Scott Dyleski-- please read, need opinions

[attorneywan2be]

"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.

But Barnes said that Mr. Schneider informed him that all the INFORMATION they had INCLUDING all the emails his wife received from Specialty lighting were sent to the police..(per justiceforscottdyleski" site)

I think you're missing my point BeeBee..my point is: it doesn't matter if Scott realized he made a mistake or not..in other words that is not the issue at all....what's important is that Dyleski asked for the items to be shipped to the billing address listed on his order..what was the billing address listed on his order ? -----------> 1901 Hunsaker Canyon Rd..

If Barnes knew that Dyleski wanted the order to be shipped to the billing address listed on the order = Barnes knew that Dyleski wanted the order to be shipped to 1901 Hunsaker Canyon rd..

[Beebee]

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.

Nancy Grace makes me want to puke. She can and will try to spin ANYthing that suits her agenda. Hmm, is it any wonder Dan called her from the police car? He knew Nancy would spin in his favor and she did..... like the trained media ***** that she is...

On a lighter note, lol.... everything about how and why Scott Dyleski got arrested is in the skelton transcript. Which was sealed at the time. How convenient for Dan and Nancy that the media could not report what really happened.

[Beebee]

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.


Wake do you think it's possible that Dan told his "Polk partners" to say certain things to the media? Not anything of major importance really, just certain things to tweak public opinion??
I sure do.

I think the phone call to Nancy Grace is very telling as to his frame of mind. It's chilling actually, so I have no doubt he could show up for his meeting with team Polk and appear normal.

JMO

[attorneywan2be]

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

According to you it gets very crowded in weekends...maybe they waited to be seated...maybe it took a long time until they were served..maybe it also took a long time before they got the check..is this unreasonable??
Is it possible Dan made the phone call while Massie went to the restroom? is it possible that one would need to go to the restroom during breakfast..??? Maybe Dan made his second phone call when he (himself) went to the restroom..is it also possible that Dan didn't tell Massie who he was calling and it didn't register since he only dialed a number but didn't talk to anyone...!!
I mean honestly we can't fairly conclude that both Massie and Dan were lying about the breakfast being over at 10:00 am..in fact, given all the facts..it makes more sense that they would spend way more than an hour..I mean I know I spent more than couple of hours talking on the phone with someone about a case....:D

Dan is an attorney and he probably knows better than lying about something that could easily be checked..!

[Beebee]

+

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!

Massie wouldn't have to lie, or get in trouble. He wouldn't have to say anything. Atty/Client. That's why I find it suspect that Horowitz would lawyer up with Massie, the same guy he had breakfast with... by the way, police didn't even try to verify Horowitz's alibi with Massie until after Scott was arrested. What do you think about that kind of police work??
Massie can get away with giving a general range of time-- for instance "between" 8:00 and 10:00. He would not answer questions as to what he and Horowitz talked about..... Questions like, "Did Dan tell you he didn't stay at home Friday night??"



We know that no one ever mentioned that Dan had any visible injuries on his body..Please think about this for a moment:


He was never examined for injury. He admitted this on TV.


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)

Probably made one trip back to get alibi receipts. That takes up about an hour of drive time.
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 If he went to the gym, it wasn't to work out, but rather to shower, imo. He has a gymn at home.

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..

I say walked to Curiel property. Had plenty of time to do all of that. Had to wash his hands when he got back home, he had his hands on bloody items. I think the wet shoulder has something to do with the blood in the shower, and also his claim of the perps long shower-- but I'm not sure how it fits together

[Beebee]

I hope you would give us your insight on this:

Of all people...why do you think Horowitz picked Dyleski to frame?

Because Scott Dyleski is a witness that Pamela Vitale was out of her home, in her car that Saturday morning.

It blows the computer use that was staged. If they looked too close they could tell it was staged, and only ONE person could/would do that.... Dan.

Also- to get away with murder of course.

My opinion only.

[attorneywan2be]

Because Scott Dyleski is a witness that Pamela Vitale was out of her home, in her car that Saturday morning.

It blows the computer use that was staged. If they looked too close they could tell it was staged, and only ONE person could/would do that.... Dan.

Also- to get away with murder of course.

My opinion only.

And how did Horowitz know that Dyleski was a witness that Pamela Vitale was out of her home..and why would a killer want to shut someone up for seeing his wife in her car outside her home?? how would that possibly hurt him??

[attorneywan2be]

Massie wouldn't have to lie, or get in trouble. He wouldn't have to say anything. Atty/Client. That's why I find it suspect that Horowitz would lawyer up with Massie, the same guy he had breakfast with... by the way, police didn't even try to verify Horowitz's alibi with Massie until after Scott was arrested. What do you think about that kind of police work??
Massie can get away with giving a general range of time-- for instance "between" 8:00 and 10:00. He would not answer questions as to what he and Horowitz talked about

How do you know what Massie said or didn't say..in fact, he did talk on Fox news that they talked about a case that Dan had referred to him in Las Vegas..a case Dan had been working on..he also said that they talked about their families..children...etc..etc..and BTW, Massie also said that Dan dropped some documents at his hotel Saturday afternoon..!!

Massie was not vague abut the time they met..he was very precise..he stated that he met him for Breakfast between 8:00 and 10:00.. as in the breakfast starting at 8:00 and ending at 10:00..

BOB MASSI, FOX NEWS LEGAL ANALYST: John, it was a normal thing. We met in Lafayette, California. I was visiting my son, who goes to school there. We had breakfast because there was a case that he actually referred to me, in Las Vegas, something we had been working on. So we had breakfast about 8:00 Saturday morning until about 10 o'clock. You know, everything was normal. We talked a little business and to be honest with you after that, we talked about family. We talked about his wife, my wife, the children. You know, how things are going. He was very excited about the fact that, you know, he's building this new home and his wife is overseeing it and she's helping with his law practice. So it was just normal conversation, John.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172600,00.html

[attorneywan2be]

"He went to the Gym to shower because he had a Gym at home?!"

Do you think he had a membership at that Gym? wouldn't you say that it's highly likely that they had more exercise equipments than what he had at home..and why would he shower after already having been in meetings at his office??

You keep saying that he had plenty of times but you didn't assign any time to each activity you proposed he did..you didn't address my question about his bloody clothes and knife that he supposedly used when committing the murder..what did he do with them and when did he take those actions?

[Beebee]

And how did Horowitz know that Dyleski was a witness that Pamela Vitale was out of her home..and why would a killer want to shut someone up for seeing his wife in her car outside her home?? how would that possibly hurt him??

How he knew is something I'm still speculating about. Right now I think Pam told him because it stuck out in her mind.
I actually think it was Pam who surprised Scott, not the other way around.

As to why it was damaging?? Because it brings the computer use into question, and also the question as to WHY Pam would be out.... potentially bringing into question where Horowitz was.... not home..... IMO.

JMO

[awakening2lite]

Nancy Grace makes me want to puke. She can and will try to spin ANYthing that suits her agenda. Hmm, is it any wonder Dan called her from the police car? He knew Nancy would spin in his favor and she did..... like the trained media ***** that she is...

On a lighter note, lol.... everything about how and why Scott Dyleski got arrested is in the skelton transcript. Which was sealed at the time. How convenient for Dan and Nancy that the media could not report what really happened.


Hi Beebee,
The thing that was interesting, for me, was the obvious fact that Dan was communicating his insider info on the case to Nancy. And, if the information was sealed, how did Dan come to know about it? And thirdly, why did he give her information that was not accurate? Hmmmmm

[awakening2lite]

Wake do you think it's possible that Dan told his "Polk partners" to say certain things to the media? Not anything of major importance really, just certain things to tweak public opinion??
I sure do.

I think the phone call to Nancy Grace is very telling as to his frame of mind. It's chilling actually, so I have no doubt he could show up for his meeting with team Polk and appear normal.

JMO


Beebee, I do think something is amiss. I don't know if DH was deliberate in passing misinformation along or if his colleges simply improvised because of the association. What is clear is that there was a whole lot of twists and turns fed to the media that were completely unnecessary, imo.

Here's another example:
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/19/ng.01.html

LAWRENCE KOBILINSKY, FORENSIC SCIENTIST: Well, they`ve obviously finished processing the scene, and there`s a great deal of evidence. We spoke about the perpetrator having taken a shower. It`s very likely that there`s hair that the police recovered, and with that hair comes DNA. That`s the kind of evidence that could be very helpful once the police have a suspect.

There are latent prints that may be around. I`m assuming that the perp did not wear gloves. We still do not have a weapon. We`re hearing that it might even be a household item that was used. But obviously, whatever that weapon is, whatever the geometry is has to fit the trauma to the head.

But this is a crime scene that`s been thoroughly processed. We now have the autopsy report. We don`t have all the information, but we also have a thorough police investigation. Putting all that together will ultimately lead us down the right path. Follow the evidence.

===========
That was all wishful thinking, imo. They didn't even take the drains so no test was ever done for dna on the hairs that could have been recovered. Almost immediately (as soon as it didn't fit the "time line") the shower was hushed up. So they have evidence inside the shower of a clean up and blood on towels and etc but because it didn't "fit" ....

All I expected was a thorough investigation and for truth be used to convict. You know, prove who did it, not assume who did it.

IMO

[awakening2lite]

How do you know what Massie said or didn't say..in fact, he did talk on Fox news that they talked about a case that Dan had referred to him in Las Vegas..a case Dan had been working on..he also said that they talked about their families..children...etc..etc..and BTW, Massie also said that Dan dropped some documents at his hotel Saturday afternoon..!!

Massie was not vague abut the time they met..he was very precise..he stated that he met him for Breakfast between 8:00 and 10:00.. as in the breakfast starting at 8:00 and ending at 10:00..

BOB MASSI, FOX NEWS LEGAL ANALYST: John, it was a normal thing. We met in Lafayette, California. I was visiting my son, who goes to school there. We had breakfast because there was a case that he actually referred to me, in Las Vegas, something we had been working on. So we had breakfast about 8:00 Saturday morning until about 10 o'clock. You know, everything was normal. We talked a little business and to be honest with you after that, we talked about family. We talked about his wife, my wife, the children. You know, how things are going. He was very excited about the fact that, you know, he's building this new home and his wife is overseeing it and she's helping with his law practice. So it was just normal conversation, John.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172600,00.html

Hi AW2B

That's certainly a lot of detail, however, one would think that if his client was trying to reach his wife during that critical time frame that Massi would have made a point to mentioned it. :shrug:

[awakening2lite]

According to you it gets very crowded in weekends...maybe they waited to be seated...maybe it took a long time until they were served..maybe it also took a long time before they got the check..is this unreasonable??
Is it possible Dan made the phone call while Massie went to the restroom? is it possible that one would need to go to the restroom during breakfast..??? Maybe Dan made his second phone call when he (himself) went to the restroom..is it also possible that Dan didn't tell Massie who he was calling and it didn't register since he only dialed a number but didn't talk to anyone...!!
I mean honestly we can't fairly conclude that both Massie and Dan were lying about the breakfast being over at 10:00 am..in fact, given all the facts..it makes more sense that they would spend way more than an hour..I mean I know I spent more than couple of hours talking on the phone with someone about a case....:D

Dan is an attorney and he probably knows better than lying about something that could easily be checked..!

Just taking a tiny step back to refresh...the ONLY reason the breakfast meeting became important was because they could not determine an exact time of death. That lack of information lead Jewett to tie the time of death to the last computer surfing activity. (Something anyone who regularly surfs could argue cannot be precise because inactivity can be due to many things not necessarily death).
Again, the time of death was associated (assumed) with the computer inactivity because they simply could not determine when it occured.

IF we agree with the time line offered by Jewett then it is because we have assumed the time of death, because a time of death was NEVER actually medically determined. IIRC the autopsy actually provided a much wider window of opportunity.

imo

[attorneywan2be]

Hi AW2B

That's certainly a lot of detail, however, one would think that if his client was trying to reach his wife during that critical time frame that Massi would have made a point to mentioned it. :shrug:

Hi Wake..

But IMO it would not be fair to just conclude that Horowitz was lying simply because Massie didn't mention that call..it's an inconclusive piece of information that could not be used in our search for the truth..

Reasonable what ifs:

What if Dan didn't tell him that he was dialing to talk to his wife..
What if Dan didn't make that call in his presence..he went to the restroom for example..
What if it didn't register in Massie's mind because Dan simply dialed a number..he could have been checking his voicemail..

[awakening2lite]

Hi Wake..

But IMO it would not be fair to just conclude that Horowitz was lying simply because Massie didn't mention that call..it's an inconclusive piece of information that could not be used in our search for the truth..

Reasonable what ifs:

What if Dan didn't tell him that he was dialing to talk to his wife..
What if Dan didn't make that call in his presence..he went to the restroom for example..
What if it didn't register in Massie's mind because Dan simply dialed a number..he could have been checking his voicemail..

Hi AW2B, I agree, many variables. However, he was Dan's attorney in this case, that's what makes it odd he didn't mention it. Surely, Dan told him about the call, he certainly told everyone else.
There are records of the call having been made but there has never been mention of a time record for paying the check at Millies.
Sometimes the mind does play tricks and maybe he THought he made the call during the breakfast. Is that possible too? :shrug:

[attorneywan2be]

How he knew is something I'm still speculating about. Right now I think Pam told him because it stuck out in her mind.
I actually think it was Pam who surprised Scott, not the other way around.

As to why it was damaging?? Because it brings the computer use into question, and also the question as to WHY Pam would be out.... potentially bringing into question where Horowitz was.... not home..... IMO.

JMO


I simply cannot accept such scenario..Pamela telling Dan "hey I stopped my car today and grabbed Dyleski's arm"....she probably didn't even know Dyleski..!
Regardless..why would he frame Dyleski based on this piece of information.?...so what if she was seen in her car..what does this tell anyone? nothing!!..would you please elaborate on how would that ruin his "computer use staging plan" thanks

You said: it would bring into question why would Pamela be out ????

What is so sinister/unusual about Pamela being out? she could have been out to take care of an errand..!!

You said: Which potentially would bring into question where Horowitz was..not home????

Why would the fact that Pamela was out bring into question why Horowitz was not home?? and what if it did..he was having breakfast with Massie between 8 and 10:00..!

You would think if he wanted to frame anyone it would have been Lynch..!!but to pick Dyleski out of the blue..Dyleski that,to his knowledge at the time, had no motive to kill his wife...to be honest with you I don't think they even knew who Dyleski was..!

[attorneywan2be]

Hi AW2B, I agree, many variables. However, he was Dan's attorney in this case, that's what makes it odd he didn't mention it. Surely, Dan told him about the call, he certainly told everyone else.
There are records of the call having been made but there has never been mention of a time record for paying the check at Millies.
Sometimes the mind does play tricks and maybe he THought he made the call during the breakfast. Is that possible too? :shrug:

Wake..

So what if Dan told him later that he made that phone call while he was having breakfast with him?!..Massie was talking to the police as a witness and not as Dan's attorney..he was talking about his own observations regarding his meeting with Dan for breakfast..so if Dan didn't make that call in his presence..he was not supposed to mention it..or if Massie didn't notice him making that call...he was not supposed to metnion it..
With that said..we have no idea what Massie said or didn't say in his interview with the police/DA..

[awakening2lite]

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!



IMO



Hi AW2B,
At some point the hairs were important.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/19/ng.01.html

EXCERPT

Dr. Kobilinsky, significance of asking the neighbor for a hair sample?

KOBILINSKY: I think it`s very significant. They could have asked for blood or a cheek swab, but they asked for hair. And that tells me that they have evidence, they have hair, perhaps from the shower drain or perhaps from some other part of the house. They need to examine that, to prepare it, either through mitochondrial DNA or nuclear DNA.

