Scott Dyleski-- please read, need opinions

[Beebee]

Please analyze the following alibi for Scott Dyleski. Tell me if you agree that it is rock solid... then tell me how he can be serving LWOP for the murder of Pam Vitale?!

The simple fact is, nobody can be in two places at one time. If this alibi is solid then that ALONE exonerates Dyleski and proves he was framed. (There are other indicators that he was framed, but for now, I'm just trying to focus on the alibi).

I have all the court testimony you need to examine this posted on this website:

http://justiceforscottdyleski.com/

You can read about the alibi here:

http://justiceforscottdyleski.com/scottsrocksolidalibi.html


Thanks,

BB

[One2Snoop]

I have a few questions for you Beebee.

1) How do you explain away the multiple scratches on SD aside from the lousey bushes that scratched him as he ran frantically from Pamela and Daniels home?
2) How do you explain away Pamela's blood on Scott's clothing that his mother tried to discard?
3) How do you explain away the forensic evidence found in Pamela and Daniels home that traced to SD?

I don't see any cover up or framing going on here.

Just my 2 cents.

[One2Snoop]

One other thing after I reread your post. FWIW it almost sounds like a replay of the Scott Peterson case. From my understanding he was framed too. Small world Northern California is, don't you think? :cool:

Scott Peterson wasn't framed and neither was Scott Dyleski. IMO, JMO :patriot:

[Beebee]

One2snoop,

I will address your questions even though they have nothing to do with my post. I'm asking for review of the alibi. I want opinions on the FOUR time checks done by Fred Curiel, and what time people think he left his home the day Pam was murdered.... so please address the albi.

As to your questions.

1. Scott Dyleski only had (very) minor scratches.... two I think... completely consistent with being hit with brush in the area. On the other hand, take a look at Pam Vitale's autopsy. You can find it in the link on my first post.

2. Scott's mother never tried to discard any clothing. That is blatantly false info and I don't know where you are getting it.

3. No forensics at the scene at all that tied Dyleski to the scene. None. Nada. Again, you are posting blatantly false information.

Now, how about that alibi?

ps- This case has absolutely nothing to do with Scott Peterson, that discussion is in a different forum. If I want to discuss that case, I'll go there.

[Jo_Momma_82]

She admitted on stand that she burned his belongings, I don't know if that included clothes though ....

http://www.nbc11.com/news/9662856/detail.html

Dyleski's Mother Burned Possessions, Withheld Knife


POSTED: 2:16 pm PDT August 10, 2006
UPDATED: 7:04 pm PDT August 10, 2006

[/URL] (http://www.newsvine.com/_tools/seed?popoff=0&u=http://www.nbc11.com/news/9662856/detail.html) (http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&title=Dyleski%27s%20Mother%20Burned%20Possessions% 2C%20Withheld%20Knife&url=http://www.nbc11.com/news/9662856/detail.html) (http://reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbc11.com%2Fnews%2F966 2856%2Fdetail.html&title=Dyleski's%20Mother%20Burned%20Possessions%2C %20Withheld%20Knife)[URL="javascript:popUp("] (javascript:popUp('/print/9662856/detail.html','width=460,height=400,scrollbars');)


MARTINEZ, Calif. -- Scott Dyleski's mother testified Thursday that she destroyed her son's possessions and withheld a knife from investigators, NBC11's Jodi Hernandez reported.

Esther Fielding, 54, spent 90 minutes on the witness stand Thursday. It was her second day of testifying.

Her 17-year-old son is standing trial for the special circumstances murder of 52-year-old Pamela Vitale, the wife of attorney and legal analyst Daniel Horowitz.

According to prosecutors, Dyleski bludgeoned Vitale to death as part of a plot to buy marijuana-growing equipment using stolen credit card information.

Fielding said she burned Dyleski's belongings after he was arrested.

"I pretty much burned everything that was burnable," Fielding said.

The destroyed items included a red notebook that Fielding described as a calendar and anarchist diary that she thought could be misunderstood.

The prosecutor showed her a knife and asked her if she recognized it. She said no.

Then the prosecutor asked, "Is this the knife you dropped off (to investigators after your son was arrested)?"

"Oh that's right. Yeah, yeah, that's the knife I dropped off," Fielding said.

Fielding said she didn't turn in the knife because she had forgotten about it.

"It was at the bottom of my bag and I had forgotten about it," Fielding said.

[Beebee]

I've read both her prelim and trial testimony (prelim is on the website if you are interested) and she never burned clothes. Prior to Pam's murder Scott got involved in a credit card scam and tried to order supplies to grow pot.... a very stupid teen move... and he got busted right before Pam's murder, although he didn't know it yet, adults were finding out.

Esther found out right after the murder from the very hostile neighbor Karen Schneider who went on to say there was an error on the (BILLING) address and the street number was Vitale, and Karen's insane hysteria saw a "connection" to the murder. This caused a domino panic effect because people were under stress. Add the fact that Karen had run over Esther's dog and could have hit one of the Curiel children who were standing close by... things were very tense to start with.

The behavior of the Curiels caused Scott's arrest, and their own little "investigation" cost the REAL investigation a witness to Pam being alive and OUT in her car around 9:00ish that morning. JMO

Anyway... Esther knew that credit card scam had nothing to do with Pam's murder, and she had a knee jerk reaction as a mother trying to prevent unwarranted suspicion on her son... Hindsight shows it was a really BAD move... but I won't judge her. I have a son too.

So, no clothes got burned, only items from a teen cc scam to grow pot.

[Jo_Momma_82]

Thanks, you know I haven't heard much on his case.... I'm going to start reading up on it and check out the links you posted up top.

[One2Snoop]

One2snoop,

I will address your questions even though they have nothing to do with my post. I'm asking for review of the alibi. I want opinions on the FOUR time checks done by Fred Curiel, and what time people think he left his home the day Pam was murdered.... so please address the albi.

As to your questions.

1. Scott Dyleski only had (very) minor scratches.... two I think... completely consistent with being hit with brush in the area. On the other hand, take a look at Pam Vitale's autopsy. You can find it in the link on my first post.

2. Scott's mother never tried to discard any clothing. That is blatantly false info and I don't know where you are getting it.

3. No forensics at the scene at all that tied Dyleski to the scene. None. Nada. Again, you are posting blatantly false information.

Now, how about that alibi?

ps- This case has absolutely nothing to do with Scott Peterson, that discussion is in a different forum. If I want to discuss that case, I'll go there.

I'm not posting blatantly false info - I'm certain I read those things at one time or another -

snipped...

The prosecution has called people who lived in the house, his girlfriend and the friend that he planned to begin a pot-growing operation with, an endeavor prosecutors claim lead to the death of Vitale when Dyleski thought the equipment he ordered had been delivered to her home.

Highlights of the testimony thus far include:


Prosecutors established a 33-minute timeline in which Scott Dyleski could have committed the murder, from the time Vitale did a search on her computer at 10:12 a.m. and when he arrived back home at 10:45 a.m.

Housemates saw fresh scratches and cuts on Dyleski's nose and face that were still bleeding when he arrived home.

Three days after Vitale was killed, a housemate overheard Dyleski tell girlfriend in a loud voice, "Once they find my DNA on her body they're going to come after me."

After Dyleski and his mother moved out of the house, a note was found in a dresser used by the teen that included a list: "knockout/kidnap, question, keep captive to confirm PINS, dirty work, dispose of evidence, cut up and bury."

On the night Vitale was killed, Dyleski told his girlfriend it would take 36 or 39 bludgeoning "whacks" to kill a person, she told the court.

The 33-minute opportunity is an important point for the prosecution, since the defense claims that Dyleski was at home at the time of the murder. Details of the testimony can be found in the articles below.

http://crime.about.com/b/a/257081.htm?p=1

and.....

Earlier in the morning, Fielding's sister, Marjorie Fielding, said that two days after Dyleski's arrest, on Oct. 21, she watched her sister burn a sealed box of gloves and a red notebook or address book in the fireplace of her Bolinas home.

Esther Fielding confirmed during her testimony that she had burned items including a notebook, papers noting people's account information, and a box of gloves, which, along with articles of clothing and her son's backpack, had been brought to her sister's Bolinas home by Dyleski's girlfriend and the girlfriend's mother.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=3913606

[Jadedblueeyes]

One2snoop,

I will address your questions even though they have nothing to do with my post. I'm asking for review of the alibi. I want opinions on the FOUR time checks done by Fred Curiel, and what time people think he left his home the day Pam was murdered.... so please address the albi.

As to your questions.

1. Scott Dyleski only had (very) minor scratches.... two I think... completely consistent with being hit with brush in the area. On the other hand, take a look at Pam Vitale's autopsy. You can find it in the link on my first post.

2. Scott's mother never tried to discard any clothing. That is blatantly false info and I don't know where you are getting it.

3. No forensics at the scene at all that tied Dyleski to the scene. None. Nada. Again, you are posting blatantly false information.

Now, how about that alibi?

ps- This case has absolutely nothing to do with Scott Peterson, that discussion is in a different forum. If I want to discuss that case, I'll go there.

Hi Bee.

I don't know why it is important that Scott's injuries must be like Pamela's.:shrug: OJ was in a close hand to hand combat with two people that were fighting for their lives. They were shredded with knife wounds yet he had one nick on his knuckle.:shrug: The one with the weapon is going to inflict many more injuries on the victim than the victim ever will to the perp. I also remember reading that when he was arrested and brought in he had nasty bruises on his thigh... most likely from a kick imo.

Sure there was forensic evidence at the scene. Shoe print pattern imprints are always forensic evidence in any case. The jury had the photos of the shoe imprint pattern and they had his shoes, themselves. No expert in any trial ever says a shoe print is an exact match since those shoes are massed produced. To say it was a match they would have had to be at the crime scene when he stepped on the lid. Therefore experts say it is "consistent with" or "similar" and the jury who is the trier of fact decides if it indeed is a match and a fact. Visuals are very easy evidence for juries to understand. We as human beings have been matching things up ever since we were born. I remember the Father Robinson case when Henry Lee found the impression of the dagger letter opener in blood on the religious cloth. It was easy to see the medallion image that was at the top of the letter opener. The jury believed it was indeed the letter opener in evidence.

Even if you refuse to believe that he left his DNA on her foot then that does not remove the fact that her DNA was found on his shoe. The conspiracy goes out the window imo because no one in LE had this evidence. It was taken from the property by SD to his girlfriend the VERY day PV was murdered and they were finally turned in by his own mother.

I really didnt see much that she destroyed that would have been connected to his credit card scam except the account info. I think she did burn his diary. Imo she had read them before and they were frightening even to her and she knew if LE saw them they would know that SD was a very strange dark brooding young man.

I believe Fred was wrong but like so many of us if we take the time to think back and try to retrace the actual time.... we do so by what we did that day and when. I believe when they did that the Curiels knew it had to be later than they had thought at first.

imoo

[Beebee]

One2snoop,

From your media article above:

Prosecutors established a 33-minute timeline in which Scott Dyleski could have committed the murder, from the time Vitale did a search on her computer at 10:12 a.m. and when he arrived back home at 10:45 a.m.

This is exactly why I am asking for opinions on Scott's alibi. He was already home at the Curiel house when the Curiels left to go to the Spirit store. This isn't in dispute by anyone. I have given the links to prelim and trial testimony (as opposed to media reports) so you can review it for yourself. Take note of his FOUR time checks, and the activity surrounding those checks.

This is so important. It is impossible, literally, for Scott Dyleski to be in two places at one time, it is not *impossible* that he was framed.

So please take a look and review it. No matter how we (posters here) might agree or disagree on the differnt cases we follow here, I know nobody would want an innocent kid to be in prison.

Check it out.... you too please Ocean.

[Beebee]

Thanks, you know I haven't heard much on his case.... I'm going to start reading up on it and check out the links you posted up top.

You're welcome!

I'll be interested in your thoughts.

[packy]

I've always believed that Fred Curiel's original impression of the time was correct because of his reference to checking his pager. And it is puzzling that he offered some collaberation of verifying time by checking the time stamps on his computer, but yet it did not seem to be followed.

[Tangerine]

Freddy was given a piece of evidence to scent at 7:30 in the morning, the day after Pam was murdered. He scented the evidence at the crime scene, and then led detectives straight to Gerald Wheeler's cabin and to the bathroom, where clothing was soaking in red tinged water. Later that day, cadaver canines alerted in that same bathroom.


was this water ever tested to see if it was blood?

[Beebee]

Tangerine, iirc the items were soaking in red tinged water, but I don't know if it could be determined what it was due to the detergent.... oxy-clean I think.

Has anybody looked at this alibi :shrug:


We can all agree somebody can't be in two places at once.... right?? :shrug:


The really amazing thing about this case is the husband, Dan Horowitz was "so discounted from day one" and "never" considered a suspect. I guess people must think it's more likely a skinny teenager rage killed a complete stranger for no reason (which would be his first and only psychotic break of any kind) than to think the husband was capable of not only the kill, but the framing as well.

What a shame for the kid with no money or power.

MOO JMO

[Jayy]

Yup, they framed him. And OJ too.

[Mysteri]

I'm not posting blatantly false info - I'm certain I read those things at one time or another -

snipped...

The prosecution has called people who lived in the house, his girlfriend and the friend that he planned to begin a pot-growing operation with, an endeavor prosecutors claim lead to the death of Vitale when Dyleski thought the equipment he ordered had been delivered to her home.

Highlights of the testimony thus far include:


Prosecutors established a 33-minute timeline in which Scott Dyleski could have committed the murder, from the time Vitale did a search on her computer at 10:12 a.m. and when he arrived back home at 10:45 a.m.

Housemates saw fresh scratches and cuts on Dyleski's nose and face that were still bleeding when he arrived home.

Three days after Vitale was killed, a housemate overheard Dyleski tell girlfriend in a loud voice, "Once they find my DNA on her body they're going to come after me."

After Dyleski and his mother moved out of the house, a note was found in a dresser used by the teen that included a list: "knockout/kidnap, question, keep captive to confirm PINS, dirty work, dispose of evidence, cut up and bury."

On the night Vitale was killed, Dyleski told his girlfriend it would take 36 or 39 bludgeoning "whacks" to kill a person, she told the court.

The 33-minute opportunity is an important point for the prosecution, since the defense claims that Dyleski was at home at the time of the murder. Details of the testimony can be found in the articles below.

http://crime.about.com/b/a/257081.htm?p=1

and.....

Earlier in the morning, Fielding's sister, Marjorie Fielding, said that two days after Dyleski's arrest, on Oct. 21, she watched her sister burn a sealed box of gloves and a red notebook or address book in the fireplace of her Bolinas home.

Esther Fielding confirmed during her testimony that she had burned items including a notebook, papers noting people's account information, and a box of gloves, which, along with articles of clothing and her son's backpack, had been brought to her sister's Bolinas home by Dyleski's girlfriend and the girlfriend's mother.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=3913606



There is no doubt that Scott Dyleski murdered Pamela Vitale in cold blood.
As for an alibi, he didn't have one. The jurors agreed to that.

imo

[Beebee]

Is there a moderator here?

I believe this section is "Cases of interest that need sluething. Add your thoughts, research, and logic to the case".

Has anybody here actually researched what I have posted about the alibi in this case? I have given links to the court testimony, and will provide more if needed.

So far all I see are off topic comments, some disrespectful. I don't see anything actually addressing the alibi here.
By the way, I KNOW what the jury decided. I also know that the jury isn't always right, see the innocence project if you need a reference. In this case, the public defender did NOTHING for her client and imo that is why the jury missed this VERY important alibi.


So, anybody on the ALIBI please????

[Silveradotd]

Please analyze the following alibi for Scott Dyleski. Tell me if you agree that it is rock solid... then tell me how he can be serving LWOP for the murder of Pam Vitale?!

The simple fact is, nobody can be in two places at one time. If this alibi is solid then that ALONE exonerates Dyleski and proves he was framed. (There are other indicators that he was framed, but for now, I'm just trying to focus on the alibi).

I have all the court testimony you need to examine this posted on this website:

http://justiceforscottdyleski.com/

You can read about the alibi here:

http://justiceforscottdyleski.com/scottsrocksolidalibi.html


Thanks,

BB
Hi There. Well I did go and read all there was to read, went to the web site as well and read all that. went and did a little research on my own, And I must say his aliby is not good enough, it's just a bit weak. I'm sorry, This is just my Opinion, Again Sorrt. (IMO)

[Shelley420]

So Scott came home at 9:30...or 9:26 am and then he sat with Kim..for how long? The whole time until the family left at 10:26..or 10:27 am? Where was he supposedly at 10:12 am, the crucial time?

I have to agree, the alibi, as it is stated on the website, isn't really an alibi. It doesn't say where he was at the crucial time.

I have to admit, there seems to be doubt in this case. I don't know too much about it, only what I read on the website, but it isn't really convincing that he was the killer.

[Beebee]

Thanks to both of you for checking it out.

Time of death was based on when the victim stopped searching the internet-- her activity stopped at 10:12 AM.

That morning Scott went out for a walk. After he returned from his walk, his time is accounted for the rest of the entire day.

Several people living in the house saw him and interacted with him after he got home from his walk.

Those people then left the home to go shopping and they left at 10:20. That means Scott was home *before* 10:20.

Therefore he could not be at Vitale's home killing her at 10:12.

Does this make better sense?

I look forward to your comments. If you see a flaw here, please tell me.

Thanks!

[Beebee]

So Scott came home at 9:30...or 9:26 am and then he sat with Kim..for how long? The whole time until the family left at 10:26..or 10:27 am? Where was he supposedly at 10:12 am, the crucial time?

I have to agree, the alibi, as it is stated on the website, isn't really an alibi. It doesn't say where he was at the crucial time.

I have to admit, there seems to be doubt in this case. I don't know too much about it, only what I read on the website, but it isn't really convincing that he was the killer.

He was HOME at the crucial time.

Hmmm. I wonder if I should state it differently on the website?

By the way Scott and the victim were neighbors (who did not know each other) and the houses were about a mile apart. At least a ten minute walk at a very fast pace.

Thanks for the input.

[Portabella]

Okay, so I read it all, and I don't find that his alibi is iron clad, however I do feel he got an unfair trial. I also feel that evidence was suppressed that should not have been and he may not be a viable suspect/perp/murderer. So, you gave me reasonable doubt after reading for the past God knows how many hours. Now, I want to research this more. However, I have yet to find info on Wheeler? The cabin with the bloodstained water in the sink. Who was that and how would he be connected?

[Beebee]

Hi,

Thanks for taking the time to read. There is more info here: http://sleuthingforjustice.com/ and you can find info on Wheeler. I will also try to answer any questions you have or provide info if I can.

Can you tell me what problems you see with the alibi?

Thanks!

[Portabella]

They don't have an exact on the TOD of Ms. Vitale. Also there were some discrepancies as to how long it would take Dyleski to walk back to the Curiels home, 10 min or 20 min, either way I can see him having a window to have committed the murder. However with all the other evidence I have read there seems to have been negligence on the part of the police/detectives/investigators to examine all evidence and to follow up on all DNA tests available to them. Also there are things that are perplexing to me which leave me reasonable doubt at this point, need to research and study further.

[Beebee]

You are right, no TOD on Vitale..... but they have her surfing the net until 10:12. If Scott was home at that time, then he is in the clear because his time is accounted for the rest of the day -- right up until discovery of the body.

That's the reason the prosecution went with TOD at 10:12-- or rather that she was attacked at 10:12. They try to say Scott came home at 10:45... therefore had time to kill her.... but in reality, Scott was home by 9:26... before she was dead.

See what I mean?

[Portabella]

I totally can see what your saying, but...I am always a skeptic. I look at the bad side and work my way from there. As shoddy as the investigation was on this how did they determine that was the time on the computer. I mean was it from the computers clock or was it from the geneology site/forum time? There could be discrepancies there for sure. The alibi could be sound, but I just feel there is more to the laptop, something is not right with that since she was googling and searching on someone she already made contact with and befriended.

I mean the kid has a good alibi, its just not rock solid in my opinion. However, there are so many missing pieces to this puzzle, and the investigative team dropped the ball in a big way. Is there something I am missing? Also why would the Mr. C. recant his earlier testimony and deny knowing if Dyleski was at the house prior to going to the spirit store, that threw me too.

[Mysteri]

Scott Edgar Dyleski didn't have an alibi . That is one of the myriad reasons he was convicted:

"On Tuesday, Jewett began addressing the timeline of Dyleski's actions on the morning Vitale died. He called Kim Curiel, the wife of Fred Curiel, as a witness. She testified it was 10:45 a.m. when Dyleski walked through the front door that day.

Dyleski had scratches on his face, Curiel said, and a drop of blood was about to fall off the end of his nose.

Kim Curiel said she had been up since 8:30 and was on the living room couch grading student essays when Dyleski came in. Another of Dyleski's housemates, Michael Sikkema, had testified Monday he remembered Dyleski coming home about the same time as Kim Curiel recalled at 10:45 a.m."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060809/ai_n16659249

So at least two people corroborated the timeline which gave SED plenty of time to commit the barbaric murder.

He was livid because he thought Pamela Vitale had not only ratted on his use of identity theft ( hers ) to order hydroponic equipment for his cannibis crop but the coup de grace is that he belived she had also ran over his Mother's pet dog. A dog that suffered a slow and painful death. He was out for revenge and the murder was one of the most gruesome in California history !!

"Authorities believe Dyleski killed Vitale by striking her numerous times in the head, possibly with a rock, and then carved a symbol into her back while she was still alive. During the trial Prosecutors established that the symbol found on the victim's back closely resembled the letter "H" in the word "hate" from a bumper sticker reading "I'm for separation of Church and Hate", which was seized from Dyleski's bedroom. The symbol also was similar to what Dyleski used in signing his artwork. [5] Prosecutors also allege that Dyleski stabbed her in the stomach after she died. It was revealed at the trial he had a fascination with vivisection. Dyleski, who is 5 ft 5 in and weighs 110 pounds, had scratches on his face and legs consistent with a violent struggle when arrested. He had a swollen hand, wrist, and forearm which could have been caused by repeatedly using a rock as a bludgeon."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Dyleski

Scott Edgar Dyleski who was given to drinking a home-made hallucinogenic form of Absinthe broke her nose , wrist and hand, hit her in the mouth so hard as to knock her mouth far to one side of her face and displace most of her remaining teeth. Her breast was badly bruised , with cuts and contusions on the lower half of her body including the symbol he engraved on her lower back while she was still alive !!!

http://www.courttv.com/news/horowitz/docs/autopsy.html?page=6

He was so scared of being caught that he concocted an absurd tale of meeting Pamela in the woods where she grabbed his arm and put her DNA on him !!

Her DNA was found mingled with his on items in a duffel bag he hid where he lived.

His mother burned some of the evidence before the police could obtain it. That was testified to by her Sister and her Sister's companion.

He received a fair trial and fair sentence considering the mounds of evidence against him and his own admission to his GF that it took about 39 'whacks' to kill.

imo

[Portabella]

Again, I am going to have to read and read and then read some more and dissect this before I can give an educated opinion. I have not heard of this until I ran upon this post yesterday. The things that I found perplexing was the glove that had no DNA from Dyleski on it however it was saturated with the victims blood. The sniffer dogs leading to a home of this Wheeler. And the blonde hairs found on the victim that were so abundant that the coroner picked them off by hand as opposed to using tape to remove them as there were so many. These things throw me.

Also, the moving of the entertainment center in the home. The laptop with no blood on it. The husband never being questioned or polyed when that is normal in a case such as this. Some pieces just don't fit in my minds eye right now, I will have to research futher as I stated. But.....who know's???? Where do I find about Pam killing the dog?

[Mysteri]

Again, I am going to have to read and read and then read some more and dissect this before I can give an educated opinion. I have not heard of this until I ran upon this post yesterday. The things that I found perplexing was the glove that had no DNA from Dyleski on it however it was saturated with the victims blood. The sniffer dogs leading to a home of this Wheeler. And the blonde hairs found on the victim that were so abundant that the coroner picked them off by hand as opposed to using tape to remove them as there were so many. These things throw me.

Also, the moving of the entertainment center in the home. The laptop with no blood on it. The husband never being questioned or polyed when that is normal in a case such as this. Some pieces just don't fit in my minds eye right now, I will have to research futher as I stated. But.....who know's???? Where do I find about Pam killing the dog?

All your questions were explained well in the court room.

http://www.newsmakingnews.com/kd,dyleski,8,7,06,statements.htm

Actually Pam didn't kill the dog. Scott just thought that she did.

"The prosecution provided the jury with two possible motives and presented evidence that Dyleski had used stolen credit cards from his neighbors in Lafayette's Hunsaker Canyon neighborhood to purchase marijuana-growing equipment. Vitale's address and phone number was listed on the fraudulent orders, but the name and credit card numbers belonged to Karen Schneider, who lived on the property next to Vitale.

About two weeks before Vitale's murder, Dyleski's dog, Jazz, was struck by Schneider's car. And the day before the killing, Vitale had caught on to the credit card fraud and canceled the orders. Jewett theorized during his closing argument that perhaps Dyleski confused Vitale for Schneider. "

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060825/ai_n16700379


Kim Curiel said that it wss mistaken identity.


imo

[Jadedblueeyes]

Again, I am going to have to read and read and then read some more and dissect this before I can give an educated opinion. I have not heard of this until I ran upon this post yesterday. The things that I found perplexing was the glove that had no DNA from Dyleski on it however it was saturated with the victims blood. The sniffer dogs leading to a home of this Wheeler. And the blonde hairs found on the victim that were so abundant that the coroner picked them off by hand as opposed to using tape to remove them as there were so many. These things throw me.

Also, the moving of the entertainment center in the home. The laptop with no blood on it. The husband never being questioned or polyed when that is normal in a case such as this. Some pieces just don't fit in my minds eye right now, I will have to research further as I stated. But.....who know's???? Where do I find about Pam killing the dog?

No DNA found does not bother me Portabella. In the case now airing today on CTV about the college student who was murdered also had no DNA of her own on her own panties that she was wearing. They could pick up no traces yet they were worn by this young woman when found. There are so many variables why this can happen.

Imo this case had a tremendous amount of evidence in it that shows without any doubt whatsoever Scott Dyleski is very guilty of one of the most gruesome murders imaginable.

He even told his friends in order to bludgeon someone to death it would take about 36-39 whacks. This was said the same day that Pamela's murder had happened and no one really knew then that PV had been bludgeoned to death by repeated strikes to her head, face and body.

The viciousness is pure T evil imo done by a teenager with weird thoughts toward the macabre and a deep rage stored that erupted when he thought PV had killed his dog Jazz, which she didn't.

imoo

[Beebee]

Can we stay focused on the alibi please??

Why are people trying to de-rail this thread??

If you think Scott is guilty and only want to bash MOVE ON PLEASE :flamemad:

[One2Snoop]

Can we stay focused on the alibi please??

Why are people trying to de-rail this thread??

If you think Scott is guilty and only want to bash MOVE ON PLEASE :flamemad:

I'm sorry beebee, perhaps we got off on the wrong foot. (story of my life LOL). I don't tend to look at those who post with a comparison as someone whose trying to derail the thread. I think its only human nature to compare and worth a moment or two to step back and take a look at things. JMO
I'd politely like to ask how you expect people who strongly believe Scott Dyleski is guilty not to post here? I don't think its a healthy discussion if its only one sided, do you? I know your intent was to only ask people to look at the transcripts regarding the alibi and tell you why Scott couldn't possibly be guilty, but I don't think it works that way. This is an open (public) message board and you're always going to have those who don't agree IMO.

From all that I remember about the case I think Scott Dyleski is guilty.
I apoligize - I've had absolutely no time to study Scott Dyleski's case further - I will at some point in time but can't say when I'll be able to get back here to post although I honestly believe both sides need to be heard.
Thanks for starting this topic and I hope others will post their thoughts, for or opposing Scott Dyleski's alibi.

[Beebee]

Hi One2snoop, I'm not trying to shut out opposing sides.... I just feel this kid has a solid alibi and could not have been at Vitale's at 10:12 in the morning.

If that is the case, then a frame up needs to be considered, and I think that is exactly what happened in this case. There are other indicators. Like all the "evidence" having big time baggage-- to the point it doesn't even fit. Like none of Scott's dna on the so called murder glove... that is pretty much impossible if Scott wore that glove to rage kill her with his hands.

I'm trying to start with the alibi because we can all agree somebody can't be in two places at one time! But it IS possible to get framed.

I hope you will have the time to read more and discuss the case. If I'm missing something on this alibi then I hope somebody can point it out.


MOO

[Jadedblueeyes]

Hi One2snoop, I'm not trying to shut out opposing sides.... I just feel this kid has a solid alibi and could not have been at Vitale's at 10:12 in the morning.

If that is the case, then a frame up needs to be considered, and I think that is exactly what happened in this case. There are other indicators. Like all the "evidence" having big time baggage-- to the point it doesn't even fit. Like none of Scott's dna on the so called murder glove... that is pretty much impossible if Scott wore that glove to rage kill her with his hands.

I'm trying to start with the alibi because we can all agree somebody can't be in two places at one time! But it IS possible to get framed.

I hope you will have the time to read more and discuss the case. If I'm missing something on this alibi then I hope somebody can point it out.


MOO

Maybe, Beebee, instead of starting with his alibi it would be more logical to some if you could explain how this framing could have occurred and be pulled off without anyone remotely connecting it?

I just don't get the framing conspiracy part and how it would be achieved successfully from beginning to end.:shrug:

imoo:seeya:

[Mysteri]

No DNA found does not bother me Portabella. In the case now airing today on CTV about the college student who was murdered also had no DNA of her own on her own panties that she was wearing. They could pick up no traces yet they were worn by this young woman when found. There are so many variables why this can happen.

Imo this case had a tremendous amount of evidence in it that shows without any doubt whatsoever Scott Dyleski is very guilty of one of the most gruesome murders imaginable.

He even told his friends in order to bludgeon someone to death it would take about 36-39 whacks. This was said the same day that Pamela's murder had happened and no one really knew then that PV had been bludgeoned to death by repeated strikes to her head, face and body.

The viciousness is pure T evil imo done by a teenager with weird thoughts toward the macabre and a deep rage stored that erupted when he thought PV had killed his dog Jazz, which she didn't.

imoo

Those of us who live near that area of Contra Costa County are grateful that Scott Edgar Dyleski is in prison. His dabbling in Satanism and obsession with serial killers predisposed him to a life of crime.

His own mother was so sure he was guilty that she burned all the evidence against him she could get her hands on and sent away to lay low.' Kim Curiel knew he was guilty as well when she said she was so sorry that it had been someone in her own house to wreak such pain and misery on Pamela's family.
That was before the trial even began.
His girlfriend made it clear she too knew he was the guilty one.
He didn't have an alibi.

imo

[Mysteri]

It was established in a court of law in Martinez in Contra Costa County, California that Scott Edgar Dyleski did NOT have an alibi for the murder of Pamela Vitale:


"Kim Curiel said she had been up since 8:30 and was on the living room couch grading student essays when Dyleski came in. Another of Dyleski's housemates, Michael Sikkema, had testified Monday he remembered Dyleski coming home about the same time as Kim Curiel recalled at 10:45 a.m."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...9/ai_n16659249

There is NOTHING to show that either of them were lying or had ANY reason whatsoever to 'frame' Scott. Neither or both of them had killed her and 'set him up.'

imo

[The R]

I couldn't say for sure whether Scott was framed upon initial reading of facts surrounding the alibi, but I don't believe his alibi is strong at all. It seems dependent upon his housemates the Curiels. Fred recanted his original story that he saw Scott before 10am and Kim says she saw him at 10:45. Kim was the one that treated his scratches which would lead me to believe her story is more reliable since Fred says he was on a computer and didn't actually 'see' Scott at 9:26a.

I think suggesting he was framed based solely on the alibi and info from a questionable website is awful thin at best.

ALLMO,
R

[Beebee]

I couldn't say for sure whether Scott was framed upon initial reading of facts surrounding the alibi, but I don't believe his alibi is strong at all. It seems dependent upon his housemates the Curiels. Fred recanted his original story that he saw Scott before 10am and Kim says she saw him at 10:45. Kim was the one that treated his scratches which would lead me to believe her story is more reliable since Fred says he was on a computer and didn't actually 'see' Scott at 9:26a.

I think suggesting he was framed based solely on the alibi and info from a questionable website is awful thin at best.

ALLMO,
R


R,

Sure, it is dependent on the housemates. The three adults that were there were Fred, Kim and Mike.

That's three people.

Here is what they all agree on: That Scott came home from his walk, had a minor scratch on his nose, Kim put some ointment on it, Scott sat with her on the couch while she checked papers. Nobody disputes this. What Fred "recanted" was if he actually SAW Scott on the couch.... however, that is just Fred... and Fred wasn't focusing on Scott that morning. Kim was very clear Scott sat with her, Mike Sikemma was also sure of that fact.

So you agree that places Scott at the Curiel home before Fred and Kim left for the day??

So now it becomes important what time Fred and Kim left, and the most reliable person for that is Fred, because he checked his pager FOUR times. He knew what HE was doing each time he checked the pager and noted the time.

If you follow his time checks you will see it is very clear that the Curiels left the house to go shopping at 10:20-- the driveway about 10:26.

The sitting with Kim, the putting on of the ointment--- was all done and over with by 10:20.

Scott COULD NOT have been at Vitale's at 10:12.

Does that make it more clear?

[Beebee]

Maybe, Beebee, instead of starting with his alibi it would be more logical to some if you could explain how this framing could have occurred and be pulled off without anyone remotely connecting it?

I just don't get the framing conspiracy part and how it would be achieved successfully from beginning to end.:shrug:

imoo:seeya:


Ocean killers can and do frame people! They want to get away with murder, and framing somebody else is the best way. It would not be *easy*, and it would obviously be risky, but murder is risky. People will go to GREAT lengths to avoid getting caught and sent to prison.

Mistakes were made. Think of the baggage in this case. Mistakes were made.

