poor in cells that contain nuclea.. that also could explain the small amount of DNA mixture that was recovered from the glove...

Stockwell's testimony at the prelim:

.

>snipped for bandwidth<

Hi attorneywan2be :seeya:

I think Stockwell might have been wrong in stating that skin cells and sweat cells are a poor source for dna.

Here is a source that begs to differ: http://voanews.com/english/2007-11-15-voa8.cfm

EXCERPT
Researchers at Oregon Health and Science University used the DNA of skin cells from rhesus macaque monkeys to create embryos from which they extracted stem cells three days later.

------
How is it that the dna from skin cells can be used to create a clone and Stockwell remain correct?
----------
Here is another source: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/bc000657.pdf
From the department of Justice
Title: Understanding DNA evidence: A guilde for victim service providers

EXCERPT from the section titled 'Possible location of DNA evidence' and 'Source of DNA'

fingernail scrappings -------------blood and skin cells

hat, bandana or mask------------sweat, skin cells, hair or saliva

tissue, washcloth or similar item----Saliva, semen, hair, skin cells or blood

etc, the list continues.

---------------

Clearly, skin cells are a good and frequently used source for DNA.

awakening2lite

11-15-2007, 11:45 AM

I believe you're right, Awakening2lite. Disagreements are normal and can be very useful for all of us to keep thinking.

It's good to lay everything out and although it may seem things are going nowhere, who knows what could develop with a few observations.

Does anyone know if it was confirmed that Scott is right-handed?

Hi packy :seeya:

Thanks for posting that. If we all agreed all the time we might as well be a bunch of bobbleheads http://www.zieglersupersystems.com/stuff/BobbleHead1.htm
Message boards do not exist long with everyone agreeing, imo. Conflict, on the other hand, can be the catalyst for discovery. It wasn't all that long ago when the best scientists, religious leaders and thinkers thought the world was flat.

IMO

Carrot

11-15-2007, 02:29 PM

>snipped for bandwidth<

Hi attorneywan2be :seeya:

I think Stockwell might have been wrong in stating that skin cells and sweat cells are a poor source for dna.

Here is a source that begs to differ: http://voanews.com/english/2007-11-15-voa8.cfm

EXCERPT
Researchers at Oregon Health and Science University used the DNA of skin cells from rhesus macaque monkeys to create embryos from which they extracted stem cells three days later.

------
How is it that the dna from skin cells can be used to create a clone and Stockwell remain correct?
----------
Here is another source: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/bc000657.pdf
From the department of Justice
Title: Understanding DNA evidence: A guilde for victim service providers

EXCERPT from the section titled 'Possible location of DNA evidence' and 'Source of DNA'

fingernail scrappings -------------blood and skin cells

hat, bandana or mask------------sweat, skin cells, hair or saliva

tissue, washcloth or similar item----Saliva, semen, hair, skin cells or blood

etc, the list continues.

---------------

Clearly, skin cells are a good and frequently used source for DNA.

Here's an excerpt from Stockwell's testimony. He is making a differentiation between surface skin cells and deeper layer skin cells. I'm guessing for the cloning from monkey skin cells they are using the deeper ones as the surface ones we shed are not a rich source of dna.

__________________________________________________ ____
Q. What about skin cells?

A. Skin cells, if we were talking about the very

top surface, what are called exfoliating cells,

typically they're a very poor source of DNA. Some of

them still have some residual DNA.

The process that the cells around the surface

are generating in the subdermal layer at that time they

had cell nuclei -- it's a number process -- as they move

from the lower layers to the top layer, they either shed

their newer layer to numerous degrades. That's why you

have much less DNA.

awakening2lite

11-15-2007, 04:05 PM

Here's an excerpt from Stockwell's testimony. He is making a differentiation between surface skin cells and deeper layer skin cells. I'm guessing for the cloning from monkey skin cells they are using the deeper ones as the surface ones we shed are not a rich source of dna.

__________________________________________________ ____
Q. What about skin cells?

A. Skin cells, if we were talking about the very

top surface, what are called exfoliating cells,

typically they're a very poor source of DNA. Some of

them still have some residual DNA.

The process that the cells around the surface

are generating in the subdermal layer at that time they

had cell nuclei -- it's a number process -- as they move

from the lower layers to the top layer, they either shed

their newer layer to numerous degrades. That's why you

have much less DNA.

Hi Carrot!
I see your point but, have to ask, if that is completely true why is the justice department recommending the collection of skin cells and siliva for DNA identification? Cells such as those found on clothing and washcloths and the other items mentioned would be sloffed off outer cells. IMO

Carrot

11-15-2007, 05:36 PM

Hi Carrot!
I see your point but, have to ask, if that is completely true why is the justice department recommending the collection of skin cells and siliva for DNA identification? Cells such as those found on clothing and washcloths and the other items mentioned would be sloffed off outer cells. IMO

Hi A2L!

I think (if I'm reading the testimony right) it's because surface skin cells "could" contain some dna, so it's worth checking. Its just there's a higher chance the surface cells have degraded. The higher the amount of surface cells collected, the greater chance of finding some with useable dna. If there is only a small amount, the less chance of getting any dna. :shrug:

Jadedblueeyes

11-15-2007, 09:08 PM

yep.

Nylon.

Jewett avoided any questions or descriptions of the glove, I noticed that when I went searching for a description.

It came out in Esther's testimony.

I would think nylon would not have much dna or any inside of it. It is a very soft, slick finish with no resistance. It glides on the hand not grabs the hand imo.

imoo

attorneywan2be

11-15-2007, 11:48 PM

If the glove was actually made of nylon which is a non-absorbent fabric..then we would not expect Pamela's blood to saturate it...I mean Stockwell testified at the prelim that her blood saturated the glove so that the DNA sample taken from the inside of the glove was mainly hers...how could that be possible?

A. Yes. First, I would state that the samples

that I took from the glove were intended to be two

bloodstain areas, were the exterior of the glove, and

then after that, two swabs of the interior of the glove,

trying to look for what is referred to as background

DNA. That is DNA that would be shed simply by the

wearer of the glove.

In this case in the background, the sample

obviously was collecting blood, as well. It had

saturated the fabric, and therefore, I could not get

just a clean background sample.

But from those tests the DNA results indicate

that the two stains, that swab, specifically because of

the nature of the blood, those profiled back to profile

that matches Pamela Vitale, and one of the interior

swabs also provided that same profile that matches

Pamela Vitale.

marcat

11-19-2007, 05:17 AM

attorneywan2be

11-23-2007, 05:04 PM

I'm posting here for the 1st time and I have a couple of questions. There were numerous long blond hairs found on Pam's back. Now neither she, Dan, nor Scott has blond hair. Who's was it? And don't say it was shed by one of her friends.....when you shed hair, it's one or two at a time....and in different areas...these were numerous....and in the same area, her back. Also, hair was found in the mask.....but it wasn't Scott's. Who's was it?

IMO

The fact that they found blonde hairs on the back of Vitale that didn't match Dyleski doesn't really mean anything..it DOESN'T exonerate him..I have a dog that constantly sheds..I have one of the best vaccums for picking up hair..yet no matter how many times I go back and forth with the vacuum I still find more hairs..the hair could have been in the carpet for quite sometimes..did anyone testify that the hairs found inside the ski mask matched the hairs that were found on Pamela? ..I think they are two different type of hairs..anyhow, what does that tell us in terms of inculpatory vs. exculpatory evidence? nothing!

And why didn't Jewett ever ask Scott to try on the glove? My son, who at Scott's age was the same height and weight as Scott, wouldn't have been able to get on a ladies' nylon glove. No one even tried to see if Scott could put it on.

IMO

The fact that the prosecutor didn't ask Dyleski to try on the glove doesn't mean anything..simply because the defense didn't demand that Dyleski be allowed to try on the glove either..so it's a moot point..

Also, it was stated that the DNA on the bottom of Pam's foot was caused by her kicking her killer in the mouth. And yet, according to Kate Dixon's summary of the case, when Scott was examined, "The connective tissue in his mouth, which can tear during a violent struggle, was intact."

IMO

Who testified that the blood found on the bottom of Vitale's foot could have been the result of Pamela kicking Dyleski in the mouth?? it sounds like someone's theory to me..how about the possibility of Pamela kicking him in the nose? After all several witnesses testified that he had some type of injuries on his nose..!!

Why was there no DNA found on the knife? It wasn't clean as though it had been cleaned up....in fact IIRC, DNA was found in the crevice that could have been consistent with Scott.

IMO

The knife could have been cleaned..so the fact they didn't find Pamela's DNA doesn't really tell us anything of value in terms of inculpatory vs exculpatory evidence..the DNA they found in the recess area was a degraded DNA mixture..and yes, they still can find a trace DNA even after it was cleaned..