=======

Once, the neighbor was rulled out and SD was arrested hair no longer held importance. IMO

[awakening2lite]

Wake..

So what if Dan told him later that he made that phone call while he was having breakfast with him?!..Massie was talking to the police as a witness and not as Dan's attorney..he was talking about his own observations regarding his meeting with Dan for breakfast..so if Dan didn't make that call in his presence..he was not supposed to mention it..or if Massie didn't notice him making that call...he was not supposed to metnion it..
With that said..we have no idea what Massie said or didn't say in his interview with the police/DA..


AW2B, maybe I am a bit confused. Can my attorney also be my witness? I think Massi was speaking as his attorney first, witness second. If he was speaking as a witness at all.

What did Massi testify to at the trial? Did he testify he was present when his client phoned home during the breakfast or that DH stepped away from the table or that he saw DH make dial calls that weren't answered?

I know when I am sitting at a table with someone and a very important event took place then, (like say, 911) I remember if the other person at the table sat dialing the phone or taked on the phone or excused themselves to make a call outside. I think maybe DH called home but it was after the meeting not during it. imo
TIA

[attorneywan2be]

Hi AW2B,
At some point the hairs were important.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/19/ng.01.html

EXCERPT

Dr. Kobilinsky, significance of asking the neighbor for a hair sample?

KOBILINSKY: I think it`s very significant. They could have asked for blood or a cheek swab, but they asked for hair. And that tells me that they have evidence, they have hair, perhaps from the shower drain or perhaps from some other part of the house. They need to examine that, to prepare it, either through mitochondrial DNA or nuclear DNA.

=======

Once, the neighbor was rulled out and SD was arrested hair no longer held importance. IMO

Hi Wake

Of course..the hairs evidence was once important..why? because it was the only READILY AVAILABLE evidence they had at the time...but as their investigation progressed they discovered extremely crucial evidence..and as the DNA results were coming back pointing in one direction..the hairs should no longer have any evidentiary value...makes perfect sense to me...

[awakening2lite]

Hi Wake

Of course..the hairs evidence was once important..why? because it was the only READILY AVAILABLE evidence they had at the time...but as their investigation progressed they discovered extremely crucial evidence..and as the DNA results were coming back pointing in one direction..the hairs should no longer have any evidentiary value...makes perfect sense to me...

Hi AW2B,
that could only be true/acceptable, if one is willing to rule out evidence that might have pointed to two or more perps. Why rule that out?

They did that after arresting SD. There was no confession. To this day, in order to accept the verdict as correct, we are forced to believe there was no one else involved even tho the blond hairs were never persued.

IMO

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B, maybe I am a bit confused. Can my attorney also be my witness? I think Massi was speaking as his attorney first, witness second. If he was speaking as a witness at all.

What did Massi testify to at the trial? Did he testify he was present when his client phoned home during the breakfast or that DH stepped away from the table or that he saw DH make dial calls that weren't answered?

I know when I am sitting at a table with someone and a very important event took place then, (like say, 911) I remember if the other person at the table sat dialing the phone or taked on the phone or excused themselves to make a call outside. I think maybe DH called home but it was after the meeting not during it. imo
TIA

Hi Wake..

Why would Massie testify at all? Dyleski was on trial not Horowitz..so I don't think he testified..

During the investigation process Massie was interviewed as a witness to Dan's alibi..he would only talk about his observations..

In order to make it a fact that he didn't tell the police that Dan made a phone call you need to provide a supporting document or a link..TIA
However, regardless, to say that he should have known that Dan made a phone call is an unreasonable expectation...and to use the fact that Massie didn't mention the phone call as an indication that Dan lied is totally unfair IMO..

"Contra Costa County Sheriff's spokesman Jimmy Lee said investigators have begun analyzing the evidence, which could be key in catching the 52-year-old Vitale's killer. In the meantime, detectives continue interviewing people with possible leads in the case, including Horowitz's alibi witness.

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]

Hi AW2B,
that could only be true/acceptable, if one is willing to rule out evidence that might have pointed to two or more perps. Why rule that out?

They did that after arresting SD. There was no confession. To this day, in order to accept the verdict as correct, we are forced to believe there was no one else involved even tho the blond hairs were never persued.

IMO

Hi Wake..

IMO

Horowitz, Wheeler, Lynch and Jena were all eliminated as suspects...so they did investigate each one of them...they had no other suspects to compare the hair to?
They simply had overwhelming evidence that Dyleski did it..IMO this was a slam-dunk case...trust me I don't take reaching a conclusion of guilt lightly..I have done extensive analysis and research before I concluded that Dyleski is 10000% guilty! on the other hand, I support the innocence of other defendants that were IMO wrongfully convicted..!

I find it amazing that people are willing to readily accept that Dan and Massie lied about their breakfast meeting.. without a shred of evidence I might add...while explaining away every damning evidence that points to Dyleski!! explaining it away by theorizing that Horowitz killed his wife and framed Dyleski..again..without a shred of evidence!!!

[awakening2lite]

Hi Wake..

Why would Massie testify at all? Dyleski was on trial not Horowitz..so I don't think he testified..

During the investigation process Massie was interviewed as a witness to Dan's alibi..he would only talk about his observations..

In order to make it a fact that he didn't tell the police that Dan made a phone call you need to provide a supporting document or a link..TIA
However, regardless, to say that he should have known that Dan made a phone call is an unreasonable expectation...and to use the fact that Massie didn't mention the phone call as an indication that Dan lied is totally unfair IMO..

"Contra Costa County Sheriff's spokesman Jimmy Lee said investigators have begun analyzing the evidence, which could be key in catching the 52-year-old Vitale's killer. In the meantime, detectives continue interviewing people with possible leads in the case, including Horowitz's alibi witness.

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

Here's a link to an interview
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/19/ng.01.html

EXCERPT

GRACE: When did you know something was wrong?

HOROWITZ: When she didn`t pick up the phone during the day when I call her, because I always would call her. I just had this funny feeling, and maybe even a little bit, Nancy, that morning.

I don`t really know, just, if you believe in these things, but I had a funny feeling at breakfast.

GRACE: What happened? What happened? What started it? When did you start calling her and she didn`t answer?

HOROWITZ: I always call her, just sort of throughout the day. So probably, as I was leaving breakfast, you know, I just would call her on the way to work.

==============

That's DH's words, not mine. He is saying he probably called as he was leaving on the way to work.
He never said he called in the presence of Massi. At least not in any public doc.

So maybe Massi not talking about the call is because, as Dan said, Dan probably called her as he was leaving while on his way to work and not during breakfast.

imo

[Beebee]

AW2B. I have offered up what I believe to be evidence.... I think we can put it to rest now.

I don't want this to become a contest.

What are the chances that we would disagree on multiple things?? That alone is a red flag to me but I'm tired now so I need to take a break :patriot:

[awakening2lite]

Hi Wake..

IMO

Horowitz, Wheeler, Lynch and Jena were all eliminated as suspects...so they did investigate each one of them...they had no other suspects to compare the hair to?
They simply had overwhelming evidence that Dyleski did it..IMO this was a slam-dunk case...trust me I don't take reaching a conclusion of guilt lightly..I have done extensive analysis and research before I concluded that Dyleski is 10000% guilty! on the other hand, I support the innocence of other defendants that were IMO wrongfully convicted..!

I find it amazing that people are willing to readily accept that Dan and Massie lied about their breakfast meeting.. without a shred of evidence I might add...while explaining away every damning evidence that points to Dyleski!! explaining it away by theorizing that Horowitz killed his wife and framed Dyleski..again..without a shred of evidence!!!

I know you are addressing this post to me but where did I say they lied about the breakfast meeting? I don't think I posted saying DH killed PV either.

I'm looking at what evidence we do have privy to and am questioning why the investigation appeared to stop once they had their sites on SD.

So, they compared the blond hairs to several people, so what? Without a confession, how do we KNOW and why should we accept the blond hairs as meaningless? The hairs were on her body! Could there have been another (yet unknown) individual involved? We don't know because the investigation stopped once they had SD. IMO

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B. I have offered up what I believe to be evidence.... I think we can put it to rest now.

I don't want this to become a contest.

What are the chances that we would disagree on multiple things?? That alone is a red flag to me but I'm tired now so I need to take a break :patriot:

I agree BeeBee..I think we discussed almost every single issue in this case..yes, we disagree on almost everything regarding this case but I don't see a red flag whatever that means..I think I presented my point of view in a logical and sincere manner..anyhow, we don't have to agree on every single case....:seeya:

[attorneywan2be]

I know you are addressing this post to me but where did I say they lied about the breakfast meeting? I don't think I posted saying DH killed PV either.



Sorry Wake if I misunderstood what you said here:

I know when I am sitting at a table with someone and a very important event took place then, (like say, 911) I remember if the other person at the table sat dialing the phone or taked on the phone or excused themselves to make a call outside.I think maybe DH called home but it was after the meeting not during it. imo

I read that post to mean that if Massie didn't know that Dan made that phone call..then your opinion would be that possibly Dan made that call after the breakfast meeting was over..we know that the call took place at 9:15 so I took that to mean that you didn't believe their statements about the breakfast meeting ending at 10:00 am..also, from your posts I got the impression that you think Dan had a motive to twist things around..so i assumed that you think that Dan was involved in the murder..I apologize if you didn't mean it that way!..

[marcat]

I simply cannot accept such scenario..Pamela telling Dan "hey I stopped my car today and grabbed Dyleski's arm"....she probably didn't even know Dyleski..!
Regardless..why would he frame Dyleski based on this piece of information.?...so what if she was seen in her car..what does this tell anyone? nothing!!..would you please elaborate on how would that ruin his "computer use staging plan" thanks

You said: it would bring into question why would Pamela be out ????

What is so sinister/unusual about Pamela being out? she could have been out to take care of an errand..!!

You said: Which potentially would bring into question where Horowitz was..not home????

Why would the fact that Pamela was out bring into question why Horowitz was not home?? and what if it did..he was having breakfast with Massie between 8 and 10:00..!

You would think if he wanted to frame anyone it would have been Lynch..!!but to pick Dyleski out of the blue..Dyleski that,to his knowledge at the time, had no motive to kill his wife...to be honest with you I don't think they even knew who Dyleski was..!


The reason Dan wouldn't want it to come out that Pam was in her car that morning is because he'd already said she was dressed in panties and a t-shirt. And before it's mentioned again that he just didn't see the skirt.......how could he have missed that, but he noted that the ring on her left hand was turned inward? And then we have the investigating cop noticing the skirt right away. Dan, according to himself, spent quite a bit of time just looking at Pam........I don't buy it that he didn't see the skirt.
Also...."You keep saying that he had plenty of times but you didn't assign any time to each activity you proposed he did..you didn't address my question about his bloody clothes and knife that he supposedly used when committing the murder..what did he do with them and when did he take those actions?"
How come it's hard to believe that Dan simply didn't have time to accomplish all of this in the course of his day.....yet everyone believes that Scott did this in 33 minutes? And as far as where did Dan dispose of bloody clothes and knife.......how 'bout in that arroyo that no one investigated even though the 1st tracking dog tracked right to it? Also, Jewett made a point of saying there was blood smeared at the home by what they believe to be a sweatshirt....Dan was wearing a velour sweatshirt and jeans that morning....and weren't there jeans soaking at Wheeler's? (Remember, Dan said he thought he was missing a pair....I guess so if he left them soaking at Wheeler's)
And as far as Dan nailing Scott with this whole thing.......remember, it was originally thought by all that Lynch did this. How was he dismissed as a suspect before they even had DNA back? Maybe when Dan saw that Lynch wouldn't work, he went after Scott, who, after all, was involved in the credit card scam.........don't you think Karen Schneider had told Pam and Dan, by then, that their address had been used?
And since Jewett was good at speculating about everything, who's to say that Dan didn't come home early (from being gone all night) to get ready for his breakfast meeting with Massi.....they start fighting about him being gone all night.....and she tells him she'd been out looking for him that morning....this guy knows she could ruin him with what she knows about him.....he tells her no one will ever know he didn't come home or that she was out looking for him...then she tells him the kid from the Curiel house saw her out that morning. He doesn't want to look bad from any angle....so he pins it on Scott........after all, who's going to believe anything a 16 year old says against him, the well known and loved lawyer.
And let's not forget that he referred to the public defender's office as "his people"......the "tribe". Sounds like he might know he could count on them for anything.......like not defending their client, and not looking at Dan as a possible suspect.

[Beebee]

Here's a link to an interview
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/19/ng.01.html


HOROWITZ: I always call her, just sort of throughout the day. So probably, as I was leaving breakfast, you know, I just would call her on the way to work.




Thank you.

According to what the DA's office asserted, Dan called Pam at aprx 9:15.

So, breakfast was over by 9:15. They had a whole hour there, and then it was over.

So Dan's office is 20 minutes away.

There is aprx an hour of unaccounted time.


MOO

[Beebee]

And as far as Dan nailing Scott with this whole thing.......remember, it was originally thought by all that Lynch did this. How was he dismissed as a suspect before they even had DNA back?


Marcat,

Remember Horowitz telling the officer at the scene that Joe Lynch was supposed to drop off a check that day for $188.00?? As he was fingering Lynch to police?

Why would Horowitz arrange to have Lynch drop off a check when he wasn't home?? Especially since the behavior of Joe Lynch was escalating in the weeks prior to Pam's death?? I wonder when that arrangement was made, or attempted to be made?

My guess is Lynch wasn't home and had a solid alibi, that's how he was cleared. Just a guess though.

I don't think Dan laid all his eggs in one basket, so to speak..... Lynch is lucky he isn't on DR, IMO. Had Lynch been arrested, the trial would have been all about Lynch and his psycho violent hisotry-- documented history-- his meth use and drunk rages, and the tracking dogs that went to Wheelers (which is right next to Lynch). And some kind of DNA evidence would have been found, JMO.

[attorneywan2be]

The reason Dan wouldn't want it to come out that Pam was in her car that morning is because he'd already said she was dressed in panties and a t-shirt. And before it's mentioned again that he just didn't see the skirt.......how could he have missed that, but he noted that the ring on her left hand was turned inward? And then we have the investigating cop noticing the skirt right away. Dan, according to himself, spent quite a bit of time just looking at Pam........I don't buy it that he didn't see the skirt.

IMO

When are you suggesting Dan decided to frame Dyleski? the statements he said about what she was wearing were definitely after her body was discovered..in addition, what's the big deal about Pamela being out.. how would that incriminate Dan in any way shape or form? I see no motive for him to hide the fact that she had a skirt on..also, the investigating cop "Hoffman" testified that the skirt was not obvious to him at first..in addition, Dan was definitely in a state of panic when he saw his wife lying in a pool of blood....

How come it's hard to believe that Dan simply didn't have time to accomplish all of this in the course of his day.....yet everyone believes that Scott did this in 33 minutes?

IMO

Of course I would question how Dan was able to pull off the killing + the staging of the crime scene + the framing of Dyleski in addition to others + the getting rid of the bloody clothes/knife (of course he would not just leave them at the crime scene "his house") + the breakfast the had with Massie from 8:00 to 10:00 + the meetings he attended at his office from 10:45 to at least 2:30 pm + the errands he did---> a bank deposit, grocery shopping and a trip to the gym.. there is no way on earth for him to have done that and above all I don't see a logical reason for him to pick Dyleski of all people to frame...!
On the other hand, Dyleski could have easily killed her and returned home in 33 minutes..

And as far as Dan nailing Scott with this whole thing.......remember, it was originally thought by all that Lynch did this. How was he dismissed as a suspect before they even had DNA back? Maybe when Dan saw that Lynch wouldn't work, he went after Scott, who, after all, was involved in the credit card scam..