I start with the alibi because a person can't be in two places at once..... but they CAN be framed.

MOO

[Beebee]

Those of us who live near that area of Contra Costa County are grateful that Scott Edgar Dyleski is in prison. His dabbling in Satanism and obsession with serial killers predisposed him to a life of crime.

His own mother was so sure he was guilty that she burned all the evidence against him she could get her hands on and sent away to lay low.' Kim Curiel knew he was guilty as well when she said she was so sorry that it had been someone in her own house to wreak such pain and misery on Pamela's family.
That was before the trial even began.
His girlfriend made it clear she too knew he was the guilty one.
He didn't have an alibi.

imo


I see you learned all about the case from the media.

You are misinformed. Scott never dabbled in satanism :rolleyes:
His goth syle phase was long over. He wasn't "obsessed" with serial killers. He had/has MANY interests.

You also don't know what people think. I can't tell you what Kim thinks.... but I CAN tell you Scott's mom never thought him guilty, she felt fearful for him, and I can surely see and understand why after the swat raid on the home.... Jena and her mother are two of Scott's biggest supporters-- they visit him and support him... so you are wrong in your assumptions.

I'm curious why do you keep calling him Scott Edgar Dyleski?? The gloating kind of creeps me out....

JMO

[Mysteri]

I see you learned all about the case from the media.

You are misinformed. Scott never dabbled in satanism :rolleyes:
His goth syle phase was long over. He wasn't "obsessed" with serial killers. He had/has MANY interests.

You also don't know what people think. I can't tell you what Kim thinks.... but I CAN tell you Scott's mom never thought him guilty, she felt fearful for him, and I can surely see and understand why after the swat raid on the home.... Jena and her mother are two of Scott's biggest supporters-- they visit him and support him... so you are wrong in your assumptions.

I'm curious why do you keep calling him Scott Edgar Dyleski?? The gloating kind of creeps me out....

JMO

We all learned about him from the media and his friends who said he was a Satanist and practically worshipped Charles Manson as well ( he listened to the sounds of Marilyn Manson BUT it was Charles who he revered ! His copy of the blood chilling 'Helter Skelter " was well worn. ) Why drag goth into this? It has nothing to do with this blood thirsty murder.

Calling a killer by their entire name assures that their identity isn't mistaken, as in the case of Scott Lee Peterson and all others.

Your rude accusation of 'gloating' is not only insulting and confrontational but misplaced.

I do not believe you are aware of what Miss Reddy and her mother think and do not know the thoughts of Esther Fielding who soon KNEW her son was guilty:

"When asked if she had taken her son's items, including shoes, a hard drive and absinthe bottles to her lawyer to give police voluntarily, she began to cry.

"Yes. It was the hardest thing I had to do in my life, but I had to know. I had to know," Fielding said. "

http://www.nbc11.com/news/9662856/detail.htm

Visiting someone in prison doesn't mean you consider them innocent at all.

Please stop insulting those with differing views. You say you 'need opinions' but when they are given, you shoot the messenger.


imo

[Heyes]

Please analyze the following alibi for Scott Dyleski. Tell me if you agree that it is rock solid... then tell me how he can be serving LWOP for the murder of Pam Vitale?!

The simple fact is, nobody can be in two places at one time. If this alibi is solid then that ALONE exonerates Dyleski and proves he was framed. (There are other indicators that he was framed, but for now, I'm just trying to focus on the alibi).

I have all the court testimony you need to examine this posted on this website:

http://justiceforscottdyleski.com/

You can read about the alibi here:

http://justiceforscottdyleski.com/scottsrocksolidalibi.html


Thanks,

BB
hi Beebee,
I'm glad your here and bringing this to the board.
I didn't get a chance to follow the trial the way I would like. My hinky meter was always going off on this case. There was something that just didn't ring true.
From what I've read Scott looks guilty. I am open to looking into this. I never understood the "pass" that was given to Pams husband. I would like to know more about this weever/wheeler guy. Some of the things I've read have ended up leaving me with more questions that answers. Little things. For instance I remember hearing that all the the horowitz assets were in the husband and his sisters names, not Pams. I don't know if that turned out to be true or not. I had heard that Pams husband Daniel was wanting to or purchasing the land around his estate. The land that wheever/wheeler was on as well as the land that Scott lived on. How when the house was finished the trailer was gone and the husband moved into the mansion,(I would have left that mountain and thoses horrible memories, but that's me) I was curious about the filing, not filing the restraining order on wheeler/weever? Pam being scared to death of this guy yet was alone on that mountain top. Her recent change in careers and now was working with her husband. ( I know I know, silly, but if he was messing around at work she sure put a damper on that) Just speculating folks, I have no idea what the truth is, but now that we are here.......
How many dogs did the horowitz's have and where were they. Daniel Horowitz's interviews, the devastating loss and then by trial a new girlfriend. The walk thru with Nancy Grace. And one more thing was the way the media slanted their reports to make Scott look worse than what he was. How misinformation was reported about him and never retracted. How this went to trial so fast when the suspect pleaded not guilty. I don't think I've ever seen things get in court so quickly. Lots of questions. But like I said from what I know up to this point scott does look guilty. but...... a frame up is possible.
IMO

[Beebee]

I do not believe you are aware of what Miss Reddy and her mother think and do not know the thoughts of Esther Fielding who soon KNEW her son was guilty:



I know them personally. Esther is a good friend of mine.

You are right.... I asked for opinions ON THE ALIBI, you gave yours. Thanks.

Have a good one.

[Jadedblueeyes]

hi Beebee,
I'm glad your here and bringing this to the board.
I didn't get a chance to follow the trial the way I would like. My hinky meter was always going off on this case. There was something that just didn't ring true.
From what I've read Scott looks guilty. I am open to looking into this. I never understood the "pass" that was given to Pams husband. I would like to know more about this weever/wheeler guy. Some of the things I've read have ended up leaving me with more questions that answers. Little things. For instance I remember hearing that all the the horowitz assets were in the husband and his sisters names, not Pams. I don't know if that turned out to be true or not. I had heard that Pams husband Daniel was wanting to or purchasing the land around his estate. The land that wheever/wheeler was on as well as the land that Scott lived on. How when the house was finished the trailer was gone and the husband moved into the mansion,(I would have left that mountain and thoses horrible memories, but that's me) I was curious about the filing, not filing the restraining order on wheeler/weever? Pam being scared to death of this guy yet was alone on that mountain top. Her recent change in careers and now was working with her husband. ( I know I know, silly, but if he was messing around at work she sure put a damper on that) Just speculating folks, I have no idea what the truth is, but now that we are here.......
How many dogs did the horowitz's have and where were they. Daniel Horowitz's interviews, the devastating loss and then by trial a new girlfriend. The walk thru with Nancy Grace. And one more thing was the way the media slanted their reports to make Scott look worse than what he was. How misinformation was reported about him and never retracted. How this went to trial so fast when the suspect pleaded not guilty. I don't think I've ever seen things get in court so quickly. Lots of questions. But like I said from what I know up to this point scott does look guilty. but...... a frame up is possible.
IMO

This is from my memory.

Joe Lynch and Wheeler both lived on property owned by Horowitz' sister. Lynch had sold his property with permission to stay on land for 10 years.

The property was not in Daniel Horowitz' name........only his sister's.

Imo he kept giving Lynch second chances every time Joe tried to improve his addiction. So he rescinded the ROS.

The trial now showing on CTV also went to trial fast after the murder occurred. The Vitale crime happened in 10-05 and it went to trial around the first of August 2006.

Horowitz had two German Sheppard. Nancy showed them and they looked like puppies not quite full grown. DH said they were gentle and his babies. No one ever disputed that. They were kept outside in a enclosed area away from the modular home unless Dan was walking them.

I think LE have sized up people for decades. I think they all were immediately sizing up DHs behavior and alibi. Imo he showed no deceit and was fully cooperating from moment one. Four days later they had found the connection to the killer and Pamela Vitale. Imo they received tips from informants about who did this.

DHs, now wife, was not employed in his law office until over a month after Pam's death. With Pam gone and with Valerie Harris being Susan Polk's gopher he had no one there even to man the phones before hiring this assistant.

Horowitz had the crime scene home dismantled and removed in April of 2006. He never spent another night in the modular home after the murder of his wife. The new home was not completed until August 2006.

I have never heard that DH was wanting to purchase the Cruiel home. He had never even met them. He had never met Scott or Esther either although Esther did call him for legal work but he told her to drop off the paperwork in his mailbox and he would fill it out for her.

My personal opinion about the girlfriend/wife is it started as employment then went to being very good friends. Imo Mr. Horowitz most likely had someone he could pour out his heart to that understood his loss. In time it became something more. It happens. The time line on anyone's life is not etched in stone. It is different for different people.

imoo

[Beebee]

hi Beebee,
I'm glad your here and bringing this to the board.
I didn't get a chance to follow the trial the way I would like. My hinky meter was always going off on this case. There was something that just didn't ring true.
From what I've read Scott looks guilty. I am open to looking into this. I never understood the "pass" that was given to Pams husband. I would like to know more about this weever/wheeler guy. Some of the things I've read have ended up leaving me with more questions that answers. Little things. For instance I remember hearing that all the the horowitz assets were in the husband and his sisters names, not Pams. I don't know if that turned out to be true or not. I had heard that Pams husband Daniel was wanting to or purchasing the land around his estate. The land that wheever/wheeler was on as well as the land that Scott lived on. How when the house was finished the trailer was gone and the husband moved into the mansion,(I would have left that mountain and thoses horrible memories, but that's me) I was curious about the filing, not filing the restraining order on wheeler/weever? Pam being scared to death of this guy yet was alone on that mountain top. Her recent change in careers and now was working with her husband. ( I know I know, silly, but if he was messing around at work she sure put a damper on that) Just speculating folks, I have no idea what the truth is, but now that we are here.......
How many dogs did the horowitz's have and where were they. Daniel Horowitz's interviews, the devastating loss and then by trial a new girlfriend. The walk thru with Nancy Grace. And one more thing was the way the media slanted their reports to make Scott look worse than what he was. How misinformation was reported about him and never retracted. How this went to trial so fast when the suspect pleaded not guilty. I don't think I've ever seen things get in court so quickly. Lots of questions. But like I said from what I know up to this point scott does look guilty. but...... a frame up is possible.
IMO


Here are some real hinky things that Dan Horowitz did that I know of:


He disturbed the crime scene by picking the land line phone up off the couch, dialed 911, then put the phone back down, leaving it off the hook, and then wailed so he could be heard in the distance. Then used the cell he had on him to call the regular dispatch line, the one that is not recorded.
Horowitz did not try to arm himself and he didn't exhibit fear that the killer was still around.

He had a wet shoulder when the first cop showed up and he told that cop he tripped over a dog bowl. Two things- how does the shoulder get wet from tripping, and why is there a water bowl by the door when the dogs are locked up in a kennel around the back?

When he was put in the back of the police car... while his dead wife is still in the doorway with her face smashed in, he calls Nancy Grace.

Two weeks after the murder he hired Val Northrup to work for him, she didn't work in the legal profession, so who knows why... by Scott's PRELIM they were an OPEN item. As soon as Pam's mansion was finished, Northrup moved in. Pam's kids are estranged from Dan because of it.

Dan lied about what Pam was wearing when he was giving the public info about the crime scene days after the murder.

He claimed he saw evidence the perp took a LONG shower, but we never heard about it again.

He initially said Pam made him breakfast that morning, then he said she was sleeping when he left.

I could go on........


Yes, please do take a closer look at this case. I have transcripts and lots of info on the website that is all sourced. Have you been able to look at Scott's alibi?

[Beebee]

This is from my memory.

He had never met Scott or Esther either although Esther did call him for legal work but he told her to drop off the paperwork in his mailbox and he would fill it out for her.



Horowitz had met Esther. He used to go in the bagel shop they had, and they talked on the phone quite frequently concerning Joe Lynch. Right before Pam's murder they were talking on almost a daily basis because Lynch was getting really out of hand again, that included calls to Joe's sister.

[Mysteri]

Here are some real hinky things that Dan Horowitz did that I know of:


He disturbed the crime scene by picking the land line phone up off the couch, dialed 911, then put the phone back down, leaving it off the hook, and then wailed so he could be heard in the distance. Then used the cell he had on him to call the regular dispatch line, the one that is not recorded.
Horowitz did not try to arm himself and he didn't exhibit fear that the killer was still around.

He had a wet shoulder when the first cop showed up and he told that cop he tripped over a dog bowl. Two things- how does the shoulder get wet from tripping, and why is there a water bowl by the door when the dogs are locked up in a kennel around the back?

When he was put in the back of the police car... while his dead wife is still in the doorway with her face smashed in, he calls Nancy Grace.

Two weeks after the murder he hired Val Northrup to work for him, she didn't work in the legal profession, so who knows why... by Scott's PRELIM they were an OPEN item. As soon as Pam's mansion was finished, Northrup moved in. Pam's kids are estranged from Dan because of it.

Dan lied about what Pam was wearing when he was giving the public info about the crime scene days after the murder.

He claimed he saw evidence the perp took a LONG shower, but we never heard about it again.

He initially said Pam made him breakfast that morning, then he said she was sleeping when he left.

I could go on........


Yes, please do take a closer look at this case. I have transcripts and lots of info on the website that is all sourced. Have you been able to look at Scott's alibi?


All of this amounts to unfounded allegations. The claim 'that he wailed so he could be heard in the distance' is very cruel considering the way Scott Edgar Dyleski had mangled and mutilated his wife's body. The man was entitled to use his own phone and he certainly needed to phone the police !!!

Since Pamela had been dead for hours by the time her husband arrived, the blood had congealed and this wasn't the first corpse he had ever seen, there was no reason for him to think the killer had remained in the house all day.

The dog's water bowl placed there has Nada to do with anything. Link to Mr Horowitz's shoulder being wet and that being suspicious, please ?

Dan appeared in a short sleeve T-shirt the next day with No scratches on him while Miss Reddy testified that SED was cobvered in bruises and scratches the night of the murder of Pamela Vitale.

Nancy Grace and Pamela and Dan had been on the phone together for hours the night before because they were all three close friends !! In fact outside of Dan, Nancy was the last person to have spoken to Pamela.

Pamela's son Mario Vitale Jr. is not estranged from Daniel Horowitz. The woman who went to work for Dan was a juror during Susan Polk's first trial, the trial that was called a mistrial after Pamela's murder.

Links to all your suppositions, please. For instance that Daniel deliberately lied about anything. It's very traumatic to find a loved one in that horrific state.

Both of Pamela's children , Mario and Marissa, are satisfied that Scott Edgar Dyleski killed their Mother and the Daughter says that Pamela could have helped Scott.

http://www.nbc11.com/news/9739767/detail.html

imo

[Beebee]

Mystery,

Scott was not "covered in scratches".... you need to read some testimony.

Stick up for Horowitz all you want.... I don't care..... I have a right to my opinion too. I think he is creepy beyond belief. You didn't mention Marisa, is she still having issues? How sad for them that Northrup was living in Pam's masion with Dan during their mother's murder trial. Yeah, that Horowitz is a real class act.

Horowitz DID lie to the public about what Pam was wearing. Or do you want me to use the term "he was mistaken" :rolleyes: yeah right... so easy to miss a long black skirt on your murdered wife.... gee, he had an opinion about if she was sexually assaulted.... but just missed the long skirt huh? okay.

The wet shoulder.... can you explain to me how his shoulder got wet??? Did he do a face plant into the ground and hit the bowl?? Hmm. Wonder why the killer didn't disturb the bowl supposidly in the doorway.

He's hinky all the way.... imo. Also capable of framing. IMO.

[Beebee]

ps- here is your link: http://justiceforscottdyleski.com/whoisdanielhorowitz.html

[Heyes]

well, looks like I have some reading to do this weekend.
jaded thanks for taking the time to answer some questions.
Beebee, I remember alot of what you have posted. I don't remember Scott having scratches all over his body, just a couple of light ones around the face???
Some very different opinions I see. I will get back after I do some reading.
I didn't know he had already remarried. Interesting. And I certainly didn't know he had a woman living with him during the trial, really??? no, really???
wow. That sure seems strange to me but whatever.
IMO

[Jadedblueeyes]

Horowitz had met Esther. He used to go in the bagel shop they had, and they talked on the phone quite frequently concerning Joe Lynch. Right before Pam's murder they were talking on almost a daily basis because Lynch was getting really out of hand again, that included calls to Joe's sister.

Thanks.

But he did not interact with her as a neighbor though. Like them coming over to each other's house to socialize? I doubt he had ever been up to her house. I know Pam went when they were building the straw house but I would think Dan was most likely working.

imoo

[Jadedblueeyes]

Here are some real hinky things that Dan Horowitz did that I know of:


He disturbed the crime scene by picking the land line phone up off the couch, dialed 911, then put the phone back down, leaving it off the hook, and then wailed so he could be heard in the distance. Then used the cell he had on him to call the regular dispatch line, the one that is not recorded.
Horowitz did not try to arm himself and he didn't exhibit fear that the killer was still around.

He had a wet shoulder when the first cop showed up and he told that cop he tripped over a dog bowl. Two things- how does the shoulder get wet from tripping, and why is there a water bowl by the door when the dogs are locked up in a kennel around the back?

When he was put in the back of the police car... while his dead wife is still in the doorway with her face smashed in, he calls Nancy Grace.

Two weeks after the murder he hired Val Northrup to work for him, she didn't work in the legal profession, so who knows why... by Scott's PRELIM they were an OPEN item. As soon as Pam's mansion was finished, Northrup moved in. Pam's kids are estranged from Dan because of it.

Dan lied about what Pam was wearing when he was giving the public info about the crime scene days after the murder.

He claimed he saw evidence the perp took a LONG shower, but we never heard about it again.

He initially said Pam made him breakfast that morning, then he said she was sleeping when he left.

I could go on........


Yes, please do take a closer look at this case. I have transcripts and lots of info on the website that is all sourced. Have you been able to look at Scott's alibi?

Beebee the dog bowl was on the porch/deck outside the front of the dwelling. When DH had the dogs on in one of Nancy's show it shows the dogs up there with him. Usually pet owners put water bowls out in various spots a dog may come into contact with. I don't find anything sinister about the bowl being there.:shrug:

I do think Dan truly believed for whatever reason that the killer took a long shower. I could see how that happened. If I had seen blood on the faucet, carpet but then on the shower curtain too I would have thought the perp washed some of the blood away before he left most likely in the shower.

I don't think Dan lied at all Beebee. Pamela had been dead for hours. The blood blackens all around her and maybe the backside of her panties could be seen when the skirt was hiked up around her waistline.

You are mistaken Bee, he did not hire VN then.

I am not sure why anyone would be so shocked that Dan moved into the very home that he has paid to have built. It happens many times in real life. Some widows/widowers move on quickly and they do move companions/gf/spouses into homes that yes, were once owned or occupied by the deceased wife or husband.

I just had a friend of mine who died several months ago and they had a 7,000 SF home. Within 3 months he was remarried living in the same house he did with his wife of 39 years. And you are right his children didn't like it either but they have realized they have no right to tell him who he can have live with him in a house he owns.

Would I have done the same? No way but it is not my place to decided what others must do with their own lives. I did tell the widower he was crazy as he** for marrying this woman so quickly.

imoo

[Jadedblueeyes]

Here are some real hinky things that Dan Horowitz did that I know of:


He disturbed the crime scene by picking the land line phone up off the couch, dialed 911, then put the phone back down, leaving it off the hook, and then wailed so he could be heard in the distance. Then used the cell he had on him to call the regular dispatch line, the one that is not recorded.
Horowitz did not try to arm himself and he didn't exhibit fear that the killer was still around.

When he was put in the back of the police car... while his dead wife is still in the doorway with her face smashed in, he calls Nancy Grace.

He initially said Pam made him breakfast that morning, then he said she was sleeping when he left.

I wanted to comment further on these particular things.

Anyone that comes across something this horrific would grab the phone laying nearby. He did not put the phone back down he threw it down because he could not hear the 911 Operator. Imo it was his blood pressure rising. They however heard him and it is that tape that the Judge thought was so emotional that it would prejudice SDs case if the jury heard it. I can only imagine what horror was unfolding before his very eyes. The 911 operator was on the line all the time he was using his cell phone trying to get the police there. His neighbor said he sounded like a wounded animal.

Many family members of victims have called 911 while in the home with the murder victim. Michelle Young's sister came into her sister's home alone and called the police from inside of the house when she found her sister murdered. She did not run. One reacts on auto-pilot.

Horowitz and Pamela both were very good friends with Nancy. I credit Nancy as a victim's advocate. DH knew this and knew Nancy had gone through this kind of pain and loss too. He and Pamela had just talked to Nancy for a long time the night before she died.

I do think Pamela put him out maybe a homemade muffin or a homemade bagel. Something light...since he wasn't to meet Massi until 8-9 ish.

imoo

[Mysteri]

Mystery,

Scott was not "covered in scratches".... you need to read some testimony.

Stick up for Horowitz all you want.... I don't care..... I have a right to my opinion too. I think he is creepy beyond belief. You didn't mention Marisa, is she still having issues? How sad for them that Northrup was living in Pam's masion with Dan during their mother's murder trial. Yeah, that Horowitz is a real class act.

Horowitz DID lie to the public about what Pam was wearing. Or do you want me to use the term "he was mistaken" :rolleyes: yeah right... so easy to miss a long black skirt on your murdered wife.... gee, he had an opinion about if she was sexually assaulted.... but just missed the long skirt huh? okay.

The wet shoulder.... can you explain to me how his shoulder got wet??? Did he do a face plant into the ground and hit the bowl?? Hmm. Wonder why the killer didn't disturb the bowl supposidly in the doorway.

He's hinky all the way.... imo. Also capable of framing. IMO.

First of all my name is Mysteri and I have read all the testimony. Please stop insulting my intelligence. I have been very polite to you despite all your personal insults.

Several accounts of Reddy's testimony say she testified about Dyleski's besides my own account:

"Reddy said Dyleski never admitted to killing Vitale, but he never denied it. She said the night Vitale was killed, she saw Dyleski with scratches and swollen wrists."

http://www.nbc11.com/news/9624541/detail.html

"Jewett showed the witness a photograph of Dyleski’s back. She testified, “I might have scratched his back.” Jewett confronted her with her prior grand jury testimony that she caused scratches on his back and torso. She then admitted this, and testified she did not cause scratches on his face."

http://www.newsmakingnews.com/kd,dyleski,8,6,06,bombshells.htm

I certainly did mention Marissa and Dan wasn't living in the house during the trial. He was living in the house of a male friend. Pamela's house wasn't occupied until much later. Pamela's mother supports Horowitz along with her son, Mario.

Pamela's skirt was pulled up over her waist and drenched in blood. Clothing is not something one notices when their wife is laying brutally murdered in a pool of blood.

Taking up for Horowitz? Not me, I don't even like him. I just prefer the truth to fiction and your personal attacks are not nice.

Horowitz's possible 'wet shoulder' has no bearing on anything.

But this does:

" Investigators also found a number of shoe prints at the scene, including two on the lid of a plastic storage container. After her son's Oct. 19, arrest, Dyleski's mother turned in bloody shoes whose tread prosecutors say match those found at the crime scene.

Prosecutors said the blood on the shoes matched Vitale's DNA. In addition, a sample taken from Vitale's foot matched Dyleski's DNA profile. "

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060801/ai_n16652985

imo

[Beebee]

Thanks.

But he did not interact with her as a neighbor though. Like them coming over to each other's house to socialize? I doubt he had ever been up to her house. I know Pam went when they were building the straw house but I would think Dan was most likely working.

imoo

Well they had a lot of interation over Lynch, but you are right, they were not social friends that hung out together or anything.

I find it odd that with all the acting up Lynch was doing in the weeks before Pam's murder that Lynch was supposed to drop off a check that day at the trailer when Pam was home alone. What is up with that?? Horowitz knew he was acting bizarre and that he could be dangerous. Why didn't this concern Horowitz? Especially when he supposidly couldn't reach Pam by phone.

[Beebee]

Beebee the dog bowl was on the porch/deck outside the front of the dwelling. When DH had the dogs on in one of Nancy's show it shows the dogs up there with him. Usually pet owners put water bowls out in various spots a dog may come into contact with. I don't find anything sinister about the bowl being there.:shrug:

I do think Dan truly believed for whatever reason that the killer took a long shower. I could see how that happened. If I had seen blood on the faucet, carpet but then on the shower curtain too I would have thought the perp washed some of the blood away before he left most likely in the shower.

I don't think Dan lied at all Beebee. Pamela had been dead for hours. The blood blackens all around her and maybe the backside of her panties could be seen when the skirt was hiked up around her waistline.

You are mistaken Bee, he did not hire VN then.

I am not sure why anyone would be so shocked that Dan moved into the very home that he has paid to have built. It happens many times in real life. Some widows/widowers move on quickly and they do move companions/gf/spouses into homes that yes, were once owned or occupied by the deceased wife or husband.

I just had a friend of mine who died several months ago and they had a 7,000 SF home. Within 3 months he was remarried living in the same house he did with his wife of 39 years. And you are right his children didn't like it either but they have realized they have no right to tell him who he can have live with him in a house he owns.

Would I have done the same? No way but it is not my place to decided what others must do with their own lives. I did tell the widower he was crazy as he** for marrying this woman so quickly.

imoo

Ocean,

I don't find the fact that a bowl was on the porch sinister, I find the (what I believe to be) LIE about the wet shoulder to be sinister. I don't believe for one second Dan's shoulder got wet from a dog bowl on the floor. For one thing, he never tells anyone that he tripped on anything coming into the home. Do you think the bowl was right smack in front of the door?? I know you think he tripped and the water flew up to his shoulder, but I can't see that at all.

Dan asserted this long shower business the day after Pam's murder. Remember Nancy Grace going on and on about it?? First of all, blood in the bathroom does not mean "Long" shower... or even ANY shower.... plus the behavior of a killer taking a shower is bizarre and not something somebody would assume just because of blood. It was something else, related to condensation. Later we find out LE didn't even take the drains.
My question remains what did Dan see, and more importantly, WHEN did he see it?? Supposidly he did not walk around the crime scene before police got there.... so when did he see this condensation??

Ocean do you know the exact date he hired VN? To be honest, I don't really care when he hired her. I just think Dan is a phoney and that is my opinion. Acting like the grieving husband at trial, showing up alone, when he has Northrup shacking up at home in Pam's mansion. Tacky to say the least, but that doesn't make him a killer. It's the many OTHER things that make me suspect him as the killer.

I do think he lied about what Pam had on, so that it would appear she never left the house, but at one point she did. We know this because Scott Dyleski saw her. But to stick with the clothing here.... let me ask you Ocean, why would Dan talk about the crime scene and what she had on in the first place?! As an attorney he should know better! He does know better.... that's why I think it was deliberate. JMO

[Beebee]

I wanted to comment further on these particular things.

Anyone that comes across something this horrific would grab the phone laying nearby.

Ocean he had a cell phone on him..... why not use that to call 911?

[Jadedblueeyes]

Ocean,

I don't find the fact that a bowl was on the porch sinister, I find the (what I believe to be) LIE about the wet shoulder to be sinister. I don't believe for one second Dan's shoulder got wet from a dog bowl on the floor. For one thing, he never tells anyone that he tripped on anything coming into the home. Do you think the bowl was right smack in front of the door?? I know you think he tripped and the water flew up to his shoulder, but I can't see that at all.

Dan asserted this long shower business the day after Pam's murder. Remember Nancy Grace going on and on about it?? First of all, blood in the bathroom does not mean "Long" shower... or even ANY shower.... plus the behavior of a killer taking a shower is bizarre and not something somebody would assume just because of blood. It was something else, related to condensation. Later we find out LE didn't even take the drains.
My question remains what did Dan see, and more importantly, WHEN did he see it?? Supposedly he did not walk around the crime scene before police got there.... so when did he see this condensation??

Ocean do you know the exact date he hired VN? To be honest, I don't really care when he hired her. I just think Dan is a phony and that is my opinion. Acting like the grieving husband at trial, showing up alone, when he has Northrup shacking up at home in Pam's mansion. Tacky to say the least, but that doesn't make him a killer. It's the many OTHER things that make me suspect him as the killer.

I do think he lied about what Pam had on, so that it would appear she never left the house, but at one point she did. We know this because Scott Dyleski saw her. But to stick with the clothing here.... let me ask you Ocean, why would Dan talk about the crime scene and what she had on in the first place?! As an attorney he should know better! He does know better.... that's why I think it was deliberate. JMO

Because that is what Dan does Beebee. He is a commentator concerning crime. He knows stuff leaks out anyway. Telling what she had on was not going to deter the police from finding the killer. What is wrong with him being honest about what he thought he saw? I always think it is much better to get it out and off one's chest...I would think he had a need to tell someone what he had experienced and Pamela and these reporters were Dan's friends. It had to all be coming at him at every direction. I can understand during a very stressful time his mind may have been on overload and he may have overreacted about somethings he saw and what they seem to say to him at the time. Didnt he say LE got him to go through the home to see if anything was taken?

VN never knew who Pamela Vitale was before Pamela died, Beebee. She knew that he was SPs attorney. Of course I am sure she had heard of Pam's murder when it happened but she did not come to work or even talk to DH on the phone until 5 weeks after Pamela died. Like I said.......I wouldn't have acted as quickly as he did about her being his girlfriend. I cant even visualize me wanting another man's company if my dear husband passed away but again it is not my place to judge DH or anyone else for that matter but this woman was not in the picture at all when he lost Pamela.

I believe what Dan meant by the crime scene was the bloodbath in the living room area where the body was located.

It does make a difference to me Beebee. From all accounts this was the most horrific emotional time for DH. I can certainly see him stumbling out the door dropping to his knees and sloshed the water bowl that may have been close by.

imoo

[Jadedblueeyes]

Ocean he had a cell phone on him..... why not use that to call 911?

Because he reacted Beebee. He saw the phone laying there. Sometimes even Doctors who are surgeons lose it if something happens to their own family members. Being an attorney in a very sterile courtroom is a far cry from witnessing the horrible death of a loved one.

He was not an attorney on duty Beebee. This was his wife of 12 years laying in a pool of blood beaten to a bloody pulp. The smell of blood had to be overpowering by that time.

imoo

[Beebee]

Ocean he met Northup during jury selection for the Polk trial and that was before Pam was killed. When Northrup was excused as a juror she came back to court the next day and said she wanted to write a book about Susan to "champion her cause" and Horowitz handed her a CD of case info. He did this right in front of media people, and they noticed his overly friendly gesture. Think about it Ocean, how often do lawyers in high profile cases hand over CDs to complete strangers?? Well I guess it's a good thing VN was excused as a juror if she was already wanting to write a book in favor of Susan. I think the flirting started right there, before Pam's murder. But really... that doesn't make Dan a killer. I've told you before I don't care who he sleeps with or if he was having an affair before Pam was killed. He's not my husband (thank god) It's the many other things he did/said that make me suspect him.

Now what about this alibi? What do you think about Fred's four time checks?? Do you think he hallucinated the four times he looked at his pager? He really wanted his family to get moving that day. To the point Kim got pissed and said they weren't leaving till she finished her papers. Yep, there was focus on time that morning for Fred. He knows exactly what time he left the house.

Scott was already home.

[Jadedblueeyes]

Ocean he met Northup during jury selection for the Polk trial and that was before Pam was killed. When Northrup was excused as a juror she came back to court the next day and said she wanted to write a book about Susan to "champion her cause" and Horowitz handed her a CD of case info. He did this right in front of media people, and they noticed his overly friendly gesture. Think about it Ocean, how often do lawyers in high profile cases hand over CDs to complete strangers?? Well I guess it's a good thing VN was excused as a juror if she was already wanting to write a book in favor of Susan. I think the flirting started right there, before Pam's murder. But really... that doesn't make Dan a killer. I've told you before I don't care who he sleeps with or if he was having an affair before Pam was killed. He's not my husband (thank god) It's the many other things he did/said that make me suspect him.

Now what about this alibi? What do you think about Fred's four time checks?? Do you think he hallucinated the four times he looked at his pager? He really wanted his family to get moving that day. To the point Kim got pissed and said they weren't leaving till she finished her papers. Yep, there was focus on time that morning for Fred. He knows exactly what time he left the house.

Scott was already home.

Yes, he knew her in a peripheral way in court because of the SP case and because she was interested in the trial even though she was excluded as a juror (SP wanted her on the jury the DA did not). I can see Dan befriending anyone that may have taken an interest in Susan's case at that time. She still was not "in" his life when Pamela died. Not one person has ever stepped forth and said that he was unfaithful to Pamela the entire time they were married and the reason for that is ........he wasn't. It seems as savvy as Dan is concerning the media he did not act covertly but openly because at that time he was just trying to assist her and yes, I am sure since she is very pretty that was part of it. Men always seem to want to be accommodating and be nice to the pretty ladies. lol Even married men know a nice looking woman when they see one but it doesn't mean at that time they are in a relationship with each other.

Fred's times are so screwed up Bee. He just isn't credible. I don't know why that happened. Maybe he is sort of squirrelly and confused about other things in his life. Maybe too much pot or something. I just don't know but Scott's changing stories about the "woman" also put his credibility in the wastebasket too imo.

Have a good Sunday.

Ocean

[Beebee]

Hi Ocean,

Fred's times aren't screwed up. Please read his trial testimony. The problem is he came off in court like a confused man, but he was not confused about the times that day!! Take special note of the 10:16 time and the 10:20 time, and the 10:51 time.

This is only my opinion but I believe he acted the way he did in court because he is highly conflicted in this case. He knows what time he left for the store that day Ocean. He knows. He also thinks Scott must have killed Vitale because of her dna on those items, but he also knows the prosecutions theory is wrong.