Also, if the shoes were worn at the scene, why is there no blood or DNA of Pam's in the crevices, yet there is other substance/DNA there? If you walk on carpet soaked in blood....you're putting your whole weight on the shoe, there should be blood in those crevices.....unless you're just putting the shoe on the carpet (with no weight) enough to get a print in blood.

IMO

Well, I do not expect the killer to just casually step into his victim's pool of blood..Dyleski was probably careful enough not to do that..I think it makes more sense than the so called killer finding Dyleski's shoes..carrying Vitale's blood around and making a shoeprint on the lid..!!

The "kidnap" note is just ridiculous. Scott didn't have a car....how the heck was he going to kidnap anyone? What was he going to do, drag Pam (after knocking her out and she's dead weight...no pun intended....and outweighs him by 68 pounds) out of the house.....to where? And he wouldn't hold her hostage at her own house....her husband would come home. And for that matter, why would he have to kidnap someone to get the pin #? He didn't need the pin # for any of the other credit card info he stole. And he'd already ordered and received the vaporizer with Halpin's card. And don't you think, after being given the opportunity to take any incriminating evidence out of his room, he would certainly remember to take that note if he did, indeed, write it for that purpose? Why, after being cleaned out, searched, vacuumed not once, but several times by several different people, did it just "magically" appear several months later.....and not wrinkled or disturbed as though having been shoved up into the little space above the drawer....but lying perfectly and neatly on top of David Curiel's things in the drawer of the room he'd taken over. As overstuffed as he claimed the drawer to be.....the notes wouldn't just be lying there on top in perfect condition.

IMO

What's ridiculous is someone writing this note to frame Dyleski..why would they write a plan that is different than what really took place..why would they place the note in a location that has already been rearranged?.. why would they wait several months to plant those notes? on the other hand, Dyleski could have been dreaming a certain scenario that maybe involved his friend or Jena..then decided to change his plan..

The woman in the car encounter.....who says it's a different story? At least 6 DIFFERENT people told their version of what they heard. If I tell something to 6 different people, I guarantee I'll get 6 different versions of what I said.

IMO

Maybe it's true if you're telling them a casual story...but if the conversation was about a possible connection to a murder..if the conversation was about the woman that was murdered being the driver vs her being the SCARED passenger.. they would remember it no question about it..the Curiels went into great length questioning him about his encounter..he told them Pamela was the driver..he told Jena that a man was the driver and a SCARED woman sitting in the passenger seat grabbed his arm as he WAS TALKING to the man (the driver)..he told that story to Jena to give her the impression that Pamela was scared for her life and the man driving the car could have been her killer..had he told Jena the same story he told the Curiels there would have been no way on earth she would remember it the way she did...he was changing his story based on how people reacted to his previous story..finally he realized that his encounter story backfired so he told Sikkema that the encounter didn't happen..that it was basically hallucination on his part..are we to believe that Dyleski told Sikkema the same story he told the Curiels but somehow Sikkema thought he told him "the encounter didn't happen"..no way!!!!!
There is no question in my mind that he fabricated that encounter story----> CONSCIOUSNESS of GUILT

As far as the duffle bag....if these items were put in there right after the murder, why was no blood transferred from the glove and mask to the other items in the bag? And why did Esther say when she opened the bag, she pulled out the coat (the 1st thing she saw).....yet when it was found by LE, the mask and glove were on top. And why was LE looking for dark clothes when no fibers, dark or otherwise, were found at the scene? There were other clothes in the van, yet they only took the duffle bag and it's contents. Why did the dog track to Wheeler's house

IMO

I would appreciate it if you would post the transcripts to support the facts you mentioned above..for example the police finding the glove and ski mask on top..with that said..I don't consider Dyleski's mother credible anyway simply because she is a mother that was trying to protect her son..after all she did burn what she thought would be incriminating evidence..in my book that speaks volume..

Beebee

11-24-2007, 11:12 AM

The prosecutor Jewett was the one that opined Pam kicked Scott in the mouth. Why he speculated a kick in the mouth.... you would have to ask him. Certainly if she kicked him in the mouth, his FULL dna profile would have been there, saliva is very rich in dna.

A kick to the nose does not result in a puncture mark (that looks like a thistle mark/scratch) so please explain how Pam kicked Dyleski and injured his nose like described.

Numerous hairs found stuck to the back of a murder victim is not insignificant, and the hairs collected off Pam's back were not booked as "trace evidence", they were booked as "Evidence". It wasn't dog hair, and it wasn't Pam or Dan's hair. It wasn't Scott's hair. I will never believe the Horowitz home had a bunch of long blonde hair all over the floor. How do you think the numerous long blonde hair got there? Give me your best guess.

The hairs in the mask did not match Dyleski. If Dyleski was wearing a mask (even though I find that a ridiculous notion) and Pam pulled it off (as Jewett opined) where is Scott's hair?? The hairs in the mask don't mean much because anybody could have worn the mask. To compare those hairs (in the mask) to the numerous long blonde hairs stuck to Pam's back is irresponsible, IMO.

There is baggage with the shoes that shouldn't be there if Scott wore those shoes to kill Pam. You think he was watching his step as he beat her to a pulp, up close and personal?? He would have to be standing right near her as she fought for her life... yet you think he is watching his step??
The shoes were not washed. Forensics would have been able to determine that, and you can bet they were checked. Jewett knew he could not argue they were washed, so instead he tried to imply the lack of Pam's dna on the soles was a result of walking around at the fair. The problem is not only is there no proof Scott wore those shoes to the fair, even if he did it should not have mattered. That is according to the prosecutions own witness, Stockwell. He testified that the indentations in the soles hold onto bio material well and for long periods of time. Yet NONE on Pam's dna was on the soles.

Your opinion that the actions of the person planting (as I suggest) is not logical and doesn't make sense is exactly why I have concluded I could easily frame someone for murder by planting evidence. I wouldn't make it appear planted either. I would make the notion seem absurd. I bet Horowitz is as smart or smarter than me.

A killer wanting to frame can only plant evidence. They can not force their frame victim to re-enact the crime--- hence the evidence when closely examined does not make sense.

The testimony on the encounter is far from the complete picture, and is at best hearsay. Scott told his lawyer of the encounter. His lawyer told him at that point not to talk about it, and the lawyer was supposed to contact police. Scott and all the adults were told to expect a search of the computers over the cc fraud. When they got home Scott didn't owe Sikkema an explaination. Haven't you ever heard a teen be sarcastic?? He also denied using drugs to Sikemma when he was clearly using and enjoying marijuana. Most teens deny they are smoking pot. There is evidence he smoked that morning. Sikemma thought he looked "stoned" that morning. If you do not personally know the effects of marijuana then you should try to make a point to understand by the info out there it before you judge Scott's recall..... which you heard second hand.

It doesn't matter if you find Esther credible or not. I do since I have spent time with her in person. Lots of time. That doesn't matter though. The simple fact is what she did or did not do can not be held against Scott. He didn't ask her to do anything.

I'm still waiting for somebody........ anybody..... to tell me why Scott's dna wasn't in the alleged murder glove. The one he supposidly wore as he clutched weapons with great force and struck repeated blows all over Pam Vitale's body. Funny how none of the dna "evidence" in this case is without issues.

If you think Scott took that duffle bag with him to change after the kill..... where are the bloody clothes? Why not put them in the bag? Why only one glove? Do you think as he was running back to the van, he took off his left glove and dropped it?? But kept the right glove on and opened the bag with the gloved right hand (thus leaving the blood smear on the zipper pull)??? Since he walked into his house in clean clothes and shoes, where did he put those items before changing into clean clothes and where did he get washed up???

MOO

Beebee

11-24-2007, 11:17 AM

ps- Prelim transcripts of Kovar finding the bag:

1 Q. Okay. Could you tell whether the bag was zipped

2 or unzipped?

3 A. It was open.

4 Q. And could you see the contents, at least some of

5 the contents, of the open bag?

6 A. Um, at that time, no, I could not.

7 Q. Okay. What did you do?

8 A. I opened the driver's side door, it was unlocked,

9 pushed the driver's side seat lever up so the seat went forward

10 and recovered the bag out from behind the seat.

11 Q. And when you did that, did you see anything in

12 the bag that was of interest to you?

13 A. Yes. I set it on the ground, and I shown my

14 light inside again and saw dark clothing, again, which matched

15 some of the stuff that we were requested to look for.

16 Q. Did you search the bag?

17 A. I did not completely search the bag.

18 Q. What do you mean "completely"?

19 A. I didn't take all the contents out and see what

20 was inside.

21 Q. You just -- you looked into it.

22 A. I looked into it. I believe I picked up the --

23 there was a hood -- some sort of like balaclava-type thing, put

24 that back in and then called my supervisor.

25 Q. So, the thing that was on top that you saw first

26 was the balaclava?

27 A. No. I -- I couldn't tell you exactly what was on

28 top. There was dark clothing like a jacket of some kind, the
151

1 balaclava, I believe a glove, again I saw -- without pulling it

2 out, this is what I saw.