IMO

You are clearly saying here that Dan decided to go after Dyleski no sooner than couple of days after the murder...according to you he planted Vitale's blood on Dyleski's stuff..please explain how he was able to have access to Vitale's blood few days after the murder...thanks

[awakening2lite]

Sorry Wake if I misunderstood what you said here:



I read that post to mean that if Massie didn't know that Dan made that phone call..then your opinion would be that possibly Dan made that call after the breakfast meeting was over..we know that the call took place at 9:15 so I took that to mean that you didn't believe their statements about the breakfast meeting ending at 10:00 am..also, from your posts I got the impression that you think Dan had a motive to twist things around..so i assumed that you think that Dan was involved in the murder..I apologize if you didn't mean it that way!..

I can see now that there was a misunderstanding. When they said the breakfast was between 8 and 10 I never took that to mean they met exactly at 8 and departed exactly at 10. To me, it came across as more of an estimate of their time together.

Then, as you will notice, I posted a statement from Dan where he is talking about the phone call and he says he probably made that call after the breakfast on his way to work.

No twisting or turning going on.

If it turns out that Dan was involved in the murder, I can't say I would be surprised. However, that is not the focus of my attention. My attention is on the lack of investigation, all the assumptions required for SD to be guilty, the interferrence/influence of the DA with defense witnesses (who had been tramitized by the LE swat team), a wide range for time of death, an impossible time line, lack of DNA testing (which by the way Jewett was quoted in closing saying it is not a case about DNA), what appears to be a rush to judgement, the testimony given for a search warrent, the investigation conducted by the curiels, and the inability of the defense to rise to the occassion. All those flimsy details, and more, make a very thin soup, not proof, imo.

[awakening2lite]

Thank you.

According to what the DA's office asserted, Dan called Pam at aprx 9:15.

So, breakfast was over by 9:15. They had a whole hour there, and then it was over.

So Dan's office is 20 minutes away.

There is aprx an hour of unaccounted time.


MOO

Hi Beebee. You're welcome. Somehow I knew that little tidbit would be of interest to you. And well it should be, it comes straight from Dan.

imo

[awakening2lite]

IMO

I see no motive for him to hide the fact that she had a skirt on




I can think of a reason. It implied (and was rumored for days afterward) that she answered the door in her underwear, after Dan left that morning. It put her in a bad light. It put more symphathy on Dan (as if she was cheating on him).

Don't attorney's do that type of trick all the time? Don't they direct or redirect attention where it best suits their case?

IMO

[Beebee]

IMO

What's the big deal about Pamela being out.. how would that incriminate Dan in any way shape or form? I see no motive for him to hide the fact that she had a skirt on..also, the investigating cop "Hoffman" testified that the skirt was not obvious to him at first..in addition, Dan was definitely in a state of panic when he saw his wife lying in a pool of blood....




My speculation-

If she was out looking for him, then she wasn't at home surfing the net and doing searches on people she already knew and communicated with by e-mail and phone.

The decision had already been made by Dan to leave the laptop and stage the use, and he could NOT afford to be caught staging the use.

The computer use until 10:12 didn't just give Scott an alibi, it gave one to Dan too.... because by 10:15 or so he was on his way to Oakland.

IMO- Pam was dead by 9:45.

[attorneywan2be]

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.



I don't think it was originated from Horowitz..this program was aired on October 21st..in an article published October 20th Contra Costa County Sheriff's spokesman said that the investigators are looking into leads they received on the tip line..so it's quite possible they told that to Horowitz..

"Lee, who will not release the time of Vitale's death, said investigators are chasing down leads they've received on the sheriff's tip line."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/20/BAGDCFB8FU1.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea

[Beebee]

IMO


Of course I would question how Dan was able to pull off the killing + the staging of the crime scene + the framing of Dyleski in addition to others + the getting rid of the bloody clothes/knife (of course he would not just leave them at the crime scene "his house") + the breakfast the had with Massie from 8:00 to 10:00 + the meetings he attended at his office from 10:45 to at least 2:30 pm + the errands he did---> a bank deposit, grocery shopping and a trip to the gym.. there is no way on earth for him to have done that and above all I don't see a logical reason for him to pick Dyleski of all people to frame...!
On the other hand, Dyleski could have easily killed her and returned home in 33 minutes..






Breakfast done by 9:15.

So where was Dan between 9:15 and 10:45?

After the meeting-
To go to an ATM, get two bags of groceries, and stop by the gym.... you think that takes three and a half hours??

[attorneywan2be]

My speculation-

If she was out looking for him, then she wasn't at home surfing the net and doing searches on people she already knew and communicated with by e-mail and phone.

The decision had already been made by Dan to leave the laptop and stage the use, and he could NOT afford to be caught staging the use.

The computer use until 10:12 didn't just give Scott an alibi, it gave one to Dan too.... because by 10:15 or so he was on his way to Oakland.

IMO- Pam was dead by 9:45.

Let me take this step by step..

At what time do you think Horowitz started the staging of the computer use?

[Beebee]

IMO

Dan was definitely in a state of panic when he saw his wife lying in a pool of blood....




How do you know he was in a state of panic? What did he do that indicated panic to you?

Along those lines, what do you think of him calling Nancy Grace from the back of the police car?

[Beebee]

Let me take this step by step..

At what time do you think Horowitz started the staging of the computer use?

After he killed her.

I would guess the time to be about 9:45.

[awakening2lite]

I don't think it was originated from Horowitz..this program was aired on October 21st..in an article published October 20th Contra Costa County Sheriff's spokesman said that the investigators are looking into leads they received on the tip line..so it's quite possible they told that to Horowitz..

"Lee, who will not release the time of Vitale's death, said investigators are chasing down leads they've received on the sheriff's tip line."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/20/BAGDCFB8FU1.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea

I do not understand you. Are you saying Nancy Grace was lying in her boradcast about what she said Dan told her? (see below):shurg:


http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...ient=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.

[attorneywan2be]

Breakfast done by 9:15.

So where was Dan between 9:15 and 10:45?

After the meeting-
To go to an ATM, get two bags of groceries, and stop by the gym.... you think that takes three and a half hours??

You're saying that breakfast was done at 9:15..however, there isn't a shred of evidence that the breakfast didn't end at 10 as Dan and Massie stated..so you're building your theory based on pure speculation stemming from your suspicion of Horowitz being the murderer.. if we would go by the evidence in this case..the breakfast ended at 10:00 am

IMO, he couldn't have done what you proposed he did...

[Beebee]

You're saying that breakfast was done at 9:15..however, there isn't a shred of evidence that the breakfast didn't end at 10 as Dan and Massie stated..so you're building your theory based on pure speculation stemming from your suspicion of Horowitz being the murderer.. if we would go by the evidence in this case..the breakfast ended at 10:00 am

IMO, he couldn't have done what you proposed he did...

But AW2B there IS evidence the meeting was over by 9:15... Dan's own words that he called her AFTER breakfast! Did you catch Wake's post:

Originally Posted by awakening2lite
Here's a link to an interview
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/19/ng.01.html


HOROWITZ: I always call her, just sort of throughout the day. So probably, as I was leaving breakfast, you know, I just would call her on the way to work.

[attorneywan2be]

I do not understand you. Are you saying Nancy Grace was lying in her boradcast about what she said Dan told her? (see below):shurg:



No..I think you missed my point entirely..I think I clearly stated that the tip line piece of info didn't originate from Dan as you stated..I think the investigators told Horowitz about it evidenced by the fact their spokesman mentioned it to the newspaper on Oct 20th the day before Nancy's program ...I don't see how my post could be misconstrued that I was saying Nancy was lying...!!!!! the point I was making is that the tip line info ORIGINATED from the sherriff dept. that doesn't mean that Dan didn't tell that to Nancy!!!! one doesn't preclude the other..!!

[awakening2lite]

No..I think you missed my point entirely..I think I clearly stated that the tip line piece of info didn't originate from Dan as you stated..I think the investigators told Horowitz about it evidenced by the fact their spokesman mentioned it to the newspaper on Oct 20th the day before Nancy's program ...I don't see how my post could be misconstrued that I was saying Nancy was lying...!!!!! the point I was making is that the tip line info ORIGINATED from the sherriff dept. that doesn't mean that Dan didn't tell that to Nancy!!!! one doesn't preclude the other..!!


Then we were indeed saying the same thing. Nancy received the info about the tip (turns out to be SD) from Dan. Then she broadcasts that info on her show.
Of coarse, Dan received the info from some LE connection. He certainly wasn't operating the tip line for le. :)

There's imo a lot of info broadcast that did originate from Dan. This is but one example.

IMO

[Beebee]

stemming from your suspicion of Horowitz being the murderer...

I just want to say that in no way did I start out thinking that Horowitz was the killer. Not at all. I happen to like defense attorneys, especially ones that do pro-bono work. Plus, I really couldn't see him doing the deed. I thought he was kind of geeky and putzy. (I no longer feel that way)
I also don't think affair = murder. I think many men that cheat actually love their wives.
It was the 100 OTHER things about him that I learned LATER that made me suspect him. (Although I will say moving Northrop into Pam's mansion as soon as it was finished -- during Scott's trial... was pretty crappy to Pam's kids, and is very telling as to how cold he can be, IMO)

[Beebee]

Then we were indeed saying the same thing. Nancy received the info about the tip (turns out to be SD) from Dan. Then she broadcasts that info on her show.
Of coarse, Dan received the info from some LE connection. He certainly wasn't operating the tip line for le. :)

There's imo a lot of info broadcast that did originate from Dan. This is but one example.

IMO

The "long shower" originated from Dan. Not LE, but Dan himself.

I still wonder what that was really about. It had something to do with condensation that could still be seen.

By the way, my speculation for that.... in case anyone is interested :D is that before Dan left to go to his Polk meeting he turned the AC way up to lower the room temp to skew the TOD, and that resulted in some condensation.

[attorneywan2be]

But AW2B there IS evidence the meeting was over by 9:15... Dan's own words that he called her AFTER breakfast! Did you catch Wake's post:

But BeeBee you're the one making the connection that the call at 9:15 was the call he made after breakfast as he was heading to work..he didn't say such thing..please note that he said that he ALWAYS call her THROUGHTOUT the day..so he might have called her again as he was driving to work after breakfast..in other words, he made another call other than the 9:15 call..in addition, he made other calls when he was in his office according to Ivan Golde

He also said this:

"Horowitz said he's convinced that his wife was attacked sometime before 9:30 a.m. Saturday because he tried to call her from his cell phone at around 9:15 or 9:30 while eating breakfast with his friend, Robert Massi, an attorney from Las Vegas. The two men are well-known for their TV appearances as legal analysts."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/18/MNGD9FA4TC1.DTL

[awakening2lite]

But BeeBee you're the one making the connection that the call at 9:15 was the call he made after breakfast as he was heading to work..he didn't say such thing..please note that he said that he ALWAYS call her THROUGHTOUT the day..so he might have called her again as he was driving to work after breakfast..in other words, he made another call other than the 9:15 call..in addition, he made other calls when he was in his office according to Ivan Golde

He also said this:

"Horowitz said he's convinced that his wife was attacked sometime before 9:30 a.m. Saturday because he tried to call her from his cell phone at around 9:15 or 9:30 while eating breakfast with his friend, Robert Massi, an attorney from Las Vegas. The two men are well-known for their TV appearances as legal analysts."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/18/MNGD9FA4TC1.DTL

You are using " " quotation marks for emphasis, right? Because that is not a direct quote in the article you reference.

However, the quote from the NG show is a direct quote from Dan himself.

Here's a link to an interview
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/19/ng.01.html

EXCERPT

GRACE: When did you know something was wrong?

HOROWITZ: When she didn`t pick up the phone during the day when I call her, because I always would call her. I just had this funny feeling, and maybe even a little bit, Nancy, that morning.

I don`t really know, just, if you believe in these things, but I had a funny feeling at breakfast.

GRACE: What happened? What happened? What started it? When did you start calling her and she didn`t answer?

HOROWITZ: I always call her, just sort of throughout the day. So probably, as I was leaving breakfast, you know, I just would call her on the way to work.
===========

Clearly, he is talking about his first call to her, after breakfast on his way to work.

IMO

[Beebee]

But BeeBee you're the one making the connection that the call at 9:15 was the call he made after breakfast as he was heading to work..he didn't say such thing..please note that he said that he ALWAYS call her THROUGHTOUT the day..so he might have called her again as he was driving to work after breakfast..in other words, he made another call other than the 9:15 call..in addition, he made other calls when he was in his office according to Ivan Golde

He also said this:

"Horowitz said he's convinced that his wife was attacked sometime before 9:30 a.m. Saturday because he tried to call her from his cell phone at around 9:15 or 9:30 while eating breakfast with his friend, Robert Massi, an attorney from Las Vegas. The two men are well-known for their TV appearances as legal analysts."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/18/MNGD9FA4TC1.DTL


Okay, you are quoting somebody who is supposidly quoting Horowitz.... why don't we just quote Horowitz himself? Would you agree that is more accurate?

Here is Horowitz on live TV with Nancy Grace:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: When did you know something was wrong?

HOROWITZ: When she didn`t pick up the phone during the day when I call her, because I always would call her. I just had this funny feeling, and maybe even a little bit, Nancy, that morning.

I don`t really know, just, if you believe in these things, but I had a funny feeling at breakfast.

GRACE: What happened? What happened? What started it? When did you start calling her and she didn`t answer?

HOROWITZ: I always call her, just sort of throughout the day. So probably, as I was leaving breakfast, you know, I just would call her on the way to work.

(END VIDEO CLIP)


Clearly he was answering Nancy's question about THAT morning. Nancy wasn't asking for general terms, she was asking about that day.

Pretty clear to me.

[attorneywan2be]

How do you know he was in a state of panic? What did he do that indicated panic to you?



Because it is a normal reaction to finding his wife lying in a pool of blood..he also stated that he fell to the ground when he saw her and dropped the shopping bags..also Julie Partridge testified that she very clearly heard Dan's voice screaming..He was in a state of panic?!...you bet!


"Julie Partridge, the first witness to testify in 17-year-old Scott Dyleski's trial on charges that he murdered Vitale, 52, on isolated Hunsaker Canyon Road said, "I very clearly heard Dan Horowitz's voice screaming 'Pamela, oh no, oh my God,' over and over.""

http://www.nbc11.com/news/9602847/detail.html

[awakening2lite]

The "long shower" originated from Dan. Not LE, but Dan himself.

I still wonder what that was really about. It had something to do with condensation that could still be seen.

By the way, my speculation for that.... in case anyone is interested :D is that before Dan left to go to his Polk meeting he turned the AC way up to lower the room temp to skew the TOD, and that resulted in some condensation.


Here's a quick link to the condensation report by NG
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:S_q80dXwUisJ:transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/20/ng.01.html+horowitz,+grace,+condensation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a

EXCERPT
Nancy Grace
We also know, or I`ve learned from sources, that the perpetrator took quite the long shower inside the home.

I`m going go straight out to veteran trial lawyer Debra Opri. Debra, how will it play? If this goes on trial, this guy has been arrested, clearly not convicted yet. But if this goes to trial and this jury learns he stuck around and took a nice, long shower?

In fact, my information is that the shower was so long, when cops finally got there that evening around 6:00 p.m., there was still condensation on the outside of the trailer, on the outside of where the shower was. That`s how long the guy lathered up.

=======
Later, after SD's arrest, this faded away. I do remember the show and NG stopping that the consendation and pointing at it. IIRC

[Beebee]

Because it is a normal reaction to finding his wife lying in a pool of blood..he also stated that he fell to the ground when he saw her and dropped the shopping bags..also Julie Partridge testified that she very clearly heard Dan's voice screaming..He was in a state of panic?!...you bet!