He is not squirlly in life. He does not smoke pot or use any drugs of any kind. He has a very good job in the computer field. He is not an idiot. Not to mention Ocean, he and his family were traumatized when their home was raided and their lives threatened. Police lied to them about so called evidence they had.... and to this day, I don't think the Curiels know they were blatantly lied to by police as part of their "investigation".


MOO

[Jadedblueeyes]

Hi Ocean,

Fred's times aren't screwed up. Please read his trial testimony. The problem is he came off in court like a confused man, but he was not confused about the times that day!! Take special note of the 10:16 time and the 10:20 time, and the 10:51 time.

This is only my opinion but I believe he acted the way he did in court because he is highly conflicted in this case. He knows what time he left for the store that day Ocean. He knows. He also thinks Scott must have killed Vitale because of her dna on those items, but he also knows the prosecutions theory is wrong.

He is not squirrelly in life. He does not smoke pot or use any drugs of any kind. He has a very good job in the computer field. He is not an idiot. Not to mention Ocean, he and his family were traumatized when their home was raided and their lives threatened. Police lied to them about so called evidence they had.... and to this day, I don't think the Curiels know they were blatantly lied to by police as part of their "investigation".


MOO

Good Morning Beebee.

See that convinces me even more. Yes, the Curiels were highly upset by the way LE came in their home. So much so that they filed a lawsuit against LE (btw how is that proceeding?).

So it would have behooved Fred to stick to his original time lines and certainly not side with his adversaries but bring forth they are wrong and stand firm. He did not do so and when any witness starts waxing and wanes in their stories their credibility goes out the window.

Others testified that Fred was wrong about the times. I don't think one of them would have deliberately offered any false information against SD. They simply told the truth. In the end Fred's began to crumple and it made perfect logic how he could have been mistaken. Did the time change in California in October the year this happened? I know it was done in October for so long but Bush has extended it now to sometime in November. I don't know why he thought it was earlier but he did change his testimony and of course the jury is going to weigh all of the eye witnesses and their time lines to see if his is consistent.

imoo

[Beebee]

Hi Ocean,

Here is how the lawsuit went:

http://justiceforscottdyleski.com/curielvsccc.html

All but Mike Sikemma's claim got tossed by the judge. Scroll down for the order in August if you want to read it.

But back to the alibi. Fred has never changed his mind on TIME. Ever. Not on the times he checked his pager.

There were two things he "recanted" on..... one was if he actually SAW Scott that Saturday morning. As in SEE with his own eyes. Remember, he was not focused on Scott that morning, he was worried about getting his family going for the day. They had a lot to do.
The other was his original estimate for how long they stayed at the Spirit store. That's it. No other changes about time at all.

If you consider what he was doing that day... all the pager checks, it's clear when he left. He relied on his pager as he worked on call and the time was correct.

Did you see the checks... 9:26, 10:16, 10:20, 10:51.

What makes you think he is confused about all those times? :shrug:

[Jadedblueeyes]

Hi Ocean,

Here is how the lawsuit went:

http://justiceforscottdyleski.com/curielvsccc.html

All but Mike Sikemma's claim got tossed by the judge. Scroll down for the order in August if you want to read it.

But back to the alibi. Fred has never changed his mind on TIME. Ever. Not on the times he checked his pager.

There were two things he "recanted" on..... one was if he actually SAW Scott that Saturday morning. As in SEE with his own eyes. Remember, he was not focused on Scott that morning, he was worried about getting his family going for the day. They had a lot to do.
The other was his original estimate for how long they stayed at the Spirit store. That's it. No other changes about time at all.

If you consider what he was doing that day... all the pager checks, it's clear when he left. He relied on his pager as he worked on call and the time was correct.

Did you see the checks... 9:26, 10:16, 10:20, 10:51.

What makes you think he is confused about all those times? :shrug:

When in the end on the stand in the criminal trial he said he could not even be sure if he saw Scott that day.

Then it doesn't matter how many times he checked his pager. The alibi was to be the time he SAW Scott and if he testifies he couldn't even remember him seeing him that day then he gives Scott no alibi whatsoever.

When did Scott ask him about DNA may link him to the victim? I have forgotten when that conversation was to have occurred.

Just the way I see it of course.

imoo

[Beebee]

Ocean it doesn't matter if he got all anal and suddenly couldn't testify if he "saw" Scott that morning.... when you consider the combined testimony of all the adults in the home.... nobody...... not even the prosecution disputes Scott sat with Kim after his walk.

Do you agree with that much??

[Jadedblueeyes]

Ocean it doesn't matter if he got all anal and suddenly couldn't testify if he "saw" Scott that morning.... when you consider the combined testimony of all the adults in the home.... nobody...... not even the prosecution disputes Scott sat with Kim after his walk.

Do you agree with that much??

Yes, I do believe he sat down there with Kim and that is when she saw the blood almost dripping off of his nose.

Didn't Kim in the end think the time line was around 10:45or 11:00 am?

imoo

[Beebee]

Yes, I do believe he sat down there with Kim and that is when she saw the blood almost dripping off of his nose.

Didn't Kim in the end think the time line was around 10:45or 11:00 am?

imoo

Good morning Ocean,

Here is what happened. When Kim was first interviewed by police she told them Scott came home from his walk at about 9:30. So did Fred. Fred actually said 9:26 because he recalled looking at his pager.

When Kim was testifying at trial, she admitted that she did not look at a clock at all that morning. Jewett then brought in the sales receipt from the Spirit store and noted the time of purchase, then he had Kim estimate the amount of time they spent in the store and then had her back track to try and come up with a timeline. Kim's estimate of how long they were in the store differed from Freds. That is how Jewett got the 10:45 time.

Think about it Ocean, what is more reliable? Fred checking his pager four times, or Kim estimating time and back tracking from a receipt??

[Jadedblueeyes]

Good morning Ocean,

Here is what happened. When Kim was first interviewed by police she told them Scott came home from his walk at about 9:30. So did Fred. Fred actually said 9:26 because he recalled looking at his pager.

When Kim was testifying at trial, she admitted that she did not look at a clock at all that morning. Jewett then brought in the sales receipt from the Spirit store and noted the time of purchase, then he had Kim estimate the amount of time they spent in the store and then had her back track to try and come up with a timeline. Kim's estimate of how long they were in the store differed from Freds. That is how Jewett got the 10:45 time.

Think about it Ocean, what is more reliable? Fred checking his pager four times, or Kim estimating time and back tracking from a receipt??

I am not really sure Beebee but it seems like if I went somewhere and had the receipt when I checked out I could backtrack my steps to determine when I had first left the house to go to the store, how long I was there and what happened before I left my home.

But one cant overlook the fact that Fred caused his credibility to become questionable for the jury when he testified before them that he really couldn't even remember seeing Scott that day.

imoo

[Beebee]

I am not really sure Beebee but it seems like if I went somewhere and had the receipt when I checked out I could backtrack my steps to determine when I had first left the house to go to the store, how long I was there and what happened before I left my home.

But one cant overlook the fact that Fred caused his credibility to become questionable for the jury when he testified before them that he really couldn't even remember seeing Scott that day.

imoo

Ocean, let's say your husband has a pager because sometimes he works on call. Let's say he has a reputation for being anal about time.

If you found yourself in Kim's situation, what would you deem more accurate... your estimate, or his pager checks??

It doesn't matter if Fred SAW Scott. We already agreed he sat with Kim after his walk, before she left for the store.

I agree with you 100% that what the jury saw in Fred made them dismiss his entire timeline, juror #7 came right out and said that, and that is just sad. A good defense attorney could have "rehabilitated" Fred to the jury, and really demonstrated the time checks, but instead Scott had Leonida who did NOTHING, and did not even KNOW about the FOUR time checks until Fred was testifying, even though her investigator was given this information by Fred :flamemad:

So he got convicted.... but the real truth is he has always had a rock solid alibi.

Ocean, wake up... he did not kill Pam!

[Jadedblueeyes]

Ocean, let's say your husband has a pager because sometimes he works on call. Let's say he has a reputation for being anal about time.

If you found yourself in Kim's situation, what would you deem more accurate... your estimate, or his pager checks??

It doesn't matter if Fred SAW Scott. We already agreed he sat with Kim after his walk, before she left for the store.

I agree with you 100% that what the jury saw in Fred made them dismiss his entire timeline, juror #7 came right out and said that, and that is just sad. A good defense attorney could have "rehabilitated" Fred to the jury, and really demonstrated the time checks, but instead Scott had Leonida who did NOTHING, and did not even KNOW about the FOUR time checks until Fred was testifying, even though her investigator was given this information by Fred :flamemad:

So he got convicted.... but the real truth is he has always had a rock solid alibi.

Ocean, wake up... he did not kill Pam!

I know that you really believe that Beebee and that is your right but honey there is so much more to this case that shows Scott Dyleski is indeed the murderer of Pamela Vitale.

To believe he is not we would have to completely dismiss everything that points directly at him and no one else. Its just too much of it Beebee. Too many witnesses told on Scott. He isn't the nice kid you think he is imo. He would have been a serious danger to society. He is where he should be and society deserves to be protected from these dark brooding young killers.

Out of the many cases I have seen over the years...Scott Dyleski truly scared me to death. I could have been that neighbor. It could have been any one of us that this happened to............



imoo

[Beebee]

Ocean why did he scare you to death? Not a single person in court described him in a mean, angry or scary way. It was just the OPPOSITE!

Every piece of "evidence" comes with baggage. There is something very wrong with none of Scott's dna being at the scene, and none of his dna being on the ONE glove found...

Plus, it is not possible for him to have been to PV's and the Curiel home at the same time.... his alibi is solid.

I'm glad you have hung with this discussion :seeya:

[attorneywan2be]

Hi BeeBee..:seeya: we are on the opposite side of the fence on this case...but searching for the truth is what matters..I honestly believe this kid is guilty..IMO, the alibi is not solid because I don't expect witnesses to be precise as to their timeline..

In addition to the DNA evidence..I have a problem with his everchanging encounter story:

The murder occurred on Saturday..up until Tuesday morning he didn't mention the encounter with the woman that supposedly grabbed his arm to the point of scratching it..yet he did talk about trees and bushes hitting him causing the scratches..
Late morning on Tuesday Fred Curiel told Dyleski that they should resolve the cc fraud issue because it could be misconstrued to be related to the murder..Dyleski agreed but he seemed upset..then Fred told him that he should not worry about it because there was a struggle and that it was virtually guaranteed that they would find the killer's DNA under her fingernails..at that point..and for the first time.. Dyleski said a woman was driving a white car pulled over reached over and grabbed his arm scratching it..he rolled his sleeve back to show some marks on his arm..he told Fred the woman said something strange "you got to believe"..then he asked "what if my DNA is found?" According to Fred, he questioned him about how it was possible for the woman sitting in the driver seat to reach over thru the passenger seat's window and be able to grab his arm?..Dyleski replied that it did happen..! ( note: the woman that grabbed him was the driver.. however, he later told others she was the passenger)

IMO, Dyleski fabricated that encounter story just in case they find his DNA...his story changed from an encounter with someone (no reference to the gender) walking in the area that could have been the killer..to an encounter with a woman driving a car and grabbing him..to an encounter with a man driving a car and a panicked woman grabbing him from the window of the passenger seat while he was talking to the driver...to the encounter story being nothing more than a hallucination...IMO, he initially was trying to spread a rumor about a stranger walking in the area..in essence he was providing the potential killer...then based on his discussion with Fred on Tuesday he became alarmed that his DNA might be found on Pamela..and after being questioned by Fred he realized that the story didn't make sense..why would a woman driving her own car stop and do these things?! Also he realized that it was not realistic for her to be able to grab his arm if she was sitting in the driver seat..so he came up with a story that would include the victim (in the passenger seat) and her potential killer (the driver, a man, but no description was given)..that story would help explain his DNA in they find it on Pamela and would also provide the potential killer of Pamela...he realized the story backfired so he decided to act as if it was nothing but hallucination on his part....

[Beebee]

Hi BeeBee..:seeya: we are on the opposite side of the fence on this case...but searching for the truth is what matters..I honestly believe this kid is guilty..IMO, the alibi is not solid because I don't expect witnesses to be precise as to their timeline..

In addition to the DNA evidence..I have a problem with his everchanging encounter story:

The murder occurred on Saturday..up until Tuesday morning he didn't mention the encounter with the woman that supposedly grabbed his arm to the point of scratching it..yet he did talk about trees and bushes hitting him causing the scratches..
Late morning on Tuesday Fred Curiel told Dyleski that they should resolve the cc fraud issue because it could be misconstrued to be related to the murder..Dyleski agreed but he seemed upset..then Fred told him that he should not worry about it because there was a struggle and that it was virtually guaranteed that they would find the killer's DNA under her fingernails..at that point..and for the first time.. Dyleski said a woman was driving a white car pulled over .

(Think about the lack of his dna on the alleged murder glove)

This talk with Fred was not the first time he mentioned having an encounter on his walk. He talked about it that same night-- at Robin's house.

His recall vs the recall of his friends (mostly Jena) is what nobody knows.

Ever play that game where everyone sits in a circle and a statement is passed around...... by the end it is different in many aspects?

Why do you discount Fred's recall with his pager, but feel the recall of the teens is totally accurate?

[attorneywan2be]

(Think about the lack of his dna on the alleged murder glove)

This talk with Fred was not the first time he mentioned having an encounter on his walk. He talked about it that same night-- at Robin's house.

His recall vs the recall of his friends (mostly Jena) is what nobody knows.

Ever play that game where everyone sits in a circle and a statement is passed around...... by the end it is different in many aspects?

Why do you discount Fred's recall with his pager, but feel the recall of the teens is totally accurate?

I was specifically looking for testimony about the encounter..I might have missed it..but did anyone testify that either on Saturday (the day of the murder) or even Sunday Dyleski mentioned the encounter where a woman grabbed his arm causing scratches? if so, please post it or direct me to that testimony..thanks..
According to the testimonies I read....when Dyleski was asked on Saturday about the scratches he explained that he hit some bushes and trees as he was taking his walk..he didn't mention the grabbing incident until Fred mentioned that it was guaranteed they would find DNA under her fingernails due to the struggle...

You asked : "Why do you discount Fred's recall with his pager, but feel the recall of the teens is totally accurate?"

I can ask you the same question in reverse..however, I don't doubt that Fred looked at his pager..IMO, the problem is, his testimony demonstrates that he was not sure about the time of anything..for example, he insisted he made the purchase before his wife..yet the time on his receipt was after the time she made her purchase..some people are not good at remembering time or estimating time..I think Fred is one of them..in addition, even if he accurately remember the time when he looked at his pager..I would not expect him to be precise as to connecting the time to an event that he was not focusing on at the time..for example, he wouldn't have been concerned where Dyleski was at the moment he was looking at his pager..that was not his focus...he did testify that he didn't clearly remember the time he saw Dyleski in the house...on the other hand, he was definitely concerned about the CC fraud and how it could be construed to be related to the murder..his questioning of Dyleski's encounter indicates to me that he was focused on Dyleski's story..he asked Dyleski how could a woman sitting in the driver seat be able to reach across the passenger seat, out the window and grab his arm? He added that he made it clear to Dyleski that he didn't find his story credible..so there is no question in my mind that Fred Curiel was focused on what Dyleski was telling him regarding the encounter...in addition, they went in depth thru his story..they asked him to describe the DRIVER..he stated she was an average height woman, middle aged, and that she was wearing round glasses...Fred testified that his wife looked at him because Dyleski was basically describing Pamela...IMO, this is extremely incriminating...he told others an entirely different story..

IMO, his alibi is not rock solid and it is indeed in dispute..Kim testified that Dyleski entered the house at 10:45 am..Fred testified that he was not clear as to the time he saw Dyleski in the house..so I would not disregard all the other evidence and base my opinion on an alibi that is shaky at best..in fact, IMO, he doesn't have an alibi..

Kim's testimony:

15 MR. JEWETT: Q. About what time was it when Scott left

16 the couch to allow you to finish that last paper?

17 A. I would say about 11:00 o'clock.

18 Q. About 11:00 o'clock.

19 And Scott was sitting there with you on the couch and

20 went to the bathroom and came back for about how long?

21 A. Fifteen minutes.

22 Q. About 15 minutes.

23 Which means Scott came in at about what time, ma'am?

24 A. 10:45.

25 Q. 10:45.

----------------------
Fred's tesimony:

11 Q. And did you see Scott Dyleski actually enter your home

12 anytime that morning?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Do you clearly recall the times -- and by "the times,"

15 I mean "the occasions" -- that you did see him?

16 A. No.

[Beebee]

AW2B,

Have you read this page:

http://justiceforscottdyleski.com/scottsrocksolidalibi.html

The morning of Pam's murder Fred checked his pager four times, and remembers what he was doing when he checked his pager. His job required him to be on call, so his pager was his time source and pagers display the accurate time.

Do you think he is mistaken about all those times??

Kim never looked at a time source at all, the entire day. Back tracking from a store receipt is risky business, as we well know (cough, cough Servas, cough)

(I'm not ignoring your questions about the encounter, just trying to take one issue at a time)

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B,

Have you read this page:

http://justiceforscottdyleski.com/scottsrocksolidalibi.html

The morning of Pam's murder Fred checked his pager four times, and remembers what he was doing when he checked his pager. His job required him to be on call, so his pager was his time source and pagers display the accurate time.

Do you think he is mistaken about all those times??

Kim never looked at a time source at all, the entire day. Back tracking from a store receipt is risky business, as we well know (cough, cough Servas, cough)

(I'm not ignoring your questions about the encounter, just trying to take one issue at a time)

BeeBee..I'm not disputing that he looked at his pager 4 times..it's even possible he recalled the time correctly..this is one thing..but it is quite another to connect the time to a certain event he was not focusing on at the time he was looking at his pager---->( connecting a certain time to Dyleski's presence) that was not his focus..in other words..I can look at my watch 10 times because, for example, I need to leave to attend a meeting..but I wouldn't necessarily remember at what time exactly my son came home..my focus was getting ready to leave to attend a meeting...on the other hand..if I was looking at my watch because I was waiting for my son to come home..that would mean I was focusing on my son's arrival..so I would remember what time he arrived home..in fact, Fred did testify that he was not clear as to the time he saw Dyleski in the house..

(Servas's timeline has a life of its own..LOL)

[Beebee]

BeeBee..I'm not disputing that he looked at his pager 4 times..it's even possible he recalled the time correctly..this is one thing..but it is quite another to connect the time to a certain event he was not focusing on at the time he was looking at his pager---->( connecting a certain time to Dyleski's presence) that was not his focus..in other words..I can look at my watch 10 times because, for example, I need to leave to attend a meeting..but I wouldn't necessarily remember at what time exactly my son came home..my focus was getting ready to leave to attend a meeting...on the other hand..if I was looking at my watch because I was waiting for my son to come home..that would mean I was focusing on my son's arrival..so I would remember what time he arrived home..in fact, Fred did testify that he was not clear as to the time he saw Dyleski in the house..

(Servas's timeline has a life of its own..LOL)


No, he was not focused on Scott that morning. He was however focused on time, as he wanted to get his family going for the day.

Here is what I think people are missing.

It doesn't really matter if Fred had precise recall of SEEING Scott. Scott was not his focus. What matters is the time that he and his family left the house to go shopping that morning.

WHY?

Because there is NO DISPUTE that Scott was HOME FROM HIS WALK when they left.

If Scott was home ALREADY when they left, then he was home BEFORE 10:20.

[Beebee]

AW2B,

By the way, to use your above analogy.... let's say you keep checking the time for a meeting, and don't even know if your son came home or not... but later it is determined that he was indeed home before you left, independently of you, your recollection of the time becomes very important because even if you didn't see him, you can verify a point on the timeline. The time you left.

If A=B and you can verify A.... then you can also verify B.

I'm going to try out for mensa later this year :D

[attorneywan2be]

No, he was not focused on Scott that morning. He was however focused on time, as he wanted to get his family going for the day.

Here is what I think people are missing.

It doesn't really matter if Fred had precise recall of SEEING Scott. Scott was not his focus. What matters is the time that he and his family left the house to go shopping that morning.

WHY?

Because there is NO DISPUTE that Scott was HOME FROM HIS WALK when they left.

If Scott was home ALREADY when they left, then he was home BEFORE 10:20.

The question is : did they truly leave at 10:20?

If they left at 10:20 they would have arrived at 10:45 at the store..it is not realistic for them to have spent 2 hours at the store..why?
Fred made one purchase at 12:44..is it realistic that he would spend 2 hours to buy one item?

As I mentioned before..Fred was mistaken about the time he made the purchase...he thought he made it before his wife made her purchase...so I don't think he is reliable as to time estimate..according to the evidence presented it is not rock solid that they left the house at 10:20 am..it is conflicting at best..if we would discount this unproven evidence..we would be left with : the everchanging encounter story + DNA evidence..

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B,

By the way, to use your above analogy.... let's say you keep checking the time for a meeting, and don't even know if your son came home or not... but later it is determined that he was indeed home before you left, independently of you, your recollection of the time becomes very important because even if you didn't see him, you can verify a point on the timeline. The time you left.

If A=B and you can verify A.... then you can also verify B.

I'm going to try out for mensa later this year :D


I'm sure you will be invited to join...:D

The key here is : we can't verify "A" ..therefore we can't verify "B"...I think this is where we differ..

According to Fred: A = 10:20
According to Kim : A = 10:45
According to logic: A = Fred is not reliable as to estimating time evidenced by his testimony regarding the time of purchase + it is unrealistic for him to have spent 2 hours at the store to purchase one item----> "A" is not a fact that was proven beyond a reasonable doubt..

[Beebee]

The question is : did they truly leave at 10:20?

If they left at 10:20 they would have arrived at 10:45 at the store..it is not realistic for them to have spent 2 hours at the store..why?
Fred made one purchase at 12:44..is it realistic that he would spend 2 hours to buy one item?



Yes, it is realistic.

How do I know?

Because I have personally communicated with people who have knowledge of that store, and how long people shop there around Halloween (it is only open around that time of the year), and how long the lines are, etc... this person also has knowledge of how long that family would spend in the store having gone with them to the exact same place before.

By the way... they didn't get to the store at 10:45, they got there a little after 10:51.

From Fred's testimony:

Q. Where were you when you looked at your pager and it was 10:51?

A. I believe we were on Willow Pass Road and it was prior to the final stoplight before the Spirit Store. I'm not certain, but I think that is now known as Fry Way. I could be wrong. It was the final stoplight just before -- it was prior to the final stoplight before reaching the Spirit Store.

Q. Why did you look at your pager then?

A. Ah, I had a schedule in my mind and I was estimating as to whether or not how we were doing on this schedule.

Q. So you looked at your pager at 10:51 --

A. Yes.


So now that you kow the two hours spent there IS realistic, does that change the way you see the alibi?

You think Fred is not seeing the correct time on his pager??

:shrug:

[attorneywan2be]

Yes, it is realistic.

How do I know?

Because I have personally communicated with people who have knowledge of that store, and how long people shop there around Halloween (it is only open around that time of the year), and how long the lines are, etc... this person also has knowledge of how long that family would spend in the store having gone with them to the exact same place before.

By the way... they didn't get to the store at 10:45, they got there a little after 10:51.

From Fred's testimony:




So now that you kow the two hours spent there IS realistic, does that change the way you see the alibi?

You think Fred is not seeing the correct time on his pager??

:shrug:


I said 10:45 based on Kim's testimony that it would take them 25 minutes to get to the store..so if they left at 10:20..they would arrive at 10:45...anyhow that's not the issue..
IMO, the alibi is based on sketchy memory..I would not consider it rock solid by any means..one witness testified they left at 10:20 and the other witness testified they left at 10:45..IMO.. Fred is not a reliable witness when it comes to estimating time..so it is a shaky alibi at best..
To me the alibi evidence would not erase all the other evidence that is pointing to guilt..evidence that could not have been planted..evidence that Dyleski created..his story about the encounter indicates consciousness of guilt....this is huge and extremely incriminating IMO..

Would you agree that the alibi was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Can you please address my questions regarding the encounter..I think you said that you will address them later..thanks...

[Heyes]

either way he was seen. right? We have a pretty tight timeline. Did this leave enough time for him to stash the clothes up in the van and change? What was his demeaner when they saw him? I think it's pretty strange that he could slaughter a woman. stash the evidence and then sit and have a chit chat on the couch minutes later. It could happen, I don't know any murderers so maybe that's how they roll. However there is something strange about this case and about this husband. Strange I tell ya, I just can't put my finger on it. I never trusted the actions of the husband nor the pass he seemed to receive. I need to keep reading, but it is so cold to me, just plain mean to move a girlfriend into the house that your wife spent so much time designing while in the middle of the wifes murder trial. That has my hinky meter going big time. Also the fact that it was automatic that the goth kid did it. no one thought twice about it, and the lies put out about this kid before trial seemed strange, not one person defended this kid. yet night after night the TH's defend people like peterson, vandersloot, even oj. but not this kid.
One more question before I read a bit more. were there any experts in this trial, either pro or defense?
imo

[attorneywan2be]

I'm sure you will be invited to join...:D

The key here is : we can't verify "A" ..therefore we can't verify "B"...I think this is where we differ..

According to Fred: A = 10:20
According to Kim : A = 10:45
According to logic: A = Fred is not reliable as to estimating time evidenced by his testimony regarding the time of purchase + it is unrealistic for him to have spent 2 hours at the store to purchase one item----> "A" is not a fact that was proven beyond a reasonable doubt..

I made a mistake..10:45 is when Scott came to the house according to Kim's testimony..11:15 is when they left the house..

According to Kim: A = 11:15

[attorneywan2be]

I said 10:45 based on Kim's testimony that it would take them 25 minutes to get to the store..so if they left at 10:20..they would arrive at 10:45...anyhow that's not the issue..
IMO, the alibi is based on sketchy memory..I would not consider it rock solid by any means..one witness testified they left at 10:20 and the other witness testified they left at 10:45..IMO.. Fred is not a reliable witness when it comes to estimating time..so it is a shaky alibi at best..
To me the alibi evidence would not erase all the other evidence that is pointing to guilt..evidence that could not have been planted..evidence that Dyleski created..his story about the encounter indicates consciousness of guilt....this is huge and extremely incriminating IMO..

Would you agree that the alibi was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Can you please address my questions regarding the encounter..I think you said that you will address them later..thanks...

Again correcting my mistake..according to Fred they left at 10:20...according to Kim they left at 11:15

[Beebee]

I said 10:45 based on Kim's testimony that it would take them 25 minutes to get to the store..so if they left at 10:20..they would arrive at 10:45...anyhow that's not the issue..
IMO, the alibi is based on sketchy memory..I would not consider it rock solid by any means..one witness testified they left at 10:20 and the other witness testified they left at 10:45..IMO.. Fred is not a reliable witness when it comes to estimating time..so it is a shaky alibi at best..


Huh?

Kim did not look at a single time source the entire day. In court she GUESSED what time they left and that was by back tracking from the receipt.

Fred looked at a reliable time source four times, and you think his recall is unreliable? Why?? He is not an idiot. Something else, in his own household his housemates used to joke about how anal he is with time. FWIW.

The encounter-

Scratch Jena's recall. At the time they were talking about the woman on the road... it meant very little to them. No focus on it, her detail is sketchy at best, imo.

I'll go with Fred's. He had reason to pay attention.

Now, Scott himself did not testify. We can't pick apart what HE actually said, because we have no record of him saying anything. It's ALL second hand info....

There is good reason to believe that Scott smoked pot on that walk. To me that explains why he struggled to tell Fred exactly what happened. He himself did not have great recall of the event. At the time it meant nothing... throw in the effect of marijuana and that was as good as it was going to get.

Had he been making it up.... he would have come up with something MUCH better. Scott is not stupid.

The dna "evidence" does not fit. Scott's dna is not on the bloody glove. How do you explain that??

He was framed, IMO.

[Beebee]

Again correcting my mistake..according to Fred they left at 10:20...according to Kim they left at 11:15

According to Fred:

At 9:26 pager check and Kim was on the couch correcting papers.

At 10:16 pager check and Fred was surfing the net, still waiting for them.

At 10:20 pager check and Fred walked outside.

At 10:51 pager check and Fred is in the car at the light before the Spirit store.


According to Kim:

She did not look at a clock and guessed the time.


:shrug:

[Beebee]

either way he was seen. right? We have a pretty tight timeline. Did this leave enough time for him to stash the clothes up in the van and change? What was his demeaner when they saw him? I think it's pretty strange that he could slaughter a woman. stash the evidence and then sit and have a chit chat on the couch minutes later. It could happen, I don't know any murderers so maybe that's how they roll. However there is something strange about this case and about this husband. Strange I tell ya, I just can't put my finger on it. I never trusted the actions of the husband nor the pass he seemed to receive. I need to keep reading, but it is so cold to me, just plain mean to move a girlfriend into the house that your wife spent so much time designing while in the middle of the wifes murder trial. That has my hinky meter going big time. Also the fact that it was automatic that the goth kid did it. no one thought twice about it, and the lies put out about this kid before trial seemed strange, not one person defended this kid. yet night after night the TH's defend people like peterson, vandersloot, even oj. but not this kid.
One more question before I read a bit more. were there any experts in this trial, either pro or defense?
imo

Oh yes he was seen!

That's why I say the fact that he came home and sat with Kim before she left is NOT in dispute.

He was not sweating, out of breath, his clothes and shoes were clean, he had nothing but a small scratch on his nose and a perfectly reasonalbe explaination for it.... they live in the freaking woods...

Yet supposidly he just rage killed a complete stranger?? Something 1000% out of character for this kid??In less than 20 minutes, changed all his clothes and shoes, hid one bloody glove, got rid of the rest?

I don't think so.


JMO

[attorneywan2be]

BeeBee..let me start by saying that I started with the presumption of innocence..I simply couldn't believe this kid could have done it..but the more I read about this case..the more I'm convinced he is guilty 100%..there is ZERO doubt in my mind..I'll give my 2 cents but it looks like we have to agree to disagree on this one...I based my opinion on extensive analysis of the evidence presented in court..I didn't simply jump to conclusion!

This is my opinion and it is based on the testimonies:

Section I

A-The scratches/encounter evidence..

Saturday, the day of the murder, when he was asked about the cause of scratches/swelling by Kim Curiel, Sikkema, Marcus, and Jenna..his explanation varied between hitting some bushes to falling into a creek...nothing was mentioned about an encounter..
Still on Saturday..he told his friend Croen that he saw someone walking that morning..at that moment the news was about the police looking for someone at large that could have been responsible for the attack..he theorized that someone he saw walking could have been the killer ( that story was never mentioned again to anyone else)...no gender was mentioned..no description was given..IMO, that indicates fabrication! He also testified that Dyleski said "that's funny I saw Mrs Horowitz on my walk"..no details was given ..no car was mentioned..no grabbing was mentioned..in addition, his girlfriend testified that Dyleski told her that he didn't know how Pamela looked like..so how did he know he met her on his walk that morning??

Tuesday, the day Fred Curiel questioned him about the CC Fraud, Fred brought up the point that the killer's DNA would surely be found on Pamela Vitale..FOR THE FIRST TIME, Dyleski mentioned the encounter story..from that moment forward he told other people different versions of that encounter/grabbing incident...then finally he told Sikkema that it was total hallucination on his part..meaning the encounter didn't occur after all!
His mother also testified that they talked about that grabbing incident for the very first time on Tuesday..

B- DNA evidence

-They found Vitale's DNA on several items found in his duffel bag EXCEPT for the raincoat..the duffel bag itself also has her DNA..that bag was found in a van that was supposed to be towed away..

Planted by the killer? why then didn't he plant her DNA on the raincoat that was found in the bag? why not? IMO, because no one planted evidence on those items!

-They found Vitale's DNA on his shoe..
Those shoes were not in the duffel bag..they were in Dyleski's possession...-----> he gave them to his girlfriend to keep for him (among other things such as a knife) ----> his girlfriend turned them over to his mother who left them at her sister's house----> the mother turned them over to the DA on October 27th..8 days after Dyleski's arrest...

Planted by the killer? how and when was he able tp plant Vitale's blood on the shoe? IMO..it's impossible..it simply doesn't make any sense!

Section II

The alibi evidence:

Fred curiel checked pagers several times...he testified that they left the house at 10:20 am----> giving Dyleski an alibi

Kim Curiel: estimated that they spent about an hour shopping at the Spirit store..tracing back their steps..she testified they left the house at 11:15----> Dyleski had no alibi

Sikkema:he looked at his clock and went downstairs to cook breakfast at 10:20 am..according to him, Scott came in the house between 10:30 and 11:00..however, he thought it was towards the end of the cooking which would be closer to 11:00..----> Dyleski had no alibi

---------------------------------------------------

Is it logical to believe that the evidence in Section II "Dyleski's alibi" is very strong and rock solid that would render the evidence listed in section I meaningless or not credible?..he DIDN'T have an alibi based on the testimonies of 2 witnesses...he had an alibi based on the testimony of one witness with a sketchy memory by his own admission...

Is it logical to believe the killer planted evidence on the duffel bag and its contents skipping the raincoat? why would the killer plant the DNA on some items and not on the others? furthermore, why would the killer plant such small amount of DNA? after all there was a pool of blood..he could have smeared blood all over the duffel bag and its contents..why not?

Is it logical to believe the killer decided to plant DNA on the shoe that Dyleski's mother turned over to the DA on October 27th..are we to believe that the killer planted DNA on two different days (almost 2 weeks apart) and at two different locations..is it even possible for the killer to have had access to the shoe at the police/DA and had the opportunity to plant Pamela's DNA?

I think not..

[attorneywan2be]

I would like to add to my previous post that Kim testified by tracing back her steps..Dyleski came in at 10:45..that time is almost identical to what Sikkema testified to..he said that Dyleski came in between 10:30 and 11:00 but closer to 11:00..I think that's a corroboration of Kim's estimate...IMO, it's Fred who is totally off...!

[Beebee]

Sikemma is off too. He also testified that Esther was there when he first saw Scott. She worked that day and didn't get home until after the Curiels had left. Also I can't imagine waiting to feed two young children breakfast till 11:00. They weren't like older kids who sleep in, they were almost babies.