3 Q. Okay. Before you attempted to enter the bag,

4 could you see from the bag being opened that there was dark

5 clothing inside the bag?

6 A. I saw something that was dark, yes, it was

7 clothing like.

8 Q. And that was by illuminating it with your

9 flashlight; is that true?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Were you aware that detectives searching 1050

12 Hunsaker were looking for, among other things, clothing items?

13 A. Yes, that was the biggest direction we got was

14 what we were looking for was dark clothing.

15 Q. And so what did you do with this bag?

16 A. Once I determined there was dark clothing inside

17 it, I called my supervisor, who requested me to bring the bag

18 down to the -- the front porch of 1050 Hunsaker where I turned it

19 over to a detective.

Wonder why they were looking for "dark" clothing? There was no fiber evidence at the scene (that we know of).... so were did "dark clothing" come from??

The entire warrant in this case was designed to arrest and convict Dyleski, IMO, at all costs.

Beebee

11-24-2007, 12:30 PM

That's my issue as well att. If I were on the jury and heard:

-swollen right arm and wrist the day of the killing
-DNA on her highly bruised heel (I don't know if any of you have ever sprained or broken your heel, but it takes a lot of force for a bruise to come about, and this bruise had his DNA on it)
-scratches
-address for a credit card scam he was trying to pull off to grow and sell pot
-mother burned a bunch of stuff, yet still Pam's DNA was found in the bag he had packed to be taken away so the police wouldn't find it..

Well really..If I were on that jury I would have found him guilty too.

Don't you think if DH were to do it he would have had the money to hire someone a bit more, uh..professional?

The right person is behind bars.
I'll stop posting in here because I'm sure it's an irritant to Beebee and Awake but before I go I just wanted to make it clear that I think Scott did it and he's lucky he was too young for the dp. What he did certainly deserves it,imo.

I just saw this. You are not an irritant to me. I welcome the debate.

Every point you made has been addressed. Unfortunately those points were not addressed in court, and the jury convicted. Jewett, the prosecutor made them. Leonida, Scott's public defender did nothing to counter them. We had one very experienced and manipulative prosecutor, and a dunce of a public defender, and I say dunce AT BEST. I actually think much less of her than that. JMO.

It's really frightening what a good vs bad lawyer can do in court. Any situation can be made to look sinister. Tell me what you did on your way to church. I'll find a way to describe you as a sociopath. Don't mind if I embellish just a tad. I may be "mistaken" but you will still be a sociopath because I said so.

Still, that doesn't stop some people from examining the points later on their own.

I don't think teenagers who are not mentally ill wake up and decide to rage kill complete strangers, then resume normal life. I DO think some husbands kill their wives. I also think they try to get away with it in various ways. Framing is one way.

It is my opinion that Horowitz was having (starting) an affair. He was riding high on the Polk case, thinking it would make him a star, the thing he craves, yet he had "Pam's mansion" and all that money tied up.... a mansion he didn't really want,imo. By his own admission he would have stayed in that crappy trailer.

He enters what will be the foyer and climbs a staircase that abruptly stops with no floor to step onto.
"If I didn't get remarried, I'd probably just live in my mobile home forever, maybe build it out a little," he says, taking in the view of the valley below.
Horowitz' wife, Pamela Vitale, a former hi-tech marketing executive, has joined her husband's law practice, in charge of database creation and management, he says. Vitale is still getting used to the constant shoptalk, she says, but has been affected by the notion that what they are doing affects the highest level of people's lives.
"Danny is a genius, but he's starting to listen to me," she says over a plate of veal and prosciutto later that night. "We both can be pretty strong-willed."
The two talk of family - Horowitz helped raise Vitale's two children from her previous marriage. They talk about the high rate of divorce among members of The Tribe.

http://www.kupfererlaw.com/press/inside_the_tribe.html

I think Dan's almost immediate open relationship with his now wife after Pam's murder speaks volumes about the state of his former marriage. I know some don't agree, but he allowed himself to be estranged from Pam's children, at the most difficult time in their lives, so he could move the girlfriend into "Pam's mansion" DURING SCOTT'S TRIAL.... He was the grieving widower in court, but went home to his girlfriend.

He immediately accepted Scott as the suspect, when Scott couldn't have been a more unlikely suspect. IMO

Anyway- my theory is Pam found out about VN and threatened to take Dan down financially and maybe interfere with his Polk stardom. I think they got into it and he killed her in a rage. I think he then staged the scene and planted evidence. Not all the evidence points to Dyleski, because even with Dan's planting, he couldn't count on it-- for such an unlikely suspect.
But in the end he pulled it off. This is my opinion.

attorneywan2be

11-24-2007, 01:59 PM

A kick to the nose does not result in a puncture mark (that looks like a thistle mark/scratch) so please explain how Pam kicked Dyleski and injured his nose like described.

IMO

I think Sikkema testified that he saw gouge marks on his nose..I think it's possible they were caused by Pamela kicking him..

Numerous hairs found stuck to the back of a murder victim is not insignificant, and the hairs collected off Pam's back were not booked as "trace evidence", they were booked as "Evidence". It wasn't dog hair, and it wasn't Pam or Dan's hair. It wasn't Scott's hair. I will never believe the Horowitz home had a bunch of long blonde hair all over the floor. How do you think the numerous long blonde hair got there? Give me your best guess.

IMO

I think they could have been there in the carpet for quite sometimes..maybe from someone who visited them often..I know you disagree..now, you give me your best guess as to how those hairs got there..

The hairs in the mask did not match Dyleski. If Dyleski was wearing a mask (even though I find that a ridiculous notion) and Pam pulled it off (as Jewett opined) where is Scott's hair?? The hairs in the mask don't mean much because anybody could have worn the mask. To compare those hairs (in the mask) to the numerous long blonde hairs stuck to Pam's back is irresponsible, IMO.

IMO

Did anyone testify that the hairs found on the mask didn't match Dyleski?

In addition why do you think it's irresponsible to see if those hairs on the mask matched the ones found on Pamela's back?

Anyhow, there is no question that the mask was worn by Dyleski..the expert testified that he found a complete single profile around the area of the mouth that matched Dyleski..please note that it is a COMPLETE SINGLE profile..

There is baggage with the shoes that shouldn't be there if Scott wore those shoes to kill Pam. You think he was watching his step as he beat her to a pulp, up close and personal?? He would have to be standing right near her as she fought for her life... yet you think he is watching his step??
The shoes were not washed. Forensics would have been able to determine that, and you can bet they were checked. Jewett knew he could not argue they were washed, so instead he tried to imply the lack of Pam's dna on the soles was a result of walking around at the fair. The problem is not only is there no proof Scott wore those shoes to the fair, even if he did it should not have mattered. That is according to the prosecutions own witness, Stockwell. He testified that the indentations in the soles hold onto bio material well and for long periods of time. Yet NONE on Pam's dna was on the soles.

IMO

Yes indeed the expert did find Pamela's DNA on the sole..they might not have been in the crevices..the pool of blood would not have occurred instantly as Dyleski was murdering her..when she was weakened and dying then he could have been more careful not to step into the pool of blood that was forming..
With that said..would you please provide the TS regarding not finding blood in the recessed area of the sole of the shoes...thanks!

Your opinion that the actions of the person planting (as I suggest) is not logical and doesn't make sense is exactly why I have concluded I could easily frame someone for murder by planting evidence. I wouldn't make it appear planted either. I would make the notion seem absurd. I bet Horowitz is as smart or smarter than me.

IMO

That's not the point at all..it is not a matter that it is absurd for the killer to have planted Vitale's blood..the point being it is IMPOSSIBLE for the killer to have accomplished what you proposed he did..for example finding Dyleski's stuff among stuff that belonged to several people in the household..and BTW, why do you think the so called smart killer planted Pamela's blood on a woman glove to frame Dyleski??? and how do you propose the killer was able to get access to the box that contained that glove? That theory simply doesn't make any sense and it is a "mission impossible"

A killer wanting to frame can only plant evidence. They can not force their frame victim to re-enact the crime--- hence the evidence when closely examined does not make sense.

IMO

Because you believe that it's impossible for Dyleski to have been careful not to leave evidence..you also discount the evidence found on the victim that points to him..for example the partial profile that matched Dyleski and excluded her husband, Wheeler, Lynch and Jena..every single allele matched Dyleski!! he was not even excluded as the source of trace Dna found on the rim of the water bottle yet every single other suspect was excluded..

The testimony on the encounter is far from the complete picture, and is at best hearsay. Scott told his lawyer of the encounter. His lawyer told him at that point not to talk about it, and the lawyer was supposed to contact police. Scott and all the adults were told to expect a search of the computers over the cc fraud. When they got home Scott didn't owe Sikkema an explaination. Haven't you ever heard a teen be sarcastic?? He also denied using drugs to Sikemma when he was clearly using and enjoying marijuana.