"Julie Partridge, the first witness to testify in 17-year-old Scott Dyleski's trial on charges that he murdered Vitale, 52, on isolated Hunsaker Canyon Road said, "I very clearly heard Dan Horowitz's voice screaming 'Pamela, oh no, oh my God,' over and over.""

http://www.nbc11.com/news/9602847/detail.html

Was he in a state of panic when he called Nancy Grace? From the police car?


eta- Anyone can fake screaming and even crying. We've seen it many times.

The call to Nancy is much more revealing of his true mental state, IMO.

[attorneywan2be]

Okay, you are quoting somebody who is supposidly quoting Horowitz.... why don't we just quote Horowitz himself? Would you agree that is more accurate?

Here is Horowitz on live TV with Nancy Grace:




Clearly he was answering Nancy's question about THAT morning. Nancy wasn't asking for general terms, she was asking about that day.

Pretty clear to me.

I don't agree..so we will have to agree to disagree..yes, he was referring to that day but what he said doesn't indicate to me that he was referring to that particular call at 9:15..he stated that he always calls her throughtout the day..that indicates to me that he probably called her again as she was driving to work..

[Beebee]

Here's a quick link to the condensation report by NG
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:S_q80dXwUisJ:transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/20/ng.01.html+horowitz,+grace,+condensation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a

EXCERPT
Nancy Grace
We also know, or I`ve learned from sources, that the perpetrator took quite the long shower inside the home.

I`m going go straight out to veteran trial lawyer Debra Opri. Debra, how will it play? If this goes on trial, this guy has been arrested, clearly not convicted yet. But if this goes to trial and this jury learns he stuck around and took a nice, long shower?

In fact, my information is that the shower was so long, when cops finally got there that evening around 6:00 p.m., there was still condensation on the outside of the trailer, on the outside of where the shower was. That`s how long the guy lathered up.

=======
Later, after SD's arrest, this faded away. I do remember the show and NG stopping that the consendation and pointing at it. IIRC

Thanks for posting that Wake.

Yet we now know LE didn't even take the drains for testing. Odd.

Something else that's strange about Dan's assertion-- how did HE see the condensation unless he went into the bathroom or was walking around the trailer before LE got there??

[Beebee]

I don't agree..so we will have to agree to disagree..yes, he was referring to that day but what he said doesn't indicate to me that he was referring to that particular call at 9:15..he stated that he always calls her throughtout the day..that indicates to me that he probably called her again as she was driving to work..


This is the question he was answering:

When did you start calling her and she didn`t answer?


We know he called at 9:15. He is saying what he was doing when he called. It was AFTER breakfast.


If you think he is NOT answering Nancy's DIRECT question, then my question to you would be WHY??

It's an easy question!

[awakening2lite]

I don't agree..so we will have to agree to disagree..yes, he was referring to that day but what he said doesn't indicate to me that he was referring to that particular call at 9:15..he stated that he always calls her throughtout the day..that indicates to me that he probably called her again as she was driving to work..


So when Nancy asks him (in person and directly) when did he start calling her (Pamela) and she (Pamela) did not answer.
You think his response (after the breakfast and on the way to work) was some twisted attorney speak type answer and not a direct and truthful response?

I don't. I think he answered her question. IMO

[attorneywan2be]

So when Nancy asks him (in person and directly) when did he start calling her (Pamela) and she (Pamela) did not answer.
You think his response (after the breakfast and on the way to work) was some twisted attorney speak type answer and not a direct and truthful response?

I don't. I think he answered her question. IMO

That's your interpretation..

If he was establishing alibis by the different calls he made..he would have stated the time he made each and single call...he didn't do so because October 15th was simply another day for him...as far as he was concerned he called her several times throughout the day...and he did mention that he called her during breakfast... PERIOD!

We will have to leave it as to agree to disagree..!

[Beebee]

That's your interpretation..

If he was establishing alibis by the different calls he made..he would have stated the time he made each and single call...he didn't do so because October 15th was simply another day for him...as far as he was concerned he called her several times throughout the day...and he did mention that he called her during breakfast... PERIOD!

We will have to leave it as to agree to disagree..!

AW2B,

I don't think he was trying to establish an alibi with the 9:15 call. I think he was actually trying to call Pam. I think Pam was still alive at 9:15. Why are you insisting he didn't answer the question by Nancy?? You want to insist that Dan called her from breakfast, while Massie is in the bathroom, since we both know it wouldn't make sense to stop a meeting to make a casual call home. And even though we have live video of Dan himself saying "after breakfast" in response to a direct question about calls that day... you want to keep him there until 10:00 AM.... why is that?

And no, October 15th was not like any other day, it was the day his wife was killed.

He HAD to say he called her at 9:15 because it was on his phone records and he knew it. He was actually trying to call her at that time.

IMO

[attorneywan2be]

This is the question he was answering:

When did you start calling her and she didn`t answer?


We know he called at 9:15. He is saying what he was doing when he called. It was AFTER breakfast.


If you think he is NOT answering Nancy's DIRECT question, then my question to you would be WHY??

It's an easy question!

The point is he was not establishing his alibi..he didn't list all the phone calls he made to reach her..he was not making an effort to establish a fact when he answered Nancy due to consiousness of innocence.. so he was not precise...anyhow, he didn't say that he made the call on his way to work..he said that he WOULD call her on the way to work...that's a general statement...he didn't say that he made the call AFTER breakfast..he said that he PROBABLY made the call as he was LEAVING breakfast..again he was not precise..so maybe he made the call as they were waiting for the check..maybe they chatted afterwards...I would not use such a vague statement to conclude that the breakfast ended at 9:15..while ignoring precise statements made by him and Massie that the breakfast ended at 10:00..in addition to his statement to a newspaper that he called Pamela during breakfast at 9:15..

Again..we will have to agree to disagree..

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B,

I don't think he was trying to establish an alibi with the 9:15 call.

IMO

I'm not referring to an alibi as to Pamela's death..my point is if he was establishing an alibi as to having breakfast until 10:00..in other words, if he intentionally lied about the breakfast lasting to 10:00..he would have made sure to tell Nancy that the phone call was during breakfast...

[awakening2lite]

That's your interpretation..

If he was establishing alibis by the different calls he made..he would have stated the time he made each and single call...he didn't do so because October 15th was simply another day for him...as far as he was concerned he called her several times throughout the day...and he did mention that he called her during breakfast... PERIOD!

We will have to leave it as to agree to disagree..!

It's not MY interpretation, it's what he said when he answered her question.

She asked when did he first call her and not get a response and he said after breakfast on his way to work. PERIOD.

And yes, we can agree to disagree.

[attorneywan2be]

he said after breakfast on his way to work. PERIOD.



He said no such thing...you need to re-read what he said..

[awakening2lite]

AW2B,

I don't think he was trying to establish an alibi with the 9:15 call. I think he was actually trying to call Pam. I think Pam was still alive at 9:15. Why are you insisting he didn't answer the question by Nancy?? You want to insist that Dan called her from breakfast, while Massie is in the bathroom, since we both know it wouldn't make sense to stop a meeting to make a casual call home. And even though we have live video of Dan himself saying "after breakfast" in response to a direct question about calls that day... you want to keep him there until 10:00 AM.... why is that?

And no, October 15th was not like any other day, it was the day his wife was killed.

He HAD to say he called her at 9:15 because it was on his phone records and he knew it. He was actually trying to call her at that time.

IMO

Hi Beebee,

I don't think there is a reference where either Massi or DH are stating they arrived for the meet at preciecly exactly 8:00 on the dot and then left at preciecly exactly straight up 10:00. I don't think they are lying about the time. I don't think they both left the building and simotaneously checked their watches either. Why would they even look at the time? It was a casual meeting and there was plenty of time for Dan to get to his office for the next meeting. I believe, they did as most of us do and extimated the time. They said 8-10 in a busy place of business. It has to be an estimate. They didn't have the phone records, days later, when the question first came up. IMO

Dan told Nancy he called Pamela for the first time after breakfast on his way to work. That's simple enough. The phone records indicate that call took place at 9:15.

It's all very straightforward and simple to understand, IMO.

[awakening2lite]

He said no such thing...you need to re-read what he said..

Here is exactly what he said.
Here's a link to an interview
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/19/ng.01.html

EXCERPT

GRACE: When did you know something was wrong?

HOROWITZ: When she didn`t pick up the phone during the day when I call her, because I always would call her. I just had this funny feeling, and maybe even a little bit, Nancy, that morning.

I don`t really know, just, if you believe in these things, but I had a funny feeling at breakfast.

GRACE: What happened? What happened? What started it? When did you start calling her and she didn`t answer?

HOROWITZ: I always call her, just sort of throughout the day. So probably, as I was leaving breakfast, you know, I just would call her on the way to work.

[Beebee]

I'm not referring to an alibi as to Pamela's death..my point is if he was establishing an alibi as to having breakfast until 10:00..in other words, if he intentionally lied about the breakfast lasting to 10:00..he would have made sure to tell Nancy that the phone call was during breakfast...

When Massie knows it wasn't?? The other quote was indirect, and Dan didn't have to take responsibility for it.

Friends do favors for friends they think are innocent. JMO

I'm willing to bet Massie knows breakfast was over by 9:15. I'm willing to bet Massie knows Dan didn't spent Friday night at home. JMO The 8:00 till 10:00 was a range. Dan was allowed to give ranges because he was never treated as a suspect.

[awakening2lite]

Maybe this will be helpful. This further supports my belief the time was an estimate.

This interview of Bob Massi from The Big Story by John Gibson, FoxNews took place on Oct 17th, so it was very fresh in his mind. imo
Reference:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:ejuYUW8hLAYJ:www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172600,00.html+bob+massi,+breakfast&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

EXCERPT

JOHN GIBSON, HOST: A friend of Daniel Horowitz (search) says the defense lawyer feared for his own life. Horowitz has defended criminals ranging from drug dealers to murders. Joining me now on the phone is FOX News legal analyst Bob Massi, a friend of Horowitz who was with him just hours before Horowitz found Pamela Vitale (search) dead. So Bob, what was the mood of your friend just hours before he found his wife dead?

BOB MASSI, FOX NEWS LEGAL ANALYST: John, it was a normal thing. We met in Lafayette, California. I was visiting my son, who goes to school there. We had breakfast because there was a case that he actually referred to me, in Las Vegas, something we had been working on. So we had breakfast about 8:00 Saturday morning until about 10 o'clock.

=====================

Notice Massi says "ABOUT" 10:00. He doesn't say exactly 10, verified with watch 10 or anything that would indicate it was a preciece time. He says ABOUT 10.

It's an extimate, at best. IMO

[Beebee]

The point is he was not establishing his alibi..he didn't list all the phone calls he made to reach her..he was not making an effort to establish a fact when he answered Nancy due to consiousness of innocence.. so he was not precise...anyhow, he didn't say that he made the call on his way to work..he said that he WOULD call her on the way to work...that's a general statement...he didn't say that he made the call AFTER breakfast..he said that he PROBABLY made the call as he was LEAVING breakfast..again he was not precise..so maybe he made the call as they were waiting for the check..maybe they chatted afterwards...I would not use such a vague statement to conclude that the breakfast ended at 9:15..while ignoring precise statements made by him and Massie that the breakfast ended at 10:00..in addition to his statement to a newspaper that he called Pamela during breakfast at 9:15..

Again..we will have to agree to disagree..


He was being asked about a Saturday morning.

How did he "usually" call her on his way to work?? Does that make sense to you??

Was she usually sleeping when he left for work, and he called on the way??

He can't answer the questions AW2B! He couldn't answer about what they did the night before either! This is not consciousness of innocence, it is just the opposite. The questions being asked were basic, EASY questions! He is hiding what really happened that morning, and the fact that he wasn't home the night before, in my opinion.

[awakening2lite]

Point of Interest:
Favorible treatment. He should have been treated exactly the same as anyone else would have been. That is part of the problem and the reason for the "cloud" hanging over him. IMO

Reference:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9760305/page/2/

ABRAMS: Did the police examine you for cuts or bruises?

HOROWITZ: See, what you're really asking is -- let me put it to you this way. No, I was not treated at all like a suspect, Dan. I was not examined, but also understand that they need to get all information, including about me, even if they're my brothers, even if they're -- even if I was the chief of police, the mayor. Anybody. If they're not checking out my situation entirely, then they're not doing their job...

HOROWITZ: ... So, but if you're asking whether they ever treated me in any way that made me feel like a suspect, no. That's -- they treated me like the grieving husband. But they're also a top professional agency and I've given them everything they ever have asked for and always will.

===========

It is very very rare to hear of a husband's discovery of the body of his wife and not being considered a suspect that it becomes suspect in and of itself.

IMO

[awakening2lite]

He can't answer the questions AW2B! He couldn't answer about what they did the night before either! This is not consciousness of innocence, it is just the opposite. The questions being asked were basic, EASY questions! He is hiding what really happened that morning, and the fact that he wasn't home the night before, in my opinion.

The night before; interview Dan Abrams

Reference: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9760305/

EXCERPT

ABRAMS: Let me just give you a chance to settle for a moment. Let me ask you a question about the night before all of this happened. What did you guys do on this Friday night before Pamela was murdered?

HOROWITZ: You know, Dan, it's -- I could logic it out, I can barely remember it. I assume we were doing the Susan Polk trial. All I remember and then I did TV on one or two shows that night, I think. Yes. And then I came home and we were just sitting together, and we got a phone call from one of the hosts and then I guess at some point we want to sleep.

Probably, you know a lot -- most of what we would do at home, is we'd be so tired, we'd sit and watch your show, we'd watch whatever shows. You know our friends were hosting or on, and talk about it or talk about her day or my cases because she worked with me, so just nice, just being together.

[Beebee]

I agree Wake.... they didn't even verify his alibi with Massie until after Scott's arrest... if they even did it then... something tells me a range was acceptable.

This bothers me too:

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.

Polk is accused of murdering her husband, psychotherapist Felix Polk, in his Orinda home in 2002. A Contra Costa County Superior Court judge declared a mistrial in the case today, citing excessive media coverage.

Massi said he does not believe Horowitz is considered a suspect in his wife's death.


Has Massie been Horowitz's lawyer in the past?? Not that I can find. Why is Horowitz lawyering up with his breakfast partner and friend??

IMO- it is because Massie could refuse to answer questions about what they talked about.... because it included Dan not being home friday, and maybe his intent to return home before team Polk meeting?
He certainly had time IMO.

Something is fishy about Massie going from friend status to "lawyer" status, imo.

[awakening2lite]

He was being asked about a Saturday morning.

How did he "usually" call her on his way to work?? Does that make sense to you??

Was she usually sleeping when he left for work, and he called on the way??

He can't answer the questions AW2B! He couldn't answer about what they did the night before either! This is not consciousness of innocence, it is just the opposite. The questions being asked were basic, EASY questions! He is hiding what really happened that morning, and the fact that he wasn't home the night before, in my opinion.

Actually Bee, I think he was saying he usually called her on his way to work. He was asked when did he first call and not get a response.
His reply, probably after breakfast and he usually called her on the way to work.
His schedule was to be on his way to work after the breakfast. He has said he was on his way to the office after breakfast. He is saying he called her after breakfast and on his way to work, as was his habit.

He tied both Massi and the office into his alibi in one statement. Later, the phone records revealed the exact time of the call.

imo

[awakening2lite]

I agree Wake.... they didn't even verify his alibi with Massie until after Scott's arrest... if they even did it then... something tells me a range was acceptable.

This bothers me too:




Has Massie been Horowitz's lawyer in the past?? Not that I can find. Why is Horowitz lawyering up with his breakfast partner and friend??

IMO- it is because Massie could refuse to answer questions about what they talked about.... because it included Dan not being home friday, and maybe his intent to return home before team Polk meeting?
He certainly had time IMO.