Fred is the only one, imo who was paying attention to time.

The lack of Scott's dna makes the dna "evidence" suspect to me.

AW2B... the lack of dna on the coat just means the person who planted that evidence wasn't stupid. They knew the coat would be examined. If Scott wore that coat to Kill Pam it would need to be covered in blood. Spatter and large saturated areas. Not smears. A decent criminalist could have easily determine planting on something like that coat. The glove was more difficult.

Why do you think the coat was in the bag?? Why was there clothing in the bag that had none of Pam's dna? IN fact, the only items were the glove and the mask.

The shoes.... do you know that Pam's dna was not found on the sole of the shoe?? Even the dna expert Stockwell testifed that biological fluids typically stay in the indentations... well here it is:


Q. Okay. Is there anything you can tell us about -- anything more you could tell us about that particular stain on the sole of the shoe?

A. I was not the one who collected it, so I can't tell you how it was sampled. One aspect when you are dealing with such an area of a shoe, if it has recessed areas, recessed areas can hold on to biological fluids quite well. So they can remain there for quite some time. But I was not the person who collected the sample. So I can't tell you how that sample was collected.

So if this shoe made bloody prints then were is the blood in the recessed areas??

You seem to think that Scott is demonstrating COG concerning the encounter, and I see just the opposite. Strange.

Consciousness of innocence is demonstrated several times. First, if Scott was guilty, he would not have needed Kim Curiel to inform him who the victim was, he would already know. He would not have needed the Curiels to inform him of a "possible connection" to the credit card scheme, that "connection" too would already be well known had Scott been the actual killer. The real killer would not realize and feel frustration AFTER the fact that the killing would put focus on the credit card fraud, and lastly, Scott's contention that he had an alibi for the "whole day" demonstrates Scott had no idea what time Pam Vitale was murdered


AW2B... what do you think the motive would be in the first place?

[Beebee]

AW2B,

I had a thought for you.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to think that Scott came up with the "encounter story" because Fred pointed out to him there would be dna in such a large struggle. As if then and only then did Scott realize his dna could be discovered.

As you know Pam's murder was horrific and involved a brutal, brutal rage kill. The person killed her by beating her over and over with multiple objects--it was UP CLOSE. How she got all the injury to arms, legs, feet, toes... remains a mystery.. but clearly this was a violent battle.

ALL the talking heads and forensic talking heads expected dna. The reasons are obvious.

Lo and behold there is NO dna from Scott Dyleski at the scene or on Pamela. None of his hair. None of his prints. Nothing on her clothes. Nothing.

The scene does not have any dna from the killer. What do you make of that??

For the killer not to leave behind a speck of evidence from himself would involve precautions and care, It would involve a conscious effort.

So... did Scott Dyleski take dna precautions, then suddently freak out and worry about dna because Fred brings it up??

I'm trying to follow you but it doesn't make sense if you look deeper.

IMO

ps- what if the killer lived there? Then their dna is expected at the scene. How fortunate if the killer indeed lives there. JMO

[Heyes]

AW2B,

I had a thought for you.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to think that Scott came up with the "encounter story" because Fred pointed out to him there would be dna in such a large struggle. As if then and only then did Scott realize his dna could be discovered.

As you know Pam's murder was horrific and involved a brutal, brutal rage kill. The person killed her by beating her over and over with multiple objects--it was UP CLOSE. How she got all the injury to arms, legs, feet, toes... remains a mystery.. but clearly this was a violent battle.

ALL the talking heads and forensic talking heads expected dna. The reasons are obvious.

Lo and behold there is NO dna from Scott Dyleski at the scene or on Pamela. None of his hair. None of his prints. Nothing on her clothes. Nothing.

The scene does not have any dna from the killer. What do you make of that??

For the killer not to leave behind a speck of evidence from himself would involve precautions and care, It would involve a conscious effort.

So... did Scott Dyleski take dna precautions, then suddently freak out and worry about dna because Fred brings it up??

I'm trying to follow you but it doesn't make sense if you look deeper.

IMO

ps- what if the killer lived there? Then their dna is expected at the scene. How fortunate if the killer indeed lives there. JMO

Your ps was my next question. I am assuming they did find the husbands dna but since he was obviously given this pass, I guess it wasn't even considered.
Beebee your making more sense on this. I haven't had alot of time but are the trial transcripts available?
I could go along with it looking like it was scott if there wasn't the hinky meter going off in my head about the husband. I can remember reading some papers he wrote, and this was before his wife was murdered. He seemed to be fasicnated with criminals and death. even in one paper he wrote he would wonder what the victim had looked at as she dies. It was IMO very warped thinking and always bothered me. The rage in this killing also makes me look away from a stranger with a lousy credit card scam to someone very close to the victim. The rage!
One more question Beebee or attorney, did scott or daniel take lie detector tests? I know they are not presented in court but does anyone know? Did anyone ask scott to take one? Did he agree or decline? I can assume the husband probably wasn't asked since he didn't even become a suspect. Which in itself is kind of strange. Thanks you two, This thread is very interesting.

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B,

I had a thought for you.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to think that Scott came up with the "encounter story" because Fred pointed out to him there would be dna in such a large struggle. As if then and only then did Scott realize his dna could be discovered.

As you know Pam's murder was horrific and involved a brutal, brutal rage kill. The person killed her by beating her over and over with multiple objects--it was UP CLOSE. How she got all the injury to arms, legs, feet, toes... remains a mystery.. but clearly this was a violent battle.

ALL the talking heads and forensic talking heads expected dna. The reasons are obvious.

Lo and behold there is NO dna from Scott Dyleski at the scene or on Pamela. None of his hair. None of his prints. Nothing on her clothes. Nothing.

The scene does not have any dna from the killer. What do you make of that??

For the killer not to leave behind a speck of evidence from himself would involve precautions and care, It would involve a conscious effort.

So... did Scott Dyleski take dna precautions, then suddently freak out and worry about dna because Fred brings it up??

I'm trying to follow you but it doesn't make sense if you look deeper.

IMO

ps- what if the killer lived there? Then their dna is expected at the scene. How fortunate if the killer indeed lives there. JMO


BeeBee...please please think about this..

IMO

Dyleski went there with the intention to kill her..he was prepared..he had gloves..ski mask..etc..to be on the safe side he was definitely being careful not to leave anything behind..hence the lack of evidence..however, with that said, it is normal that the killer would never be certain..his mind would go --->what if? on and on and on..it's only natural!

Here is the question: why didn't Dyleski start to really worry about DNA until his discussion with Fred? here is the answer:

The chronology of his chain of thoughts:

1-He knew that the police would not have his DNA on the record since he had no criminal records..so even if they find his DNA they would never make the connection that he was the donor..his DNA is not in the database..he was not an acquaintance of Pamela so there would be no reason for the police to investigate him..so as far as the police was concerned it would be an unidentified DNA..

But:

2-When Fred discovered the CC Fraud that involved Pamela and brought up the fact that it was possible that this scheme would connect him to the murder..and also brought up the fact that it is guaranteed (removing any confidence left) that the killer's DNA would be found on Pamela due to the struggle..--->

Now it is entirely a different situation..he could be connected and he could be investigated in the murder of Pamela..so Dyleski became concerned that if the police makes the connection between him and Pamela (cc Fraud) they would ask him for blood sample to compare his DNA to that found on Pamela..---->

He came up with that encounter story to explain away the presence of his DNA on Pamela in case it is found..IMO, there is no other explanation..on Saturday he explained his scratches and never once mentioned the grabbing incident until his discussion with Fred on Tuesday!

[Beebee]

BeeBee...please please think about this..

IMO

Dyleski went there with the intention to kill her..he was prepared..he had gloves..ski mask..etc..to be on the safe side he was definitely being careful not to leave anything behind..hence the lack of evidence..however, with that said, it is normal that the killer would never be certain..his mind would go --->what if? on and on and on..it's only natural!

Here is the question: why didn't Dyleski start to really worry about DNA until his discussion with Fred? here is the answer:

The chronology of his chain of thoughts:

1-He knew that the police would not have his DNA on the record since he had no criminal records..so even if they find his DNA they would never make the connection that he was the donor..his DNA is not in the database..he was not an acquaintance of Pamela so there would be no reason for the police to investigate him..so as far as the police was concerned it would be an unidentified DNA..

But:

2-When Fred discovered the CC Fraud that involved Pamela and brought up the fact that it was possible that this scheme would connect him to the murder..and also brought up the fact that it is guaranteed (removing any confidence left) that the killer's DNA would be found on Pamela due to the struggle..--->

Now it is entirely a different situation..he could be connected and he could be investigated in the murder of Pamela..so Dyleski became concerned that if the police makes the connection between him and Pamela (cc Fraud) they would ask him for blood sample to compare his DNA to that found on Pamela..---->

He came up with that encounter story to explain away the presence of his DNA on Pamela in case it is found..IMO, there is no other explanation..on Saturday he explained his scratches and never once mentioned the grabbing incident until his discussion with Fred on Tuesday!


WHY would he go there with the intention to kill Pam?? Give me your best guess.

His dna is NOT there, or in the glove--- how do you explain that?? Please don't leave out the glove....

Thanks

[attorneywan2be]

WHY would he go there with the intention to kill Pam?? Give me your best guess.

His dna is NOT there, or in the glove--- how do you explain that?? Please don't leave out the glove....

Thanks

IMO

You asked why did he want to kill her...it's possible he wanted to kill that woman at that address to cover up the fraud issue and it's possible he wanted to kill her seeking revenge for the killing of his dog..my best guess is the latter...

Timeline of events leading to the murder:

1-When Dyleski was 2 years old.. Jazz (the dog) was brought into his life..he grew up with this dog..I can only imagine the love and the strong emotional connection they had..

2-On September 30th, Karen Schneider ran over his dog Jazz..Esther was very upset and angry because Karen was blaming everyone else instead of taking responsibility..

3-Jazz was admitted in the vet hospital for one week..she was suffering and needed pain killers..most of her muscles were severed..she was paralyzed and had symptoms of shock..the vet had to dispense more pain killers on October 11th.. they finally had to put her to sleep on October 17th..Dyleski didn't show any emotion...IMO, he most definitely was devastated and very ANGRY but he kept it inside..losing a dog is a very painful experience..let alone if the dog was killed because of a careless person who refused to admit she made a mistake..at least in his opinion..the ANGER the person would feel is beyond imagination..not only was his dog killed..but she was paralyzed and suffered for 2 weeks before she was put to sleep..he saw her suffering...

4-Dyleski FRAUDULENTLY used Karen Schneider credit card to make a purchase..however, he put Pamela's address as the billing address..that indicates to me that when he went to that address he thought he was killing Karen Schneider..the woman who killed his beloved dog "Jazz"..he simply had the wrong address..that murder was premeditated..hence the glove..the ski mask...etc...etc..that also explains why he was so careful not to leave anything behind..hence the lack of DNA..however, the pattern fabric impressions on the boxes were consistent with the glove fabric..

5-When he learned that it was Pamela that was killed ..he figured that no one would suspect him..and then BOOM..Fred tells him that a connection between him and Pamela can be made because of the CC fraud which had her address..he then fabricated the encounter/grabbing story that kept changing every time he recounted it to someone..(this could not be ignored)

The Glove:

We are talking about trace evidence inside the glove..a partial profile was found..meaning: it's inconclusive..the absence of trace evidence as to the killer means nothing..there is overwhelming evidence of consciousness of guilt in addition to the DNA evidence..

[attorneywan2be]

IMO

Consciousness of Guilt:

WOW!! I missed that part..not only did Dyleski change his encounter story from one person to another..he actually changed it as he was going along explaining it for the first time to Fred and Kim...it can't be more obvious!! it's a FABRICATION!

He told them that the encounter occurred as he was going to the barn...and that the woman was DRIVING out of the Canyon..pulled over and reached across through the window of the PASSENGER seat and grabbed him...when Fred questioned him about how it was possible for her to have reached and grabbed him..by the end of their discussion he had already changed some details..( the woman was still the driver)..he told them that the encounter occurred as he was returning home and the woman reached out of the DRIVER"S window..( so most definitely he told them the woman was the driver, and we know that he told others the woman was the panicked passenger)

[Beebee]

AW2B,

For you to even consider he went there thinking it was Karen Schneider who hit the dog tells me you have much to learn about this case.

Not a single person in the canyon thought Karen Schneider lived at the monster mansion Horowitz and Pam were building. The construction could be seen from the Curiel porch.

What do you think Scott's "connection" was to Pamela??

There was none.

He never tried to use her credit card. He never tried to use a credit card belonging to Horowitz. He was trying to use Karen Schneiders card.

1901 It was nothing but an ERROR. Instead of typing 2001 in the billing address section, he typed in 1901. (It's easy to figure out how that happened by the way- looking for the phone number on the Curiel home association sheet, and read the wrong street number as well)

Now throw in that the order was declined and he knew it.

Why on god's green earth would he go to Vitale's and kill her??? We are not talking about a violent psycho kid here, we are talking about a very NON-violent kid.


Something else I'm having a hard time with -- you are picking apart second hand info concerning the encounter giving Fred's recollection all the credibility in the world, yet when it comes to his pager checks, you think he is mistaken??

You also don't know the effects of marijuana. Scott's OWN recall wasn't clear!! He was stoned when it happened! Smoke a joint, call me... we'll talk for a few minutes. Three days later, I'm gonna quize you on what we talked about... but first I'm going to scare the crap out of you so your emotional frame of mind is fearful....
Okay- you know I'm kidding, but I will stand by that you would learn quite a bit about marijuana and recall by an experiment like that.
There is good reason to believe Scott smoked pot on that walk, so try and factor that in if possible.

The "murder glove"... forget "trace evidence" like the lack of fibers, hair and all the other things that it lacked... it lacked Scott's dna!! This is a glove that he would have had to clutch with great force and strike over and over.... why is his dna NOT on that glove?


IMO

opps, ps one more thing-- On saturday, the day Pam was murdered... Scott wasn't even aware that he had made a mistake on the billing address section with the cc scam. He didn't know until AFTER Pam was murdered.

[Beebee]

Your ps was my next question. I am assuming they did find the husbands dna but since he was obviously given this pass, I guess it wasn't even considered.
Beebee your making more sense on this. I haven't had alot of time but are the trial transcripts available?
I could go along with it looking like it was scott if there wasn't the hinky meter going off in my head about the husband. I can remember reading some papers he wrote, and this was before his wife was murdered. He seemed to be fasicnated with criminals and death. even in one paper he wrote he would wonder what the victim had looked at as she dies. It was IMO very warped thinking and always bothered me. The rage in this killing also makes me look away from a stranger with a lousy credit card scam to someone very close to the victim. The rage!
One more question Beebee or attorney, did scott or daniel take lie detector tests? I know they are not presented in court but does anyone know? Did anyone ask scott to take one? Did he agree or decline? I can assume the husband probably wasn't asked since he didn't even become a suspect. Which in itself is kind of strange. Thanks you two, This thread is very interesting.

According to what Horowitz said on TV-- he was never asked to take a polygraph.

Scott was never questioned by LE, let alone asked to take a polygraph.


ps- prelim, and some trial testimony is on the website, if you are looking for something specific let me know and I can check my notes and transcript files.

[awakening2lite]

AW2B,

By the way, to use your above analogy.... let's say you keep checking the time for a meeting, and don't even know if your son came home or not... but later it is determined that he was indeed home before you left, independently of you, your recollection of the time becomes very important because even if you didn't see him, you can verify a point on the timeline. The time you left.

If A=B and you can verify A.... then you can also verify B.

I'm going to try out for mensa later this year :D

Hi BeeBee :seeya:

This is the one of the two things that really bother me about this case.

IIRC Jewett stated there was a "problem" with the time line of the alibi and it remained a problem until he (Jewett) called the Curiels into his office and sat down with them and straightened them out. (Or words to that affect).

BeeBee, do you happen to recall the same thing occuring?

It just felt wrong to me for the witness' of the defense to have their testimony "corrected" by the DA. And this following the trama of the search.

AMOO

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B,

For you to even consider he went there thinking it was Karen Schneider who hit the dog tells me you have much to learn about this case.

Not a single person in the canyon thought Karen Schneider lived at the monster mansion Horowitz and Pam were building. The construction could be seen from the Curiel porch.

What do you think Scott's "connection" was to Pamela??

There was none.

He never tried to use her credit card. He never tried to use a credit card belonging to Horowitz. He was trying to use Karen Schneiders card.

1901 It was nothing but an ERROR. Instead of typing 2001 in the billing address section, he typed in 1901. (It's easy to figure out how that happened by the way- looking for the phone number on the Curiel home association sheet, and read the wrong street number as well)

Now throw in that the order was declined and he knew it.

Why on god's green earth would he go to Vitale's and kill her??? We are not talking about a violent psycho kid here, we are talking about a very NON-violent kid.


Something else I'm having a hard time with -- you are picking apart second hand info concerning the encounter giving Fred's recollection all the credibility in the world, yet when it comes to his pager checks, you think he is mistaken??

You also don't know the effects of marijuana. Scott's OWN recall wasn't clear!! He was stoned when it happened! Smoke a joint, call me... we'll talk for a few minutes. Three days later, I'm gonna quize you on what we talked about... but first I'm going to scare the crap out of you so your emotional frame of mind is fearful....
Okay- you know I'm kidding, but I will stand by that you would learn quite a bit about marijuana and recall by an experiment like that.
There is good reason to believe Scott smoked pot on that walk, so try and factor that in if possible.

The "murder glove"... forget "trace evidence" like the lack of fibers, hair and all the other things that it lacked... it lacked Scott's dna!! This is a glove that he would have had to clutch with great force and strike over and over.... why is his dna NOT on that glove?


IMO

opps, ps one more thing-- On saturday, the day Pam was murdered... Scott wasn't even aware that he had made a mistake on the billing address section with the cc scam. He didn't know until AFTER Pam was murdered.

IMO

As to your last note: yes, he was aware it was Pamela as early as late Saturday..so he probably figured he made a mistake as to the address.. remember, he heard the news that Pamela Horowitz was the victim..in fact, according to Croen, on Saturday..after hearing the news.. he told him "That's funny I saw Mrs Horowitz on my walk"...yet he told Fred/Kim and others on Tuesday that he didn't know how Pamela looked like..so how did he know on Saturday that it was Pamela he saw on his walk?

BeeBee..I read the entire TS..I read articles for and against Dyleski..I know about the mansion that could be seen from the Curiel porch...we can speculate forever as to what went thru his mind..we can speculate that he should have known that the trailer home where Pamela was belonged to the Horowitz..we can speculate that he might have made a mistake and thought the trailer home was Karen's house...we can speculate that his target was Karen or Pamela...etc..etc..

You are ignoring overwhelming evidence..you are explaining away Vitales' DNA that was found on his duffle bag and it's contents by theorizing that they were planted..there isn't one shred of evidence of planting..if someone wanted to plant DNA evidence to implicate Dyleski..why didn't he plant a large amount of Vitale's blood all over the items? after all there was a pool of her blood..you're explaining away the consciousness of guilt evidence: 1-everchanging encounter story..you're attributing it to either forgetful memory on the part of the witnesses or a stoned mixed up Dyleski..2-the removal of items including the shoes..the knife..papers where he wrote credit card numbers/names that included Pamela..(his mother testified at the prelim that before she burned the papers she saw Pamela's name..then she changed her testimony at the trial saying she didn't see Pamela's name) a book about murders..she burned that one too..

I would appreciate it if you would please address each of these questions:

1-Jena testified that Dyleski told her that his mother told him to remove things because his room might be searched by the police..his mother testified that she asked him to get rid of evidence in his room that could implicate him because his room will probably be searched by the Curiels ..Dyleski packed certain items..gave them to his girlfriend to hold for him..why do you think he packed the shoes that had Vitale's DNA (coincidence?)..the papers where he had written credit card numbers/names..a book about murders ..etc..?

2-Who do you think planted Vitale's DNA on Dyleski's shoes (they weren't in the duffel bag..they were in Dyleski's possession..then in Jena's..then in his Mother's who turned them over to the DA) when and where do you think the the planting of DNA was done?

3-Why do you think the so called killer DIDN'T plant enough evidence on the Duffel bag and its contents.?.why did he not plant DNA on the raincoat..after all his intention was to implicate Dyleski? why hide the duffel bag where it might not be found?

4-What do you think of the fact that the partial profile they found on the bottom of Vitale's foot matched Dyleski's?

3-10 = the evidence sample from the bottom of Vitale's foot
12-1 = The reference sample from Dyleski

From the trial TS:

3 Q. Okay. And did you do that with respect to the question

4 of the probability of whether or not somebody with the profile

5 you found in 3-10 would be found based upon a random sample of

6 the population?

7 A. Yes, I did that calculation.

8 Q. And what was that calculation?

9 A. I would expect that approximately 1 in 81,000

10 African-Americans or 1 in 43,000 Caucasians or 1 in 23,000

11 Hispanics would have a genetic profile that could fit the

12 profile I observed in the minor component of sample 3-10.

13 Q. And did Scott Dyleski's sample in 12-1 match 3-10 at

14 all of those loci from which you were able to make that

15 calculation?

16 A. Yes.
-----------------------------------

5 Q. And what were your results?

6 A. I amplified the DNA for 17 different Y-STR markers,

7 which is a kit that I am using. It's currently the kit that has

8 the most markers in it. In my opinion, it's the best kit to use

9 because of the number of markers as well as the quality of the

10 kit.

11 And I compared the unknown sample of 3-10 DNA to the

12 12-1 DNA, and they were indistinguishable for all 17 markers.

13 Now, the types that I obtained from each one were the same all

14 the way through the profile.

[Beebee]

IMO

As to your last note: yes, he was aware it was Pamela as early as late Saturday..so he probably figured he made a mistake as to the address.. remember, he heard the news that Pamela Horowitz was the victim..in fact, according to Croen, on Saturday..after hearing the news.. he told him "That's funny I saw Mrs Horowitz on my walk"...yet he told Fred/Kim and others on Tuesday that he didn't know how Pamela looked like..so how did he know on Saturday that it was Pamela he saw on his walk?




I'm going to take each point... but I can't do it all at once, so give me a little time.

On your first point above. This is not accurate AW2B. Scott did NOT tell Robin or anybody that he saw Mrs. Horowitz, or Pam Vitale while on his walk. He mentioned seeing somebody on his walk, but did not mention age or gender or if they were in a car or walking. You must have missed Leonida's cross of Robin concerning what Scott said that Saturday night. Here is her cross from Robin's prelim testimony:

14 MS. LEONIDA:

15 Q. Do you remember saying, "The only thing connected

16 to that is, connected to the murder is that he said he saw

17 someone when he was on his walk. Didn't specify gender or who it

18 was, just that he saw someone. I thought -- we were thinking

19 that, wow, what if it was someone who had just killed this woman

20 or at that time I didn't know who it was, but what if it was

21 someone who had been involved and was just walking around."

22 Do you remember saying that?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Now, again, since this happened you've talked to

25 your parents about what happened and what was said on Saturday;

26 right?

27 A. Um, yes.

28 Q. And you've talked to your lawyer?
297


1 A. Yes.

2 Q. You've talked to the police?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Talked to a judge?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. You've talked to the District Attorney?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. You've talked to me?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Would it be fair to say that what you testified

11 to back when it was fresh in your mind is more accurate --

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. -- than what you remember now?

14 A. Yes.


If you have any doubt about this the skelton transcript with Robin's testimony in front of the judge is posted on my website under the Curiel vs CCC section.

Scott did not know what Pam Vitale looked like, he did not know until he described the woman to Kim that the woman he saw was Pam Vitale, the murder victim.

Also, even if someone were to mistake the address, there would be no mistaking the HOUSE. You've seen the pics, right??

[awakening2lite]

IMO

As to your last note: yes, he was aware it was Pamela as early as late Saturday..so he probably figured he made a mistake as to the address.. remember, he heard the news that Pamela Horowitz was the victim..in fact, according to Croen, on Saturday..after hearing the news.. he told him "That's funny I saw Mrs Horowitz on my walk"...yet he told Fred/Kim and others on Tuesday that he didn't know how Pamela looked like..so how did he know on Saturday that it was Pamela he saw on his walk?


I would appreciate it if you would please address each of these questions:

1-Jena testified that Dyleski told her that his mother told him to remove things because his room might be searched by the police..his mother testified that she asked him to get rid of evidence in his room that could implicate him because his room will probably be searched by the Curiels ..Dyleski packed certain items..gave them to his girlfriend to hold for him..why do you think he packed the shoes that had Vitale's DNA (coincidence?)..the papers where he had written credit card numbers/names..a book about murders ..etc..?

2-Who do you think planted Vitale's DNA on Dyleski's shoes (they weren't in the duffel bag..they were in Dyleski's possession..then in Jena's..then in his Mother's who turned them over to the DA) when and where do you think the the planting of DNA was done?

3-Why do you think the so called killer DIDN'T plant enough evidence on the Duffel bag and its contents.?.why did he not plant DNA on the raincoat..after all his intention was to implicate Dyleski? why hide the duffel bag where it might not be found?

4-What do you think of the fact that the partial profile they found on the bottom of Vitale's foot matched Dyleski's?

3-10 = the evidence sample from the bottom of Vitale's foot
12-1 = The reference sample from Dyleski

From the trial TS:




[/B].
>snipped<

I know you are not addressing this to me however, I'd like to add a few question, if I may.

About SD reporting seeing PV in the woods. Since he did not know PV perhaps he saw some other woman in the vicinity, coming from or going in the direction of PV's trailer, and thought it was PV by association. (just guessing)

1. If SD was guilty why didn't he pack up that "murder list" that was in his drawer? Surely, that would have been formost on his mind to discard or remove as it was the outline of an intended crime. And while we are at it, why didn't those 5 pages have SD's fingerprints on them?

2. If planting of dna took place one would need to know all the people who could have touched or contaminated the shoes. Because they were handled by so many and countless LE it is impossible to guess.

3. Isn't it possible the raincoat was already in the duffel bag in the van when the other items were added and it played no part whatsoever in the crime?

4. Wasn't it up to the jury to determine if the partial shoe print matched and no professional declared it a match but only testified it was similar?

[Beebee]

IMO



1-Jena testified that Dyleski told her that his mother told him to remove things because his room might be searched by the police..his mother testified that she asked him to get rid of evidence in his room that could implicate him because his room will probably be searched by the Curiels ..Dyleski packed certain items..gave them to his girlfriend to hold for him..why do you think he packed the shoes that had Vitale's DNA (coincidence?)..the papers where he had written credit card numbers/names..a book about murders ..etc..?

[/B].


The credit card bust was a big deal not only for Scott but for Esther, because she feared she would be kicked out of the Curiel home. IMO she used some poor judgement concerning a few things, but her mistakes can not be held against Scott. Nor can her frame of mind be misconstrued to be his frame of mind.

I will agree that the one shoe having Pam's dna on the top is compelling. The person who framed Scott is not stupid. I don't know how it happened. I do know the shoe evidence has baggage that shouldn't be there. Why only blood on one shoe, and why such a small amount?? Why nothing on the soles, yet it left bloody prints?? It doesn't fit, so it remains suspect to me because of all the other hinky things and red flags.


IMO

[Beebee]

IMO

2-Who do you think planted Vitale's DNA on Dyleski's shoes (they weren't in the duffel bag..they were in Dyleski's possession..then in Jena's..then in his Mother's who turned them over to the DA) when and where do you think the the planting of DNA was done?



I think the person who planted Vitale's dna on the shoe is the same person who planted her dna on the glove, mask and duffle bag.

Somebody with access to Vitale's dna because they killed her and had access to the blood, or if they did it later, still had access to her dna -- her toothbrush would be a great source.

But they had no access to Scott's dna. That's a red flag for framing, IMO. Pam's dna is such "sloppy" places.... like a bag with a name tag.... here is a bloody glove... come get me.... yet none of Dyleski's dna at the scene.

I don't know the where/when.... only they do.


MOO

[Beebee]

IMO

3-Why do you think the so called killer DIDN'T plant enough evidence on the Duffel bag and its contents.?.why did he not plant DNA on the raincoat..after all his intention was to implicate Dyleski? why hide the duffel bag where it might not be found?

4-What do you think of the fact that the partial profile they found on the bottom of Vitale's foot matched Dyleski's?



I already addressed the lack of dna on the coat. Why do you think the coat was in the bag?? Same for the other clothes that had no dna. Imagine how hard it would be to plant spatter.

The bag was found almost immediately. It was in a place SURE to be searched.


Isn't the better question why would Scott Dyleski hide ONE glove and a MASK (kind of a silly item for a kill, don't you think??) in a bag with his name, and get rid of everything else??

The YSTR is complicated. It is not a good tool for inclusion. Much better for exclusion.

How much do you know about it?? What the "markers" mean etc??

It was derived from a partial profile at contamination level, imo... CODIS rejected it... I also reject it. And like ALL the other dna evidence in this case, this nano/partial/incomplete profile had baggage! Went through an expired and contaminated test kit before it ever made it to Harmer, and when it arrived some was missing. I totally discount this -- actually IMO this issue will be raised on appeal. One of the best experts in CA on YSTR argued against it, but the judge let it in anyway. I can try and dig that up if you want to read it. It was a pretrial issue.


IMO

[Beebee]

Hi BeeBee :seeya:

This is the one of the two things that really bother me about this case.

IIRC Jewett stated there was a "problem" with the time line of the alibi and it remained a problem until he (Jewett) called the Curiels into his office and sat down with them and straightened them out. (Or words to that affect).

BeeBee, do you happen to recall the same thing occuring?

It just felt wrong to me for the witness' of the defense to have their testimony "corrected" by the DA. And this following the trama of the search.

AMOO

Hey Wake!! :seeya:

I almost didn't see this :D How have you been??

Have you been able to read Fred's trial testimony? PM me if you would like to read it ;)

[attorneywan2be]

I'm going to take each point... but I can't do it all at once, so give me a little time.

On your first point above. This is not accurate AW2B. Scott did NOT tell Robin or anybody that he saw Mrs. Horowitz, or Pam Vitale while on his walk. He mentioned seeing somebody on his walk, but did not mention age or gender or if they were in a car or walking. You must have missed Leonida's cross of Robin concerning what Scott said that Saturday night. Here is her cross from Robin's prelim testimony:




If you have any doubt about this the skelton transcript with Robin's testimony in front of the judge is posted on my website under the Curiel vs CCC section.

Scott did not know what Pam Vitale looked like, he did not know until he described the woman to Kim that the woman he saw was Pam Vitale, the murder victim.

Also, even if someone were to mistake the address, there would be no mistaking the HOUSE. You've seen the pics, right??

BeeBee...IMO.. he said both statements..On Saturday..he mentioned that he saw someone (no gender no description was given) on his walk and theorized that it could be the person the police was looking for in connection with the attack...he also told Croen that same night that he saw Mrs Horowitz on his walk...


Croen's testimony at the prelim:


1 Q. -- name.

2 And I should have asked you this before. When he

3 first mentioned, you know, "That's funny, I saw her on my walk,"

4 when you said previously that Friday -- that Saturday night when

5 you were talking to him, and he said that's a coincidence or

6 whatever, I saw her on my walk, did he use a name to indicate who

7 it was he was talking about?

8 A. Yes. He said Ms. Horowitz.

9 Q. So, Saturday night he used the name Ms. Horowitz?

10 A. Yes.

[Beebee]

BeeBee...IMO.. he said both statements..On Saturday..he mentioned that he saw someone (no gender no description was given) on his walk and theorized that it could be the person the police was looking for in connection with the attack...he also told Croen that same night that he saw Mrs Horowitz on his walk...


Croen's testimony at the prelim:


1 Q. -- name.

2 And I should have asked you this before. When he

3 first mentioned, you know, "That's funny, I saw her on my walk,"

4 when you said previously that Friday -- that Saturday night when

5 you were talking to him, and he said that's a coincidence or

6 whatever, I saw her on my walk, did he use a name to indicate who

7 it was he was talking about?

8 A. Yes. He said Ms. Horowitz.

9 Q. So, Saturday night he used the name Ms. Horowitz?

10 A. Yes.


Did you read the cross and skelton transcript??

Also check Jena's testimony.

[attorneywan2be]

I think the person who planted Vitale's dna on the shoe is the same person who planted her dna on the glove, mask and duffle bag.

Somebody with access to Vitale's dna because they killed her and had access to the blood, or if they did it later, still had access to her dna -- her toothbrush would be a great source.

But they had no access to Scott's dna. That's a red flag for framing, IMO. Pam's dna is such "sloppy" places.... like a bag with a name tag.... here is a bloody glove... come get me.... yet none of Dyleski's dna at the scene.

I don't know the where/when.... only they do.


MOO

IMO

In order to believe the killer framed him by planting evidence on the shoes...don't you think it's important to determine whether or not the killer had access to those shoes?

We know the shoes were not in the duffel bag..we know the shoes were in Dyleski's possession..---> to Jena---> to his mother ----> to the DA on October 27th...8 days after Dyleski's arrest..

If the killer had already planted Pamela's DNA on the duffel bag and its contents as you suggested..a duffel bag that was already found by the police ..then why would he go thru the trouble of planting evidence on another item about 2 weeks later? an item that he would have difficulty accessing...how about Dyleski's knife that was in the same bag with those shoes..why didn't the killer try to plant Pamela's DNA on the knife??! It makes no sense!

The bottom line is: The alleged killer had no access to the shoes...what is your theory that would explain how the killer gained access to those shoes?

[Beebee]

IMO

In order to believe the killer framed him by planting evidence on the shoes...don't you think it's important to determine whether or not the killer had access to those shoes?



Of course.

Shoes were kept and scattered all over the Curiel property. To be honest the place was a dump, IMO.

Ever wonder how only ONE shoe was involved??

[packy]

Didn't someone testify that they saw Scott in lace-up boots that morning?