IMO

We will have to agree to disagree..I consider this evidence very damning and very powerful..in addition, I consider it a very credible evidence!

It doesn't matter if you find Esther credible or not. I do since I have spent time with her in person. Lots of time. That doesn't matter though. The simple fact is what she did or did not do can not be held against Scott. He didn't ask her to do anything.

IMO

I'm not holding her actions against Dyleski..I'm just not relying on self serving statements made by her to reach a conclusion as to Dyleski's guilt vs innocence..there is a good reason why jurors that have emotional ties to the defendant are dismissed..

I'm still waiting for somebody........ anybody..... to tell me why Scott's dna wasn't in the alleged murder glove. The one he supposidly wore as he clutched weapons with great force and struck repeated blows all over Pam Vitale's body. Funny how none of the dna "evidence" in this case is without issues.

IMO

I think we will have to agree to disagree..I have already posted info regarding skin cells/sweat being a poor source of DNA..in addition, Pamela's blood saturated the glove and was found on the inside of the glove which made it more difficult to obtain a full background profile..the fact the glove was in a place where children played with things could have even compounded the problem if several kids/people wore that glove at one point..the bottom line is Dyleski was no excluded..

If you think Scott took that duffle bag with him to change after the kill..... where are the bloody clothes? Why not put them in the bag? Why only one glove? Do you think as he was running back to the van, he took off his left glove and dropped it?? But kept the right glove on and opened the bag with the gloved right hand (thus leaving the blood smear on the zipper pull)??? Since he walked into his house in clean clothes and shoes, where did he put those items before changing into clean clothes and where did he get washed up???

IMO

I think he took the duffle bag to take the glove and ski mask and some extra clothes in case he was soaked in blood after the murder..however, if there was a small amount of blood it would not have been noticeable because he wore black clothes..according to testimony he did go to the bathroom and wash off the blood..

attorneywan2be

11-24-2007, 02:03 PM

They found Pamela's DNA on the outsole of the right shoe..

Testimony:

Q. And as we go around clockwise down, I guess it would be

on the outside of the right shoe.

Did you call that the outsole?

A. I believe I did.

Q. Did you collect an item that you marked as 22-1P, as in

Paul?

A. Yes, I did.

-----------------------

A. On two of the samples, 22-1H and 22-1P,I obtained a

full profile that was from a single source female, from one

individual, and that profile matches Ms. Vitale.

Q. And when you say a full and complete profile, are you

talking about that 43 quadrillion number you had mentioned

previously?

A. The numbers better 1 in 62 quadrillion

African-Americans, 1 in 13 quadrillion Caucasians, and 1 in

4.2 quintillion Hispanics.

Beebee

11-24-2007, 02:32 PM

AW2B,

I'm about to get short on time here, so I can't address all your points. Most we have gone over and will have to agree to disagree.

You find nothing wrong with the lack of Scott's dna on the glove-- I do.
You don't see a problem with the long blonde hair, I do.
You think the killer would have to search for Dyleski's shoes-- I don't.
You think the killer would have to search for the glove and mask-- I don't.
You think the planting is impossible- I definately don't.
You think Dyleski had motiove-- I don't.
You think he doesn't have an alibi-- I do.
I think Dan Horowitz is the cold blooded killer of his wife-- you don't.

Amazing we don't agree on a single aspect of this case.

(I still love you though :D )

To answer your question about the long blonde hair. Here is how I think it got there. I think Horowitz killed her in the morning. Before he went to his Polk meeting. I think he was the one using the laptop. I think he took BOTH computers with him when he left the home, and I think he left the home not Saturday morning, but Friday night. I think he went back to the home after his breakfast meeting where a fight went down, probably over VN. I think Horowitz left one of the computers there and quickly typed a search for "Darge" not realizing Pam already knew the woman well, and left in the nic of time to get to the Polk meeting 20 minutes away.
I think at that meeting he collected some of Val Harris' long blonde hair that she shed (on her coat/chair) and then later while he was doing additional staging/covering he planted those hairs on Pam's back because they pointed away from him.

Similar to the way he defends clients-- throw a bunch of stuff out and hope something sticks.

ALL MY OPINION ONLY

attorneywan2be

11-24-2007, 02:39 PM

I think Dan's almost immediate open relationship with his now wife after Pam's murder speaks volumes about the state of his former marriage. I know some don't agree, but he allowed himself to be estranged from Pam's children, at the most difficult time in their lives, so he could move the girlfriend into "Pam's mansion" DURING SCOTT'S TRIAL.... He was the grieving widower in court, but went home to his girlfriend.

He immediately accepted Scott as the suspect, when Scott couldn't have been a more unlikely suspect. IMO

Anyway- my theory is Pam found out about VN and threatened to take Dan down financially and maybe interfere with his Polk stardom. I think they got into it and he killed her in a rage. I think he then staged the scene and planted evidence. Not all the evidence points to Dyleski, because even with Dan's planting, he couldn't count on it-- for such an unlikely suspect.
But in the end he pulled it off. This is my opinion.

IMO

There isn't one shred of evidence that points to Horowitz...he had an affair? let me start by saying that we both agreed on another case that having an affair means nothing and could not be used as evidence that the husband killed his wife..with that said..there isn't one shred of evidence that he had an affair before his wife was killed anyway!

attorneywan2be

11-24-2007, 02:54 PM

.
You think the killer would have to search for Dyleski's shoes-- I don't
You think the killer would have to search for the glove and mask-- I don't.

What do you mean that you DON'T think the killer would have to search for Dyleski's shoes, glove and mask..please elaborate..TIA

Amazing we don't agree on a single aspect of this case.

(I still love you though :D )

Same here...:D

To answer your question about the long blonde hair. Here is how I think it got there. I think Horowitz killed her in the morning. Before he went to his Polk meeting. I think he was the one using the laptop. I think he took BOTH computers with him when he left the home, and I think he left the home not Saturday morning, but Friday night. I think he went back to the home after his breakfast meeting where a fight went down, probably over VN. I think Horowitz left one of the computers there and quickly typed a search for "Darge" not realizing Pam already knew the woman well, and left in the nic of time to get to the Polk meeting 20 minutes away.
I think at that meeting he collected some of Val Harris' long blonde hair that she shed (on her coat/chair) and then later while he was doing additional staging/covering he planted those hairs on Pam's back because they pointed away from him.

When you have the time..I would appreciate it if you would give me your theory regarding Horowitz's step by step timeline on October 15th..please include the planting of Pamela's blood..also please include your theory as to how he got access to the different items that he used to frame Dyleski..thanks!

Beebee

11-24-2007, 03:17 PM

IMO

There isn't one shred of evidence that points to Horowitz...he had an affair? let me start by saying that we both agreed on another case that having an affair means nothing and could not be used as evidence that the husband killed his wife..with that said..there isn't one shred of evidence that he had an affair before his wife was killed anyway!

Check your PMs

eta- ps-speaking of that other case, we had some planting there also. I would have to say that planting would have been much more difficult to pull off, imo. But it still happened.

Beebee

11-24-2007, 03:30 PM

I will elaborate when I can jump in here.

The killer didn't have to search for the items because they were readily available on the Curiel property-- OUTSIDE.

To me it's obvious the items weren't well thought out. Random, imo.
Thought out wouldn't involve a long black woman's evening glove, imo or a mask. I find the mask completely ridiculous.

There are many holes in Horowitz's version of the 15th. To start.... he had breakfast at aprx 8:00AM. Got to team Polk aprx 10:45.
I don't buy for a second he spent over two hours at breakfast. He was about 10-15 minutes from home, and about 20 from his office.
PLENTY of time to do the deed, imo.

I know this is incomplete... gotta go, BBL

attorneywan2be

11-24-2007, 03:34 PM

Check your PMs

eta- ps-speaking of that other case, we had some planting there also. I would have to say that planting would have been much more difficult to pull off, imo. But it still happened.

I have to disagree..the planting in the other case is far easier and way less complex..IMO!

Beebee

11-24-2007, 04:31 PM

attorneywan2be

11-25-2007, 09:29 AM

AW2B-- or anyone.... I've collected info on Horowitz and sourced all that info here: http://justiceforscottdyleski.com/whoisdanielhorowitz.html

By NO MEANS is it everything (IMO) .... But it is what has been available to anyone in the public. So please review and give me your opinion. If you see something off base let me know.

Notice the inconsistent statements on the part of Horowitz. Pam made breakfast, then she was sleeping???... is it difficult to remember something like that? I think not.

JMO

IMO

1-

"I got him. I did a better job on him than they've done on you. I've got that (beeped out) and he's not going to get out of this"

There is no way I would take the word of Susan Polk on this..no way! IMO, she is unstable!

2-

"Retired police officers? It's interesting that the retired police officers never came up again. In fact a few days later Dan gave his alibi to Dan Abrams."

He told Dan Abrams that he had a meeting with his Polk team..do we know for sure if his team didn't include retired police officers? maybe his team included private investigators that were retired police officers..