Something is fishy about Massie going from friend status to "lawyer" status, imo.


And Massi practiced law in Nevada, not California, isn't that correct? Why hire an attorney who can't practice where you need one?

But, Massi was also media connected...

[Beebee]

The night before; interview Dan Abrams

Reference: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9760305/

EXCERPT

ABRAMS: Let me just give you a chance to settle for a moment. Let me ask you a question about the night before all of this happened. What did you guys do on this Friday night before Pamela was murdered?

HOROWITZ: You know, Dan, it's -- I could logic it out, I can barely remember it. I assume we were doing the Susan Polk trial. All I remember and then I did TV on one or two shows that night, I think. Yes. And then I came home and we were just sitting together, and we got a phone call from one of the hosts and then I guess at some point we want to sleep.

Probably, you know a lot -- most of what we would do at home, is we'd be so tired, we'd sit and watch your show, we'd watch whatever shows. You know our friends were hosting or on, and talk about it or talk about her day or my cases because she worked with me, so just nice, just being together.


Like I said.... he couldn't answer the question.

He wasn't there. IMO

"we got a phone call from one of the hosts"...... yeah- Nancy Grace, the same woman he called from the back of the police car after the brutal murder of his wife... now she is "one of the hosts"... what a joke this guy is.

"I guess at some point we went to sleep"....

What kind of answer is this??

Please think about it folks... this guy didn't spend that night with his wife. JMO

[awakening2lite]

Again, maybe things are different in California. This guy was allowed to have his cell phone active during talks with the LE! And worse, instead of turning it off and assisting LE ...he's taking calls (eek) Please tell me that is not the routine of LE.

reference: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9760305/page/3/

EXCERPT

HOROWITZ: Yes, I don't know how conscious it was. When I was in Martinez (Calif.), you know, with the police, as I'd be talking to them, the phone would ring. It would be this is so-and-so from whatever, so sorry to hear about your loss. I'd go can't talk. Hang up. And -- but these are my friends. I mean I was not the subject of the media, Dan. I was a commentator. I was a member of the media.

[Beebee]

Actually Bee, I think he was saying he usually called her on his way to work. He was asked when did he first call and not get a response.
His reply, probably after breakfast and he usually called her on the way to work.
His schedule was to be on his way to work after the breakfast. He has said he was on his way to the office after breakfast. He is saying he called her after breakfast and on his way to work, as was his habit.

He tied both Massi and the office into his alibi in one statement. Later, the phone records revealed the exact time of the call.

imo


All I know is my husband never calls me on his way to work, since he would have just seen me at home!

Does anyone else have a husband who calls them as they are going to work :shrug:

[Beebee]

And Massi practiced law in Nevada, not California, isn't that correct? Why hire an attorney who can't practice where you need one?

But, Massi was also media connected...

Hey Wake, I just checked and can't find him in CA State Bar.

Interesting.

[awakening2lite]

Like I said.... he couldn't answer the question.

He wasn't there. IMO

"we got a phone call from one of the hosts"...... yeah- Nancy Grace, the same woman he called from the back of the police car after the brutal murder of his wife... now she is "one of the hosts"... what a joke this guy is.

"I guess at some point we went to sleep"....

What kind of answer is this??

Please think about it folks... this guy didn't spend that night with his wife. JMO


I hear ya! I remember first reading that and thinking about what was going thru NG's mind. :punch:

I remember when my dear little poodle, Alex, passed. I remember holding him and I also remember feeding him the night before and walking him for the last time.

For Pamela :rose:

[Beebee]

Again, maybe things are different in California. This guy was allowed to have his cell phone active during talks with the LE! And worse, instead of turning it off and assisting LE ...he's taking calls (eek) Please tell me that is not the routine of LE.

reference: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9760305/page/3/

EXCERPT

HOROWITZ: Yes, I don't know how conscious it was. When I was in Martinez (Calif.), you know, with the police, as I'd be talking to them, the phone would ring. It would be this is so-and-so from whatever, so sorry to hear about your loss. I'd go can't talk. Hang up. And -- but these are my friends. I mean I was not the subject of the media, Dan. I was a commentator. I was a member of the media.

IMO- they treated him like he was part of their investigative team. He ran the show.... He was allowed back to the crime scene before it was cleared!! In fact LE arranged it, so he could "assist"....

What a travesty, imo.

[attorneywan2be]

Has Massie been Horowitz's lawyer in the past?? Not that I can find. Why is Horowitz lawyering up with his breakfast partner and friend??



Would you please provide the source document where either Massie or Dan announced that Horowitz hired Massie to represent him..thanks

[awakening2lite]

Hey Wake, I just checked and can't find him in CA State Bar.

Interesting.

Can't say with certainty what Bob Massi is up to now, but he was a Fox News Legal Analyst working in Las Vegas at the time of Pamela's murder.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:ejuYUW8hLAYJ:www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172600,00.html+bob+massi,+breakfast&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

IIRC There was talk back then (sorry no reference handy) that he had something to do with Horowitz geting his talking head job.

imo

[Beebee]

Would you please provide the source document where either Massie or Dan announced that Horowitz hired Massie to represent him..thanks

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.

Polk is accused of murdering her husband, psychotherapist Felix Polk, in his Orinda home in 2002. A Contra Costa County Superior Court judge declared a mistrial in the case today, citing excessive media coverage.

Massi said he does not believe Horowitz is considered a suspect in his wife's death.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/17/MNGS2F9T4B4.DTL

[Beebee]

Can't say with certainty what Bob Massi is up to now, but he was a Fox News Legal Analyst working in Las Vegas at the time of Pamela's murder.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:ejuYUW8hLAYJ:www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172600,00.html+bob+massi,+breakfast&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

IIRC There was talk back then (sorry no reference handy) that he had something to do with Horowitz geting his talking head job.

imo

I saw him on TV not too long ago.

Ah, the OJ Simpson thing, which has gone on in Vegas... anyway-- he is still a talking head from what I saw, and in Vegas.

[attorneywan2be]

Quote:
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.

Polk is accused of murdering her husband, psychotherapist Felix Polk, in his Orinda home in 2002. A Contra Costa County Superior Court judge declared a mistrial in the case today, citing excessive media coverage.

Massi said he does not believe Horowitz is considered a suspect in his wife's death.



Thanks..but that's not what I'm looking for..I wanted to see a doc where Massie referred to Dan as his client or Dan referred to Massie as his lawyer..a news article referring to Massie as "his lawyer" could have been a mistake..some other articles referred to Massie as "Another lawyer friend, Robert Massi, said Monday on NBC's "Today".. in addition, Dan referred to Massie as his friend..

[awakening2lite]

I saw him on TV not too long ago.

Ah, the OJ Simpson thing, which has gone on in Vegas... anyway-- he is still a talking head from what I saw, and in Vegas.

Thanks for the info, Bee. I'm following the OJ thing (again) :D and knowing Massi is still a talking head in Las Vegas will simply add to the fun!

[attorneywan2be]

Here is exactly what he said.
Here's a link to an interview
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/19/ng.01.html

EXCERPT

GRACE: When did you know something was wrong?

HOROWITZ: When she didn`t pick up the phone during the day when I call her, because I always would call her. I just had this funny feeling, and maybe even a little bit, Nancy, that morning.

I don`t really know, just, if you believe in these things, but I had a funny feeling at breakfast.

GRACE: What happened? What happened? What started it? When did you start calling her and she didn`t answer?

HOROWITZ: I always call her, just sort of throughout the day. So probably, as I was leaving breakfast, you know, I just would call her on the way to work.

This is what you wrote :"he said after breakfast on his way to work"

This is what he said: So probably,as I was leaving breakfast, you know, I just would call her on the way to work..

What you wrote is not what he said..what you wrote is indeed your interpretation of what he said..

[awakening2lite]

This is what you wrote :"he said after breakfast on his way to work"

This is what he said: So probably,as I was leaving breakfast, you know, I just would call her on the way to work..

What you wrote is not what he said..what you wrote is indeed your interpretation of what he said..


It's called paraphrasing.

I submitted the quote and repeated that post with the quote many time for you. In one instance I paraphrased to save band width.

[Beebee]

Thanks..but that's not what I'm looking for..I wanted to see a doc where Massie referred to Dan as his client or Dan referred to Massie as his lawyer..a news article referring to Massie as "his lawyer" could have been a mistake..some other articles referred to Massie as "Another lawyer friend, Robert Massi, said Monday on NBC's "Today".. in addition, Dan referred to Massie as his friend..

Well luckily for Dan, he never had to "officially" retain a lawyer in this matter, but it sounds to me like at the VERY LEAST the reporter thought Massie WAS Dan's attorney, and Massie spoke like he was answering legal questions. For example... answering if Horowitz was a suspect.

[attorneywan2be]

It's called paraphrasing.

I submitted the quote and repeated that post with the quote many time for you. In one instance I paraphrased to save band width.


Sorry..that's not paraphrasing..that's an interpretation of what he said..

I'm done with this issue..!

[awakening2lite]

Thanks..but that's not what I'm looking for..I wanted to see a doc where Massie referred to Dan as his client or Dan referred to Massie as his lawyer..a news article referring to Massie as "his lawyer" could have been a mistake..some other articles referred to Massie as "Another lawyer friend, Robert Massi, said Monday on NBC's "Today".. in addition, Dan referred to Massie as his friend..


Here's one
reference: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:YJWYO1pB89kJ:www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/index.php%3Fshowtopic%3D6634+massi,+horowitz,+repr esent&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us&client=firefox-a

EXCERPT

Mr. Horowitz's attorney, Robert Massi, said his client is not a suspect and that he has an alibi for the hours before his wife was found. Mr. Horowitz had breakfast Saturday with Mr. Massi and then spent the afternoon working with colleagues on his latest murder case before returning home and finding his wife about 6 p.m., Mr. Massi said.

=========
It's an AP article on another site. You'll need to contact AP for the original. I don't have membership with them.

It's very unusual for an attorney to declare himself the attorney for a client who is subject of the interview of the attorney. IMO There aren't many articles out there, in general, no matter the client, where the attorney delclares himself in a quote as the representative. Usually the reporter introduces the reader to the attorney and his status before or after the quote. IMO

Kinda like:
John's mother said, "He's a good boy".

Instead of:
"I'm John's mother and he is a good boy".

It's hard to find that kind of reporting anymore. IMO

[awakening2lite]

Sorry..that's not paraphrasing..that's an interpretation of what he said..

I'm done with this issue..!

Not trying to be argumentative but..

It is paraphrasing. Here's a link to the definition: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/paraphrase

a restatement of a text, passage, or work giving the meaning in another form

:)

[Beebee]

Thanks for the info, Bee. I'm following the OJ thing (again) :D and knowing Massi is still a talking head in Las Vegas will simply add to the fun!

I love Vegas and was there for a short time recently... I saw Massie on TV in the hotel and I was tempted to ask my husband if we could head to Clark County court so I could corner Massie (try) about Dyleski ........ and maybe see some OJ action... :D but I ended up changing my mind, LOL

Yeah, Massie is still a talking head there, and still has that same bad hair, IMO LOL :biggrin:

[attorneywan2be]

Well luckily for Dan, he never had to "officially" retain a lawyer in this matter, but it sounds to me like at the VERY LEAST the reporter thought Massie WAS Dan's attorney, and Massie spoke like he was answering legal questions. For example... answering if Horowitz was a suspect.

A friend can also say that so and so is not a suspect...other articles referred to Massie as a lawyer friend..so why would we believe that particular article..Dan referred to him as his friend..nothing was said that indicates a lawyer relationship..

IMO, he was not his lawyer..

With that said..even if you think he was his lawyer don't you think it's important to find out when he became his lawyer..what if he was his lawyer for years..

BTW, I read an article that Dan did indeed have cases in Las Vegas..they particularly talked about an acquittal in a murder case in las Vegas Nevada in 2006..!

[awakening2lite]

Well luckily for Dan, he never had to "officially" retain a lawyer in this matter, but it sounds to me like at the VERY LEAST the reporter thought Massie WAS Dan's attorney, and Massie spoke like he was answering legal questions. For example... answering if Horowitz was a suspect.

I really searched for it, too. That same assumption (there's that word again) was made in dozens of papers. It's very confusing when an attorney is authorized to speak on your behalf in public about legal matters.

But, hey, there's tons of assumption in this case. Plenty to go 'round. IMO

[Beebee]

This is what you wrote :"he said after breakfast on his way to work"

This is what he said: So probably,as I was leaving breakfast, you know, I just would call her on the way to work..

What you wrote is not what he said..what you wrote is indeed your interpretation of what he said..


AW2B,

What is your interpretation of what he said?

Because whay he actually said, doesn't really make sense, imo.

[attorneywan2be]

Not trying to be argumentative but..

It is paraphrasing. Here's a link to the definition: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/paraphrase

a restatement of a text, passage, or work giving the meaning in another form

:)


LOL..that's exactly my point..you changed the meaning of what he said..so it is indeed your interpretation..!

That's my final final reply on this issue!! :seeya:

[awakening2lite]

I love Vegas and was there for a short time recently... I saw Massie on TV in the hotel and I was tempted to ask my husband if we could head to Clark County court so I could corner Massie (try) about Dyleski ........ and maybe see some OJ action... :D but I ended up changing my mind, LOL

Yeah, Massie is still a talking head there, and still has that same bad hair, IMO LOL :biggrin:

You lucky, person! I've never been to Vegas but have heard so much about it. There was some talk on the ctv board about a group going to vegas for the oj trial. How tempting!

Was Massi covering the OJ case when you saw him?

[awakening2lite]

LOL..that's exactly my point..you changed the meaning of what he said..so it is indeed your interpretation..!

That's my final final reply on this issue!! :seeya:

That's your incorrect interpretation of what I said.

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B,

What is your interpretation of what he said?

Because whay he actually said, doesn't really make sense, imo.

Exactly he was not really precise..his statement was not too specific..he referred to the breakfast..which is the only part that is specific in his statement..then he talked about his habits in general about calling her...

IMO, let me start by saying that there is nothing sinister about his call to Pamela so he had nothing to hide..maybe he simply couldn't remember when he exactly called her the first time so he didn't want to commit to a specific answer that would turned out to be false..or maybe he was not focused on this issue..this is just a guess on my part..

[Beebee]

Exactly he was not really precise..his statement was not too specific

It flat out didn't make sense, and I think it was an easy question to answer. VERY easy if you lived it.

IMO

[Beebee]

IMO, let me start by saying that there is nothing sinister about his call to Pamela so he had nothing to hide..maybe he simply couldn't remember when he exactly called her the first time so he didn't want to commit to a specific answer that would turned out to be false..or maybe he was not focused on this issue..this is just a guess on my part..

ps- Right. I agree. Do you think before or after breakfast is something most people take note of or could take note of??

[attorneywan2be]

ps- Right. I agree. Do you think before or after breakfast is something most people take note of or could take note of??

I think it could easily be noted whether it's before, after or during breakfast..but what I'm saying is that at this particular moment as he was talking to Nancy he was either distracted.. couldn't remember or whatever...he did state on another occasion that he made the phone call during breakfast..so it's more likely than not he was not focused..!

[attorneywan2be]

It flat out didn't make sense, and I think it was an easy question to answer. VERY easy if you lived it.

IMO


Yep! very easy indeed for anyone (let alone a lawyer) whether you lived it or not..there is nothing complex about it..he attended breakfast until 10:00 according to him...the call was made at 9:15 according to him..a lawyer or anyone for that matter (except someone retarded) would have no problem figuring out that he made the call during breakfast..that's exactly why I think his imprecision was due to distraction rather than to "what should I say? what should I say to this tough question?" type thing..if you know what I mean..!