[attorneywan2be]

Of course.

Shoes were kept and scattered all over the Curiel property. To be honest the place was a dump, IMO.

Ever wonder how only ONE shoe was involved??

BeeBee..Dyleski was using those shoes..they were not in the van..according to Jena he was wearing them on Sunday.. he packed them along with the knife..the papers with credit cards info and a book about murders...etc..are you saying the killer went inside the house and planted DNA on those shoes? Do you think the killer was a friend that would know where the shoes were located in the house?

I have to tell you that it doesn't make sense to me at all..it's one thing to believe the alleged killer planted DNA on some items located in one place though there is no evidence of that..it's quite another to believe he went looking for other items inside the house to plant more DNA!!!

I'm totally confused by what you said about only one shoe being involved..unless I'm missing something..I think the expert testified that he obtained a full profile of one single female that matched Vitale from 22-1H and 22-1P..and I think 22-1H was from the left shoe and 22-1P was from the right shoe...please correct me if I'm wrong...


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

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

22 individual, and that profile matches Ms. Vitale.

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

24 talking about that 43 quadrillion number you had mentioned

25 previously?

26 A. The numbers better 1 in 62 quadrillion

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

28 4.2 quintillion Hispanics.

[Beebee]

Didn't someone testify that they saw Scott in lace-up boots that morning?

Hi packy,

Yes, that was Mike Sikemma:

Prelim/ Mike Sikkema:



A. He was wearing a black T-shirt, black boots and black -- either, like, long black shorts or black jeans that had been cut off sort of halfway between like knee and ankle.

Q. Now, you characterized his shoes as black boots; is that right?

A. Yeah, black boots that I didn't recognize. Black boots that I hadn't seen him wear before.

Q. Are you familiar with any of the other footwear that Scott owns?

A. At the time that I knew Scott, he -- he wore black everything.

Q. I'm just trying to focus on footwear right now.

A. He had at least two pair of black boots that I saw him wear on a usual basis, and these boots were not those.

Q. Okay. Well, let me show you People's Exhibit 15, pages A and B. I want you to focus your attention on a pair of shoes and ask you if you -- if you recognize those or if you've seen Scott with those before, if you recall?

A. I don't recall seeing those on Scott or in Scott's stuff, no.

Q. So, when you say he was wearing boots when you saw him come in that Saturday morning, you're not talking about these shoes right here?

A. They were lace-up boots.

[Beebee]

BeeBee..Dyleski was using those shoes..they were not in the van..according to Jena he was wearing them on Sunday.. he packed them along with the knife..the papers with credit cards info and a book about murders...etc..are you saying the killer went inside the house and planted DNA on those shoes? Do you think the killer was a friend that would know where the shoes were located in the house?

I have to tell you that it doesn't make sense to me at all..it's one thing to believe the alleged killer planted DNA on some items located in one place though there is no evidence of that..it's quite another to believe he went looking for other items inside the house to plant more DNA!!!

I'm totally confused by what you said about only one shoe being involved..unless I'm missing something..I think the expert testified that he obtained a full profile of one single female that matched Vitale from 22-1H and 22-1P..and I think 22-1H was from the left shoe and 22-1P was from the right shoe...please correct me if I'm wrong...





I have to tell you that I agee with you that the killer is not going to go inside the house and plant dna on one shoe.

The shoes were typically scattered on the porch. There was also a storage shed on the property where items were kept, and Scott had many items in there. When he cleaned out his room, he put things in there. So things were all over the place.

When Scott was packing his bag for Jena, we know he got at least some clothing items from outside on the line. We don't know exactly where Scott picked up the shoes because he didn't testify. Mike Sikemma testified he didn't recognize the lands end shoes. Esther testified she had not seen Scott wearing them recently. If you read Leonida's cross of Jena, it becomes obvious Jena was not focused on what shoes Scott wore to the fair on Sunday, but notice how Leonida brings up "moo shoes"... those are vegan shoes that Scott had purchased on-line and those were the main shoes he was wearing. Those and boots.

It's my opinion that the Lands End shoes were not in Scott's room but outside in the porch/shed area. I think Pam's dna was planted on one shoe only because the other shoe was not close by (it was scattered with other items) and the killer didn't have time to look for the second shoe.

Pam's dna was only found on ONE shoe... the right. Four areas were sampled and two of those areas (from the top area of the shoe) had Pam's dna. Pam's dna was not on the soles, not in the recessed areas where it would be expected if that shoe made blood prints during a battle. Scott's dna was not found on the shoes.

I'm unsure of the timing of the planting. As to why dna would be planted in two different places (items found in bag and then shoes from porch).... the shoes were a must because I think that goes with the partial print on the lid (that was also planted).... I'll explain how I think the killer did that at the end.
Actually in this case, I think multiple things were planted and staged. Including the numerous long blonde hairs....
If I were the killer I wouldn't count on Scott Dyleski taking the fall, even with planted evidence because he is the most unlikely suspect... so there needed to be a plan B and C and even D..... imo... as long as it pointed AWAY from the real killer.

People talk about how unlikely it would be for the killer to plant evidence/ frame Scott.... yet, look how bizarre the prosecutions theory is of what they think Scott did??? And the evidence does not support their theory. Why is Scott's dna not in that glove?? How did Scott get in the house? WHY would Scott even go to the house?? Why would he want to kill anybody??? Does a rage kill, cleans up and comes home acting totally normal in 20 mins?? Clean, not sweating, not upset..... after his first and only psychotic break, and kill??

And this is ignoring what I think is a solid alibi in Fred Curiel, because I fully believe that he left the house at 10:20.

I just can't buy it... it is easier for me to buy the real killer, somebody who WANTED her dead, killed her and planted evidence. It's the best way to get away with murder...... especially if "everybody loves you now"....

But it would take some staging and planting.... getting away with murder isn't easy. It helps if you know the ropes though.


JMO

ps- I think the killer went to the Curiel property with the bloody lid from the scene. By the time they got there and picked up the shoe the blood was mostly dried on the lid. The shoe was placed to make a partial print, and a smear was placed on top. The dna did not go into the recessed areas on the sole because there was no body weight in the shoe to press down and the drying blood did not go into the treads. The shoe was thrown back on the porch and the lid was taken back to the scene.

By the way, I think the only reason we have one glove is the same reason we only have dna on one shoe. The killer didn't have time to locate the left glove or left shoe.


jmo

[attorneywan2be]

It's my opinion that the Lands End shoes were not in Scott's room but outside in the porch/shed area. I think Pam's dna was planted on one shoe only because the other shoe was not close by (it was scattered with other items) and the killer didn't have time to look for the second shoe.

BeeBee..if the shoes were scattered with other items in the porch/shed area and the killer didn't have time to look for the second shoe as you suggested..then please explain how did the killer figure out that those shoes were Dyleski's?

PS..I will look for the testimony where I think I read that 22-1H was from the left shoe and 22-1P was from the right shoe..

[attorneywan2be]

Pam's dna was only found on ONE shoe... the right. Four areas were sampled and two of those areas (from the top area of the shoe) had Pam's dna. Pam's dna was not on the soles, not in the recessed areas where it would be expected if that shoe made blood prints during a battle. Scott's dna was not found on the shoes.

According to this..the first page of exhibit 24A is the left side and the right side of the LEFT shoe..22-1H is on there..the second page of exhibit 24A is for the right side and the left side of the RIGHT shoe..22-1P is on there!!!

9 Q. Going to page 1 of People's Exhibit 24A.

10 What do we see there?

11 A. This is a depiction of the left side and the right side

12 of the left shoe.

13 Q. Starting with the left side view -- and I'm just going

14 to work, I guess, in a clockwise area or way -- was there an

15 area from which you collected evidence for DNA purposes and

16 marked it with an item 22-1E?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And is the item, 22-1E, still a part of this now

19 revised exhibit, 24A?

20 A. Yes, the item number is still there.

21 Q. But there's no line or it's a truncated line?

22 A. Yes, it's an interrupted line. Yes.

23 Q. Would you please uninterrupt that line so we can see

24 exactly from what location on the shoe that particular item was

25 collected?

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

27 Q. Then moving in a clockwise way to the right towards the

28 heel of the shoe, did you collect an item that you have



 3464



1 designated as 22-1G?

2 A. Yes, I did.

3 Q. And would you please signify with a line from and the

4 words 22-1G still a part of that exhibit?

5 A. Yes, they are.

6 Q. Could you please draw a line from those words to the

7 location on the shoe from which that item was collected?

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

9 Q. Again moving around in a clockwise fashion.

10 Do you see this item, 22-1H?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Could you please draw a line signifying the specific

13 location on the shoe from which that item was collected?

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

----------------------------------

22 Q. Next page, starting -- okay. What do we have here on

23 this page 2 of 24A?

24 A. This is a depiction of the right and left side of the

25 right shoe.

26 Q. And is the top of these two drawings the right side of

27 the right shoe?

28 A. Yes, it is.



 3466



1 Q. Starting in the upper left-hand corner, did you collect

2 swabs for purposes of DNA examination from this shoe?

3 A. Yes, I did.

4 Q. And is there a reference in the exhibit to 22-1 that it

5 looks like an "O"?

6 A. Yes, there is.

7 Q. Could you please draw a line to signify from what

8 location on the shoe you collected that item?

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

10 Q. Again, moving in a clockwise direction.

11 Do we see some indication of an item 22-1N, as in

12 Nancy, that was collected from the shoe?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Would you please draw a line to indicate the specific

15 area of the shoe that item was collected?

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

17 Q. And as we go around clockwise down, I guess it would be

18 on the outside of the right shoe.

19 Did you call that the outsole?

20 A. I believe I did.

21 Q. Did you collect an item that you marked as 22-1P, as in

22 Paul?

23 A. Yes, I did.

24 Q. And could you please draw a line to signify the

25 specific location on the shoe that you collected that item?

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

[Beebee]

BeeBee..if the shoes were scattered with other items in the porch/shed area and the killer didn't have time to look for the second shoe as you suggested..then please explain how did the killer figure out that those shoes were Dyleski's?

PS..I will look for the testimony where I think I read that 22-1H was from the left shoe and 22-1P was from the right shoe..

Scott was the only teenage boy living in the house. I imagine it would be easy to pick a shoe that would likely be his. The next closest would be Fred or Mike.... but they are/were adult men, and I wouldn't expect their shoes to look like a teenagers shoes.

Not all the itmes that involved planting were Scott's. The right handed long black womens evening glove didn't belong to Scott, imo. It came from a box of items left over from a costume shop that the kids played with, IMO.

[packy]

Hi packy,

Yes, that was Mike Sikemma:

Prelim/ Mike Sikkema:

Thanks, Beebee. I just found it but I see you already posted it. It puzzled me about which he wore shoes or boots, and it seems more reasonable that he would go out walking in boots.

Since there was carpet and reports that there was blood all over it would seem that your question about no blood being in the recesses of the soles is something that could raise some doubt.

When they amplify the blood material there is a chance it would degrade, did they discuss protocols or reports of the steps they took to show their controls?

Only using presumptive tests rather than continuing with confirmatory tests is confusing too, but the sensitivity of the confirmatory tests may have led to a more confusing result. And this from the prelimary casts some doubt I believe,

"You said a presumptive test would show a positive for other substances besides blood; is that correct?

A. They could, yes.

Q. Any oxidizing agent, would that be fair to say?

A. That's correct.

Q. So soil, for example, would show up positive for blood?

A. Potentially.

Q. Vegetable juices, also?

A. Yes.

Q. So in all of the areas that we have just seen where you have an "OT positive," that could be blood; right?

A. In some instances there are some substances that would test positive that would not look like blood, so there are some. Most of the areas I tested did have a reddish tint or most of them had a reddish tint that appeared to be blood; but potentially, yes, there could be some that gave a false positive.

Q. Isn't it true that all of them could have given a false positive?

A. Unlikely. But, yes, that's possible."

All in all it made sense to me with some of these questionable results that Jewett would say this is not a dna case. The alibi was the crux, and if he hadn't talked to Fred before Fred said he may have been wrong I might have had more confidence in the later time. And with the discussion of apparent attempts to clean up the scene also affects the time Scott would have had to get home even with the time that was finally accepted. Not to forget Scott had to dump the knife and some other possible weapon that made some marks that they could not seem to determine what type of instrument/object was used.

[packy]

Hi packy,

Yes, that was Mike Sikemma:

Prelim/ Mike Sikkema:

Thanks, Beebee. I just found it but I see you already posted it. It puzzled me about which he wore shoes or boots, and it seems more reasonable that he would go out walking in boots.

Since there was carpet and reports that there was blood all over it would seem that your question about no blood being in the recesses of the soles is something that could raise some doubt.

When they amplify the blood material there is a chance it would degrade, did they discuss protocols or reports of the steps they took to show their controls?

Only using presumptive tests rather than continuing with confirmatory tests is confusing too, but the sensitivity of the confirmatory tests may have led to a more confusing result.

And this from the prelimary casts some doubt I believe,

"You said a presumptive test would show a positive for other substances besides blood; is that correct?

A. They could, yes.

Q. Any oxidizing agent, would that be fair to say?

A. That's correct.

Q. So soil, for example, would show up positive for blood?

A. Potentially.

Q. Vegetable juices, also?

A. Yes.

Q. So in all of the areas that we have just seen where you have an "OT positive," that could be blood; right?

A. In some instances there are some substances that would test positive that would not look like blood, so there are some. Most of the areas I tested did have a reddish tint or most of them had a reddish tint that appeared to be blood; but potentially, yes, there could be some that gave a false positive.

Q. Isn't it true that all of them could have given a false positive?

A. Unlikely. But, yes, that's possible."

All in all it made sense to me with some of these questionable results that Jewett would say this is not a dna case. The alibi was the crux, and if he hadn't talked to Fred before Fred said he may have been wrong I might have had more confidence in the later time. And with the discussion of apparent attempts to clean up the scene also affects the time Scott would have had to get home even with the time that was finally accepted. Not to forget Scott had to dump the knife and some other possible weapon that made some marks that they could not seem to determine what type of instrument/object was used.

[Beebee]

According to this..the first page of exhibit 24A is the left side and the right side of the LEFT shoe..22-1H is on there..the second page of exhibit 24A is for the right side and the left side of the RIGHT shoe..22-1P is on there!!!



What testimony is this? Collins or Stockwell??

Collins got presumptive positives on both shoes, but only got dna from 3 swabs on the right shoe. 2 positive for Pam on top. 1 degraded mixture on the bottom, and the fourth stain (on top) had no dna.

This isn't being disputed anywhere that I know of..... the prosecution did not argue that dna was present on the left shoe.... so I'm confused as to what you are posting.

[attorneywan2be]

What testimony is this? Collins or Stockwell??

Collins got presumptive positives on both shoes, but only got dna from 3 swabs on the right shoe. 2 positive for Pam on top. 1 degraded mixture on the bottom, and the fourth stain (on top) had no dna.

This isn't being disputed anywhere that I know of..... the prosecution did not argue that dna was present on the left shoe.... so I'm confused as to what you are posting.

What I posted is the TS of the trial!! ..here are Collins and Stockwell testimonies:

Collins's testimony:

9 Q. Going to page 1 of People's Exhibit 24A.

10 What do we see there?

11 A. This is a depiction of the left side and the right side

12 of the left shoe.

13 Q. Starting with the left side view -- and I'm just going

14 to work, I guess, in a clockwise area or way -- was there an

15 area from which you collected evidence for DNA purposes and

16 marked it with an item 22-1E?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And is the item, 22-1E, still a part of this now

19 revised exhibit, 24A?

20 A. Yes, the item number is still there.

21 Q. But there's no line or it's a truncated line?

22 A. Yes, it's an interrupted line. Yes.

23 Q. Would you please uninterrupt that line so we can see

24 exactly from what location on the shoe that particular item was

25 collected?

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

27 Q. Then moving in a clockwise way to the right towards the

28 heel of the shoe, did you collect an item that you have



3464



1 designated as 22-1G?

2 A. Yes, I did.

3 Q. And would you please signify with a line from and the

4 words 22-1G still a part of that exhibit?

5 A. Yes, they are.

6 Q. Could you please draw a line from those words to the

7 location on the shoe from which that item was collected?

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

9 Q. Again moving around in a clockwise fashion.

10 Do you see this item, 22-1H?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Could you please draw a line signifying the specific

13 location on the shoe from which that item was collected?

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

----------------------------------

22 Q. Next page, starting -- okay. What do we have here on

23 this page 2 of 24A?

24 A. This is a depiction of the right and left side of the

25 right shoe.

26 Q. And is the top of these two drawings the right side of

27 the right shoe?

28 A. Yes, it is.



3466



1 Q. Starting in the upper left-hand corner, did you collect

2 swabs for purposes of DNA examination from this shoe?

3 A. Yes, I did.

4 Q. And is there a reference in the exhibit to 22-1 that it

5 looks like an "O"?

6 A. Yes, there is.

7 Q. Could you please draw a line to signify from what

8 location on the shoe you collected that item?

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

10 Q. Again, moving in a clockwise direction.

11 Do we see some indication of an item 22-1N, as in

12 Nancy, that was collected from the shoe?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Would you please draw a line to indicate the specific

15 area of the shoe that item was collected?

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

17 Q. And as we go around clockwise down, I guess it would be

18 on the outside of the right shoe.

19 Did you call that the outsole?

20 A. I believe I did.

21 Q. Did you collect an item that you marked as 22-1P, as in

22 Paul?

23 A. Yes, I did.

24 Q. And could you please draw a line to signify the

25 specific location on the shoe that you collected that item?

26 A. (Witness drawing on exhibit.) Done

[B]Stockwell's testimony:

18 Q. And could you please, one by one, by item number, tell

19 us the results of that analysis?

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

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

22 individual, and that profile matches Ms. Vitale.

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

24 talking about that 43 quadrillion number you had mentioned

25 previously?

26 A. The numbers better 1 in 62 quadrillion

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

28 4.2 quintillion Hispanics.

[awakening2lite]

All in all it made sense to me with some of these questionable results that Jewett would say this is not a dna case. The alibi was the crux, and if he hadn't talked to Fred before Fred said he may have been wrong I might have had more confidence in the later time. And with the discussion of apparent attempts to clean up the scene also affects the time Scott would have had to get home even with the time that was finally accepted. Not to forget Scott had to dump the knife and some other possible weapon that made some marks that they could not seem to determine what type of instrument/object was used.
>snipped<

Hi packy,
Can I add to your list?
He would have also consumed water, smeared blood in the shower, and cleaned up, changed clothes, hide clothing in the duffle bag and in some other place yet to be discovered then arrive home, sit on the couch next to Kim and not be appear out of breath, smell of sweat, look dirty or disheveled, or excited. Oh yeah and lacing up those boots, no worry about tramping in bloody foot prints or wet soggy shoes.

[Beebee]

What I posted is the TS of the trial!! ..here are Collins and Stockwell testimonies:



AW2B.... Are you trying to tell me dna was on both shoes??

The prosecution did not assert this, I don't know anyone who is besides you right now....:shrug:

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B.... Are you trying to tell me dna was on both shoes??

The prosecution did not assert this, I don't know anyone who is besides you right now....:shrug:

BeeBee..I'm not trying to tell you anything..I posted the TS..the TS is telling us Pamela's DNA was on both shoes..

[Beebee]

BeeBee..I'm not trying to tell you anything..I posted the TS..the TS is telling us Pamela's DNA was on both shoes..

I don't have time to dig it up now... but Pam's dna was only on one shoe.

Nobody disputes this so why do you? LOL

Sometimes the exhibit numbers are hard to follow via transcripts.... I don't know :shrug:

[attorneywan2be]

I don't have time to dig it up now... but Pam's dna was only on one shoe.

Nobody disputes this so why do you? LOL

Sometimes the exhibit numbers are hard to follow via transcripts.... I don't know :shrug:

BeeBee...it doesn't matter if no one disputes it or not...I'm simply searching for the truth..if you have testimony that indicates that only ONE shoe had Pamela's DNA ..please post it or direct me to it...thanks

With that said..Jewett was going page by page..the 1st page was about the left shoe where he talked about 22-1H..the second page was about the right shoe where he talked about 22-1P..the TS excerpt that I posted is pretty direct..

[attorneywan2be]

ps- I think the killer went to the Curiel property with the bloody lid from the scene. By the time they got there and picked up the shoe the blood was mostly dried on the lid. The shoe was placed to make a partial print, and a smear was placed on top. The dna did not go into the recessed areas on the sole because there was no body weight in the shoe to press down and the drying blood did not go into the treads. The shoe was thrown back on the porch and the lid was taken back to the scene.

By the way, I think the only reason we have one glove is the same reason we only have dna on one shoe. The killer didn't have time to locate the left glove or left shoe.


jmo

I forgot to reply to this part of your post..

In order to believe the alleged killer framed Dyleski we have to believe the following occurred:

-Dyleski had no criminal records..there was no prior incident where he had some type of interaction with Pamela or her husband..why would the killer pick Dyleski of all people to frame?

-The killer somehow figured out that there was a duffel bag belonging to Dyleski in an abandoned van...how did he know that?

-The killer planted Pamela's DNA on the duffel bag, ski mask and a long women evening glove..the duffel bag also contained a raincoat that looked like it could belong to Dyleski..a long sleeved shirt that looked like it could belong to Dyleski..however, the killer that wanted to frame Dyleski decided for some odd reason NOT to plant the DNA on the raincoat and on the long sleeved shirt..and again for some odd reason decided to plant the DNA on the long women evening glove?? why in the world would the killer who wanted to frame Dyleski plant evidence on a woman glove?

-The killer went to the property looking for more items of Dyleski to plant more of Pamela's DNA....somehow he knew where to look for Dyleski's shoes in a shed or on a porch..knew which shoes were Dyleski's..I find it hard to believe...

Here is another problem I hope you would address:

BeeBee..you stated that Dyleski didn't wear those shoes and they were probably in a shed/porch where the killer had access...

Here are couple of questions for you:

-Why would Dyleski pack shoes that were in a shed and weren't used?

-Are we to believe the killer somehow COINCIDENTALLY picked out the very shoes that Dyleski later picked out from the shed and packed in his backpack?..a backpack that he gave to his girlfriend on Sunday to hold for him..a backpack that he packed with stuff related to the CC fraud..book about mass murders..knife...etc.etc.?? would you please explain how could that be possible?

[Beebee]

AW2B,

I don't think this was a perfect frame by any means.

Why would the killer frame Scott?

It's my opinion that Scott was framed because he was a witness to the fact that Pam Vitale was not sitting on her computer non-stop from 7:49 until 10:12. Had the police taken the sighting seriously, like they should have.... a more serious investigation into the computer forensics may have been done as opposed to the special kiddy care they got due to Horowitz's atty/client privledge claims. This may sound outlandish but people will go to great lengths to avoid prison, and I think Pam's killer took multiple steps to point suspicion away from himself, including staging computer use. If that was determined, there is only one person who could/would stage that use. The killer could not afford for that to happen, IMO.
(I think that same person lied to the public about what Pam was wearing so everyone would assume she never left the house)

Of course the killer would not know where any of Dyleski's belongings would be. That's why they picked what they could get.... consider what they got.

The glove. It's a womens long black evening glove. Only one.
Now why would Scott pick that kind of glove? And then stash only one? There was a blood transfer stain at the scene that was determined to have come from the cuff of a sleeve. The glove found extended up the arm and would have covered the cuff. The glove has NO trace evidence from the scene......now what are the chances that the glove used to beat Pam to death wouldn't have ANY trace evidence?? No crown molding crumbles, no rock debris, no hair from Pam even though her hair was pulled out in clumps, no tissue fragments even though her face was literally smashed in, with an open fracture and teeth knocked out. But let's say somehow none of that evidence ends up on the right handed glove... where is Scott's dna??? His dna in that glove would not be trace evidence. It should be there if his hand was in that glove beating Pam Vitale to death -- do you agree with that much? That his dna should be in that glove?

The mask. Now to me that is just a ridiculous item to grab. IMO the killer was looking for something "Goth".... not knowing that Scott had moved past that phase anyway... In reality... why in the world would Scott put on a mask to kill Vitale?? Dead people aren't witnesses. It really makes no sense. Also, the mask-- no trace evidence on the mask. Scott's dna was on the mask, so at some point he did wear it. That is not surprising.
(If the killer had found a different glove, he may have had better luck and found one Scott actually wore at one point).

The shoes. Yes, I think the shoes were somewhere with the rest of the junk on the very messy porch area, and they didn't look like childrens shoes or adult mens shoes. It would be easy imo. As far as Scott packing those shoes.... you are implying he wanted to get rid of them, because they were evidence. Well why not throw them away when he is miles away in Gilroy at the fair, or any number of ways, its not like these were good shoes. They were heavily worn and Scott only used them for back-up. He was mostly wearing his moo shoes.... anyway had they not gotten packed, they would have been seized. Either way, the right shoe was already smeared with Pam's dna, and the killer knew when the shoes were found, the partial print would match the sole pattern on the right shoe. I don't think it is a coincidence Scott then picked up those shoes from the porch... I think he picked them up because he had his moo shoes on, and his boots were to big to put in the bag-- and he wanted to pack extra shoes. He saw his back-ups and packed them.

I think the duffle bag from the van was in the storage area also, and already had the other items in it. Scott had taken a trip with his dad and used that bag. It would be easy to grab that bag and then place it in the unlocked van. The bag was a sure thing. It had Scott's name tag right on it. By putting the glove and mask in the bag, those items got connected to Scott.

Here is my question for you. Why would Scott put the bag of clothes in the van?? Certainly he is not hiding something when the van is unlocked and the bag has his name on it!

You brought up the knife a couple times. Scott's knife wasn't used in the crime. If Scott took a knife to the scene, why didn't he stab Vitale instead of beating her? Plus, his knife was tested.... none of Pam's dna. So that knife is meaningless. Lots of guys carry stuff like that. My son had a decent pocket knife. Did you know in that bag he packed for Jena he also packed CD's, personal momentos, the book Alice in Wonderland, his phonebook, shirts, pants, underwear..... and yes also the cc papers and other items.

Did I miss anything?

I'll try to dig up the testimony concerning dna only being on one shoe later... that fact was established during trial by Stockwell, but I didn't isolate that in my notes because it wasn't being argued anywhere that I know of..... not even in court.

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B,

I don't think this was a perfect frame by any means.

Why would the killer frame Scott?

It's my opinion that Scott was framed because he was a witness to the fact that Pam Vitale was not sitting on her computer non-stop from 7:49 until 10:12. Had the police taken the sighting seriously, like they should have.... a more serious investigation into the computer forensics may have been done as opposed to the special kiddy care they got due to Horowitz's atty/client privledge claims. This may sound outlandish but people will go to great lengths to avoid prison, and I think Pam's killer took multiple steps to point suspicion away from himself, including staging computer use. If that was determined, there is only one person who could/would stage that use. The killer could not afford for that to happen, IMO.
(I think that same person lied to the public about what Pam was wearing so everyone would assume she never left the house)

IMO

BeeBee...by all indications that encounter was a COMPLETE fabrication...Sikkema testified that Dyleski told him it was hallucination on his part..again Dyleski never once mentioned that encounter until Tuesday..initially the woman was the driver and in another version of the encounter she was the panicked passenger..that speaks volume..to me it's so OBVIOUS..we have already discussed it..and I think we will have to agree to disagree..


I think the duffle bag from the van was in the storage area also, and already had the other items in it. Scott had taken a trip with his dad and used that bag. It would be easy to grab that bag and then place it in the unlocked van. The bag was a sure thing. It had Scott's name tag right on it. By putting the glove and mask in the bag, those items got connected to Scott.

Here is my question for you. Why would Scott put the bag of clothes in the van?? Certainly he is not hiding something when the van is unlocked and the bag has his name on it!


From where did the alleged killer grab the duffel bag to later place it in the unlocked van? Esther testified that she asked her son about the duffel bag in the van and that his reply was something about old clothes...Dyleski told her "it was old anyway and I left it up there"..however, she kept saying that she can't recall exactly what was said! Anyhow, the duffel bag was placed in the van in a way so it could not be seen...that's an indication that whoever placed it there wanted it concealed...in addition..in the weeks before the murder his mother was making arrangement to have it towed and wrecked..anyway..we will have to agree to disagree...

[attorneywan2be]

The shoes. Yes, I think the shoes were somewhere with the rest of the junk on the very messy porch area, and they didn't look like childrens shoes or adult mens shoes. It would be easy imo. As far as Scott packing those shoes.... you are implying he wanted to get rid of them, because they were evidence. Well why not throw them away when he is miles away in Gilroy at the fair, or any number of ways, its not like these were good shoes. They were heavily worn and Scott only used them for back-up. He was mostly wearing his moo shoes.... anyway had they not gotten packed, they would have been seized. Either way, the right shoe was already smeared with Pam's dna, and the killer knew when the shoes were found, the partial print would match the sole pattern on the right shoe. I don't think it is a coincidence Scott then picked up those shoes from the porch... I think he picked them up because he had his moo shoes on, and his boots were to big to put in the bag-- and he wanted to pack extra shoes. He saw his back-ups and packed them.

-----------------------

I'll try to dig up the testimony concerning dna only being on one shoe later... that fact was established during trial by Stockwell, but I didn't isolate that in my notes because it wasn't being argued anywhere that I know of..... not even in court.

IMO

In order to believe Dyleski is innocent you have to believe in an impossible scenario..the killer went searching in the property to plant Pamela's DNA..he picked out a PAIR of shoes that somehow turned out to be Dyleski's... and somehow Dyleski went looking for those particular shoes to pack for no apparent reason...

I searched the TS..the ONLY reference I found about a one shoe was about the shoe print..and maybe that what caused some people to be under the impression that her DNA was on one shoe only..the testimony I found clearly indicates that Pamela's DNA was on both shoes..having said that, I'm willing to stand corrected if you would post the TS that indicates that her DNA was only one shoe...thanks

[Beebee]

AW2B,

While I find the info on the dna on the shoes, would you please tell me why Scott's dna is not on the glove?

You are not addressing the glove at all.

Why only one? How do you explain the cuff mark at the scene when the glove had an extended arm?


Thanks.

[Beebee]

IMO

BeeBee...by all indications that encounter was a COMPLETE fabrication...Sikkema testified that Dyleski told him it was hallucination on his part..again Dyleski never once mentioned that encounter until Tuesday..initially the woman was the driver and in another version of the encounter she was the panicked passenger..that speaks volume..to me it's so OBVIOUS..we have already discussed it..and I think we will have to agree to disagree..





From where did the alleged killer grab the duffel bag to later place it in the unlocked van? Esther testified that she asked her son about the duffel bag in the van and that his reply was something about old clothes...Dyleski told her "it was old anyway and I left it up there"..however, she kept saying that she can't recall exactly what was said! Anyhow, the duffel bag was placed in the van in a way so it could not be seen...that's an indication that whoever placed it there wanted it concealed...in addition..in the weeks before the murder his mother was making arrangement to have it towed and wrecked..anyway..we will have to agree to disagree...


On the encounter.... yes we will have to agree to disagree. If you ever smoke pot you might change your mind. Scott tried to be truthful with Fred and Kim and Esther. It cost him dearly because they immediately didn't believe him. They believed Pam never left her house, so they thought Scott had to be lying. The truth is there is no proof she never left her house. MOO

You are asking, where would the killer get the bag to put it in the van.... My question to you is why would Scott put the bag up there??! It only contained two incriminating items. A glove. A mask. He didn't need to put those small items in a bag! A bag with his name!! He could have disposed of them a zillion other ways! Why was a bag and other clothes even involved?? Can you see it doesn't make sense at all for him to have done that??

When Esther found the bag they were clearing brush, she had just had her dog put to sleep, Scott was getting busted for cc fraud and she was scared of being homeless, helecopters were flying overhead making all kinds of noise, she was crying.... so yeah.... she couldn't recall exactly how Scott answered her.... one thing was clear.... he wasn't at all concerned about the bag. Don't you find that odd if he just allegedly stashed murder evidence in it?

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B,

While I find the info on the dna on the shoes, would you please tell me why Scott's dna is not on the glove?

You are not addressing the glove at all.

Why only one? How do you explain the cuff mark at the scene when the glove had an extended arm?


Thanks.

IMO..the absence of trace DNA evidence means nothing..it's really a moot point..Jena testified that he wore that glove before..so why didn't he leave his DNA on it..for example the shoes..we know for sure they were his and he definitely wore them many times as recent as Sunday....in addition, he held them in his hands as he was packing them.. yet..they didn't get a full profile of Dyleski's DNA from those shoes..they found a mixture of three donars..

After studying the case..I strongly believe that Dyleski is guilty..I have ZERO DOUBT in my mind..again we can agree to disagree BeeBee..

[Beebee]

IMO

In order to believe Dyleski is innocent you have to believe in an impossible scenario..the killer went searching in the property to plant Pamela's DNA..he picked out a PAIR of shoes that somehow turned out to be Dyleski's... and somehow Dyleski went looking for those particular shoes to pack for no apparent reason...




In order to believe Dyleski GUILTY you have to believe an impossible scenario, IMO.

That a 16 year old with no history of violence of ANY kind what-so-ever just woke up one morning and decided to rage kill a complete stranger for no reason.

Is he some kind of freak of nature that had a one time psychotic break? Left no evidence of himself what-so-ever, somehow managed to get lucky enough that Fred Curiel, known for his anal way of always checking the time-- somehow is mistaken on his four pager checks that particular morning, and just happens to give Scott an alibi.

But really, you believe Fred was wrong that morning about time.... and what actually happened is he hallucinated the pager checks and really left at 10:45, shortly after Scott rage killed for the first time, changed clothes, cleaned up (where did he clean up?) and sat with Kim chatting like normal, not sweating, hyper or out of breath after just running a mile home from a rage kill. All in 20 minutes time.

Is that easier for you to believe??

:shrug:


It is easier for me to believe Pam was killed by somebody close to her that wanted her dead and it was done in a personal rage.
The person was an adult who was capable of framing and did exactly that.