3-

"How does one get a wet shoulder from knocking over a dog bowl?"

Well it is very possible and makes perfect sense based on the facts..Dan stated that he fell to the ground when he opened the door and saw his wife.. that's exactly where the dog bowl was according to Hoffman..he also told Hoffman that he dropped the shopping bags....Hoffman did find couple of grocery shopping bags in that area..so it makes perfect sense that the front of his shoulder would get wet..the facts are consistent with his story!

He stated that on CNN:

Then, when I go up the stairs and I look at the door, then I see -- and this is where, like, I`m now going to -- it`s, like, unreal, OK? This is, like, the unreal part. I see smears on the door, but it`s not like blood, Nancy. It`s darker. But I know it`s not right. And I`ve been a lawyer for so long, I know it`s not right.

And I just reach for the doorknob and then I open the door. At that point, what you just see, what is this scene, for a second, my brain is telling myself, It`s just one of the crime scene photos you`ve been looking at all day. That`s the brain, but the body and the heart and everything knows.

And I don`t remember what I did. I just know I fell to the ground. And I saw her, and everything -- I understood everything that I could see. I took it all in, and I knew she was dead.

------------------------
Hoffman's testimony:

A. Yes. The front of that residence faced east, and

as we approached from what would be the north, we had to go up a

small flight of a wooden deck to kind of elevate ourselves to be

able to go into the front of that residence. And as I approached

that front door, I noticed that it was open as far as it could

be.

Q. And did you notice anything out of place laying

in the area of the entry to the front door?

A. Yeah. The first thing that I noticed was the dog

bowl that Mr. Horowitz had described knocking over and noticed a

large puddle of water on the ground right where the dog bowl was.

The other items that I noticed were the two

grocery bags; one was just outside the front door, and the other

one was just inside the front door of that residence.

4-

"Which is it? Was she up making him breakfast, eating breakfast herself, or sleeping?"

She could have done both..in other words, she got up and made breakfast for him while he was showering for example or was still asleep..then she went back to bed..note what he said: HOROWITZ: "I looked at her. I woke up earlier. Looked at her, just looked at her. She made my breakfast -- a little different -- I made my coffee and then went to breakfast with Bob Massi, instead of staying around the house because I had a breakfast meeting with him. We had a case together"

"I looked at her" ..indicates to me that she was sleeping at the time he was looking at her.."she made my breakfast" + "I made my coffee" indicates to me that she made his breakfast earlier then he made his coffee and left..so it's quite possible that this happened:

-He woke up earlier and looked at her as she was asleep..
-While he was having his shower or while he was still asleep (went back to sleep after looking at her) she fixed his breakfast..had some breakfast herself and went back to bed before he was out of the shower..
-He made coffee.. he ate a bowl of oatmeal (it's hot cereal) ..he left to have breakfast with his friend..he stated that she made his breakfast a little different..maybe he decided not to eat the breakfast she made and had a bowl of oatmeal instead..maybe the oatmeal was the breakfast she made..and he ate it so she's won't feel bad..

This is an attorney who would be smart enough not to tell two conflicting statements regarding his wife's activities on the morning of October 15th..I think it is the way you are interpreting it that makes those statements inconsistent...in addition, according to you he's a very smart man that was able to identify Dyleski's items in someone's else household..plant Vitale's blood without being seen by anyone...made the idea of him planting the stuff sounds absurd...yet according to you he's dumb enough to slip and say two idiotic conflicting statements..having her sleeping vs having her fixing breakfast..IMO, he didn't contradict himself..I think she made breakfast and went back to bed..I have done that myself..!

5-

"One of the first pieces of information he offered was that he found Pamela wearing only a tee-shirt and her underwear. He asserted he found her in her "sleep clothes". source

This was blatant misinformation, that had drastic consequences.

The fact is, Pamela was NOT found in her sleep clothes. She was wearing a tee-shirt, underwear, a long black skirt, and socks"

Pamela was found with the skirt pulled up ABOVE her abdomen..so it's quite possible in his state of panic when he saw his wife lying in a pool of blood..what registered was the T-shirt and her underwear..some women sleep wearing T-shirts..I don't see anything wrong with what he said given the fact the skirt was not in a normal position..all he was able to clearly see were the T-shirt and the underwear..and that's exactly what Hoffman saw at first!

From the trial:(Collins's testimony)

Q. Do you remember how that skirt was configured on her

body during autopsy?

A. As I recall, the skirt was pulled up above her abdomen.

-------------------

From the prelim: (Hoffman's testimony)

I also noticed that she was wearing a black

skirt. This black skirt was not very obvious to me at first with

you know, what it was because it was bunched all the way up at

her waistline.

Beebee

11-25-2007, 11:56 AM

attorneywan2be

11-25-2007, 12:33 PM

Wonder why they were looking for "dark" clothing? There was no fiber evidence at the scene (that we know of).... so were did "dark clothing" come from??

The entire warrant in this case was designed to arrest and convict Dyleski, IMO, at all costs.

IMO

I just noticed this post..I think there is a very simple explanation for this..the day before the search, on the morning of October 19th, Dyleski's friend, Robin Croen spoke to the DA..he gave them the tip about Dyleski's possible involvement in the murder..so it's more likely than not they discussed the clothes Dyleski normally wore..Croen must have told them (as he testified) that Dyleski wore black/dark clothing..they needed this info for the search warrant!..they were specifically looking for dark clothing..

Croen's testimony:

Q. Was there any specific kind of dark clothing that he

was wearing?

A. Just black clothing.

----------------------

Kovar's testimony:..( I think we can safely assume that the search warrant was based on what Croen told the DA)

Q. On the 20th of October of this year -- or, I'm sorry --

of last year, 2005, in the early morning, were you contacted by

another sergeant with the sheriff's office and requested to

respond to 1050 Hunsaker Canyon Road to assist in a search at

that location?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you then arrive in the area of Lafayette,

pursuant to that request?

A. Yes.

Q. Approximately what time?

A. It was a little before 4:00 a.m.

----------------------

Kovar's testimony:

A. Yes. I set it on the ground, and I shown my

light inside again and saw dark clothing, again, which matched

some of the stuff that we were requested to look for.

attorneywan2be

11-25-2007, 01:28 PM

AW2B, we will have to agree to disagree on Horowitz. I think he is guilty as sin. JMO.
Sorry don't buy the wet shoulder from the dog bowl. I don't see Horowitz doing a face plant on the deck.
Why is there a water bowl for the dog right in front of the door?? Pam was so allergic to the dogs that were kept locked in a kennel away from the house. Why didn't the fleeing Scott Dyleski knock the bowl over?
Maybe Horowitz needed to rinse his bloody hands? What a better way than to fill a dog bowl, rinse hands in that water and dump the water on the deck?

IMO

Are you saying that Horowitz had bloody hands when he returned home after supposedly killing his wife in the morning..what did he do to get blood on his hands at 6:00 pm in the evening? Are you saying that he went and got the dog bowl from the kennel without leaving blood on anything he touched to get the bowl? Are you saying that he went specifically to the dogs kennel and got the bowl so he can wash his bloody hands and dump the bowl right infront of the front door? why on earth would he do that for? and you're saying this was the best way to accomplish what?

In addition, he didn't need to fall flat on his face..if he fell to the ground landing on his knees and hands knocking over the dog bowl the water could have easily splashed the front of his shoulder..

Funny Horowitz claimed he saw evidence that the perp took a "long, at least 45 minute shower".... another "water issue" that never made sense. The drains in the shower were not taken. Why did Horowitz make that claim??
IMO- because he worried evidence might be found of HIS cleaning up. Again, JMO.

IMO

According to an article that information about the killer taking a shower was initially leaked by the prosecution's office..

Why do you think Horowitz disturbed the crime scene to go get the land line and call 911, but then leave the phone off the hook, and use the cell that was on him to call the NON-taped regular line??

Would you please provide the source of this info...thanks

Didn't notice the skirt? I don't think so. Any man would wonder if his wife was sexually assaulted and note the clothing. In fact Horowitz made a statement that he did not think she was sexually assaulted. Don't have that link handy so I'll have to say JMO. Funny he noticed her ring on her finger (with the claw shaped hands) was turned around, and made a point to say she turned it around when she felt threatened. Hm. If Scott Dyleski ran in and bashed her head, when did she think -- gee I better turn my ring around?

IMO

I think it is very reasonable to assume that he didn't notice the skirt in his state of panic..even Hoffman testified that the skirt was not obvious to him at first because it was bunched up around her waist!..

Who do you think moved the TV entertainment system? The bloody Pam? The bloody Scott? But there was no blood on it.

IMO

Again, I think there could be a very simple explanation for this..for example, the TV entertainment system was moved right at the beginning in an effort to contain Pamela in one place so he can get hold of her or to prevent her from reaching to a phone or whatever...I mean Dyleski did that before the scene became bloody!