[attorneywan2be]

After he killed her.

I would guess the time to be about 9:45.

So according to you he started the staging of the computer use after he killed her...from 9:45 to 10:12..then please explain how would the fact that she was out BEFORE 9:45 would ruin his computer use staging plan as you stated..she was out --->she returned home at 9:45 ---->and she started to use the computer...the fact that she was seen out before 9:45 would have no bearing whatsover on his computer use staging plan..!

[awakening2lite]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/law/2005/10/18/grace.horowitz.inteview.cnn?iref=videosearch

video of Nancy Grace interview of Dan

[awakening2lite]

Panel of attorneys discuss the arrest

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2005/10/20/larry.king.live.thursday.cnn?iref=videosearch

Beebee, I know you are fighting for Scott and maybe there should be some discussion about the overwhelming opposition of the media.
Dan was/is able to pull the media together and as we all know this boy was tried in public long before he was tried in court.

How could that be overcome if he were to be granted an appeal?


IMO

[awakening2lite]

Yep! very easy indeed for anyone (let alone a lawyer) whether you lived it or not..there is nothing complex about it..he attended breakfast until 10:00 according to him...the call was made at 9:15 according to him..a lawyer or anyone for that matter (except someone retarded) would have no problem figuring out that he made the call during breakfast..that's exactly why I think his imprecision was due to distraction rather than to "what should I say? what should I say to this tough question?" type thing..if you know what I mean..!

Your post reads as if you are saying that anyone who reads his statement about calling as he was leaving breakfast and believes he is actually finished breakfast is retarded?

Wow

Here is exactly what he said.
Here's a link to an interview
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/19/ng.01.html

EXCERPT

GRACE: When did you know something was wrong?

HOROWITZ: When she didn`t pick up the phone during the day when I call her, because I always would call her. I just had this funny feeling, and maybe even a little bit, Nancy, that morning.

I don`t really know, just, if you believe in these things, but I had a funny feeling at breakfast.

GRACE: What happened? What happened? What started it? When did you start calling her and she didn`t answer?

HOROWITZ: I always call her, just sort of throughout the day. So probably, as I was leaving breakfast, you know, I just would call her on the way to work.

[awakening2lite]

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/law/2005/10/21/rowlands.dyleski.tried.cnn?iref=videosearch

Video report on Scott Dyleski being tried as an adult.

This shows an old stringy goth hair/dark black and white photograph of him even though he did not look like that at the time of the crime.
IMO it was not necessary to dig up old images to incite anger or fear.

It will be an unbelievable battle to by pass the media in any future appeal. IMO

[attorneywan2be]

Your post reads as if you are saying that anyone who reads his statement about calling as he was leaving breakfast and believes he is actually finished breakfast is retarded?

Wow



What?! what?!.. LOL...I said no such thing whatsoever...read my post again please!!

Here is my post!!!!

Yep! very easy indeed for anyone (let alone a lawyer) whether you lived it or not..there is nothing complex about it..he attended breakfast until 10:00 according to him...the call was made at 9:15 according to him..a lawyer or anyone for that matter (except someone retarded) would have no problem figuring out that he made the call during breakfast..that's exactly why I think his imprecision was due to distraction rather than to "what should I say? what should I say to this tough question?" type thing..if you know what I mean..!

[Beebee]

Jumping in here again.

AW2B, you wanted a speculative timeline on Dan to see if it was even possible for him to have killed Pam.
My timeline starts with him leaving breakfast at 9:15. His words as HE spoke them to Nancy Grace and his phone records support my claim, imo. So I'm done speculating that he called during breakfast while Massie was in the bathroom, or in the checkout line. I think he started looking for Pamela after breakfast at 9:15.

On the computer staging....

I think Dan was using both computers that morning, and then left the one computer behind to stage she was alive until 10:12, minutes before he was on his way to Oakland. That was for HIM. (It also gave Scott an alibi, but that is a whole different discussion).

You ask how Pam being out would interfere with that.... well, imo it works much easier from an investigative standpoint for one. She could have met up with her attacker while out of the home.
The more HER actions are called into question the wider the scope of the investigation.... I hope I am making sense here. Also, there was already activity on the computer (from Horowitz) so how could Pam be out and on the computer at the same time?

Do you realize that Dan logged off "his" computer AFTER Pam allegedly logs on?? "Pam's" computer logs on at 7:49AM, Dan logs off 8:52AM.
At trial, Horowitz testified he ran spyware on Pam's computer to explain why "her" computer logged on while she was supposidly still sleeping.

I don't buy it. Plus at the prelim, the testimony from the computer expert was that the first thing accessed at 7:49 was Quicken, not some spyware program.


By the way, does anybody want to take a guess as to why Pam would be out that morning? Remember, when Horowitz called at 9:15 she did not answer. That is something he could not control. He had to admit the call, and no answer.

That goes to her being OUT of the home, imo. Why else wouldn't she answer his call?? Or if it was simply a missed call... then call him back??

It's because she was out looking for him, imo, and while she was out, on her road, in her car.... she saw Scott Dyleski.

JMO

[Beebee]

Panel of attorneys discuss the arrest

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2005/10/20/larry.king.live.thursday.cnn?iref=videosearch

Beebee, I know you are fighting for Scott and maybe there should be some discussion about the overwhelming opposition of the media.
Dan was/is able to pull the media together and as we all know this boy was tried in public long before he was tried in court.

How could that be overcome if he were to be granted an appeal?



IMO


I don't know Wake.

I wish I did.

[awakening2lite]

Jumping in here again.

AW2B, you wanted a speculative timeline on Dan to see if it was even possible for him to have killed Pam.
My timeline starts with him leaving breakfast at 9:15. His words as HE spoke them to Nancy Grace and his phone records support my claim, imo. So I'm done speculating that he called during breakfast while Massie was in the bathroom, or in the checkout line. I think he started looking for Pamela after breakfast at 9:15.

On the computer staging....

I think Dan was using both computers that morning, and then left the one computer behind to stage she was alive until 10:12, minutes before he was on his way to Oakland. That was for HIM. (It also gave Scott an alibi, but that is a whole different discussion).

You ask how Pam being out would interfere with that.... well, imo it works much easier from an investigative standpoint for one. She could have met up with her attacker while out of the home.
The more HER actions are called into question the wider the scope of the investigation.... I hope I am making sense here. Also, there was already activity on the computer (from Horowitz) so how could Pam be out and on the computer at the same time?

Do you realize that Dan logged off "his" computer AFTER Pam allegedly logs on?? "Pam's" computer logs on at 7:49AM, Dan logs off 8:52AM.
At trial, Horowitz testified he ran spyware on Pam's computer to explain why "her" computer logged on while she was supposidly still sleeping.

I don't buy it. Plus at the prelim, the testimony from the computer expert was that the first thing accessed at 7:49 was Quicken, not some spyware program.


By the way, does anybody want to take a guess as to why Pam would be out that morning? Remember, when Horowitz called at 9:15 she did not answer. That is something he could not control. He had to admit the call, and no answer.

That goes to her being OUT of the home, imo. Why else wouldn't she answer his call?? Or if it was simply a missed call... then call him back??

It's because she was out looking for him, imo, and while she was out, on her road, in her car.... she saw Scott Dyleski.

JMO

Hi Beebee :seeya: I love your new avatar! So sweet.

You certainly have provided plenty of food for thought.

If Dan logged off HIS computer at 8:52 am, he must have either had the computer with him, at the table, during breatfast or out in his car where it would be available to him to log out.

If both computers were mobile, he could have carried both of them in to breakfast or had them in his car and excused himself to use them.
That would make the most sense if he took them with him the night before or maybe, because he logged into quicken first, maybe he took her computer to check on the money. Then activating spyware would keep the computer active for some time as it went thru the files.

However, he could have accomplished the same thing if remote access was set up on their computers. That is, once her computer was turned on it could be manipulated remotely thru his. That's fairly common now. Pamela would have had the know how, from her computer experience, to set up a simple remote connection. IMO She was a very smart lady.

MOO

[awakening2lite]

I don't know Wake.

I wish I did.

IMO he's also needs an attorney with guts enough to stand up to a deluge of negative press and one who could afford to be shunned by the "tribe". IMO the same requirements for an investigator. Adding to that, the boy has no money.

Are there any brave and generous souls left in the legal and investigative fields?

[awakening2lite]

Beebee, pls ck your pm's.

[Beebee]

If Dan logged off HIS computer at 8:52 am, he must have either had the computer with him,

Wake I just realized I meant to type 7:52. He looged off the one computer at 7:52, not 8:52. Sorry about that.

We know Horowitz uses more than one computer:

Aware yet undeterred by the bigger issues, Horowitz says, "If I have a question or need some help, I just walk over to the PD's office and ask someone.
"These are my people."
It's 5 a.m., and the sun is just coming up over Walnut Creek. There's a nasty chill, and the fog is settled in the canyons below Horowitz's mobile home, which, today at least, does not smell of septic system.
Time to meet members of The Tribe.
Horowitz is already jacked up on Peet's coffee. He is bouncing from one laptop to another in his carpeted living room eating instant oatmeal.
No wonder they call him "The Hurricane."
Like his office, a wood-paneled hovel above a gay bar and Mexican restaurant in downtown Oakland, his home computer system is networked to the hilt. "I know lots of people," he says, sending out e-mails to members of The Tribe. "They'll tell you what it's like."

http://www.kupfererlaw.com/press/inside_the_tribe.html

Computer expert
From the prelim:

14 A. The next one the 12:26:50 a.m. on the 15th.

15 Q. And what's the next one?

16 A. The next one is 7:49:57 a.m.

17 Q. So, about seven hours, give or take a few

18 minutes, of inactivity?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. And with respect to when that computer -- when

21 there was again activity on that computer, does it reflect,

22 People's Exhibit 4, the site that was visited on that entry?

23 A. Which entry?

24 Q. The one at seven and change in the morning?

25 A. Yes, it does.

26 Q. And where, according to that document, was a Web

27 site visited?

28 A. Well, there was two, actually, at the same time:
58


1 My Computer; she accessed what appears to be Quicken.

2 Q. And what's the next one?

3 A. The next one is C.N.N.

4 Q. And, in fact, over the course of the next few

5 hours are there a number of entries reflecting visits to C.N.N.

6 Web sites or links thereto?

7 A. Yes, there are several. There's several Google

8 hits, Court TV, Websleuths, True Crime.

9 Q. Do some of those reflect a search using the name

10 Horowitz or Daniel Horowitz?

11 A. I do not see specific search on Horowitz, no.

12 Q. Do some of those reflect a search on the name

13 Polk or Susan Polk?

14 A. No. The only name I see that is being searched

15 is a -- looks like Susan Darge.

16 Q. Susan Darge. And in conjunction with the

17 searches of Susan Darge, are there also entries that appear to be

18 searches of family-tree-type Web sites?

19 A. Yes. Clarification. I do see Susan Polk being

20 searched on Google on the first page.

21 Q. And is there anything that indicates to us when

22 the last -- the time stamp for the last indication of activity

23 there was on that computer during the day of October 15th and at

24 any time until the discovery of Pamela Vitale's body?

25 A. The last -- the last entry during the daytime

26 period on 10/15/05 was at 10:12:46 a.m.

27 Q. And to what site does that entry relate?

28 A. It was a Google search, but part of the -- part
59


1 of the U.R.L. is not visible on this particular page.

2 Q. In the searches that immediately precede that, do

3 there appear to be searches for the name Darge, or Susan Darge,

4 or family tree type of entries?

5 A. Yes. There's Google searches on Darge in

6 Wisconsin, immigrantships dot net, looks like the West Virginia

7 Library, Clark County Cemetery, RootsWeb, Reunion.

8 Q. And these entries -- there's a number of them.

9 I'm not going to ask you to count them, but over the course of

10 these five pages there's a lot of entries there, is there not?

11 A. Yes, there are.

12 Q. And are these entries fairly uniform in their

13 spacing? I mean, there may be period of times of five or ten

14 minutes where there's no use, but fairly uniform in their spacing

15 between, I think you said seven -- around 7:40 in the morning and

16 10:12 in the morning?

17 A. Yes.



Looks to me like things Dan would be doing on the computer..... up until the last searches for Susan Darge. So the activity went from Banking to news to Susan Polk and CTV/websleuths/true crime.... then shifting gears to a search on Susan Darge.


Why would Pam have done a search on Susan Darge that morning?

It makes no sense to me that she would do a search on somebody she already knew! What DOES make sense to me is a busy husband remembering the name Susan Darge from conversation, but not realizing the extent of their relationship. IMO Horowitz thought Darge would be "proof" it was Pam, however, he screwed up, because using the name Susan Darge is exactly what makes it suspect. To me anyway.

[Beebee]

By the way-- this was what Susan Darge wrote on Pam's memorial website:

Pamela and I discovered each other in September of 2003 through our mutual interest in genealogy. I responded to a message she posted on ancestry.com about the Darge family from the Good Thunder, Minnesota area. I sent her an email introducing myself and letting her know that Herman Darge and Amalia Graf were my great-grandparents. She responded with an enthusiastic email, writing ?They?re my great-grandparents too!!!!? She pronounced us second cousins and I learned of her fondness for using multiple exclamation points -- my first clue to her effervescent personality. We began an email relationship interspersed with occasional phone calls, sharing our family history research with one another and reminiscing about relatives we both knew growing up. In particular we shared stories of our great aunts Leona and Alma who we both respected as bright, caring, and independent women and who taught us the card game King's Corners. We found out we both had walked through the same cemeteries in southern Minnesota, taking pictures of the same headstones, and following many of the same clues in piecing together our ancestry. We traded old family photos and compared old family folklore. We learned of things we had in common such as music, wine, Italian food (anything Italian, actually), philosophical musings, the value of lifelong learning, and following our own paths in life. In one of our early conversations I shared with Pamela that my father, Roland Darge, had died when I was 13 years old and that I only knew him through a child?s eyes. I longed to know more about him. She picked up on the depth of my feelings and hatched an idea to surprise me. Her Dad grew up with my Dad and she knew he would have many first-hand stories to share. So one evening she arranged for a three-way phone call with her in California, her parents in Minneapolis, and me in Duluth. The conversation lasted for a couple of hours and I learned so many wonderful and interesting things about my Dad. It was a precious gift and I will never forget her thoughtfulness in arranging it. Even after her parents were off the line, Pamela and I continued to talk for another couple of hours and I remember it being 1:30 a.m. when we finally hung up. We had become more than genealogy partners, we had started to become friends. If you?ve ever been pulled into the world of genealogy, you may know how addictive it can be. Excitement is found in each new discovery, every puzzle solved, and every barrier broken through. It was wonderful to share this with Pamela -- a kindred spirit who never got bored with the subject. I?m sad that we?ll never get to meet in person as we had planned. Thank you for creating this website in honor of your Mom. I will treasure visiting it to learn more about her life and spirit.
Submitted by Sue Darge

[Beebee]

IMO he's also needs an attorney with guts enough to stand up to a deluge of negative press and one who could afford to be shunned by the "tribe". IMO the same requirements for an investigator. Adding to that, the boy has no money.

Are there any brave and generous souls left in the legal and investigative fields?


Not that I have met yet.

I'm still hoping to find them though.

[awakening2lite]

Wake I just realized I meant to type 7:52. He looged off the one computer at 7:52, not 8:52. Sorry about that.

We know Horowitz uses more than one computer:



http://www.kupfererlaw.com/press/inside_the_tribe.html

Computer expert
From the prelim:





Looks to me like things Dan would be doing on the computer..... up until the last searches for Susan Darge. So the activity went from Banking to news to Susan Polk and CTV/websleuths/true crime.... then shifting gears to a search on Susan Darge.


Why would Pam have done a search on Susan Darge that morning?