[Beebee]

IMO..the absence of trace DNA evidence means nothing..it's really a moot point..Jena testified that he wore that glove before..so why didn't he leave his DNA on it..for example the shoes..we know for sure they were his and he definitely wore them many times as recent as Sunday....in addition, he held them in his hands as he was packing them.. yet..they didn't get a full profile of Dyleski's DNA from those shoes..they found a mixture of three donars..

After studying the case..I strongly believe that Dyleski is guilty..I have ZERO DOUBT in my mind..again we can agree to disagree BeeBee..

Jena did not testify he wore that glove before.

Scott wore gloves with the fingers cut out, when he wore gloves. I'm shocked you don't have issue with the lack of his dna on the glove, considering the nature of the kill, but you have a right to your opinion and we can agree to disagree.

We also don't KNOW he wore the shoes on Sunday. I'm assuming you read Jena's cross. She could not be sure what shoes Scott had on, she didn't know. Why would he wear old shoes to the fair, when he had his newer moo shoes that were vegan.... they were his regular shoes.

Now, I'm not surprised that Scott's dna was not on the shoes. He wasn't wearing them regularly and with shoes you have socks. Now I would expect his dna in a sock he wore if he just ran a marathon in it!

[packy]

The clothing evidence became questionable to me when we heard that the Sheriff's reserve person moved the bag to another locale.

[attorneywan2be]

On the encounter.... yes we will have to agree to disagree. If you ever smoke pot you might change your mind. Scott tried to be truthful with Fred and Kim and Esther. It cost him dearly because they immediately didn't believe him. They believed Pam never left her house, so they thought Scott had to be lying. The truth is there is no proof she never left her house. MOO

You are asking, where would the killer get the bag to put it in the van.... My question to you is why would Scott put the bag up there??! It only contained two incriminating items. A glove. A mask. He didn't need to put those small items in a bag! A bag with his name!! He could have disposed of them a zillion other ways! Why was a bag and other clothes even involved?? Can you see it doesn't make sense at all for him to have done that??

When Esther found the bag they were clearing brush, she had just had her dog put to sleep, Scott was getting busted for cc fraud and she was scared of being homeless, helecopters were flying overhead making all kinds of noise, she was crying.... so yeah.... she couldn't recall exactly how Scott answered her.... one thing was clear.... he wasn't at all concerned about the bag. Don't you find that odd if he just allegedly stashed murder evidence in it?

IMO

BeeBee..we can forever speculate as to whether or not Dyleski had a reason to put the duffel bag in the van...killers leave evidence that connects them to the crime..why would anyone do that? I don't know..but they do...the facts are: the van was his mother's and it was about to be towed..the duffel bag was his..the contents of the duffel bag were his..HOWEVER, there is ZERO evidence the alleged killer had access to Dyleski's belongings..

You're theorizing that an alleged killer obtained Dyleski's duffel bag and his shoes to plant evidence..I think it's important to include in your theory the "where"..the "when" and the "how" the killer was able to obtain that duffel bag to commit his deed..!

[attorneywan2be]

Jena did not testify he wore that glove before.




You're right ..it's David Curiel not Jena who testified to that...

David Curiel's testimony

13 Q. I would like to show you what's been marked as People's

14 Exhibit 18B, a glove.

15 Have you ever seen that glove before?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. You have?

18 A. Yeah. He, Scott wore a number of gloves.

19 Q. Has anybody ever showed you that glove before this very

20 moment?

21 A. No, sir.

22 Q. And are you saying that you have seen Scott wear a

23 glove like that in the past?

24 A. Yes. I believe it was a party that he had gone to. He

25 normally wore black gloves with the fingers cut off, and I

26 believe he wore those to a party.

27 Q. That's a single glove, but the fingers aren't cut off

28 of that one; right?


2788



1 A. No, they are not. I believe he wore them to a party.

2 Q. How?

3 A. He was dressed up.
4 Q. Dressed up how?

5 A. In his black, his black Goth with the long black coat,

6 black clothes and lots of safety pins, and whatnot.

7 Q. Lots of safety pins?

8 A. Yeah.

9 Q. He had safety pins to pin clothes up?

10 A. Safety pins in the clothes.

[awakening2lite]

The clothing evidence became questionable to me when we heard that the Sheriff's reserve person moved the bag to another locale.

And where is the "other" glove and bloody pants?

It's hard for me to believe a kid could do all this in the suggested time frame and somehow manage to stash some of the evidence in the van and then effectively get rid of the rest.

And lets not forget the zipper to the duffle bag had a bloody glob on it too. This means, to me, when the killer stuffed the items into the bag (and those items only had very tiny traces of blood on them) the killer somehow still had a bloody hand when the bag was zipped back up. HOW could that have happened?
:shrug:

[attorneywan2be]

We also don't KNOW he wore the shoes on Sunday. I'm assuming you read Jena's cross. She could not be sure what shoes Scott had on, she didn't know. Why would he wear old shoes to the fair, when he had his newer moo shoes that were vegan.... they were his regular shoes.

Now, I'm not surprised that Scott's dna was not on the shoes. He wasn't wearing them regularly and with shoes you have socks. Now I would expect his dna in a sock he wore if he just ran a marathon in it!

You asked..why would he wear old shoes to the fair? and I ask..why would he pack old shoes that he didn't wear regularly as you suggested?

[Beebee]

IMO

BeeBee..we can forever speculate as to whether or not Dyleski had a reason to put the duffel bag in the van...killers leave evidence that connects them to the crime..why would anyone do that? I don't know..but they do...the facts are: the van was his mother's and it was about to be towed..the duffel bag was his..the contents of the duffel bag were his..HOWEVER, there is ZERO evidence the alleged killer had access to Dyleski's belongings..

You're theorizing that an alleged killer obtained Dyleski's duffel bag and his shoes to plant evidence..I think it's important to include in your theory the "where"..the "when" and the "how" the killer was able to obtain that duffel bag to commit his deed..!


Where- on the Curiel property.
When- Late Saturday afternoon
How- By walking there with the lid to the bin and a sample of something bloody to make some smears. Getting the bag out of the shed, and finding and selecting the glove and mask from all the junk laying around.


By the way, the van wasn't about to be towed. No matter how you look at it, it makes no sense for Dyleski to put the non-bloody itmes in a bag, put two bloody items in a bag, with his name, and put it in the unlocked van.

I think you are missing my point.... why would Scott Dyleski select the bag at all??? Why would he put clothes in it? Or do you think the clothes were already in there because he didn't unpack from an earlier trip?

You seem to think I have the killer making no sense.... but the actions you are attributing to Dyleski make no sense.

The evidence that the killer had access is the testimony that Scott kept many of his things in the storage shed outside, and other items, not necessarily his were all over the place from all the other kids in the home.

Like the glove from the costume box. The kids played with those items. They were scattered about on the property.

[Beebee]

You asked..why would he wear old shoes to the fair? and I ask..why would he pack old shoes that he didn't wear regularly as you suggested?

Because his moo shoes were on his feet and his boots were too big to pack so he packed the spare shoes that were on the porch. Jena was leaving so he still needed shoes to wear after she left.

By the way..... David Curiel and Scott were not friends and David wasn't a household member at the time excpet for sleeping on the couch. I don't put any weight on what he said about the glove. I've seen pics of Scott dressed up for parties. The fingers on the gloves were cut out. He did not ever wear womens long black evening gloves. JMO

[Beebee]

And where is the "other" glove and bloody pants?

It's hard for me to believe a kid could do all this in the suggested time frame and somehow manage to stash some of the evidence in the van and then effectively get rid of the rest.

And lets not forget the zipper to the duffle bag had a bloody glob on it too. This means, to me, when the killer stuffed the items into the bag (and those items only had very tiny traces of blood on them) the killer somehow still had a bloody hand when the bag was zipped back up. HOW could that have happened?
:shrug:

Oh yes the smear on the tag.

I don't think the hand had to be bloody to make that smear.

When you think about it..... either it was a deliberate smear (planted) like I contend, or like you said, Scott Dyleski had bloody hands when he opened the bag which would indicate he opened it right after the kill??? So why is HE retrieving bags with bloody hands? Where is everything else?

It doesn't make sense.

[awakening2lite]

BeeBee,
It's been a while since I reviewed info.
Do you think it would be possible to make a list showing all the activities that had to take place during the time frame proposed by the DA?

TIA

[Beebee]

Fred Curiel on the storage shed- prelim:

26 Q. Did Scott have his own room?

27 A. Yes, he did.

28 Q. Did he store stuff anyplace on your property
391


1 other than in his room that you're aware of?

2 A. He had some personal items in a storage unit.

3 Q. Where is that storage unit located?

4 A. It's about 50 feet from the house. It's on the

5 pad, same pad as the house.

6 Q. Is it locked?

7 A. No, it's not.

8 Q. In fact, is your house normally locked?

9 A. Prior to October 19th, I don't believe the locks

10 had ever been locked except to test them when we got the house,

11 when we completed the house.

12 Q. So, the storage unit where Scott had some of his

13 items, would it be fair to say anybody could walk in and access

14 those?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Among the items that he kept in that storage unit

17 were some sporting equipment?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And also some clothing?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. The way that your house ran at 1050 Hunsaker

22 Canyon Road back in October, did you share things among each

23 other?

24 A. What type of things?

25 Q. Let me be more specific. For example, bags. If

26 somebody needed to borrow a bag to go on a trip, would that be

27 something that they could get from anybody in the house?

28 A. Sure. Yes. It was -- yeah. It was generally I
392


1 guess you would say that, yeah. Things were definitely shared.

2 If --

3 Q. Are you --

4 A. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

5 Q. Finish, please.

6 A. If someone needed something and, you know, and

7 needed a bike or whatever, and, you know, they would -- and

8 somebody else had it, yeah, it would definitely, you know, be

9 shared.

10 Q. The same would be true of a duffel bag?

11 A. Potentially, yes.

[awakening2lite]

OK, I get the heebeejeebee flashbacks of the OJ trial for just thinking about this...but does anyone know if the glove even fit Scott?

[Beebee]

BeeBee,
It's been a while since I reviewed info.
Do you think it would be possible to make a list showing all the activities that had to take place during the time frame proposed by the DA?

TIA

The DA has Pam on the computer until 10:12-

And with his carefully cultivated Kim Curiel albi the DA has Dyleski home at 10:45.

That give him 33 minutes to do everything.

Get in Pam's trailer, move the TV, chase Pam down, locate weapons to beat her with all over the house, for some reason blood shows up in the bathroom, on odd kitchem items, and pretty much all over the front room. The numerous blows, the stab, the alleged carving, the "long shower" disappeared from trial.... then he leaves on foot WITH NOTHING BUT A SUPERFICIAL SCRATCH, (but his bloody shoes don't lead dogs to his home though.... runs a mile home, somewhere he has to clean himself up, (I wonder where he got water on the way home?) changes clothes and shoes, calms down, isn't sweating or breathing heavy, has no apparant emotional reaction after just rage killing somebody for the first time...

That is the DA's timeline.

[Beebee]

OK, I get the heebeejeebee flashbacks of the OJ trial for just thinking about this...but does anyone know if the glove even fit Scott?

Oh Wake... trust me if Scott had Johnny Cochran, or any DECENT lawyer we wouldn't be having this conversation, imo.

No, he didn't try the glove on.

It was a nylon ladies glove. It probably would have fit. IMO

[awakening2lite]

The DA has Pam on the computer until 10:12-

And with his carefully cultivated Kim Curiel albi the DA has Dyleski home at 10:45.

That give him 33 minutes to do everything.

Get in Pam's trailer, move the TV, chase Pam down, locate weapons to beat her with all over the house, for some reason blood shows up in the bathroom, on odd kitchem items, and pretty much all over the front room. The numerous blows, the stab, the alleged carving, the "long shower" disappeared from trial.... then he leaves on foot WITH NOTHING BUT A SUPERFICIAL SCRATCH, (but his bloody shoes don't lead dogs to his home though.... runs a mile home, somewhere he has to clean himself up, (I wonder where he got water on the way home?) changes clothes and shoes, calms down, isn't sweating or breathing heavy, has no apparant emotional reaction after just rage killing somebody for the first time...

That is the DA's timeline.

Don't forget this:

And there were items of clothing that have never been found. He would have had to stash them somewhere.
There was bloody smears in the bath on the shower curtain and on the wall or facuet of the tub as well as on a towel.
The drink of water in the kitchen. (finding the glass or mug, filling it and gulping it down)
Lacing up the boots.
Getting all that blood off him.
Was there enough to soak thru to the underclothes? Probably. Those may be some of the missing clothing that has never been found.

[awakening2lite]

Oh Wake... trust me if Scott had Johnny Cochran, or any DECENT lawyer we wouldn't be having this conversation, imo.

No, he didn't try the glove on.

It was a nylon ladies glove. It probably would have fit. IMO

Probably should NOT have been good enough to be used in a LWP conviction.:mad:

[Beebee]

Probably should NOT have been good enough to be used in a LWP conviction.:mad:


Something else about the glove.... nobody seems to be addressing this... Why only ONE glove?? Are we to believe that Scott dropped the other one running home? If so why wasn't it found during the grid search of the area, which was very extensive and included the use of scent dogs. Besides I would think if you drop a bloody glove, you would take a second and pick it up! It's not like he was being chased or had to be home at a certain time.

It makes NO sense that ONE glove only was stashed...... why not toss the glove with the other bloody clothes he allegedly got rid of?? It's not like he would be saving it for future use. Same for the mask.

I just can't justify the many numerous actions attributed to Scott that make NO sense. Like rage killing Vitale in the first place.

[Mysteri]

And where is the "other" glove and bloody pants?



Probably among the items his mother burned:

http://www.nbc11.com/news/9662856/detail.html

Fielding said after the women's visit, she noticed some items that were not previously in her home. She described the items as a red journal, a red backpack, clothes, a bag of little bottles apparently containing absinthe, and a book with a title that included the words "mass murder."

After Esther Fielding burned the red notebook and gloves, Marjorie Fielding said the rest of the items were placed in a white bag, which was put in another building on the property.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/7130534/detail.html

imo

[attorneywan2be]

I think you are missing my point.... why would Scott Dyleski select the bag at all??? Why would he put clothes in it? Or do you think the clothes were already in there because he didn't unpack from an earlier trip?


IMO

BeeBee...again we can only theorize..it's possible Dyleski took the duffel bag with him and hid it close to the wheeler's residence..after the murder he opened it and put the bloody items in it..hence the blood on the zipper..it's possible the other bloody glove was dropped there by mistake...I would say he most definitely was nervous..Mr. Wheeler found it before the police searched his property and got rid of it for fear of being accused of murder (maybe OJ's case came to his mind) maybe he thought someone was framing him..the tracking dogs did indeed lead the police to wheeler's residence....

Dyleski is the only one who knows what really happened..we are basically dealing with circumstantial evidence..very damning circumstantial evidence I must say..---> the encounter/ scratches + DNA..as we all know victim's blood is circumstantial evidence..

The bottom line is: I'm fully convinced Dyleski did it..I guess we simply can agree to disagree..and maybe one day one of us would be proved wrong...maybe!

[Beebee]

IMO

BeeBee...again we can only theorize..it's possible Dyleski took the duffel bag with him and hid it close to the wheeler's residence..after the murder he opened it and put the bloody items in it..hence the blood on the zipper..it's possible the other bloody glove was dropped there by mistake...I would say he most definitely was nervous..Mr. Wheeler found it before the police searched his property and got rid of it for fear of being accused of murder (maybe OJ's case came to his mind) maybe he thought someone was framing him..the tracking dogs did indeed lead the police to wheeler's residence....

Dyleski is the only one who knows what really happened..we are basically dealing with circumstantial evidence..very damning circumstantial evidence I must say..---> the encounter/ scratches + DNA..as we all know victim's blood is circumstantial evidence..

The bottom line is: I'm fully convinced Dyleski did it..I guess we simply can agree to disagree..and maybe one day one of us would be proved wrong...maybe!

Took a bag of clothing to Wheelers?? Why would he do such a thing?? And only put certain items in the bag after the kill?? And why have items in the bag when he took it with him? He wasn't going on a trip??

Plus why would Scott go to Wheelers?? I'm sure you are aware that the prosecution contends Dyleski did everything and walked in his front door a mile away in 33 minutes time. AW2B, you read the autopsy. You have read about the crime scene. You know Dyleski's size/age..... and same for Pam. And he is acting NORMAL in 33 minutes, not trying to hide anything. How likely he did all this in 33 minutes?

There was also NO motive in this case what-so-ever for Scott to kill Pam. The state might not need motive, but I do. Short of somebody being a psychopath who likes to kill for fun (which Scott Dyleski is not) I personally need motive.

IMO the dog tracked to Wheelers because evidence was planted in that direction also. Did you know there was a picture of Pam Vitale in Wheelers sink?? Lynch lived about 50 feet from Wheeler, so I think Lynch was also a potential target. The restraining order, the plan for Lynch to drop off a check when Pam was alone... the long blonde hair... Scott wasn't the only target, imo. He was just the one that worked the easiest.

I hope you'll stick with this for awhile.... but it's up to you. I respect you either way :seeya:

[attorneywan2be]

Took a bag of clothing to Wheelers?? Why would he do such a thing?? And only put certain items in the bag after the kill?? And why have items in the bag when he took it with him? He wasn't going on a trip??

IMO

Going on a trip?? There were only 4 items in the duffel bag..2 of them he wore as he was committing the murder..maybe he took the raincoat and the long sleeved shirt in case he needed to wear them to cover any severe injuries he might sustain as he was murdering her or if his clothes ended up too bloody to walk back..for the sake of argument..let's say Dyleski went to kill Pamela..do you think he would just walk back carrying bloody gloves and a ski mask..do you think he would risk having to walk back dripping in blood? he didn't have a car..so he definitely needed something where he can conceal things used in the murder..he had no idea what to expect as to how clean the murder would be?

Plus why would Scott go to Wheelers?? I'm sure you are aware that the prosecution contends Dyleski did everything and walked in his front door a mile away in 33 minutes time. AW2B, you read the autopsy. You have read about the crime scene. You know Dyleski's size/age..... and same for Pam. And he is acting NORMAL in 33 minutes, not trying to hide anything. How likely he did all this in 33 minutes?

IMO

the Wheeler's residence is an adjoining property to Pamela's house..there are lots of trees around that area according to Google earth..it would be a logical place for Dyleski to hide his duffel bag until he commit the murder..based on the evidence presented in court I think he could have done it in 33 minutes..

There was also NO motive in this case what-so-ever for Scott to kill Pam. The state might not need motive, but I do. Short of somebody being a psychopath who likes to kill for fun (which Scott Dyleski is not) I personally need motive.

IMO

I believe there was a motive..I think he wanted to kill Schneider..I know you disagree..but that doesn't mean there was no motive..

IMO.. the dog tracked to Wheelers because evidence was planted in that direction also. Did you know there was a picture of Pam Vitale in Wheelers sink?? Lynch lived about 50 feet from Wheeler, so I think Lynch was also a potential target. The restraining order, the plan for Lynch to drop off a check when Pam was alone... the long blonde hair... Scott wasn't the only target, imo. He was just the one that worked the easiest.

IMO

So you're telling us that the killer was planting evidence all over the place..he was basically framing 3 people...I don't know what to say except that it is too much for me to accept..please..no disrespect intended...!

[awakening2lite]

Probably among the items his mother burned:

http://www.nbc11.com/news/9662856/detail.html

Fielding said after the women's visit, she noticed some items that were not previously in her home. She described the items as a red journal, a red backpack, clothes, a bag of little bottles apparently containing absinthe, and a book with a title that included the words "mass murder."

After Esther Fielding burned the red notebook and gloves, Marjorie Fielding said the rest of the items were placed in a white bag, which was put in another building on the property.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/7130534/detail.html

imo

Neither of those references include anyone buring pants or clothing. And it's probably safe to say that the clothing turned over to LE from the bag in the atricles did not contain blood samples of dna. I say that solely because (IIRC) it was not submitted as bloodied evidence in trail.

The box of gloves the women burned was reported to be the disposable type, weren't they? Not matches to the bloody glove from the van.

The bloody pants, a glove and possibly other items (such as underclothes) soaked with blood are still missing. Where are they?

IMO
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060810/ai_n16654801/pg_1

[Beebee]

IMO

Going on a trip?? There were only 4 items in the duffel bag..2 of them he wore as he was committing the murder..maybe he took the raincoat and the long sleeved shirt in case he needed to wear them to cover any severe injuries he might sustain as he was murdering her or if his clothes ended up too bloody to walk back..for the sake of argument..let's say Dyleski went to kill Pamela..do you think he would just walk back carrying bloody gloves and a ski mask..do you think he would risk having to walk back dripping in blood? he didn't have a car..so he definitely needed something where he can conceal things used in the murder..he had no idea what to expect as to how clean the murder would be?



IMO

the Wheeler's residence is an adjoining property to Pamela's house..there are lots of trees around that area according to Google earth..it would be a logical place for Dyleski to hide his duffel bag until he commit the murder..based on the evidence presented in court I think he could have done it in 33 minutes..



IMO

I believe there was a motive..I think he wanted to kill Schneider..I know you disagree..but that doesn't mean there was no motive..



IMO

So you're telling us that the killer was planting evidence all over the place..he was basically framing 3 people...I don't know what to say except that it is too much for me to accept..please..no disrespect intended...!


AW2B,

There is NO way that Scott thought Karen Schneider lived in the trailer on the Horowitz property. You can disagree with me, but I'm telling you I have the knowledge that you are 100% wrong on that.
Like I said, I need motive to think a sane 16 year old who has never done a violent thing in is life would wake up and PLAN to kill a complete stranger for no reason. Pam Vitale wasn't a threat to Scott Dyleski in any way shape or form. How much do you know about teen violence? Have you ever read this: http://www.crimelibrary.com/news/original/1005/2102_scott_dyleski_goth_psychology_1.html

The way Zimring sees it, if Dyleski is found guilty of murdering Vitale, he would become a statistical aberration within a statistical anomaly

Yes, I do think the killer did various things to point away from himself and lead LE to believe somebody else was responsible. Reasonable doubt. The person who killed Pam and staged the scene, knows all about reasonable doubt IMO.

For example, the numerous long blonde hairs sticking to Pam's back. Two people with dark hair live there.... but you think they had long blonde hair all over the carpet?? Where do you think those hairs came from??

[awakening2lite]

If SD carefully planned to murder PV, why was the murder weapon a rock?
If he carefully planned to stash a bag of old clothes, planned where to hide some of the clothes (where they have never been found), planned to somehow remove lots of blood from the shoes (but not leave traces of cleaning products)and brought a knife to carve symbols. Why was a rock used to murder her?

It just doesn't make sense. IMO:shrug:

[Beebee]

If SD carefully planned to murder PV, why was the murder weapon a rock?
If he carefully planned to stash a bag of old clothes, planned where to hide some of the clothes (where they have never been found), planned to somehow remove lots of blood from the shoes (but not leave traces of cleaning products)and brought a knife to carve symbols. Why was a rock used to murder her?

It just doesn't make sense. IMO:shrug:


Wake,

On top of that, there was not a speck of evidence that a rock was used to kill Pam. That was 100% speculation by Jewett. If Pam's head was bashed in by a rock, wouldn't there be rock debris in the wounds and also on the glove?

We do know that household items were used. Multiple household items.

I have a hard time picturing Dyleski moving about the place locating all the weapons.... who plans a kill and then has to look for a weapon after they get there?

The vase that was smashed into Pam's head was a wedding present and had her name engraved on it. Seems personal to me.

JMO

[awakening2lite]

Wake,

On top of that, there was not a speck of evidence that a rock was used to kill Pam. That was 100% speculation by Jewett. If Pam's head was bashed in by a rock, wouldn't there be rock debris in the wounds and also on the glove?

We do know that household items were used. Multiple household items.

I have a hard time picturing Dyleski moving about the place locating all the weapons.... who plans a kill and then has to look for a weapon after they get there?

The vase that was smashed into Pam's head was a wedding present and had her name engraved on it. Seems personal to me.

JMO

WOW! (lack of weapon = musta' bean auh rock)

The other thing I am curious about is the nylon glove. Did the glove have any trace of usage? I'm wondering if it was torn or damaged. How thick was it?
I know the halloween costumes, I've seen, are usually very thin and hardly make it through trick or treating door bell ringing. TIA

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B,

There is NO way that Scott thought Karen Schneider lived in the trailer on the Horowitz property. You can disagree with me, but I'm telling you I have the knowledge that you are 100% wrong on that.
Like I said, I need motive to think a sane 16 year old who has never done a violent thing in is life would wake up and PLAN to kill a complete stranger for no reason. Pam Vitale wasn't a threat to Scott Dyleski in any way shape or form. How much do you know about teen violence? Have you ever read this: http://www.crimelibrary.com/news/original/1005/2102_scott_dyleski_goth_psychology_1.html



Yes, I do think the killer did various things to point away from himself and lead LE to believe somebody else was responsible. Reasonable doubt. The person who killed Pam and staged the scene, knows all about reasonable doubt IMO.

For example, the numerous long blonde hairs sticking to Pam's back. Two people with dark hair live there.... but you think they had long blonde hair all over the carpet?? Where do you think those hairs came from??


BeeBee..

IMO

I don't think we will ever agree..it is no coincidence that Dyleski was involved in a CC fraud that involved Pamela's address..he did not kill a total stranger out of the blue..besides that..you are totally ignoring a very important piece of evidence----> Dyleski's state of mind----> CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT

At one point you said how can Dyleski murder someone then return home and be completely normal..well, was he or was he not??....there is no way around the fact that when he was asked about his scratches the day of the murder/the alleged encounter...he didn't mention the encounter...no way would I ever believe that such a weird incident would only come to his mind 3 days later...specifically on the day he was confronted about the CC Fraud and the possible connection to the murder...the day he was told that it was guaranteed the killer's DNA will be found on Pamela...the bottom line is, if the so called encounter happened, he would have mentioned it on Saturday.. you point out that there was no way he murdered Pamela because he was totally normal..well he wasn't according to some testimonies...in addition, Fred and Kim discussed his encounter story in depth..both testified that according to Dyleski the woman was the driver..Jena testified that he told her a man was driving the car..pulled over..and as he was talking to the man a panicked woman in the passenger seat reached over and grabbed his arm causing SCRATCHES...he was asked about SCRATCHES on Saturday..but no! he doesn't instantly recall that encounter...you defend him by saying he was stoned...however, he was not stoned enough to talk about hitting bushes and trees and falling into a creek..he was not stoned eneough to remember the discussion he once had with the Curiels about the waterfall..he was not stoned enough to ask Marcus how to take care of his swollen/bruised wrist and hand..he was not stoned enough to tell Marcus he was walking behind the barn to look at the waterfall and he fell in the ravine...he was not stoned enough to talk about seeing someone walking in the area and whether or not that could be the killer..but he was stoned enough to not mention an EXTREMELY odd incident that would have been EMBEDDED in his mind had it occurred..I think not!

Let's talk about Pamela's DNA evidence..you want to believe that an alleged killer searched the property on the day of the murder to find Dyleski's stuff to plant evidence..you want to believe that the killer was able to figure out that the shoes belonged to Dyleski...and you want to believe that somehow Dyleski COINCIDENTALLY packed those PARTICULAR shoes to give to his girlfriend to HOLD for him..IMO..this is a far-fetched scenario and there isn't one shred of evidence to support it..in fact, the evidence points DIRECTLY to Dyleski..the evidence rules out framing..!

I know that you strongly believe this kid is innocent..AND I strongly believe that Dyleski is a MURDERER..!

As I said we will have to agree to disagree...I want you to know that I will always regard you with admiration and respect..I deeply appreciate your efforts to help people you believe were wrongly convicted...sadly, this case DOESN'T deserve you...!!!

[Heyes]

I think it's very possible this kid was framed. It's at about a 50/50 for me now.
If he was framed I don't feel that he was the original person that the killer intended. It was more of an opportunity. Perhaps easier. Being just a kid, coming from a family with no wealth. No way to fight this thing. It's possible the killer has some ties to the police or legal community which made this possible. This was an up close, personal rage killing. How, with no contact, had he worked up this much rage? I agree, I'm sure everyone in the neighborhood knew who's mansion and trailer that was. So mistaking Mrs. Horowitz for the other neighbor seems far fetched to me. Hope this thread stays, I'm fascinated!
imo

[awakening2lite]

I'm agreeing with you, Hayes. There's plenty of reasonable doubt that was never explored during the trial. To me, it seemed the DA commanded the courtroom and the less experienced defense just spent time following that lead. IMO

Very sad. Poor kid, easy target. Investigation didn't last very long. I think it was a couple of days and that was it. They had SD and they were satisified.

It really bothered me when Jewett told the Jury that if they didn't buy the scenario he was giving them that they could just make up their own because SD did it. (or words to that effect). That really bothered me.

IMO

[Carrot]

I think it's very possible this kid was framed. It's at about a 50/50 for me now.
If he was framed I don't feel that he was the original person that the killer intended. It was more of an opportunity. Perhaps easier. Being just a kid, coming from a family with no wealth. No way to fight this thing. It's possible the killer has some ties to the police or legal community which made this possible. This was an up close, personal rage killing. How, with no contact, had he worked up this much rage? I agree, I'm sure everyone in the neighborhood knew who's mansion and trailer that was. So mistaking Mrs. Horowitz for the other neighbor seems far fetched to me. Hope this thread stays, I'm fascinated!
imo

Hello!
I think Scott Dyleski knew it was the "Horowitz" mansion being built, but I don't think he necessarily knew that "Mrs. Horowitz" went by the name of Pamela Vitale. He could just have easily thought she went by the name of Karen Schneider.

Scott Dyleski had down that Karen Schneider lived at 1901 Hunsaker Canyon Road (which is where Daniel Horowitz and Pamela Vitale actually lived). He was using her name and credit card number (Karen's) to fraudulently place an order for grow lights, cooling fans, hoses, etc. And he gave 1901 as the billing address that went with Karen's card number. I believe he did think Karen Schneider lived there. He even tried to have the shipment sent there when Speciality Lighting refused his order because the shipping address was different (he at first tried having it sent to his house). He then asked for it to be shipped to 1901. But by then the company knew it was a fraudulent order and denied it anyway.

What attorneywan2be wrote about a possible motive being revenge for Karen hitting his dog with a car (as well as thwarting his cc scheme) makes sense to me.

None of the framing theories pan out for me -- too implausible.

[Carrot]

>snipped<
snip
And while we are at it, why didn't those 5 pages have SD's fingerprints on them?
snip



They were able to lift Scott Dyleski's fingerprints from 3 of the 5 slips of paper in the stack. All the papers were the same size, same paper, same handwriting. The handwriting was identified as Scott's by more than 1 witness.

On any given set of papers I handle in a day, they wouldn't get clear fingerprints from all of them either. Lack of fingerprints on something does not mean a person didn't handle something.

[awakening2lite]

The Dog? Nope.

Here's a quote from Jewett, the DA:

Jewett said some in the media have speculated that Dyleski worshipped Satan, or he was driven to commit murder by the grief he felt over the death of his dog. Both claims, Jewett said, are not accurate.

"A boy's love for his dog doesn't have anything to do with this case," Jewett added.
---------------
Reference: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20051117/ai_n15855870

[Heyes]

Hello!
I think Scott Dyleski knew it was the "Horowitz" mansion being built, but I don't think he necessarily knew that "Mrs. Horowitz" went by the name of Pamela Vitale. He could just have easily thought she went by the name of Karen Schneider.

Scott Dyleski had down that Karen Schneider lived at 1901 Hunsaker Canyon Road (which is where Daniel Horowitz and Pamela Vitale actually lived). He was using her name and credit card number (Karen's) to fraudulently place an order for grow lights, cooling fans, hoses, etc. And he gave 1901 as the billing address that went with Karen's card number. I believe he did think Karen Schneider lived there. He even tried to have the shipment sent there when Speciality Lighting refused his order because the shipping address was different (he at first tried having it sent to his house). He then asked for it to be shipped to 1901. But by then the company knew it was a fraudulent order and denied it anyway.

What attorneywan2be wrote about a possible motive being revenge for Karen hitting his dog with a car (as well as thwarting his cc scheme) makes sense to me.

None of the framing theories pan out for me -- too implausible.

I'm stuck with half of me thinking a frame up is possible and half of me thinking it's not.
IIRC scott got ahold of his attorney regarding the cc scam early on in the case. I thought he was looking for legal advice. I find it interesting that if that was true he talked to an attorney. Need more info on that.
I agree that the addresses could of confused him and he may have no idea which person was in which house. On the other hand there are so many other red flags to me that make me think it is possible that he was framed. I am bothered by the fact that no lie detectors were given, an extremely short investigation. Quick trial. Dyleski not having the resources to hire his own experts etc.. Horowitz had problems with other neighbors to the tune of threats. And restraining orders. The husband had some strange comments and from what I've read, a more than normal fascination with death. I think this case begs for more investigating.

[awakening2lite]

They were able to lift Scott Dyleski's fingerprints from 3 of the 5 slips of paper in the stack. All the papers were the same size, same paper, same handwriting. The handwriting was identified as Scott's by more than 1 witness.

On any given set of papers I handle in a day, they wouldn't get clear fingerprints from all of them either. Lack of fingerprints on something does not mean a person didn't handle something.

Thanks Carrot for posting that.

I couldn't find anything that said even one expert certified it to be SD's handwriting. Could you help me out with a link?

I was able to find a reference to two pages having fingerprint of SD:

ref: http://www.newsmakingnews.com/kd,dyleski,8,14,06,confess,fred,curiel.htm

EXCERPT
Of the sixteen fingerprints, seven were identified and were those of Scott Dyleski.

On card number one were five prints from Dyleski. And on card number three were two of Dyleski’s prints.