Beebee

11-25-2007, 02:51 PM

IMO

I just noticed this post..I think there is a very simple explanation for this..the day before the search, on the morning of October 19th, Dyleski's friend, Robin Croen spoke to the DA..he gave them the tip about Dyleski's possible involvement in the murder..so it's more likely than not they discussed the clothes Dyleski normally wore..Croen must have told them (as he testified) that Dyleski wore black/dark clothing..they needed this info for the search warrant!..they were specifically looking for dark clothing..

I still say the warrant should have said "clothing".... "dark clothing" implies the killer killed in dark clothing. Why would anyone in LE assume that? Could it be because Horowitz was telling his LE buds all about the GOTH freak down the road?? Who maybe carved a GOTH symbol???

Why did the LPD ask Robin what Scott usually wore?? Did they have fiber evidence?? No, they did not. Did they ask Robin what he usually wore?? This was a witch hunt for Dyleski, driven by Horowitz..... that is my opinion.

There was no "tip" about Dyleski's involvement in the murder. If you know different please post it. Please be specific. The skelton transcript is on the website.

Do you think the DA was justified in giving Robin Croen immediate immunity from prosecution, before they investigated anything?? Before they even talked to Dyleski?? Who had been to an attorney himself already and they knew it?? How did they know Robin wasn't lying through his teeth?? And besides that what did he say that incriminated Scott in murder??

Examine the warrant AW2B. It's just ANOTHER issue in this case.

How many issues should one case have before it's time to take off the blinders???

Beebee

11-25-2007, 03:09 PM

IMO

Are you saying that Horowitz had bloody hands when he returned home after supposedly killing his wife in the morning..

No, he washed them that morning but they got bloody again as he continued staging/planting in the later afternoon. JMO

In addition, he didn't need to fall flat on his face..if he fell to the ground landing on his knees and hands knocking over the dog bowl the water could have easily splashed the front of his shoulder..

No way... try to do it yourself... nevermind... agree to disagree. Even if he did have the water event with the dog bowl... which I don't believe... he never mentioned it on any of his interviews. Wonder why?? He mentioned his every other (alleged) move. Right down to turning the door knob.

IMO

According to an article that information about the killer taking a shower was initially leaked by the prosecution's office..

Would you please provide the source of this info...thanks

Sorry I can't. It will have to be MY OPINION. My opinion is DAN spoke those words the Sunday morning after Pam's murder. JMO MOO
Feel free to discount.

IMO

I think it is very reasonable to assume that he didn't notice the skirt in his state of panic..even Hoffman testified that the skirt was not obvious to him at first because it was bunched up around her waist!..

Agree to disagree. Dan is not blind. He saw her UP CLOSE.

Anyway, Hoffman still saw the skirt, and his job was to secure the area, not look at Pam's clothes. Yet he still saw the skirt. It wasn't al that obscure.

IMO

Again, I think there could be a very simple explanation for this..for example, the TV entertainment system was moved right at the beginning in an effort to contain Pamela in one place so he can get hold of her or to prevent her from reaching to a phone or whatever...I mean Dyleski did that before the scene became bloody!

So he ran in and moved the entertainment center first?? WHY?? The trailer was not all that big! So when the masked Dyleski ran in through the unlocked door he ran to the entertainment center and that was when Pam turned her ring around?? Didn't call 911 on the phone that was on the couch? Is that what you think??

What it blocked her from were the GUNS, something Scott would not know... but Dan would!!

Yet during this moving of the entertainment center Dyleski didn't chose any of the electronic equipment for weapons.... instead opting for crown molding?? Why not the stereo, speakers or VCR, why not smash the big screen TV on her??

Because Dan didn't want to ruin those items, IMO

attorneywan2be

11-25-2007, 04:01 PM

So he ran in and moved the entertainment center first?? WHY?? The trailer was not all that big! So when the masked Dyleski ran in through the unlocked door he ran to the entertainment center and that was when Pam turned her ring around?? Didn't call 911 on the phone that was on the couch? Is that what you think??

What it blocked her from were the GUNS, something Scott would not know... but Dan would!!

Yet during this moving of the entertainment center Dyleski didn't chose any of the electronic equipment for weapons.... instead opting for crown molding?? Why not the stereo, speakers or VCR, why not smash the big screen TV on her??

Because Dan didn't want to ruin those items, IMO

IMO

I know we will have to agree to disagree..I personally consider the framing theory totally far-fetched.. in addition.. there is ZERO evidence that anyone other than Dyleski committed this crime...I think the molding makes much more sense as a weapon..throwing things (VCR..stereo.. etc..) at her might not hit her because she would have the time to dodge..I don't expect her to have stood there waiting for the item that was thrown at her from a distance to hit her..but striking her repeatedly with the molding would get the job done quickly...

But I still hope you would post your theory about Horowitz's timeline that day..if you would list each step he took and at what time he did that step..I mean starting with the first thing he did as to the murder until he called the police..I would really appreciate it if you would do that...thanks!

attorneywan2be

11-25-2007, 04:21 PM

I still say the warrant should have said "clothing".... "dark clothing" implies the killer killed in dark clothing. Why would anyone in LE assume that? Could it be because Horowitz was telling his LE buds all about the GOTH freak down the road?? Who maybe carved a GOTH symbol???

Why did the LPD ask Robin what Scott usually wore?? Did they have fiber evidence?? No, they did not. Did they ask Robin what he usually wore?? This was a witch hunt for Dyleski, driven by Horowitz..... that is my opinion.

There was no "tip" about Dyleski's involvement in the murder. If you know different please post it. Please be specific. The skelton transcript is on the website.

Do you think the DA was justified in giving Robin Croen immediate immunity from prosecution, before they investigated anything?? Before they even talked to Dyleski?? Who had been to an attorney himself already and they knew it?? How did they know Robin wasn't lying through his teeth?? And besides that what did he say that incriminated Scott in murder??

Examine the warrant AW2B. It's just ANOTHER issue in this case.

How many issues should one case have before it's time to take off the blinders???

IMO

No blinders need to be taken off on my part for sure..

If Croen told them the day before that Dyleski always wore black clothing..they most certainly can list in the search warrant --->black/dark clothing...why not? they wanted to make sure the officers that will be searching the residence would be looking for the right clothes..

attorneywan2be

11-25-2007, 04:42 PM

IMO

I'm sure Croen supplied them with a lot of information and they realized that he was cooperating with them..and if they discovered later that he lied to them on any serious issue..they would have been able to prosecute him anyway...he would only get immunity if he would fully cooperate with them..

Most definitely the search warrant was obtained BASED on what Croen and his father told the DA..hence the listing of black/dark clothing as items to look for..

MR. JEWETT: Q. Well, let me ask you this: In the

evening of October 19, were you actually in the process of

obtaining a search warrant for 1050 Hunsaker Canyon Road?

A. Yes.

Q. And did that involve a contact that you had with Robin

Croen and his father at a law office in Walnut Creek?

A. Yes.

Beebee

11-26-2007, 08:38 AM

IMO

I'm sure Croen supplied them with a lot of information

You don't have to guess at what Croen told them. Read the skelton transcript. It's all in there.
There is not a single thing in there that warranted a search and arrest for murder, imo. In fact they had the knowledge that Scott had already been to a lawyer, thus Scott had already initiated an investigation.

The cc fraud should have been investigated. The sighting of Pamela should have been investigated. Neither were done. Specialty Lighting wasn't even called for almost a month AFTER Scott was charged..... and I have never heard of somebody getting immunity from prosecution before an investigation even takes place and all parties are questioned. If you know different please let me know.
You think it's okay that detective Jason Barnes and DDA Clark LIED to get the warrant? If they actually had evidence, they would not need to lie. IMO

They arrested Scott THEN made a case, not the other way around. I find that very disturbing.

I can't give you a step by step account for what Horowitz did that day-- I wasn't there. I gave you my general theory. It's my speculation based on the information I have gotten from various sources-- some I can source here and some I can't. That makes it difficult AW2B.

My theory is Horowitz actually left home Friday night and took his two laptops with him. He was known to use more than one at the same time (If Pam wanted to use the computer, there was still another laptop in the home). I think he was "unable to be reached" even by his Polk team, and his wife...... so I think that morning Pam went to look for him, possibly at Millies-- or a hotel.
I think Dan was already starting an affair with Northrup, and possibly Pam found out, although I think they had other tensions in the marriage, including the 10 million dollar mansion Pam was building.
I think Horowitz went home after the breakfast meeting with Massie and that's when the fight broke out and he killed her.
I think he left one of the laptops at home to stage her using it- did the search for Darge not knowing Pam already knew the woman well.... and headed to his meeting knowing it would be an important part of his alibi.
IMO Dan did not want it to come out that Pamela was out looking for him that morning.

That meeting was over by aprx 2:00PM.