It makes no sense to me that she would do a search on somebody she already knew! What DOES make sense to me is a busy husband remembering the name Susan Darge from conversation, but not realizing the extent of their relationship. IMO Horowitz thought Darge would be "proof" it was Pam, however, he screwed up, because using the name Susan Darge is exactly what makes it suspect. To me anyway.


With the exception of checking on the money, it is likely the rest of the site were bookmarks. So easy to go down a list of bookmarked sites and click...

I agree, it is unlikely that she would be seaerching for Darge when she had already established a close relationship with them. Something just makes me think this was a bookmark, too.

MOO

[attorneywan2be]

IMO

BeeBee...thanks for your input..

I'm sorry but I don't agree that the evidence indicates that the breakfast ended at 9:15 ..both Massie and Dan CLEARLY stated that the breakfast started about 8:00 am and ended about 10:00..."about" means to me "give or take few minutes" but not 45 minutes..he also stated to a newspaper that he made that call during breakfast..so you are interpreting one imprecise statement to mean that the breakfast ended at 9:15 while ignoring all other statements...his phone records would not tell you where he placed that phone call..so I'm not sure what you mean by the phone records support your claim...in addition, as to Massie's interview with the police, we have no idea whether or not he told them he saw Dan placing the call..yet you concluded that he didn't mention it for whatever reason..I'm also done with this issue..so we will have to agree to disagree on this particular point..

Note: for some reason I'm not able to submit a long post..a length that was usually allowed!! ..I divided my post in two segments..

[attorneywan2be]

I'm having problems posting..the second segment is just a bit longer than my previous post..:confused: ..I sent FW a PM about it..

Does anyone have this problem?

[attorneywan2be]

I'm going to try to do it in 3 segments rather than 2 ..

IMO

BeeBee you stated:

"Do you realize that Dan logged off "his" computer AFTER Pam allegedly logs on?? "Pam's" computer logs on at 7:49AM, Dan logs off 8:52AM"

I realize you made a mistake about his time..I just saw your post..but I read on CTV message board that the difference was only 1 minute..he logged off at 7:50.. I would appreciate it if you would provide a link or an article to support the time he logged off his computer..TIA

He was having breakfast with Massie while Pamela was using the computer from 7:49 until 10:12 ..periods of inactivity during that time ranged from 5 minutes to 10 minutes..if anything, that proves she didn't go out at all..Dyleski simply fabricated this encounter story..and you know that is not the only reason I concluded that Dyleski fabricated that story..

[Beebee]

but I read on CTV message board that the difference was only 1 minute..he logged off at 7:50.. I would appreciate it if you would provide a link or an article to support the time he logged off his computer..TIA

.


This may come as a shock, but even though court testimony showed the gap with the log on/log off times, there was/are no media reports that show this. None that I can find. It was completely ignored.

I don't have that testimony on my computer to post for you. Maybe somebody else will have it? :shrug:

[attorneywan2be]

Testing..I can't submit my third segment for some reason..:confused:

[attorneywan2be]

This may come as a shock, but even though court testimony showed the gap with the log on/log off times, there was/are no media reports that show this. None that I can find. It was completely ignored.

I don't have that testimony on my computer to post for you. Maybe somebody else will have it? :shrug:

The length of the post I'm allowed to submit is getting shorter and shorter..anyhow, it was somebody that supports Dyleski who posted that he logged off at 7:50..I googled it but couldn't find anything on that either..

[attorneywan2be]

IMO

I simply don't believe that Pamela was a person that would grab Dyleski and tell him "you've got to believe".. I think as he was fabricating the story he borrowed those words "You've got to believe" from a title of a song, a CD

[attorneywan2be]

Testing:

IMO

BeeBee...thanks for your input..

I'm sorry but I don't agree that the evidence indicates that the breakfast ended at 9:15 ..both Massie and Dan CLEARLY stated that the breakfast started about 8:00 am and ended about 10:00..."about" means to me "give or take few minutes" but not 45 minutes..he also stated to a newspaper that he made that call during breakfast..so you are interpreting one imprecise statement to mean that the breakfast ended at 9:15 while ignoring all other statements...his phone records would not tell you where he placed that phone call..so I'm not sure what you mean by the phone records support your claim...in addition, as to Massie's interview with the police, we have no idea whether or not he told them he saw Dan placing the call..yet you concluded that he didn't mention it for whatever reason..I'm also done with this issue..so we will have to agree to disagree on this particular point..

You stated:

"Do you realize that Dan logged off "his" computer AFTER Pam allegedly logs on?? "Pam's" computer logs on at 7:49AM, Dan logs off 8:52AM"

I realize you made a mistake about his time..I just saw your post..but I read on CTV message board that the difference was only 1 minute..he logged off at 7:50.. I would appreciate it if you would provide a link or an article to support the time he logged off his computer..TIA

He was having breakfast with Massie while Pamela was using the computer from 7:49 until 10:12 ..periods of inactivity during that time ranged from 5 minutes to 10 minutes..if anything, that proves she didn't go out at all..Dyleski simply fabricated this encounter story..and you know that is not the only reason I concluded that Dyleski fabricated that story..

I have yet to find a logical explanation as to why Horowitz would select Dyleski of all people to frame..I think that theory was initially built on Dyleski's encounter story that he told Jena..the one where he mentioned that a man was the driver and Pamela was the panicked passenger..I think there was speculation that the man was Horowitz..but according to the encounter story he told Fred Curiel and Kim curiel, Pamela was the driver and no one else was with her in the car..two people questioned him at length about that encounter story..there is no way that both of them were wrong about what he said..so now we've got Pamela driving her car and stopping Dyleski to grab his arm and tell him "you've got to believe" then drove off..how would Horowitz know anything about that encounter and who it was that Pamela SUPPOSEDLY had an encounter with..from what you read about Pamela do you honestly think she was a woman who would do such meaningless action and say such things?? I think as he was fabricating the story he borrowed those words "You've got to believe" from a title of a song..a CD.

[attorneywan2be]

:beer:

Woohoo..it worked..I just posted the entire post including the deleted portions..I had to delete parts of it when I posted it over 3 segments..

[Beebee]

test post

[Beebee]

my posting is messed up now too :confused:

For anyone who wants to continue this conversation, we can do so here: http://sleuthingforjustice.com/

Wake and AW2B... I updated your accounts there so we can use that section... if anybody else wants in just let me know. I welcome all civil debate there.

Not sure what is going on with the posting here but I continued on the other forum. :seeya:

[awakening2lite]

This may come as a shock, but even though court testimony showed the gap with the log on/log off times, there was/are no media reports that show this. None that I can find. It was completely ignored.

I don't have that testimony on my computer to post for you. Maybe somebody else will have it? :shrug:

Yeah, you could just tip my over with a feather (sarcasum). :biggrin:
Those articles, transcripts and video coverage have been disappearing faster than cheap gas. imo

Here's a link to a discussion of a case in the oakland area where the another wife is assumed murdered. Evidence includes books the husband was reading and claims of leakage from the LE.

http://www.justiceforchandra.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2899&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15&sid=10ece0843aa0c88faadf776fcb08bb73


It's only less than a year after PV's murder, too.
Could it be connected in some way?

[awakening2lite]

Jumping in here again.

AW2B, you wanted a speculative timeline on Dan to see if it was even possible for him to have killed Pam.
My timeline starts with him leaving breakfast at 9:15. His words as HE spoke them to Nancy Grace and his phone records support my claim, imo. So I'm done speculating that he called during breakfast while Massie was in the bathroom, or in the checkout line. I think he started looking for Pamela after breakfast at 9:15.

On the computer staging....

I think Dan was using both computers that morning, and then left the one computer behind to stage she was alive until 10:12, minutes before he was on his way to Oakland. That was for HIM. (It also gave Scott an alibi, but that is a whole different discussion).

You ask how Pam being out would interfere with that.... well, imo it works much easier from an investigative standpoint for one. She could have met up with her attacker while out of the home.
The more HER actions are called into question the wider the scope of the investigation.... I hope I am making sense here. Also, there was already activity on the computer (from Horowitz) so how could Pam be out and on the computer at the same time?

Do you realize that Dan logged off "his" computer AFTER Pam allegedly logs on?? "Pam's" computer logs on at 7:49AM, Dan logs off 8:52AM.
At trial, Horowitz testified he ran spyware on Pam's computer to explain why "her" computer logged on while she was supposidly still sleeping.

I don't buy it. Plus at the prelim, the testimony from the computer expert was that the first thing accessed at 7:49 was Quicken, not some spyware program.


By the way, does anybody want to take a guess as to why Pam would be out that morning? Remember, when Horowitz called at 9:15 she did not answer. That is something he could not control. He had to admit the call, and no answer.

That goes to her being OUT of the home, imo. Why else wouldn't she answer his call?? Or if it was simply a missed call... then call him back??

It's because she was out looking for him, imo, and while she was out, on her road, in her car.... she saw Scott Dyleski.

JMO

If that is what she was doing, we know she wouldn't have been the first wife who didn't answer the phone while on the hunt for her husband.


imo

[Kellapple]

Beebee, awakening & attorney:

You all didn't post anything today, I "tune in" daily to watch you discuss this case. I must say I am glad I'm not on a jury for this kid because you guys have me going back and forth. :read:

[attorneywan2be]

Beebee, awakening & attorney:

You all didn't post anything today, I "tune in" daily to watch you discuss this case. I must say I am glad I'm not on a jury for this kid because you guys have me going back and forth. :read:

We are having some tech problems posting here..but here is a post just for you...:D

IMO

Does anyone think that Horowitz was just lucky to pick Dyleski of all people to frame?

-Dyleski who happened to be out and alone right around the time of the murder
-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 partial DNA profile found on the bottom of Pamela's foot to a tee..
-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 being the only suspect that could not be excluded..
-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 happened to pack the very shoes that Horowitz supposedly planted Pamela's blood on..
-Dyleski who couldn't keep his story straight about the causes of his scratches..who couldn't keep his story straigtht about the so called encounter..

[awakening2lite]

Beebee, awakening & attorney:

You all didn't post anything today, I "tune in" daily to watch you discuss this case. I must say I am glad I'm not on a jury for this kid because you guys have me going back and forth. :read:


Hi Kellapple :seeya:

I'd be very interested to read what you think about the case. What stands out in your mind and what do you wish you had more information about?

[awakening2lite]

Does anyone know what safeguards were placed on the trailer following the murder? Was a guard on duty 24/7, and if so, for how long? Was there more than that sticky yellow LE tape to prevent someone from entering the trailer?

I've never seen this discussed and haven't read anything on it. I am very interested in knowing how long the premises were secured from intrusion following the discover of the crime.

TIA to anyone who knows and please include a link. :read:

[Beebee]

Beebee, awakening & attorney:

You all didn't post anything today, I "tune in" daily to watch you discuss this case. I must say I am glad I'm not on a jury for this kid because you guys have me going back and forth. :read:

Since this board will be closing I'm continuing here with AW2B and Wake.

http://sleuthingforjustice.com/

Just PM me your user name and I will activate your account over there.

[Kellapple]

Hi Kellapple :seeya:

I'd be very interested to read what you think about the case. What stands out in your mind and what do you wish you had more information about?

Thanks for asking. When I first read this story I was saddened by the fact that it was such a young man that committed this crime. I was also sad for the husband for losing his wife as I had the impression that they were happily married. With today's headlines and all the crime I had no doubt that what I read was the truth. I believe in law enforcement and I don't usually believe in conspiracies. I can't imagine the husband running around smearing dna here and there and hoping it will be found.

My basic impression is that Scott did commit this crime.

IMO:patriot:

[awakening2lite]

Thanks for asking. When I first read this story I was saddened by the fact that it was such a young man that committed this crime. I was also sad for the husband for losing his wife as I had the impression that they were happily married. With today's headlines and all the crime I had no doubt that what I read was the truth. I believe in law enforcement and I don't usually believe in conspiracies. I can't imagine the husband running around smearing dna here and there and hoping it will be found.

My basic impression is that Scott did commit this crime.

IMO:patriot:

Hi Kellapple :seeya: Thanks for responding.

I usually find myself on the side with the prosecution and the LE. They deserve our full support and confidence, however I believe they are not beyond reproach or err. The Justice system implies we are not to simply take the proof offered at face value, but must weigh that value. If LE always got it right or the DA was never wrong, we would not need a defense or jury, but only a Judge for sentencing.

Here's a few interesting facts from the case:

Pamela did not answer a phone call at 9:15
Pamela's computer activity ended at 10:21
The coroner could not offer an exact time of death, but instead offered a range of several hours.

Why didn't Pamela answer the phone?
Why did her computer show her searching for people she had already found?
Did auto page refresh cause the activity to continue after 9:15?

Whose fingerprint was on the bloody zipper pull of the duffel bag?
What happened to the rest of the bloody clothes?
How could Scott have cleaned up at the van?

What time did Pamela die?

[Aslan]

Hi awake :seeya:
Just reading the last few pages before heading into work, wanted to offer my opinion on your questions. Hope that's okay

Why didn't Pamela answer the phone?
Maybe she was in the shower? About her hair being dry, I can't tell you how many times I've washed my hair the day before and put it in a cap while showering. Just a thought. Maybe she was charging the phone in the other room and didn't hear it? Maybe she just plain didn't want to talk at the moment? (eating, not in a talkative mood etc.)

Why did her computer show her searching for people she had already found?

I've done this. Especially if a friend told me about something (say they were written about or wrote something neat to add to a website) If I didn't remember all of the details I would plug in their name and trust google's magic. Keep in mind what Ms. Darge wrote about her on her memorial website, about the reunion she arranged. Maybe she said "Hey I added a testimonial to ancestry.com telling people about what you did, wonder if they will post it" or some such. Would that be within reason? Again maybe she was just doing a search to see if anyone had picked up on the really neat experience she was a part of.

Did auto page refresh cause the activity to continue after 9:15?
She had auto refresh activated on her computer at the time of her death? I'm sorry that I didn't see that in the transcript. That seems odd, to have an auto refresh on your computer. Annoying, imo. If I'm reading something the last thing I want is the page to blink every 30-60 seconds, and scroll up on what I was reading if there were updates or new posts. Could you just point me to the testimony? As bizarre as I suppose I find that, I'm not saying it wasn't enabled. I just would like to read it. TIA.

Whose fingerprint was on the bloody zipper pull of the duffel bag?

This is a good question. I suppose it will be answered around the same time it's explained why Scott had a swollen arm and wrist.
Seems some things aren't so easily answered, I guess.

What happened to the rest of the bloody clothes?

His mother burned things, this goes without question. I don't think it would be reasonable to fault the jury for not exactly believing her when she recounted that the only things she burned were..paper.

How could Scott have cleaned up at the van?

I'm not sure about this one. I don't think he did clean up at the van. I can't offer some great proof as to why, though. So I won't even try.


What time did Pamela die?

This is another good question. One only her killer knows for sure. He certainly isn't talking.

:rose: Pam and her 2 children. Christmas must be hard for them

[attorneywan2be]

Pamela did not answer a phone call at 9:15

IMO

Maybe she didn't hear the phone ring..maybe she didn't check for missed calls..I have done that! there is nothing unusual about this..I have discovered a missed call few hours later..

Pamela's computer activity ended at 10:21

IMO

I think the computer activity ended at 10:12..so they figured she was attacked at that time..

Why did her computer show her searching for people she had already found?

IMO

What do you mean by "searching for people she had already found"? She was searching family-tree websites for someone she knew "Susan Darge"..I mean people search for their own names..how well does one know oneself? Again there is nothing unususal about this ..

Did auto page refresh cause the activity to continue after 9:15?