--------
and this:

EXCERPT
On re-cross examination, Leonida asked Novaes if it was true that she had obtained nine fingerprints from the total of five pieces of paper and that they were not Scott Dyleski’s fingerprints. The fingerprint expert testified that none of the nine fingerprints were those of Scott Dyleski.

[Heyes]

The Dog? Nope.

Here's a quote from Jewett, the DA:

Jewett said some in the media have speculated that Dyleski worshipped Satan, or he was driven to commit murder by the grief he felt over the death of his dog. Both claims, Jewett said, are not accurate.

"A boy's love for his dog doesn't have anything to do with this case," Jewett added.
---------------
Reference: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20051117/ai_n15855870


From what I remember the satan thing wasn't true either. There was a classmate of scotts that got an interview and he ended up making up the whole satan thing. That's why my hinky meter went off. Too much talk of satan and Goth and the news seemed to have him convicted on that alone.
All the talking heads were friends or associates of D. Horowitz and nothing was ever questioned.
Even the first picture we saw of him (scott) wasn't current. I bet alot of people suprised when they saw him in court. imo

[attorneywan2be]

Hello!
I think Scott Dyleski knew it was the "Horowitz" mansion being built, but I don't think he necessarily knew that "Mrs. Horowitz" went by the name of Pamela Vitale. He could just have easily thought she went by the name of Karen Schneider.



Hi Carrot..

I think that's an excellent point..!!


23 A. I believe my wife asked him if he -- and again I may

24 have some of this out of sequence -- but she asked him if he

25 tried to ascertain whether or not he knew or would recognize the

26 neighbors, specifically Karen Schneider or Pamela Vitale.

27 Q. And what did he say?

28 A. He -- he did not. I don't recall exactly what he said,



 2994



1 because I don't recall the exact questions; but there were

2 several questions from her trying to identify if he knew them,

3 and he did not.
4 Q. So whatever the words were, did Scott communicate to

5 you that he did not know what either Pamela Vitale or Karen

6 Schneider looked like?

7 A. Yes. That's correct.

[attorneywan2be]

The Dog? Nope.

Here's a quote from Jewett, the DA:

Jewett said some in the media have speculated that Dyleski worshipped Satan, or he was driven to commit murder by the grief he felt over the death of his dog. Both claims, Jewett said, are not accurate.

"A boy's love for his dog doesn't have anything to do with this case," Jewett added.
---------------
Reference: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20051117/ai_n15855870

Jewett never talked to Dyleski..so he was just speculating as to the motive..having said that, he solicited testimony about the fact Karen struck Dyleski's dog and how much the dog suffered before he was put down..why bring this up if it had nothing to do with the crime?! he also brought up the fact that Dyleski had Schneider name and the wrong address (Pamela's address) ..

[awakening2lite]

Jewett never talked to Dyleski..so he was just speculating as to the motive..having said that, he solicited testimony about the fact Karen struck Dyleski's dog and how much the dog suffered before he was put down..why bring this up if it had nothing to do with the crime?! he also brought up the fact that Dyleski had Schneider name and the wrong address (Pamela's address) ..


You mean the dog that died 2 days after PV was murdered? That dog?

Why bring it up? It was brought up in response to a post by Carrot who quoted you as saying that was the reason PV was murdered. (posted further up this thread) :shrug:

[attorneywan2be]

You mean the dog that died 2 days after PV was murdered? That dog?

Why bring it up? It was brought up in response to a post by Carrot who quoted you as saying that was the reason PV was murdered. (posted further up this thread) :shrug:

I think my post was very clear ..I was responding to your post where you stated that Jewett didn't think the dog was a motive..so I responded "why bring it up" I was referring to Jewett who brought up that issue through testimonies..if he thought it had nothing to do with the murder then why he brought up the fact that Karen struck Dyleski's dog and the dog suffered a lot before she was put down on October 17th...he also brought up the fact that Dyleski had Pamela's address as the billing address for Karen's credit card..

[Beebee]

BeeBee..

IMO

I don't think we will ever agree..it is no coincidence that Dyleski was involved in a CC fraud that involved Pamela's address..he did not kill a total stranger out of the blue..besides that..you are totally ignoring a very important piece of evidence----> Dyleski's state of mind----> CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT

At one point you said how can Dyleski murder someone then return home and be completely normal..well, was he or was he not??....there is no way around the fact that when he was asked about his scratches the day of the murder/the alleged encounter...he didn't mention the encounter...no way would I ever believe that such a weird incident would only come to his mind 3 days later...specifically on the day he was confronted about the CC Fraud and the possible connection to the murder...the day he was told that it was guaranteed the killer's DNA will be found on Pamela...the bottom line is, if the so called encounter happened, he would have mentioned it on Saturday.. you point out that there was no way he murdered Pamela because he was totally normal..well he wasn't according to some testimonies...in addition, Fred and Kim discussed his encounter story in depth..both testified that according to Dyleski the woman was the driver..Jena testified that he told her a man was driving the car..pulled over..and as he was talking to the man a panicked woman in the passenger seat reached over and grabbed his arm causing SCRATCHES...he was asked about SCRATCHES on Saturday..but no! he doesn't instantly recall that encounter...you defend him by saying he was stoned...however, he was not stoned enough to talk about hitting bushes and trees and falling into a creek..he was not stoned eneough to remember the discussion he once had with the Curiels about the waterfall..he was not stoned enough to ask Marcus how to take care of his swollen/bruised wrist and hand..he was not stoned enough to tell Marcus he was walking behind the barn to look at the waterfall and he fell in the ravine...he was not stoned enough to talk about seeing someone walking in the area and whether or not that could be the killer..but he was stoned enough to not mention an EXTREMELY odd incident that would have been EMBEDDED in his mind had it occurred..I think not!

Let's talk about Pamela's DNA evidence..you want to believe that an alleged killer searched the property on the day of the murder to find Dyleski's stuff to plant evidence..you want to believe that the killer was able to figure out that the shoes belonged to Dyleski...and you want to believe that somehow Dyleski COINCIDENTALLY packed those PARTICULAR shoes to give to his girlfriend to HOLD for him..IMO..this is a far-fetched scenario and there isn't one shred of evidence to support it..in fact, the evidence points DIRECTLY to Dyleski..the evidence rules out framing..!

I know that you strongly believe this kid is innocent..AND I strongly believe that Dyleski is a MURDERER..!

As I said we will have to agree to disagree...I want you to know that I will always regard you with admiration and respect..I deeply appreciate your efforts to help people you believe were wrongly convicted...sadly, this case DOESN'T deserve you...!!!


AW2B,

It took me many months and many conversations with different people for me to figure out what the real deal was on the encounter. What really happened, and what Scott really saw. Remember, he did not testify. I personally think that was a HUGE mistake on the part of his attorney, but she failed him in every possible way, so sadly I'm not surprised.
What comes out during a trial, is not everything. The trial record is not everything. A persons testimony is not everything. Statements are elicited and often the result is dependent on the better lawyer who can take things out of context and leave long lasting impressions. I've come to learn if you are searching for the truth, you will need to go further than the courts sanitized record of their version of the truth.
The most important things I've learned about this case have not come from the trial record. Unfortunately I can't post those things on a public message board, at least not yet, not while an appeal is pending.
I'll say this... Scott was the first to go to a lawyer, to admit to the cc fraud. He also told the lawyer about the encounter, because by that time, he learned the woman he saw was Pam. I fully believe had his lawyer done what Robin Croens lawyer did, and called LE so they could come in a question Scott, I don't think we would be having this conversation.

I know your mind is made up, but I hope it is not so made up that we can't revisit this again in the future.

ps- in a little over a week I'll be in your neck of the woods, maybe we can do it then :D

[Beebee]

I think it's very possible this kid was framed. It's at about a 50/50 for me now.
If he was framed I don't feel that he was the original person that the killer intended. It was more of an opportunity. Perhaps easier. Being just a kid, coming from a family with no wealth. No way to fight this thing. It's possible the killer has some ties to the police or legal community which made this possible. This was an up close, personal rage killing. How, with no contact, had he worked up this much rage? I agree, I'm sure everyone in the neighborhood knew who's mansion and trailer that was. So mistaking Mrs. Horowitz for the other neighbor seems far fetched to me. Hope this thread stays, I'm fascinated!
imo

No way to fight this thing. It's possible the killer has some ties to the police or legal community which made this possible


BINGO

[Beebee]

Hello!
I think Scott Dyleski knew it was the "Horowitz" mansion being built, but I don't think he necessarily knew that "Mrs. Horowitz" went by the name of Pamela Vitale. He could just have easily thought she went by the name of Karen Schneider.

Scott Dyleski had down that Karen Schneider lived at 1901 Hunsaker Canyon Road (which is where Daniel Horowitz and Pamela Vitale actually lived). He was using her name and credit card number (Karen's) to fraudulently place an order for grow lights, cooling fans, hoses, etc. And he gave 1901 as the billing address that went with Karen's card number. I believe he did think Karen Schneider lived there. He even tried to have the shipment sent there when Speciality Lighting refused his order because the shipping address was different (he at first tried having it sent to his house). He then asked for it to be shipped to 1901. But by then the company knew it was a fraudulent order and denied it anyway.

What attorneywan2be wrote about a possible motive being revenge for Karen hitting his dog with a car (as well as thwarting his cc scheme) makes sense to me.

None of the framing theories pan out for me -- too implausible.

The adults in the Curiel household were the ones upset at Karen for hitting the dog, main reason being the young kids were with the dog and she could have hit one of them! She was driving to fast on the road, period, and endangered KIDS.

The Schneiders lived in Hunsacker Canyon longer than the Curiels. Everyone knew who lived where, even if they didn't know exactly what they looked like -- this mistaken identity thing, and Scott was really trying to kill Karen Schneider is so ludicris that I'm not even going to discuss it anymore.

I know some of you are happy to hear that, LOL.

Here is what happened. Scott had Karen's cc info. When he had to put in the billing info he looked on the home association list and read the wrong line. That's how the Vitale street number and phone got on there.

ERROR.

Scott didn't even know he made the error.

MOO

[Beebee]

They were able to lift Scott Dyleski's fingerprints from 3 of the 5 slips of paper in the stack. All the papers were the same size, same paper, same handwriting. The handwriting was identified as Scott's by more than 1 witness.

On any given set of papers I handle in a day, they wouldn't get clear fingerprints from all of them either. Lack of fingerprints on something does not mean a person didn't handle something.

What are you talking about??

Link please that paper doesn't retain prints well, because from what I know, it does.

The paper that didn't have Scott's prints was that ridiculous to do list that appeared out of nowhere.

TIA

[Beebee]

The Dog? Nope.

Here's a quote from Jewett, the DA:

Jewett said some in the media have speculated that Dyleski worshipped Satan, or he was driven to commit murder by the grief he felt over the death of his dog. Both claims, Jewett said, are not accurate.

"A boy's love for his dog doesn't have anything to do with this case," Jewett added.
---------------
Reference: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20051117/ai_n15855870

Thank you for posting that.

[Beebee]

From what I remember the satan thing wasn't true either. There was a classmate of scotts that got an interview and he ended up making up the whole satan thing. That's why my hinky meter went off. Too much talk of satan and Goth and the news seemed to have him convicted on that alone.
All the talking heads were friends or associates of D. Horowitz and nothing was ever questioned.
Even the first picture we saw of him (scott) wasn't current. I bet alot of people suprised when they saw him in court. imo

You are correct again Heyes.

Scott had dropped the goth style months prior and the pic the media used was an old pic, he was not "cleaned up for court".... that was how he looked at arrest. Why did the media demonize him and lie to do it??

I remember that lying classmate. He later admitted he lied. What a jerk :mad:

Horowitz is my NUMER ONE suspect.

JMO

[Beebee]

No way to fight this thing. It's possible the killer has some ties to the police or legal community which made this possible


BINGO


I just want to add that anyone who wonders if this could have happened needs to look at the arrest of Scott Dyleski.

It is bizarre to say the least. It is also corrupt with lying cops and DDAs.

From the instant immunity given to Robin Croen, before an investigation was even conducted, to the lies told to get the search and arrest warrant, to the SWAT invasion of the Curiel home...

This all took place AFTER Scott Dyleski went to an attorney and welcomed the investigation into the cc fraud he was confessing to, and the police knew this. One does not go to a lawyer and confess something if they are unwilling to cooperate. Scott never got a chance.

It happened so quickly, and Scott Dyleski was charged so quicky, without ever being interviewed or questioned by police.... he was never given that chance. Why?? And remember, there was no "dna evidence" then, this was all done with NO evidence.

It is all documented here: http://justiceforscottdyleski.com/leaddetectivelies.html

And to see how police acted when they went to the home of a 16 year old with no evidence he did anything other than cc fraud read the docs associated with the Curiel civil suit. It's downright horrifying how they were treated.

Read them here: http://justiceforscottdyleski.com/curielvsccc.html

Was Joe Lynch treated this way? Was Gerry Wheeler?

No, they were not. So why was Scott Dyleski??


I wonder how Dan Horowitz would answer that question??


MOO

[Carrot]

snip
Here is what happened. Scott had Karen's cc info. When he had to put in the billing info he looked on the home association list and read the wrong line. That's how the Vitale street number and phone got on there.
Snip

MOO

See, that just confirms for me even more that he thought Vitale was Schneider.

[Carrot]

What are you talking about??

Link please that paper doesn't retain prints well, because from what I know, it does.

The paper that didn't have Scott's prints was that ridiculous to do list that appeared out of nowhere.

TIA

The stack of 5 slips didn't appear out of nowhere. They were found in Scott Dyleski's dresser. He had jammed them into the cross bar above the top dresser drawer. Eventually they worked their way loose and were found by the room's new occupant, David Curiel.

Lack of "liftable" fingerprints don't prove or disprove anything. Both David and Fred Curiel handled them before giving them to police. It was a shocking discovery and so of course they held them as they read through them. Some of the slips more than others. It's very probable this obscured other fingerprints.

There is no guarantee that "liftable" fingerprints will always be found on papers we touch.

What ties all 5 slips together is that they were all the same paper,the same size,the same handwriting, found together in the same location. The handwriting was recognized as Scott Dyleski's. His prints were able to be lifted from several of the slips in the stack.

The conclusion that Scott Dyleski wrote the to-do list seems quite reasonable.

[attorneywan2be]

See, that just confirms for me even more that he thought Vitale was Schneider.


I totally agree!! that confirmed for me too...

[awakening2lite]

I think my post was very clear ..I was responding to your post where you stated that Jewett didn't think the dog was a motive..so I responded "why bring it up" I was referring to Jewett who brought up that issue through testimonies..if he thought it had nothing to do with the murder then why he brought up the fact that Karen struck Dyleski's dog and the dog suffered a lot before she was put down on October 17th...he also brought up the fact that Dyleski had Pamela's address as the billing address for Karen's credit card..

Why Jewett brought up the dog, Jazz is a good question. In the reference, I provided and quoted, he was using the satan rumors and the dog dying as examples of false rumors going round when he was requesting Contra Costa Superior Court Judge David Flinn to place a gag order on the case.

Later, at trial, Jewett does a 180 turn and uses the death of the dog (2 days after PV was murdered) as a reason for Scott to kill PV. Why did he do that? I think he did that because it was a weak case. He had the boys dog dying and he had the credit card scam. He also had the teeny tiny bit of dna on the shoes and never explained how, with all the bloody gore of the murder and bloody footprints everywhere, they only managed to find the tiniest example on the shoe. So what did he have to put this boy away for life? He did the 180 on what he told the judge to get the gag order and he also told the Jury they could make up whatever they wanted to convict Scott.

All this, and his opponent was a young attorney with no previous trial experience. Oh my, I wouldn't exactly claim this shallow victory on my resume, but maybe he feels differently about it.

It boils down to, Jewett, although he claimed the dog being a reason for the murder was a false rumor when he went before the Judge seeking a gag order, went right into trial and used it as one of the top reasons. Why? Because he wanted to.

However, we all know the DA does not have to prove a motive in a murder case. This case came down to using everything, including old grade school drawings and poems and everything else the DA could scratch up (imo) to excite the jury and throw against a boy in trail. IMO he really didn't have to work the jury all that hard, the defense simply wasn't putting up that big of a fight disputing the fragments of dna evidence presented or disputing the number of people handling the evidence, the impossible time line, the explaination for the wrong address and many other oddities that a more experienced attorney would have covered. Some might say it was overkill on Jewett's part.


I'm sure these issues will be cleared up in the appeal.


IMO

[Carrot]

The adults in the Curiel household were the ones upset at Karen for hitting the dog, main reason being the young kids were with the dog and she could have hit one of them! She was driving to fast on the road, period, and endangered KIDS.

snip
MOO

Huh?

According to Kate Dixon (http://www.newsmakingnews.com/kd,dyleski,8,6,06,bombshells.htm), who attended the trial, this is what was testified to in court:

Jewett asked about an accident. She testified that at the end of September, she was driving to school to supervise a dance for pupils. On the road near her home, she saw five people and two dogs walking in the center of the road. The group split up so she could pass by. There was a car approaching her at the time. She was driving very slowly. To her great surprise she ran over one of the dogs. “I stopped the car, put on the emergency brake and got out." There was an old, apparently blind and deaf, dog caught under her car. One little girl, a Curiel child, screamed and ran to her house to get Esther Fielding, Scott Dyleski’s mother. The other people did not appear as concerned about the dog. It was not on a leash. Esther came running toward the dog. She did a “magic thing with her hands over the dog, palms down over the dog. "No chanting. I can’t recall what she said.” Then, Esther announced she needed to get the dog to a veterinary hospital. The dog was removed from under the car and Schneider left. Esther did not complain that Schneider was leaving.

The next day, Schneider went to see Esther Fielding at the Curiel's home where she lived. Kim Curiel was there. She said she was relieved the dog would be okay and Schneider responded, “If it were my dog, I would put it down.” They did not discuss any payments for injury to the dog. Schneider apologized to Kim for running over the dog.

[awakening2lite]

The stack of 5 slips didn't appear out of nowhere. They were found in Scott Dyleski's dresser. He had jammed them into the cross bar above the top dresser drawer. Eventually they worked their way loose and were found by the room's new occupant, David Curiel.

Lack of "liftable" fingerprints don't prove or disprove anything. Both David and Fred Curiel handled them before giving them to police. It was a shocking discovery and so of course they held them as they read through them. Some of the slips more than others. It's very probable this obscured other fingerprints.

There is no guarantee that "liftable" fingerprints will always be found on papers we touch.

What ties all 5 slips together is that they were all the same paper,the same size,the same handwriting, found together in the same location. The handwriting was recognized as Scott Dyleski's. His prints were able to be lifted from several of the slips in the stack.

The conclusion that Scott Dyleski wrote the to-do list seems quite reasonable.

Who was it that determined the handwriting was SD's?

ref: http://www.newsmakingnews.com/kd,dyleski,8,14,06,confess,fred,curiel.htm

EXCERPT

Esther Fielding in her testimony on Thursday, looked at the five pieces of paper and testified, "This looks somewhat different. You'd have to talk to a handwriting expert. I'm not an expert."

Summary

David Curiel said it was the handwriting of SD. On cross he said he had never received any letters from SD and that he (David Curiel) was not a handwriting expert.

-------------
If you have a handwriting experts testimony authenticating this please post it.

How long do finger prints last on paper?
ref: http://www.onin.com/fp/lpfaq.html#how_long_do_fingerprints_last

EXCERPT

“Fingerprints on paper, cardboard and unfinished wood can last for up to forty years (per actual casework histories) unless exposed to water (and contaminate transfer prints can even then sometimes persist). Fingerprints on non-porous surfaces such as plastic, metal and glass can last for many years if not exposed to water and if left undisturbed."


TIA

[Carrot]

IMO

Consciousness of Guilt:

WOW!! I missed that part..not only did Dyleski change his encounter story from one person to another..he actually changed it as he was going along explaining it for the first time to Fred and Kim...it can't be more obvious!! it's a FABRICATION!

He told them that the encounter occurred as he was going to the barn...and that the woman was DRIVING out of the Canyon..pulled over and reached across through the window of the PASSENGER seat and grabbed him...when Fred questioned him about how it was possible for her to have reached and grabbed him..by the end of their discussion he had already changed some details..( the woman was still the driver)..he told them that the encounter occurred as he was returning home and the woman reached out of the DRIVER"S window..( so most definitely he told them the woman was the driver, and we know that he told others the woman was the panicked passenger)

Good catch! In the end, didn't he tell someone who questioned his story that it was all really just a hallucination?

Well, since Vitale was on her computer the whole morning, and not out walking or driving a car or riding in a car, his story was bound to fall apart sooner or later.

[awakening2lite]

This whole thing about Jewett going before the Judge for a gag order on the case and stating the boy's dog dying was a rumor and the satan thing was a rumor and then using the boy's dog dying (2 days after PV was murdered) as a reason to kill, just makes my hinky meter go off.

I'm not an attorney so maybe one of my fellow posters can explain how that happens and if it's illegal, immoral, unethical or completely ok with judges. Does it happen all the time? Is it a common occurance?

TIA

[Carrot]

Who was it that determined the handwriting was SD's?

ref: http://www.newsmakingnews.com/kd,dyleski,8,14,06,confess,fred,curiel.htm

EXCERPT

Esther Fielding in her testimony on Thursday, looked at the five pieces of paper and testified, "This looks somewhat different. You'd have to talk to a handwriting expert. I'm not an expert."

Summary

David Curiel said it was the handwriting of SD. On cross he said he had never received any letters from SD and that he (David Curiel) was not a handwriting expert.

-------------
If you have a handwriting experts testimony authenticating this please post it.

How long do finger prints last on paper?
ref: http://www.onin.com/fp/lpfaq.html#how_long_do_fingerprints_last

EXCERPT

“Fingerprints on paper, cardboard and unfinished wood can last for up to forty years (per actual casework histories) unless exposed to water (and contaminate transfer prints can even then sometimes persist). Fingerprints on non-porous surfaces such as plastic, metal and glass can last for many years if not exposed to water and if left undisturbed."


TIA

Hi!

It's not necessary to have a handwriting expert in order to identify someone's handwriting. It's the same as being able to point to someone in the courtroom and give a visual identification of them. It's an acceptable method in a court of llaw. This wasn't a check forgery case.

I've often had students turn in homework and forget their name. I'm always able to identify them by comparing their handwriting to other homework I have on file for them.

Also,the jury was able to compare the handwriting on the notes with other things Dyleski wrote.

In the quote you shared on fingerprints it says "if left undisturbed". Well, the notes were handled by others after Dyleski, so had been "disturbed".

Also, the quote says "can last", not "100% guaranteed to last".

:shrug:

[attorneywan2be]

Why Jewett brought up the dog, Jazz is a good question. In the reference, I provided and quoted, he was using the satan rumors and the dog dying as examples of false rumors going round when he was requesting Contra Costa Superior Court Judge David Flinn to place a gag order on the case.

Later, at trial, Jewett does a 180 turn and uses the death of the dog (2 days after PV was murdered) as a reason for Scott to kill PV. Why did he do that? I think he did that because it was a weak case. He had the boys dog dying and he had the credit card scam. He also had the teeny tiny bit of dna on the shoes and never explained how, with all the bloody gore of the murder and bloody footprints everywhere, they only managed to find the tiniest example on the shoe. So what did he have to put this boy away for life? He did the 180 on what he told the judge to get the gag order and he also told the Jury they could make up whatever they wanted to convict Scott.

All this, and his opponent was a young attorney with no previous trial experience. Oh my, I wouldn't exactly claim this shallow victory on my resume, but maybe he feels differently about it.

It boils down to, Jewett, although he claimed the dog being a reason for the murder was a false rumor when he went before the Judge seeking a gag order, went right into trial and used it as one of the top reasons. Why? Because he wanted to.

However, we all know the DA does not have to prove a motive in a murder case. This case came down to using everything, including old grade school drawings and poems and everything else the DA could scratch up (imo) to excite the jury and throw against a boy in trail. IMO he really didn't have to work the jury all that hard, the defense simply wasn't putting up that big of a fight disputing the fragments of dna evidence presented or disputing the number of people handling the evidence, the impossible time line, the explaination for the wrong address and many other oddities that a more experienced attorney would have covered. Some might say it was overkill on Jewett's part.


I'm sure these issues will be cleared up in the appeal.


IMO

I think Jewett changed his mind about the motive as he learned more about the case..the article you quoted about his request for a Gag order was published about one month after the murder..from that point forward..he probably collected more information..interviewed more people...etc..etc..so at one point it became clear to him that Dyleski thought he was killing Karen Schneider...as Carrot stated, Dyleski might indeed have known that 1901 Hunsaker was the Horowitz mansion, but he probably thought that Karen Schneider was the one living there...

[Beebee]

It is frustrating for me to sit here with the absolute knowledge that in NO WAY was this some ridiculous case of mistaken identity and Scott wanted to kill Karen Schneider. People want to think it.... I can't stop them... but those thinking it are 100% wrong.


And yes, Karen Schneider was driving too fast, that's why she hit a dog. The adults had every right to be upset with her because she almost hit KIDS. The drama over the dog was between Karen Schneider and the adults, not Karen and Scott Dyleski.

Like I said earlier, go back and look at the arrest of Scott Dyleski. Something very wrong with that picture.

MOO

[Beebee]

[QUOTE=attorneywan2be;9042868.so at one point it became clear to him that Dyleski thought he was killing Karen Schneider...as Carrot stated, Dyleski might indeed have known that 1901 Hunsaker was the Horowitz mansion, but he probably thought that Karen Schneider was the one living there...[/QUOTE]


If he went looking for Karen Schneider, why would he think she would be at Horowitz's home??? And he certainly knew where the Horowitz home was...

He may not have known the number.... in fact he didn't know the numbers, hence the error, but so what?? The houses were not numbered. All the mailboxes are at the end of the road, many of them.

But there was NO mistaking the Horowitz house. If he walked up to Horowitz's he would KNOW he was at Horowitz's house!!

[awakening2lite]

Hi!

It's not necessary to have a handwriting expert in order to identify someone's handwriting. It's the same as being able to point to someone in the courtroom and give a visual identification of them. It's an acceptable method in a court of llaw. This wasn't a check forgery case.

I've often had students turn in homework and forget their name. I'm always able to identify them by comparing their handwriting to other homework I have on file for them.

Also,the jury was able to compare the handwriting on the notes with other things Dyleski wrote.

In the quote you shared on fingerprints it says "if left undisturbed". Well, the notes were handled by others after Dyleski, so had been "disturbed".

Also, the quote says "can last", not "100% guaranteed to last".

:shrug:

So we agree, no expert authenticated the handwriting.

The notes were distrubed and still maintained 9 unidentified fingerprints.

No one knows when the notes were written or if they actually had anything to do with PV's death.

IMO

[attorneywan2be]

This whole thing about Jewett going before the Judge for a gag order on the case and stating the boy's dog dying was a rumor and the satan thing was a rumor and then using the boy's dog dying (2 days after PV was murdered) as a reason to kill, just makes my hinky meter go off.

I'm not an attorney so maybe one of my fellow posters can explain how that happens and if it's illegal, immoral, unethical or completely ok with judges. Does it happen all the time? Is it a common occurance?

TIA

IMO

I just posted about why I think Jewett changed his mind...

You keep referring to the fact that the dog died 2 days after the murder..well, if you read the testimony about the dog's condition..she was suffering a lot..most of her muscles were severed..she was paralyzed...so it is reasonable to surmise that Dyleski and his mother had a discussion during the course of that week about the possibility of putting his dog down...the murder occurred on a Saturday and the dog was put down on Monday..the bottom line is : Dyleski knew that the dog was seriously injured without hope of recovery ..she was suffering a great deal..and he knew that eventually she had to be put down..

[awakening2lite]

It is frustrating for me to sit here with the absolute knowledge that in NO WAY was this some ridiculous case of mistaken identity and Scott wanted to kill Karen Schneider. People want to think it.... I can't stop them... but those thinking it are 100% wrong.


And yes, Karen Schneider was driving too fast, that's why she hit a dog. The adults had every right to be upset with her because she almost hit KIDS. The drama over the dog was between Karen Schneider and the adults, not Karen and Scott Dyleski.

Like I said earlier, go back and look at the arrest of Scott Dyleski. Something very wrong with that picture.

MOO

Hi BeeBee,

Didn't Karen Schneider actually attend some types of community meetings at the Curiels home on more than one ocassion? IIRC, Karen Schneider, as well as other neighbors were know to the household of the Curiels. Please correct me if I am wrong.

TIA

[Carrot]

If he went looking for Karen Schneider, why would he think she would be at Horowitz's home??? And he certainly knew where the Horowitz home was...

He may not have known the number.... in fact he didn't know the numbers, hence the error, but so what?? The houses were not numbered. All the mailboxes are at the end of the road, many of them.

But there was NO mistaking the Horowitz house. If he walked up to Horowitz's he would KNOW he was at Horowitz's house!!

Ummm .... that's the point. He thought Karen Schneider's address WAS the Horowitz house. That's where he thought she lived.

[awakening2lite]

IMO

I just posted about why I think Jewett changed his mind...

You keep referring to the fact that the dog died 2 days after the murder..well, if you read the testimony about the dog's condition..she was suffering a lot..most of her muscles were severed..she was paralyzed...so it is reasonable to surmise that Dyleski and his mother had a discussion during the course of that week about the possibility of putting his dog down...the murder occurred on a Saturday and the dog was put down on Monday..the bottom line is : Dyleski knew that the dog was seriously injured without hope of recovery ..she was suffering a great deal..and he knew that eventually she had to be put down..

I would really enjoy reading some statistics about revenge murders that took place prior to the death of a loved one or pior to the death of a beloved pet. Then I would take that theory more seriously.

TIA

[attorneywan2be]

If he went looking for Karen Schneider, why would he think she would be at Horowitz's home??? And he certainly knew where the Horowitz home was...

He may not have known the number.... in fact he didn't know the numbers, hence the error, but so what?? The houses were not numbered. All the mailboxes are at the end of the road, many of them.

But there was NO mistaking the Horowitz house. If he walked up to Horowitz's he would KNOW he was at Horowitz's house!!

IMO

BeeBee..it's very possible he thought that Karen Schneider lived at the Horowitz mansion...I mean she doesn't have to have the same last name..after all his wife did indeed have a different last name...he had Karen's credit card info with the Hotowitz address..so he went looking for 1901 Hunsaker thinking that was her address...he didn't discover his mistake until after the murder...for example, in the household he was living in there were several last names..so he was used to that possibility:
Curiel..Dyleski..Fieldings

[Carrot]

So we agree, no expert authenticated the handwriting.

The notes were distrubed and still maintained 9 unidentified fingerprints.

No one knows when the notes were written or if they actually had anything to do with PV's death.

IMO

It's just that I find it pretty gruesome that Scott Dyleski wrote a to-do list that said:

Knock out/kidnap
Question
Keep captive to confirm PIN
Dirty work
Dispose of evidence (cut up and bury)


Dyleski Handwrote Chillingly Detailed To-Do List (http://cbs5.com/local/local_story_046232658.html)

[attorneywan2be]

Hi BeeBee,

Didn't Karen Schneider actually attend some types of community meetings at the Curiels home on more than one ocassion? IIRC, Karen Schneider, as well as other neighbors were know to the household of the Curiels. Please correct me if I am wrong.

TIA


According to testimonies..Karen didn't know Dyleski and he didn't know her..

[attorneywan2be]

Good catch! In the end, didn't he tell someone who questioned his story that it was all really just a hallucination?

Well, since Vitale was on her computer the whole morning, and not out walking or driving a car or riding in a car, his story was bound to fall apart sooner or later.


Yep..Sikkema testified that when he asked Dyleski about that encounter story he had been telling people...Dyleski told him it was just Hallucination...

[attorneywan2be]

It is frustrating for me to sit here with the absolute knowledge that in NO WAY was this some ridiculous case of mistaken identity and Scott wanted to kill Karen Schneider. People want to think it.... I can't stop them... but those thinking it are 100% wrong.


And yes, Karen Schneider was driving too fast, that's why she hit a dog. The adults had every right to be upset with her because she almost hit KIDS. The drama over the dog was between Karen Schneider and the adults, not Karen and Scott Dyleski.

Like I said earlier, go back and look at the arrest of Scott Dyleski. Something very wrong with that picture.

MOO

BeeBee..are you saying that Dyleski knew that Karen Schneider DIDN'T live at the Horowitz address?? if so, please post the TS that support your contention...TIA

[awakening2lite]

It's just that I find it pretty gruesome that Scott Dyleski wrote a to-do list that said:

Knock out/kidnap
Question
Keep captive to confirm PIN
Dirty work
Dispose of evidence (cut up and bury)


Dyleski Handwrote Chillingly Detailed To-Do List (http://cbs5.com/local/local_story_046232658.html)


Assuming he wrote it.

It's very interesting that no expert was called to testify. In looking for information on handwriting I found this reference:
http://forensic-evidence.com/site/ID/handwrtg_prime_ID.html
This excerpt is interesting in that it tells us how seriously the courts and our government takes the study of handwriting analysis.

EXCERPT
Storer's testimony also showed that the field of document examination is moving toward establishing standards controlling the technique's operation. For one, the Secret Service laboratory where she works has maintained its accreditation with the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors since 1998. This accreditation process requires an annual external proficiency test. Further, the nine-point scale for expressing opinions by the FDE's was established under the auspices of the American Standards and Testing Organization ("ASTM"). Perhaps in response to the enhanced scrutiny it was receiving, a working group was formed in 1997 by the industry in order to standardize many of the processes utilized. Standards already established by ASTM include the terminology used in the profession, and the practice for receiving, documenting, storing and retrieving evidence in a laboratory. According to Storer, eight proposed guidelines are undergoing peer review. One of the standards that is being formalized is the comparison process itself. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that forensic document examination is making strides toward standardization. The fact that the document examination process has not completely standardized is not necessarily a bar to admissibility in court. Not all expert testimony must be backed up by a standard procedure. Moreover, if a fact-finder is fully apprized of the process that is actually followed, and the expert is subject to cross-examination and to being countered by other experts, the lack of standardization can hardly be said to require exclusion.