I think he had four hours left to do additional staging/planting and also made a point to get an ATM receipt and grocery bags... continuing to stage his alibi. Also the "trip to the gym"... (he has a gym at home by the way)... His office was aprx 20 minutes away. Very easy to pull off, imo.

That is about as specific as I can get. What it comes down to is Horowitz had the motive, means and opportunity to both kill and frame, IMO.

By the way.... speaking of choice of weapons... why would Scott have to throw the electronic equipment? A vase was picked up and used. I wouldn't throw a laptop I'd use it to hit somebody over the head. Speakers would be another good choice.
I just find it interesting that with all the objects picked up (vase, TWO large utility flashlights, various crown molding, banister rail) and all the ransacking of various boxes and so forth that the expensive electronics and laptop with Polk case info was spared. How convenient for Dan.

Something else- Horowitz did not exhibit any fear of the killer at the scene. How could he know the crazed killer wasn't still in the home or on the property?? He did not even try to arm himself.
IMO the reason why is because he was the killer.

ps- then we have him calling Nancy Grace from the back of the police car while Pam's bloody body is still lying in the entryway. Does that seem normal to you?

My opinion only.

attorneywan2be

11-26-2007, 12:05 PM

I have never heard of somebody getting immunity from prosecution before an investigation even takes place and all parties are questioned. If you know different please let me know.

IMO..it is always the case..the attorney representing the person who is willing to cooperate makes a deal with the DA..his client would give them the facts in return for immunity..

Q. At some point, were you advised that our office was

willing to give your son immunity in return for his truthful

statements about what he knew about --

A. Yes.

-----------------------------

Q. And at some point that evening, Wednesday evening, was

it represented to you and your father that for the information

that you had to provide, you would be given immunity?

A. Yes.

Q. And with that understanding, did you then provide

information of what you knew about this case?

A. Yes.

You think it's okay that detective Jason Barnes and DDA Clark LIED to get the warrant? If they actually had evidence, they would not need to lie. IMO

I read on the site "JusticeforScottDyleski" that Jason Barnes stated that the items were supposed to be shipped to 1901 Hunsaker Canyon rd...you think he lied..I don't!..I read an article that Jackie Jahosky testified that Dyleski called her and changed the shipping address to 1901 Hunsaker Canyon rd..I would say that this would be the last documented shipping address per Specialty Lighting record..so technically he was telling the truth..he also stated in his report that the company canceled the order..

attorneywan2be

11-26-2007, 12:09 PM

I can't give you a step by step account for what Horowitz did that day-- I wasn't there. I gave you my general theory. It's my speculation based on the information I have gotten from various sources-- some I can source here and some I can't. That makes it difficult AW2B.

I was asking for your theory which you don't need to source......yep..both of us weren't there..that's exactly why we are searching for the truth...we need to determine if your theory about Horowitz killing Pamela is even possible in light of his timeline...we can do that by examining what you think Horowitz did step by step and at what time he did so..we would start from the moment he supposedly killed Pamela until he called the police.

First step: What time do you think Horowitz killed Pamela and how long it took him to do so? and did he do any clean up right there and then? and at what time did he leave the house after committing the alleged murder? where did he go from there?

Then we will go to the second step..etc..I really hope you would do that in order to get to the truth...thanks!

Beebee

11-26-2007, 12:44 PM

Croen was given immunity before there was even an attempt to question Dyleski, or investigate anything concerning Dyleski, and yes I do think Barnes and Clark lied through their teeth because number one- Specialty Lighting wasn't called till well after Scott was charged, and Jahosky did not give any testimony at trial that indicated Scott specifically indicated he wanted items to go to 1901 Hunsacker Canyon. The 1901 was a mistake, a clerical error, Scott did not even know about the error until Tuesday after the murder. He said "billing address" not knowing he did not use Karen Schneiders correct address. If you know different you will have to post that for me.
On the other hand Barnes had talked to Dough Schneider, who had told him the ship to address was the Curiel household, NOT Vitale.

on Horowitz.... I'll speculate step by step.

I don't think he was home that morning until after his breakfast meeting.

I think he got back to the home about 9:15. They began to argue (maybe about the affair I think he had started) and it got ugly. I think she made a run for the master-bedroom, and he blocked access with the TV, knowing she could arm herself if she got in that one room.

I think he staged/cleaned and left by 10:15-10:20.

So I think he had a full hour, which is plenty of time.

Beebee

11-26-2007, 01:17 PM

Since we are going to discuss the alibi of Horowitz, I think there are some things are worth noting.

Horowitz had a breakfast meeting with Bob Massie. He claimed they were working on a case together. I don't think anyone disputes this. Massie's is about 10 minutes from the home.

When initially asked about what he did that morning and the times, this was the response as told to officer Pate:

25 Q. And did he tell you when he -- and if you said

26 this, I apologize -- what time he left to go meet Mr. Massi?

27 A. He stated that he was supposed to have breakfast,

28 I believe, at nine -- he thought it to be 9:30, but that he left
10

1 early and realized that his appointment was actually 8:30, but

2 met with Mr. Massi, I believe, at 8:10 at Millie's for breakfast.

3 Q. What time did he say he actually left his

4 residence?

5 A. I believe just after 7:00, 7:30-ish.

6 Q. And what did he tell you that he did during the

7 course of that Saturday generally?

8 A. He met Mr. Massi for breakfast. He left there, I

9 believe, an hour and a half later. He went to his office. He

10 described his office as being in downtown Oakland. There he said

11 he stated he works with a man by the name of Mosher, I believe

12 Rick Mosher, who was an investigator that worked with him. I

13 believe he said he stayed there till about 2:00 or 2:30. Then he

14 made some other stops on the way home. Went to the grocery

15 store. Then from the grocery store he went directly to his

16 residence.

He claimed he tried to call Pam at 9:15 or 9:30, and since the DA's office went with 9:15 as the time of the attempted call I'll go with that since they had access to his phone records.

IMO- Horowitz tried calling Pam after the breakfast meeting was over. Why would he interrupt his meeting to call Pam at 9:15? Besides Massie in all his interviews never once said Horowitz tried to call Pam during the meeting.

It is not reasonable imo to think he sat at Millie's for two hours.

So I conclude the meeting was OVER by 9:15.

Interesting after the murder.... Massie was then refered to as Horowitz's lawyer. How convenient that Massie could invoke atty/client privledge should any questions posed to him implicate Dan or show the obvious window of opportunity.

From Oct. 17:

Horowitz called police about 6 p.m. Saturday to report his wife's killing. His lawyer, Robert Massi, said he met Horowitz for breakfast between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. that day. When the two parted, Horowitz was on his way to meet a colleague, Ivan Golde, at their office to work on their defense of Susan Polk, Massi said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/17/MNGS2F9T4B4.DTL

However, the LPD didn't even try to verify Horowitz's alibi until AFTER Scott was arrested!

Printed October 20th:

Bob Massi, a Las Vegas lawyer and legal commentator, said he is scheduled to meet with Contra Costa County Sheriff's detectives this morning and is sure they want to verify Horowitz's whereabouts on the day of his wife's violent death.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/20/BAGDCFB8FU1.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea

attorneywan2be

11-26-2007, 01:33 PM

Croen was given immunity before there was even an attempt to question Dyleski, or investigate anything concerning Dyleski, and yes I do think Barnes and Clark lied through their teeth because number one- Specialty Lighting wasn't called till well after Scott was charged, and Jahosky did not give any testimony at trial that indicated Scott specifically indicated he wanted items to go to 1901 Hunsacker Canyon. The 1901 was a mistake, a clerical error, Scott did not even know about the error until Tuesday after the murder. He said "billing address" not knowing he did not use Karen Schneiders correct address. If you know different you will have to post that for me.
On the other hand Barnes had talked to Dough Schneider, who had told him the ship to address was the Curiel household, NOT Vitale.

Unfortunately we don't have the TS of Jahosky's testimony..but according to articles she did testify that Dyleski called her on October 14th asking if they would ship the items to the billing address that he listed on the order which was 1901 Hunsaker Canyon rd..mistake or not..he listed that address as the billing address and he asked her to ship the order to the billing address----> 1901 Hunsaker Canyon rd..Schneider informed the police on Friday that her card was used fraudulently and she knew by then that the billing address he used was 1901 Hunsaker..Jahosky was in communication with Schneider on Friday and on Saturday..she was basically giving her the information which could have included Dyleski's call asking her to ship the items to the billing address..I think this would have been a very important piece of information in a CC fraud case..so I would say that it's more likely than not Jahosky mentioned that to Schneider..so it's very possible Barnes knew this information when he was trying to obtain the search warrant..

attorneywan2be

11-26-2007, 01:54 PM

Since we are going to discuss the alibi of Horowitz, I think there are some things are worth noting.

Horowitz had a breakfast meeting with Bob Massie. He claimed they were working on a case together. I don't think anyone disputes this. Massie's is about 10 minutes from the home.