IMO

There was ZERO evidence that auto refresh occurred..the activiy stopped at 10:12..late at night the computer was in the police custody..so whatever happened then could be due to actions taken by their computer techs or whatever..

Whose fingerprint was on the bloody zipper pull of the duffel bag?

Please post the testimony that they found a fingerprint on the bloody zipper pull of the duffel bag...I can't find any information on that...TIA

What happened to the rest of the bloody clothes?

IMO

Your guess is as good as mine..it's not really a good question in a case where evidence was burned..no one can say with certainty that his mother didn't burn the clothes he wore when he committed the crime..

How could Scott have cleaned up at the van?

IMO

Who said he did? who knows what he did! Not knowing the answer to this question doesn't mean Dyleski should have been found "Not guilty"..in any crime there would be some unanswered questions only the killer would know..however, the OVERWHELMING evidence points squarely to Dyleski!

What time did Pamela die?

IMO

Again we are guessing that she died right around the time the computer activity ended at around 10:12 am...not knowing the exact time doesn't set Dyleski free..there is OVERWHELMING evidence he did it..and there is ZERO evidence he was framed..!

[awakening2lite]

about the bag and zipper:

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:Bj5Y0p-5yrgJ:www.newsmakingnews.com/kd,dyleski,science,8,20,06.htm+vitale,+bag,+zipper ,+blood&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

EXCERPT

Collins described how deputy sheriffs and criminalists followed the process of evidence collection on October 20, 2005. They located the evidence, used sterile gloves to bag and seal it, then tagged it and gave it to Eric Collins, the chief criminalist on the scene. Whether or not Collins placed it and logged into a secure evidence locker remains an unknown. This link in the chain of evidence was not established. However, Collins, who picked up the evidence, testified that he analyzed that evidence at the Contra Costa County criminalist lab. Presumably, it was stored there. Collins also described how he attempted to detect DNA on the evidence by taking swabs of some of the evidence, cutting samples of some evidence and subjecting other evidence to fluorescent light examination.

Eric Collins testified that he arrived at 1050 Hunsacker after his participation in the arrest of Scott Dyleski in Walnut Creek. At the Curiel home he found a black duffel bag on the porch, with an airline tag reading “Dyleski, Scott”. He was told that reserve sheriff’s deputy Rick Kovar had collected the bag from an abandoned van on the Curiel's property. The integrity of the chain of evidence was destroyed when Kovar left the bag evidence unattended on the porch of the Curiel home.

On August 2, 2006 Rick Kovar testified that he removed the duffel bag from an abandoned 1986 Toyota van registered to Scott Dyleski's mother, Esther Fielding. That van was parked at the time on the property at 1050 Hunsacker Road. Kovar showed the jury a ski mask, a black coat, black long sleeve shirt and one black glove he said he found inside the bag.

Proper evidence collection procedure requires that the entire van be processed and does not allow the piecemeal removal of evidence. In this instance Kovar presumably extracted certain items from the van perhaps with his bare hands and placed the evidence on the porch.

On August 10, 2006, Donald Finley, laboratory aide for the Contra Costa Sheriff’s department described the procedure he used when he processed what was left of the van’s contents. The vehicle processing was done in the Sheriff's Concord center. He began by taking overall photographs and he noted the vehicles license number and its general condition both inside and outside. He took notes. Using sterile gloves he picked up evidence, performed presumptive blood tests using sterile swabs. He then packaged the evidence and the swabs and sealed the individual packages.

This exacting procedure was non-existent during Kovar’s search of the van. Kovar's search of the van took place while the other law enforcement offices were “freezing” the scene without a search warrant. Deputy District Attorney Harold Jewett, now trying the murder case, was present at 1050 Hunsacker during the “freeze”. It was not until later that night that a warrant would be obtained based on probable cause. The probable cause was information supplied by Robin Croen, Dyleski friend and partner in a credit card scheme, who had been given immunity from prosecution to testify against Dyleski.

EXCERPT
Public defender Ellen Leonida did not cross-examine volunteer Kovar to establish his training or background and/or to determine his possible connections to anyone involved in the Dyleski case. She did not delve into how his conduct affected the evidence that he had collected. She did not elicit testimony as to how long this duffel bag was on the porch.

EXCERPT
Criminalist Collins testified that he performed tests for blood on the contents of the duffel bag. Using a diagram showing bag, he pointed out all of the places where presumptive blood was found. Those areas were the handle of the bag, the zipper pull and one area on the bottom of the bag.

EXCERPT
David Stockwell testified that he tested two samples from two separate areas of the duffel bag itself. He testified the grip and the zipper clasp area. The zipper clasp area, 1

EXCERPT
Next, Stockwell testified about the one black glove found in the duffel bag. He obtained four samples from the glove, two from the exterior of the glove and two from the interior. Blood had saturated through the fabric. Three of the samples, which were presumably blood, had the profile of Vitale. A sample obtained from inside the glove did not match Vitale or Dyleski. It had two alleles that Dyleski did not possess. Stockwell testified that Dyleski was not the source of this DNA and that there must be a third person present. There was no evidence that this sample was run through the FBI Codex or tested against the DNA of any other parties.

=======================
Who is the third contributor? Who did the blond hairs belong to?
What happened to the bag while it waited on the porch for the search warrent?
There are a lot of questions to be asked about the bag, zipper and blond hair. Not to mention, searching without a warrent and improper proceedures in the handling of evidence.

IMO

[awakening2lite]

Here's an interesting tidbit:

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:Bj5Y0p-5yrgJ:www.newsmakingnews.com/kd,dyleski,science,8,20,06.htm+vitale,+bag,+zipper ,+blood&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

EXCERPT

Contrary to press reports that Harmor found a complete match of the male DNA in the blood sample from Vitale's foot to Dyleski's sample, the fact is that 1 in 1,189 persons have the male DNA found in the blood swabbed from Pamela Vitale’s foot. Stockwell’s analysis that 1 in 43,000 Caucasians have the genetic profile of Dyleski regarding this sample is based on a “partial profile” and an admittedly “insufficient profile”. Stockwell thought so little of this partial and insufficient profile affected by masking, that he turned over the analysis to Harmor who used a presumably more refined test called the YSTR test. Although 17 of 17 of Dyleski’s YSTR markers matched those in the YSTR profile in the blood sample, it is also a fact that in the human population, 1 out of 1,189 human beings has the same 17 out of 17 markers.

[awakening2lite]

and this:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:Bj5Y0p-5yrgJ:www.newsmakingnews.com/kd,dyleski,science,8,20,06.htm+vitale,+bag,+zipper ,+blood&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

EXCERPT
Collins testified that when he photographed Dyleski following his arrest, his hair was black. He had no remarkable lacerations or bruises. The connective tissue in his mouth, which can tear during a violent struggle, was intact. His injuries were superficial in nature.

EXCERPT
On re-re cross Leona asked Collins if these hairs were sent to the lab for analysis. He responded “No”. Again it is very clear that the laboratory performed tests that were very selective by choice and made no attempts to identify third-party DNA, unidentified hair, and/or third party fingerprints. Why? Could it be possible that some other perpetrator in

[attorneywan2be]

Hi Wake..

Where does it say that they found a fingerprint on the bloody zipper pull of the duffel bag as you stated? As far as I know no one testified to that...!

[awakening2lite]

Hi Wake..

Where does it say that they found a fingerprint on the bloody zipper pull of the duffel bag as you stated? As far as I know no one testified to that...!

I couldn't find a reference to it either. References are drying up like river beds in the desert.

IMO, there would have/could have/should have been a finger print in the blood found on the zipper as the perp unzipped the bag to insert the clothes, hince the blood on the zipper.


imo

[attorneywan2be]

I couldn't find a reference to it either. References are drying up like river beds in the desert.

IMO, there would have/could have/should have been a finger print in the blood found on the zipper as the perp unzipped the bag to insert the clothes, hince the blood on the zipper.


imo

IMO

Not necessarily..Dyleski could have partially unzipped the duffel bag when he was still wearing the glove..then inserted the ski mask and glove!

[awakening2lite]

IMO

Not necessarily..Dyleski could have partially unzipped the duffel bag when he was still wearing the glove..then inserted the ski mask and glove!

And, sadly, there is nothing to indicate they looked for prints or tested the zip or handle of the bag for dna or anything other than preliminary tests for blood.


imo

[Kellapple]

I was just curious if all these points were brought up at Scott's trial. I would think a jury would have all the facts to compare (maybe more than we know from just the media accounts). I mean not everything gets made public especially in case of new trials etc. And is Scott eligible for a new trial?

[Beebee]

Hey anyone who followed this discussion and would like to continue....

Go here:

http://sleuthingforjustice.com/

Happy New Year to everyone :seeya:

[Just Peachy]

Hey anyone who followed this discussion and would like to continue....

Go here:

http://sleuthingforjustice.com/

Happy New Year to everyone

You forgot to inform everyone that you are only allowed to post there if you say Scott Dylansky and Scott Peterson are innocent. Can't show facts that prove they are both guilty, nope can't have that now can we?

mho

:rolleyes: :no:

[vislaw]

I'm a former trial attorney and I've always found it fascinating to observe the way people react to high profile trials. There clearly are psychological factors at work that lead people to embrace opinions one way or the other so that their "analysis" of evidence and testimony quite often is highly influenced by those opinions.

The other day I met a very articulate and intelligent woman who was utterly convinced that the planes did not bring down the towers. She shares that view with many people globally even though almost every credible engineer and scientist opines otherwise. There seems to be a deep seated need on the part of many people to see frame-ups or conspiracies and I believe that many people who frequent Sleuthing for Justice and similar sites are invested into their opinion mindset to the point that objective assessment is not possible on their part. Of course, the same can be said about many people who are conviction-oriented in high profile cases. They, too, marshall the facts to fit what they "want" the outcome to be. I find Nancy Grace to often be more interested in convictions than truth.

In some cases it's a familial bond or association with the defendant that leads people to want to see all facts in a framework of innocence. Consider the emphatic claims of innocence for Neil Entwistle by his family or the claims of Casey Anthony's parents on her behalf in spite of what looks pretty clearly damning evidence at this point. I was not surprised to read that Philip Markoff's fiance is still adamantly proclaiming his innocence in the face of what appears to be rather ironclad evidence to the contrary. There are huge motivations on the part of family members to NEED to believe in innocence and I'm certainly understanding of those forces. The point is, though, that when people lose objectivity their opinions lose weight.

In other cases there are social factors that can dramatically affect how one views evidence (i.e., very predominant support for OJ within the black community who distrusted the L.A. police).

I try very hard to be a skeptic when considering cases like this. I also remember very well how the great Louis Nizer often said that truth will leave crumbs that often will show up in the way people behave. So, I do believe you have to carefully look at how Dyleski's mother acted and at how he behaved in addition to the facts and evidence. In my (admittedly personal) opinion, the overwhelming weight squares with the conviction of Scott Dyleski. His defenders have to resort to claiming he was set up or framed to refute all of the evidence -- a weak postion to operate from indeed.

[Liam1306]

I will get to the alibi, give me a moment.

First of all there is no motive to completely annihilate Pam Vitale, unless she knows whom you are. This is personal; she knows her attacker.

Second, the police officer brothers? This places both in the position of supporting each other and protecting the family name, instead of following the evidence.

All of the evidence in this case should be available for the same "touch DNA" utilized in the JonBenet Ramsey case.

How many of the law enforcement officers investigating this murder are former narcotics officers; this is what they do. "Discover" a name and then throw enough garbage at it until something sticks.

"Evidence" allegedly recovered months after the alleged prime suspect was arrested, searched and moved out by the property owners, is not evidence of premeditation, or guilt, but probable cause evidence of dereliction of duty, incompetence, conspiracy, or staging. It is not evidence. It is contaminated, and fruit of the posionous tree.

Public defenders answer to their boss, and as such are restrained from expending critically short funds for "loser" cases. What was the level of experience of this public defender?

Statistically, this entire case if in error.

The only evidence is the first dog scent trail, leading to the trailer.
Both the public defender and the DA petitioned for removal of this prima facie (sic) evidence, this raises suspicion of collusion; if not in this case, then in another.

In fact, this case raises reasonable suspicion of being a revenge murder, or murder for hire.

There are only two types of people who would "think" they know enough about violent crimes, to even attempt something like this; law enforcement officers, or criminal defense attorneys.

The initial 911 call from the home phone, immediately abandoned by the husband in favor of his cell phone to a police department? The only reason for this would be to erase the redial/recall/call trace of the last local number called/recieved.

This would only be important, if the husband was involved, knew about and had to eliminate this evidence.

Which pros witnesses were police snitches prior to, or after?

There are a whole lot of festering motives for this type of explosive display and none of them can be attributed to someone without a personal history with the victim.

A good DA can indict, try and prosecute a ham and cheese sandwich, for not tasting like he "thought" it should.

Best bet is re-analysis of all DNA evidence; and they should still have it all.

Everything about the alibi supports probable cause that this juvenile did not commit this crime, because if he was involved, it would be iron clad.

This is a kid and this crime represents an experienced adult personality in competition with and in all probability, a personal/professional relationship with the LE officers investigating their own crime.

[Beebee]

There are only two types of people who would "think" they know enough about violent crimes, to even attempt something like this; law enforcement officers, or criminal defense attorneys.



Does this seem like normal police behavior to you?

http://www.justiceforscottdyleski.com/leaddetectivelies.html

[Beebee]

I'm a former trial attorney and I've always found it fascinating to observe the way people react to high profile trials. There clearly are psychological factors at work that lead people to embrace opinions one way or the other so that their "analysis" of evidence and testimony quite often is highly influenced by those opinions.

The other day I met a very articulate and intelligent woman who was utterly convinced that the planes did not bring down the towers. She shares that view with many people globally even though almost every credible engineer and scientist opines otherwise. There seems to be a deep seated need on the part of many people to see frame-ups or conspiracies and I believe that many people who frequent Sleuthing for Justice and similar sites are invested into their opinion mindset to the point that objective assessment is not possible on their part. Of course, the same can be said about many people who are conviction-oriented in high profile cases. They, too, marshall the facts to fit what they "want" the outcome to be. I find Nancy Grace to often be more interested in convictions than truth.

In some cases it's a familial bond or association with the defendant that leads people to want to see all facts in a framework of innocence. Consider the emphatic claims of innocence for Neil Entwistle by his family or the claims of Casey Anthony's parents on her behalf in spite of what looks pretty clearly damning evidence at this point. I was not surprised to read that Philip Markoff's fiance is still adamantly proclaiming his innocence in the face of what appears to be rather ironclad evidence to the contrary. There are huge motivations on the part of family members to NEED to believe in innocence and I'm certainly understanding of those forces. The point is, though, that when people lose objectivity their opinions lose weight.

In other cases there are social factors that can dramatically affect how one views evidence (i.e., very predominant support for OJ within the black community who distrusted the L.A. police).

I try very hard to be a skeptic when considering cases like this. I also remember very well how the great Louis Nizer often said that truth will leave crumbs that often will show up in the way people behave. So, I do believe you have to carefully look at how Dyleski's mother acted and at how he behaved in addition to the facts and evidence. In my (admittedly personal) opinion, the overwhelming weight squares with the conviction of Scott Dyleski. His defenders have to resort to claiming he was set up or framed to refute all of the evidence -- a weak postion to operate from indeed.

LOL

"His defenders"

So you are a "former trial attorney" who now spends time posting at the Tru TV message board.... I find that kind of odd. Is business slow? Are you retired and miss chatting at the water cooler about all those high profile cases?

I find it fascinating that some people, such as yourself, feel the need to justify your own opinions by attempting to attack the credibility of those that don't agree with you, or happen to see things from a perspective that you are unable to see. If you want to discuss, why not just stick to the evidence?

First up.... why is there no dna from Scott Dyleski in the alleged murder glove?