When initially asked about what he did that morning and the times, this was the response as told to officer Pate:

He claimed he tried to call Pam at 9:15 or 9:30, and since the DA's office went with 9:15 as the time of the attempted call I'll go with that since they had access to his phone records.

IMO- Horowitz tried calling Pam after the breakfast meeting was over. Why would he interrupt his meeting to call Pam at 9:15? Besides Massie in all his interviews never once said Horowitz tried to call Pam during the meeting.

It is not reasonable imo to think he sat at Millie's for two hours.

So I conclude the meeting was OVER by 9:15.

Interesting after the murder.... Massie was then refered to as Horowitz's lawyer. How convenient that Massie could invoke atty/client privledge should any questions posed to him implicate Dan or show the obvious window of opportunity.

From Oct. 17:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/17/MNGS2F9T4B4.DTL

However, the LPD didn't even try to verify Horowitz's alibi until AFTER Scott was arrested!

Printed October 20th:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/20/BAGDCFB8FU1.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea

He had breakfast at Millie's restaurant..there must have been some receipt that would document when they paid for their breakfast..?? Massie never disputed that the breakfast ended at 10:00...so are you saying that the breakfast was over at 9:15? what evidence indicates to you that the breakfast ended at 9:15? If we imagine a scenario about two lawyers discussing a case over breakfast they can easily spend 1 hour and 50 minutes talking/eating/drinking coffee...I don't think it is unreasonable at all..

From the article you provided..Massie stated that he met with Horowitz between 8 and 10:00..

"Massi says he met with Horowitz on Saturday morning at Millie's Kitchen restaurant in Lafayette between 8 and 10 a.m. to discuss a case the two were trying in Nevada. He said Horowitz, dressed in jeans and a velour sweatshirt, seemed chipper."

awakening2lite

11-26-2007, 02:02 PM

>snipped<
There was no "tip" about Dyleski's involvement in the murder. If you know different please post it. Please be specific. The skelton transcript is on the website.

>snipped<

Hi Beebee

Here is a quote from NG regarding the tip. So much information that floated out there seemed to originate from Horowitz.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:6_ilYegD6bIJ:transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/21/asb.02.html+horowitz,+vitale,+ring&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&client=firefox-a

EXCERPT
Grace:
But it's my understanding from Daniel Horowitz as late as tonight, that the tip line is what led to the arrest. Remember, this is a 16-year old with no fingerprints no DNA on file, no criminal history. So the tip line apparently led to police questioning and then arresting him.

BROWN: Do we know anything about the tip?

GRACE: I think the tip had something to do with the young man being scratched up.

BROWN: Do we know if it came from a student? Do we have any idea who it came from -- a fellow student? A neighbor? Do we have any idea?

GRACE: I have an idea, but I have not confirmed it. I do know that this young man lived very near Daniel Horowitz, on that same mountain, a very remote area. I also confirmed tonight that Daniel had done quite a bit of pro bono work for this family, just as a neighbor, for free.

awakening2lite

11-26-2007, 02:24 PM

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:lkBbp4sCAc8J:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9796806/+horowitz,+vitale,+nice,+golde&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us&client=firefox-a
EXCERPT (quest: did Golde testify to DH making all those calls?)
“He called Pamela several times,” recounts Golde. “She didn’t answer the phone. He thought that was odd. But, we were meeting, we were busy. So, I saw Dan until 2:30. And he seemed absolutely fine.”

EXCERPT
“Pamela is just the sweetest, nicest, most selfless woman you ever want to know,” says Golde.

The early clues? There was no sexual assault, no robbery, none of the usual signs of assault by a walk-in stranger.

“This beating implies something much more personal,” Golde adds.

EXCERPT
“It’s ironic that the house was for Pamela and Pamela was the victim,” says Golde. “And now neither of them will live in that house. It’s very very sad.”

==============
I think it was Golde who also lead the media in the long shower report. I'll hunt that down.

attorneywan2be

11-26-2007, 04:03 PM

“He called Pamela several times,” recounts Golde. “She didn’t answer the phone. He thought that was odd. But, we were meeting, we were busy. So, I saw Dan until 2:30. And he seemed absolutely fine

+

So he had breakfast between 8 and 10 am ..then he headed to the office to meet his Polk team..he arrived there at 10:45 am..he was at least there until 2:30 pm ..let me say that I would not believe for a second that an attorney (Bob Massie) would lie to cover up for Dan in a possible murder case..why would he take such a risk and get himself in trouble? no reason!

We know that no one ever mentioned that Dan had any visible injuries on his body..Please think about this for a moment:

How was it possible for him to have the time to do the following between 2:30 pm and 5:53 pm..(let's not forget the time to drive from one point to another)

1- Make a bank deposit ( this is something that could be easily verified..the police did check his alibi)
2-Go Grocery shopping (that was definitely verified since the bags were found at his house..I'm sure he had the receipt)
3-Go to the Gym
4-Kill his wife
5-Clean up and stage the crime scene
6-Get rid of his bloody clothes..get rid of the knife he supposedly used to stab Pamela (what did he do with them and when?)
7-Collect Pamela's blood...
8-Go to the Curiel's property (walking or by car?)
9-Search the property for Dyleski's items and identifying them
10-Plant Vitale's blood on some items place them in the abandoned van
11-Plant Pamela's blood on Dyleski's shoes but for whatever reason he decides to place them at a different location (not in the van)
12-Return home to do more staging and get his shoulder wet
13-Get the dog bowl to wash his bloody hands..

Beebee

11-26-2007, 04:09 PM

Unfortunately we don't have the TS of Jahosky's testimony..but according to articles she did testify that Dyleski called her on October 14th asking if they would ship the items to the billing address that he listed on the order which was 1901 Hunsaker Canyon rd..mistake or not..he listed that address as the billing address and he asked her to ship the order to the billing address----> 1901 Hunsaker Canyon rd..Schneider informed the police on Friday that her card was used fraudulently and she knew by then that the billing address he used was 1901 Hunsaker..Jahosky was in communication with Schneider on Friday and on Saturday..she was basically giving her the information which could have included Dyleski's call asking her to ship the items to the billing address..I think this would have been a very important piece of information in a CC fraud case..so I would say that it's more likely than not Jahosky mentioned that to Schneider..so it's very possible Barnes knew this information when he was trying to obtain the search warrant..

"mistake or not"..... wait... Dyleski's knowledge of what the actual billing address was IS very important. It goes to where HE would have thought items would be shipped, had the items been approved to be delivered to the ship to address, which they were not, and he knew it.

Again, I have to make the point. Scott Dyleski didn't even realize he made a mistake on the billing address until AFTER Pam's murder. Three days after.
Why do you keep insinuating he purposely used Karen's card but Vitale's adddress?? What would that accomplish, except a possible decline of the purchases??? It was an obvious mistake. In other words, there was no real connection to Vitale. A typo is not a "connection", imo.

We also don't have to GUESS at what Doug Schneider told police. It's in both the skelton transcript and in Leonida's motion to quash the warrant. It's crystal clear. The order read that items be shipped to the Curiel house. Doug Schneider didn't get into any phone calls his wife had with Specialty Lighting concerning phone calls with the young person. Again, if you know different please post it. I have already provided the motion to quash and the skelton transcript to show my points.

Barnes blatantly and willfully lied, that is my opinion.

attorneywan2be

11-26-2007, 04:10 PM

I hope you would give us your insight on this:

Of all people...why do you think Horowitz picked Dyleski to frame?

Beebee

11-26-2007, 04:19 PM

He had breakfast at Millie's restaurant..there must have been some receipt that would document when they paid for their breakfast..?? Massie never disputed that the breakfast ended at 10:00...so are you saying that the breakfast was over at 9:15? what evidence indicates to you that the breakfast ended at 9:15? If we imagine a scenario about two lawyers discussing a case over breakfast they can easily spend 1 hour and 50 minutes talking/eating/drinking coffee...I don't think it is unreasonable at all..

From the article you provided..Massie stated that he met with Horowitz between 8 and 10:00..

"Massi says he met with Horowitz on Saturday morning at Millie's Kitchen restaurant in Lafayette between 8 and 10 a.m. to discuss a case the two were trying in Nevada. He said Horowitz, dressed in jeans and a velour sweatshirt, seemed chipper."

According to locals in the area, Millies is a smaller diner that gets very crowded on the weekends with a line..... I don't think they sat there for two hours. What case were they working on together? If you find it, let me know. Why didn't Massie ever mention that Dan tried to call Pam? That call was at 9:15. Why would Dan call Pam in the middle of their meeting?? Makes more sense that he would call after. IMO

So yes, I think after a FULL HOUR at Millies, he was done talking, eating, and it was about 9:15.

AW2B-- I also believe that there are a few people who know Horowitz wasn't at home Friday night, and my guess is Massie is one of them.
Had anyone asked Massie what Horowitz claimed he did the night before.... I think Massie would have said it was atty/client info and he couldn't comment.

JMO