-----
And this:

EXCERPT (compares layperson vs professionals) (I post it because it was only two laypersons testifing they thought it was SD's handwriting and then declared themselves not to be professionals)

In his studies, Professor Kam compared the performance of professional forensic document examiners with non-professionals in matching handwriting. Professor Kam testified in court that the first of his studies that lay persons made far more types of errors than professional examiners. The second study showed that as a group, examiners' performance was different from that of lay persons: Lay persons rivaled professional examiners in being able to select different documents written by one person. However, lay persons also claimed erroneously that documents written by different people had the handwriting of the same person 38 percent of the time, whereas experts made the same mistake 6.5 percent of the time. As Professor Kam stated: "It struck me very quickly that lay persons tend to see similarities and jump to a conclusion . . . whereas document examiners always started the analysis–when I asked why did you make the decision–by trying to show me [sic] what's different." The third [Kam] study showed that a different incentive scheme did not make a difference in the results; it apparently also showed an unexplained improvement in the ability of lay persons to avoid false positives. The fourth study showed that professionals and lay persons did not differ significantly in detecting forgeries, but professionals were better at finding genuine signatures. Professionals erroneously concluded that forgeries were genuine 0.5 percent of the time whereas lay persons did so 6.5 percent of the time; professionals mistakenly concluded that genuine signatures were forgeries 7.1 percent of the times, lay persons did so 26.1 percent of the time.

=========
About the notes themselves:
IMO there are worse horrors in most of the tv programs that come into our homes every night and certainly more violence on some of the video games.

Again, we do not know when the notes were written or if they even relate to the crime or have any certainty they were written by SD.
And we do know who the unidentified (9) finger prints on the papers belong to.

That's alot of unanswered questions in this case.

IMO

[Carrot]

I would really enjoy reading some statistics about revenge murders that took place prior to the death of a loved one or pior to the death of a beloved pet. Then I would take that theory more seriously.

TIA
You're right, the dog was put to sleep a couple of days after the murder.

We know Dyleski stayed up all night with the dog when it was howling in pain after the accident. When did they call to schedule the appointment to put the dog to sleep? Could it it have been on Friday, October 14th, the day before the murder?

Much has been made of his membership in PETA, so if that's true, he would have been greatly bothered by his dog being in agony.

Sometimes a new grief episode will trigger and intensify an older grief. His half-sister Denika was killed in a car accident about 2 years before. From the day of her funeral to the day he was arrested for Vitale's murder, he wore all black.

"Old griefs you haven't fully come to terms with will pop up when a new grief comes along! If you have a pattern of repressing grief, over time you may collect a closet-full of painful old wounds that have only partially healed. When a new loss - a job change; a change in housing; a failed relationship; an illness - comes along, all the old losses will piggyback on the new loss and it can feel like too much."
Understanding The Grief Process (http://www.hospiceofhope.com/understand_grief.htm)

Just some thoughts.

[awakening2lite]

According to testimonies..Karen didn't know Dyleski and he didn't know her..


He may not have known her as an aquaintance, but he may have recognized her. How do you know he didn't?

When we were kids, we knew where the policeman lived, where the teachers lived, where the preacher lived, where the doctor lived and the names and so on. Are we sure the kids in that small neighborhood did not know where the teacher lived and what her name was? Wasn't she one of the longest residing residents in the area?

And again, basing the murder on KS being the intended victim...well, I need to read some type of statistics about revenge murders taking place before the death of the perps loved one. Please, if anyone has that, post it.

TIA

[attorneywan2be]

IMO

Knowing the Horowitz mansion and it's location is one thing..knowing who actually lived there is quite another...he used the Horowitz address as the billing address for Karen..and as I said in my previous post..there is nothing strange about people with different last names living at the same address...after all, he lived in a household that had at least 3 last names: Curiel..Dyleski..Fieldings..

Based on the evidence presented in court, there is no question in my mind that he thought he was killing Karen Schneider..

[awakening2lite]

You're right, the dog was put to sleep a couple of days after the murder.

We know Dyleski stayed up all night with the dog when it was howling in pain after the accident. When did they call to schedule the appointment to put the dog to sleep? Could it it have been on Friday, October 14th, the day before the murder?

Much has been made of his membership in PETA, so if that's true, he would have been greatly bothered by his dog being in agony.

Sometimes a new grief episode will trigger and intensify an older grief. His half-sister Denika was killed in a car accident about 2 years before. From the day of her funeral to the day he was arrested for Vitale's murder, he wore all black.

"Old griefs you haven't fully come to terms with will pop up when a new grief comes along! If you have a pattern of repressing grief, over time you may collect a closet-full of painful old wounds that have only partially healed. When a new loss - a job change; a change in housing; a failed relationship; an illness - comes along, all the old losses will piggyback on the new loss and it can feel like too much."
Understanding The Grief Process (http://www.hospiceofhope.com/understand_grief.htm)

Just some thoughts.


Maybe in California a vet will have you wait with an animal in pain for a weekend to pass before relieving it from the misery, but I have never heard of such uncaring treatment. I find that very hard to believe without the vet verifing he did such a thing.

Old wounds coming to the surface is a far cry from rage killing a stranger before the death of a loved one.

If you can find some stats on that I would enjoy reading it. TIA

[attorneywan2be]

He may not have known her as an aquaintance, but he may have recognized her. How do you know he didn't?


TIA

According to testimony (I posted it..see the previous page) Kim asked Dyleski if he knew what either of Karen Scheinder or Pamela looked like..he said he didn't know..

[Carrot]

Maybe in California a vet will have you wait with an animal in pain for a weekend to pass before relieving it from the misery, but I have never heard of such uncaring treatment. I find that very hard to believe without the vet verifing he did such a thing.

Old wounds coming to the surface is a far cry from rage killing a stranger before the death of a loved one.

If you can find some stats on that I would enjoy reading it. TIA

Maybe EF and/or SD wanted some more time with the dog. After all, they had already waited at least 2 weeks since the dog was run over. So 2 more days doesn't seem a stretch. Or perhaps it was the first available time they could both go together. Who knows?

Grief is tricky and comes with lots of anger at times. Add in the frustration of having the cc scheme stopped in it's tracks, and having promised his friend Robin Croen that he would "take care of it". Then read through the "to-do" list SD wrote.
All the pieces really start coming together.

My opinion! Just throwing out ideas here!

[attorneywan2be]

Assuming he wrote it.

It's very interesting that no expert was called to testify. In looking for information on handwriting I found this reference:
http://forensic-evidence.com/site/ID/handwrtg_prime_ID.html
This excerpt is interesting in that it tells us how seriously the courts and our government takes the study of handwriting analysis.


IMO

What is the point of this discussion?

If someone wrote those notes to frame him..then why not write what exactly happened to Vitale..why not describe exactly what took place instead of writing a different plan..she was definitely not kidnapped and held captive..she was definitely not cut up and buried..so it is more logical to surmise that it was Dyleski that wrote those notes at one point and then changed his plan from kidnapping to just killing her at her residence....

[Carrot]

Yep..Sikkema testified that when he asked Dyleski about that encounter story he had been telling people...Dyleski told him it was just Hallucination...

Thanks!

[Carrot]

What is the point of this discussion?

If someone wrote those notes to frame him..then why not write what exactly happened to Vitale..why not describe exactly what took place instead of writing a different plan..she was definitely not kidnapped and held captive..she was definitely not cut up and buried..so it is more logical to surmise that it was Dyleski that wrote those notes at one point and then changed his plan from kidnapping to just killing her at her residence....

Good point . . . it could just be that things didn't exactly go according to plan after he attempted the first step of "knock out".

[awakening2lite]

Maybe EF and/or SD wanted some more time with the dog. After all, they had already waited at least 2 weeks since the dog was run over. So 2 more days doesn't seem a stretch. Or perhaps it was the first available time they could both go together. Who knows?

Grief is tricky and comes with lots of anger at times. Add in the frustration of having the cc scheme stopped in it's tracks, and having promised his friend Robin Croen that he would "take care of it". Then read through the "to-do" list SD wrote.
All the pieces really start coming together.

My opinion! Just throwing out ideas here!

They don't have the murder weapon..maybe it's a rock
The dog is put to sleep 2 days after the murder
He tells his cohort he'll take care of the lighting problem in their crime scam.
Old clothes with trace amounts of dna are found in an open van
A shoe is tested and a trace dna is found on it but no testimony of chemicals used to remove all the rest of the blood from the shoes
Evidence is passed back and forth between unknown numbers of civilians before LE gets it
Pieces of paper are found with 9 unidentified fingerprints and no expert authenticates the handwriting and no one can say when or why they were written or why a killer would leave that behind if it were a true to do list.
The curiels are totally confused and need the DA in the case to straighten out their time line
The curiels are the case investigators

The 33 minute time line
Beat PV 26 times
struggle with her
carve and stab her
search house for weapons to use on her (what no plan?)
drink water
try to clean up the scene
smear blood in shower, on wall on towel
change clothes
hide some clothes in duffel bag
hide other clothes where no one will ever find it
travel a mile back to van and house
clean up (with what?)
lace up those boots
appear unhurried, clean, calm, not sweaty, smelly or excited
sit next to kim on couch

That's a lot to believe to give someone life without a chance of parole.

There should be plenty of meat for the appeal.

IMO

[awakening2lite]

What is the point of this discussion?

If someone wrote those notes to frame him..then why not write what exactly happened to Vitale..why not describe exactly what took place instead of writing a different plan..she was definitely not kidnapped and held captive..she was definitely not cut up and buried..so it is more logical to surmise that it was Dyleski that wrote those notes at one point and then changed his plan from kidnapping to just killing her at her residence....


Do you really need to ask what is the point of this discussion?

You're right the notes do not follow what happened in the murder, one must assume they were written with this murder in mind, otherwise it just doesn't fit. But, is assuming enough to convict? Assuming implies doubt and the acused is supposed to be given the benefit of the doubt, not the DA.

Where's all the missing bloody clothes? Why would the kid hide some bloody clothes in the unlocked van in a bag with his name on it and then hide the rest where it will never be found?

IMO

[attorneywan2be]

Do you really need to ask what is the point of this discussion?

You're right the notes do not follow what happened in the murder, one must assume they were written with this murder in mind, otherwise it just doesn't fit. But, is assuming enough to convict? Assuming implies doubt and the acused is supposed to be given the benefit of the doubt, not the DA.

Where's all the missing bloody clothes? Why would the kid hide some bloody clothes in the unlocked van in a bag with his name on it and then hide the rest where it will never be found?

IMO

This is just a logical argument that further supports the overwhelming circumstantial evidence presented in court..

[Sharona]

I hope you'll bear with me - I'm nowhere near as intelligent as all you other posters. But I totally agree with you. I suspect Mr. Horowitz, but I don't know why. It's just a feeling. I have alot of premonitions that come true. I'm right about alot of things. But that has nothing to do with intelligence! You posters are very good. I was just wondering - why do you suspect him and what do you think his motive was? To be with his girlfriend? You probably said somewhere in past posts, but I've had alot of wine, and don't have the patience to read through them all. He just seems so creepy to me. And he seems so fake, and like he has no emotion, or he had to force some emotion, I don't know. And he seems a little gay, to me.

[Mysteri]

appear unhurried, clean, calm, not sweaty, smelly or excited
sit next to kim on couch



IMO

On the contrary, from Kim's testimony he was far from calm and blood was dripping off his nose.

imo

[Beebee]

BeeBee..are you saying that Dyleski knew that Karen Schneider DIDN'T live at the Horowitz address?? if so, please post the TS that support your contention...TIA

The transcripts don't tell the whole story in this case. Not even close. I wish it were that easy.

I know that Scott Dyleski knew the lawyer (Horowitz) and his wife lived in the huge mansion.
I know that Scott Dyleski knew the OTHER neighbor Karen Schneider hit the dog. He was not under the impression that the lawyers wife hit the dog. Why would he be??

When I went to Lafayette and spent time with people who live in the area and know Scott (and I am not talking about just his mother), this very subject came up and let's just say the only reason it wasn't laughable that this "mistaken identity" thing came up is because it is so very tragic the way this boy was demonized, and the grasping for a motive that doesn't exist.

Scott not knowing what Pam looked like only comes into play in that he did not know Saturday who it was he saw. He did not know the woman he saw was the woman who had been killed. He did not know until he described her for Kim and she informed him.

[Beebee]

On the contrary, from Kim's testimony he was far from calm and blood was dripping off his nose.

imo



Kim's testimony:

Jewett asking questions



Q. At some point while you were grading papers, did you see Scott?

A. Yes, he came in.

Q. Came in from where?

A. The front door.

Q. Had you seen him at all earlier that morning?

A. No, I had not.

Q. And when he came in what did he do?

A. He walked with an exaggerated step, like very large steps with sort of a bounce in between.

Q. And where did he go?

A. He came over to the next to the couch where I was sitting.

Q. Was there anybody else in the area, living area,kitchen area, at the time that he did that?

A. Michael was cooking breakfast, my children were up and awake, they were scattered throughout the living and dining area. It's all one great big room, actually.

Q. Uh-huh. Okay. And when he came in, did you notice anything unusual about him?

A. He had a very large smile and he said in a rather loud voice, "I had the most beautiful walk this morning."

Q. When you say in a rather loud voice, do you mean it was like exaggerated?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you notice anything about his person that was unusual when he came home, next to you or near you?

A. Yes. I noticed that he had scratches on his nose and that he was bleeding. The blood was fresh and actually was beginning to make a droplet that looked like it might actually drop off of his nose. And I said, "You are bleeding." And he said, "I am?" And he didn't reach toward his face at all. I said, "Yeah, on your nose you are bleeding and it's going to drop." And he reached up finally and wiped and realized it was blood. And he looked at it and jumped back and said, "Oh, boy, that bush really got me. I fell on my walk as I was coming down the hill and got whacked by a bush and ...."

Q. Did he say where he was when he was on his walk or did he just say down the hill, or ....

A. He said "down the hill." But he also had said that he -- I asked, "Where did you go," when he had said it was a beautiful day? And he said that he had tried to find the waterfall that we had talked about and gone to see earlier in the year and he had looked for that up the hill passed the barn.

Q. Let me ask you about that. Exactly what did he say about looking for the waterfall?

A. He said, "I was up the hill, behind the barn, looking for the waterfall that you guys had talked about."

Q. That you guys had talked about. Had you talked about the waterfall behind the barn in his presence before?

A. Yes, I believe so.

Q. Had you been to the waterfall yourself?

A. Yes.

Q. And have you ever been to the waterfall with Scott?

A. No.

Q. To your knowledge, based on anything you have seen or Scott said, had Scott ever been to the waterfall himself?

A. No.

Q. Now, you have been living up in the Hunsaker Canyon Road area for years; right?

A. Right.

Q. Is there a running waterfall in Hunsaker Canyon, I don't know, in October?

A. Not in October, no.

Q. Is there a running waterfall there at any time?

A. Yes, in the spring.

Q. After the rains?

A. Right.

Q. And does it take some time by the way for the water, you know, to rain and sink into the ground before you have enough groundwater to develop to actually cause the springs to start to run?

A. Yes.

Q. So did you ask him about, "What are you going to see the waterfall for, there's no water"?

A. Yeah. I said, "It's October, Scott. There's no water up there."

Q. What did he say to that?

A. He said, "Yeah, I found that out."

Q. Now, you said he was bleeding, he had some kind of a wound on or near his nose; is that right?

A. On his nose --

Q. On his nose?

A. -- and his cheek.

Q. And that's what I wanted to ask you about. Can you describe the wounds you saw on his cheek?

A. They were thin lines that were not very deep. When he said he had been hit by a branch that sounded plausible, because they were just thin scratches.
Q. And how many of them were on his cheek?

A. Oh, dear. Three, four.

Q. Okay. Three or four?

A. Yeah, three or four.

Q. And these scratches, were they going in all kinds of different directions or were they kind of all going in the same direction, do you remember?

A. All going in the same direction? I'm --

Q. I don't want you to guess if you don't remember, but if you do remember tell us.

A. One was going -- one was just a short little like it wasn't really going in any direction. It wasn't like a line, it was just sort of a scratch, a little mark.

Q. How about the other two or three, do you remember?

A. No, not clearly.

Q. All right.

A. I remember the one on his nose, because that's the one I put the ointment on for him.

Q. Oh, you put the ointment on?

A. I did.

Q. Okay.

A. I got that triple antibiotic ointment and I had him wash it in the sink and I put some ointment on it.

Q. And so he sat down next to you?

A. He did. He sat down next to me and put his arm around me.

Q. Put his arm around you?

A. He did. That wasn't unusual for him.

Q. Okay.

A. He was a very affectionate kid.

Q. Was that before or after he went in the bathroom to wash off the blood?

A. That was before. He sat down before.

Q. And then did he go into the bathroom to wash off the blood and then come back and you put the ointment on?

A. Yeah. And he sat down again next to me.

Q. Was the conversation about how he got the scratch before or after he went to the bathroom or both?

A. Both.

Q. And then at some point did he -- is there anything else that was said between the two of you, other than what I have asked you about?

A. I said, "We are planning to go to the Spirit Store today. Do you want to come with us?" And he said, "No, I don't." And I said, "Really. Why not? That's your favorite store." And he said, "I've got to plan this day out." I said, "Really. What do you have planned?" He said, "Jena and I were going to the Renaissance Faire, the Renaissance Pleasure Faire.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. And I said, "What time is that? You could probably still go with us to the Spirit Store and then go." He said, "No, I don't want to go."

Q. Anything else that was talked about between the two of you there on the couch?

A. No. I said, "I can't really talk, Scott. I have to get through these papers so we can get out of here."

Q. Okay. And then he went someplace?

A. Yeah.

Q. Did you see him at all again that morning after that conversation on the couch?

A. Yes.

Q. When?

A. Just before we were leaving he was near the door and we were all heading out and I said, "How is your nose feeling?"

Q. And --

A. And he said, "Fine."

Q. Was there any conversation beyond that?

A. No.


Yeah a real sinister scene with the blood dripping just back from rage kill maniac :rolleyes:

[Carrot]

snip
And yes, Karen Schneider was driving too fast, that's why she hit a dog. The adults had every right to be upset with her because she almost hit KIDS. The drama over the dog was between Karen Schneider and the adults, not Karen and Scott Dyleski.
snip
MOO

Hi Beebee,

Could you share your source for this information? This is not what came out in court. The testimony was that she was driving very slowly.:shrug:

But if she was driving fast and almost hit kids, then that would tell me Scott Dyleski could have had even more to fuel his anger with Karen Schneider.

:confused:

[Beebee]

Kim's cross:

MS. LEONIDA: Q. Let me ask, were you able to understand enough to hear that you described the marks that you saw on Scott's cheek, on October 15, as punctures?

A. Yes.

Q. And that is how you described them --

A. Yes.

Q. -- punctures?

A. That's how I described them.

Q. And were you telling the truth then?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you also said that he started going on walks about in June?

A. Yes.

Q. Didn't you tell the police in October that it was about six months prior to his arrest that he started taking walks?

A. I'm sorry. I don't remember. And both would be an estimate.

Q. Okay. Scott's father was a pretty avid hiker?

A. Yes.

Q. And they would sometimes go on trips together?

A. Yes.

Q. And, in fact, didn't they go to Canada, in August?

A. Yes.


More:

Q. When you talked to the police you did tell them that your estimation, based on when you woke up and what you did Saturday morning, on the 15th, was that Scott came home around 9:30; isn't that right?

A. I'm sorry. I don't recall exactly what I said to the police, at that time.

Q. Do you remember telling the police that you looked at Scott's arms and hands on Saturday morning and didn't see any injuries?

A. I remember telling them I didn't notice any other injuries.

Q. And you told them that he was wearing a short sleeved shirt?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you also tell the police that when he came home, he wasn't acting strangely?

A. That's -- strangely is an opinion. And thinking back it now appears that he was acting strangely at the time because I was concentrating on the papers. The strangeness of the behavior was not apparent.

Q. Okay. So thinking back now he was acting strangely, but at the time you didn't think it was strange. Is that what you are saying?

A. Yes.

Q. You didn't tell the police that he was walking in long steps, did you?

A. No.

Q. You didn't tell the police he said anything in an exaggerated voice, did you?

A. No.

Q. He wasn't sweating when he came in?

A. Not that I can recall.

Q. He wasn't disheveled when he came in?

A. Disheveled? No.

Q. And you told the police that he came home after you had been grading papers for about an hour; is that right?

A. I'm sorry. I don't recall what I told the police at that time.


Conclusion:

It was normal for Scott to take walks. That morning Scott came home at aprx 9:30, he had on a short sleeved shirt and the only injury noted by Kim Curiel who he sat close enough to to put his arm around, was a puncture and small scratch consistent with being hit with a branch. He was not sweating, disheveled and by her own account, she saw nothing strange.

Now, please everyone go here and read what happened to Pamela:

http://justiceforscottdyleski.com/whathappenedtopamela.html

[Beebee]

Hi Beebee,

Could you share your source for this information? This is not what came out in court. The testimony was that she was driving very slowly.:shrug:

But if she was driving fast and almost hit kids, then that would tell me Scott Dyleski could have had even more to fuel his anger with Karen Schneider.

:confused:


My source is that I spoke with somebody who knows Kim. The adults were upset because the kids were right there with the dog. I have no link obviously so I'll have to say JMO.

Spring Garden use common sense. She hit the dog. If she was driving so slow, she would not have hit the dog.

I've posted enough on your mistaken identity theory. I can't say anything more about it. Believe what you want.

[Carrot]

My source is that I spoke with somebody who knows Kim. The adults were upset because the kids were right there with the dog. I have no link obviously so I'll have to say JMO.

Spring Garden use common sense. She hit the dog. If she was driving so slow, she would not have hit the dog.

I've posted enough on your mistaken identity theory. I can't say anything more about it. Believe what you want.

Thanks Beebee! I appreciate your response on the source.

Looks like we have another case of mistaken identity though. I'm Carrot. :)

Have a good Sunday!

[packy]

Kim's cross:




More:




Conclusion:

It was normal for Scott to take walks. That morning Scott came home at aprx 9:30, he had on a short sleeved shirt and the only injury noted by Kim Curiel who he sat close enough to to put his arm around, was a puncture and small scratch consistent with being hit with a branch. He was not sweating, disheveled and by her own account, she saw nothing strange.

Now, please everyone go here and read what happened to Pamela:

http://justiceforscottdyleski.com/whathappenedtopamela.html

It is apparent that she did put up an exceptional fight with defensive wounds on her arms, hands, fingers, legs, and feet. I do wish she would have won, hopefully in a battle like that the adrenalin is high and the focus is on action rather than fear and pain.

I believe that this fight took quite awhile and too much time to fit with the timeline presented by the prosecution.

[awakening2lite]

I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that SD did know what KS and PV looked like. They drove up and down the street in front of the house where he lived for years.

Every child over the age of 10 knows that when you are being questioned by a person in authority (which Kim was as head of household where SD lived) if you answer a question with "yes" it will only lead to further questions. I think he answered "No" to Kim C because there was no legal penalty (she wasn't the LE or an officer of the court) and he was under oath to tell the truth. He probably (and naively) believed it wouldn't matter or make any real difference. He just wanted the questioning to stop and to end the pressure of he and his mother ending up homeless. Making Scott and his mother homeless was well within the power of Kim, at any "wrong" answer.

SD did not take the stand and testify to clear it up.

Those ladies all drove past the house he lived in for years on their way out of the tiny neighborhood on the hill and back home again. I think he could recognize their faces and put names to them but he choose (wrongly and without benefit of counsel) to tell Kim he did not know them.

IMO

[Beebee]

I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that SD did know what KS and PV looked like. They drove up and down the street in front of the house where he lived for years.

Every child over the age of 10 knows that when you are being questioned by a person in authority (which Kim was as head of household where SD lived) if you answer a question with "yes" it will only lead to further questions. I think he answered "No" to Kim C because there was no legal penalty (she wasn't the LE or an officer of the court) and he was under oath to tell the truth. He probably (and naively) believed it wouldn't matter or make any real difference. He just wanted the questioning to stop and to end the pressure of he and his mother ending up homeless. Making Scott and his mother homeless was well within the power of Kim, at any "wrong" answer.

SD did not take the stand and testify to clear it up.

Those ladies all drove past the house he lived in for years on their way out of the tiny neighborhood on the hill and back home again. I think he could recognize their faces and put names to them but he choose (wrongly and without benefit of counsel) to tell Kim he did not know them.

IMO

Thanks for reminding people it was a 16 year old being questioned here.

How many of us have raised teens?? If anyone here has raised a teen and never experienced them trying to get out of trouble, or never once had difficulty trying to understand what they were talking about, or never once took their "attitude" the wrong way.... please say so!! IMO Scott Dyleski was a typical teen. Yes, the cc scam was a little risky. Looks like that didn't hurt Robin Croen much or turn him into a "criminal".... last I heard he was going to college. How nice for Robin.

Wake... By Sunday it was on the news that the murder victim was Pam Vitale, wife of Dan Horowitz. I don't think Scott could put a face to that name because he didn't realize that was who he saw on Saturday until Kim told him.

MOO

[awakening2lite]

Hi BeeBee,

That initial search warrent is a puzzle too.

That warrant was obtained because of untruthful statements of an LE officer, IIRC.

That is most disturbing because obtaining a warrant by providing less than truthful statements leaves the rest of us open to the unlawful probs of LE and other govt officials, too.

IIRC the Judge allowed the products of the search because he determined the LE officer did not intend to be untruthful. How did he manage to determine what was in the mind and heart of another? And is that the standard we can expect from the courts?

I'm sure someone will correct me where I might err in this. TIA

IMO

[Aslan]

Hey all, first time posting about this but I first heard about it yesterday morning and I've been reading just about everything I could find on it.

If I say something you disagree with please tell me why and please don't take it as a personal affront. I've enjoyed the discussion so far.


Scott was afraid of he and his mom being kicked out of the house, yes? Was that his concern or was that mainly her concern? Because either way him trying to go into a pot growing/selling business probably wouldn't do well in his landlord's eyes once(if) the DEA stormed the house.
Scott did or didn't know what PV looked like? Half of what I read says no and then I read that he and everyone else in town knows exactly who's house was being built a mile away (I do believe someone said you could even see the construction from where he was staying)
So did he or didn't he know who she was? If so, he would most certainly know what she looked like, unless that town is bigger than Nashville (where I live) We all know what our neighbors look like. Hell, up to even neighbors 5 miles away. There are routes people drive and you get used to seeing the same faces.
^That's why I don't buy the mistaken identity theory.
I do however see why he was a suspect due to the credit card theft and even following through calling the lighting company a second time trying to make it sound legit with PV's address. What an amazing coincidence that he was turned down the day before her husband planned to have her bumped off and just happened to know the kid would be on a walk the next morning..yes? No. No it's not because I do not believe for one second he was framed.
She was murdered and he didn't feel fit to tell of a passenger..oh no wait a driver..grabbing his arm that day? He waited until Tuesday?
Small town (no wait..must be a huge town) I don't care what sized town, that's going to hit the news. When people are murdered and it hits the news there is a picture. Are you trying to say that someone savvy enough to be a member of PETA doesn't watch the news? Didn't hear about the brutal murder a mile away from where he lives? Just happened to have sudden recall days later when he suspected there was DNA that would match to him?

Please

Also, the DNA stuff is less credible considering his mother burned a bunch of stuff. Yes she said it was just papers she burned. Amazingly enough there seem to be people out there who believe others never lie under oath. Much less to protect a loved one.

Too many 'why he did's' and very flimsy 'why he couldn't have's' if you ask me.
I think the right person is behind bars.

Again this is just my opinion. Thank you for starting that site Beebee, had you not brought it here I never would have known about this case.
Sadly however, while I admire your passion..I think it's misplaced in this case.

[Mysteri]

He was not under the impression that the lawyers wife hit the dog. Why would he be??

.

Kim Curiel said that Scott did not know for sure who hit Jazz. She would know.

"Kim Curiel says Scott was told that Jazz was hit by "the lady up the canyon." Karen Schneider happened to live very near Pamela and Dan."

Scott knew who they both were. He knew Pamela because she actually came to a House Warming party at his house and he took her to be the lady up the canyon because he had stolen her cc info in order to get hydroponic equipment delivered to her address..which didn't take place.

Yes, he stole Sneider's info as well and charged to her account.

Kim Curiel said Scott came to think that Pam ran over Jazz BEFORE the case ever went to trial.

With all due respect to visit Lafayette ( we live near by ) and speak to various people with only a one-sided view of the case itsn't helpful.

imo

[attorneywan2be]

Who Wrote the to-do List????

The to-do list:

Knock out/kidnap
Question
Keep captive to confirm PIN
Dirty work
Dispose of evidence (cut up and bury)

IMO

There are only 2 options..

Option 1: someone wrote the to-do list to frame Dyleski..

Let's examine this option..the murder plan according to the to-do list is different than the way the murder was actually committed..the question is: why would the person who was framing Dyleski write a different murder plan instead of describing what really happened to Pamela Vitale? I personally cannot find a logical explanation..therefore I can rule out this option..that would leave us with the second option ------->

Option 2: Dyleski wrote the to-do list BEFORE he committed the murder..

Let's examine this option...part of the to-do list was to get/confirm the pin number..that indicates that the murder he planned to commit was connected to the CC Fraud...----> 1- Karen Schneider (he used her credit card to make his purchase)...2-Pamela Vitale (he listed her address as the billing address for Karen's credit card)----> lo and behold one of them was indeed murdered "Pamela Vitale" ------>

Conclusion: Dyleski did it..

To the people that disagree with this conclusion..please explain why would the person who supposedly wanted to frame Dyleski write a murder plan that is totally different than the way the actual murder was committed???

[packy]

Your logic is good, and I do hear you.

If I were trying to frame him, I think I'd purposely change it so it would show that part of the plan failed, since it showed that she put up a strong fight which would not necessarily be expected. So kidnapping is planned as the intent because the goal was to get the pin. Grabbing "weapons" from the scene showed someone wasn't prepared maybe to kill, so that would fit the plan. Not thinking "cut and bury" evidence meant a person but maybe plastic credit cards.

I'm just speculating here and not sure how I really feel about this list.

[attorneywan2be]

Your logic is good, and I do hear you.

If I were trying to frame him, I think I'd purposely change it so it would show that part of the plan failed, since it showed that she put up a strong fight which would not necessarily be expected. So kidnapping is planned as the intent because the goal was to get the pin. Grabbing "weapons" from the scene showed someone wasn't prepared maybe to kill, so that would fit the plan. Not thinking "cut and bury" evidence meant a person but maybe plastic credit cards.

I'm just speculating here and not sure how I really feel about this list.

IMO

Hi Packy..

I respectfully disagree..if someone wants to frame Dyleski they would write a murder plan that would be totally consistent with what really occurred..that would be a very powerful incriminating evidence..in fact, they would write something that would indicate motive as well..their goal is to provide IRREFUTABLE evidence that would guarantee a conviction...let's not forget that a glove was used..a knife was used in some manner in the murder..so it indicates that the murderer was indeed prepared...they can leave out the details about the weapons he used from the residence which would be understandable since unexpected situations could occur as the murder is being committed..they could have simply mentioned a knife was to be used ..but there is no reason in the world to change it totally to include kidnapping and captivity...that only indicates that Dyleski had a change of plan..also... "cut-up and bury"...indicates a reference to a body..if he was referring to a credit card..he most likely would have said " cut-up/shred it and discard"..

[packy]

I guess I'm thinking every plan has some part that will go awry, so I'd think it would raise suspicions if the crime met the plan perfectly. So that would be why I would change it some if I wrote it.

It's makes most sense to think in terms of cutting/shredding a credit card and discarding it, but if I thought nosey family members or LE would go through my garbage I might be worried about discarding it.

[Mysteri]

Yeah a real sinister scene with the blood dripping just back from rage kill maniac

Exactly !! High on his fresh kill the way a murderer always is. But then he panicks when he thinks of his own body being incarcerated and fabricates the The Lady in The Woods DNA Crock.


imo

[awakening2lite]

Has anything ever been determined about the long blond hairs found on PV's back? Was that ever looked into?

[attorneywan2be]

I guess I'm thinking every plan has some part that will go awry, so I'd think it would raise suspicions if the crime met the plan perfectly. So that would be why I would change it some if I wrote it.

It's makes most sense to think in terms of cutting/shredding a credit card and discarding it, but if I thought nosey family members or LE would go through my garbage I might be worried about discarding it.

IMO

I must say that this is not a reasonable analysis of the to-do list...it's like you are trying to find an explanation that would be consistent with Dyleski being innocent.. but is it reasonable? not IMO..the killer is not going to totally change the murder plan to kidnapping..he can change some details as I mentioned earlier..that would still give the impression that there was some deviation from the original plan due to unforseen circumstances...BTW..he doesn't have to discard the shredded credit card in his own garbage can..he can discard it in a garbage can in a shopping center for example....!!

An example of a to-do list that would be fairly consistent with what actually happened:

Take glove..ski mask.. knife
Question to get pin number
Strike and torture to get pin number
Stab to kill
Dispose of evidence

This is basically a murder plan that would be consistent with what really happened except that he was not possibly able to murder her by stabbing her because she put up a strong fight..

[awakening2lite]

Does anyone actually know when the "to do" list was written? Assuming it was written by SD, could it have been written years before the crime? Could it have been written after the two boys got together and hatched the "growing maryjauna" sceme? Could have been the product of an imaginative mind as to one way to get the money, tucked in the drawer and forgotten? It is certainly full of the drama that is characteristic of teenagers.

The pin number could have also been for a checking account, not necessarily a credit card withdrawal.

How long were the notes in the drawer and assuming again that it was indeed a to do list for PV's murder, why on earth would it have been left behind?

And lastly, if someone were to have created the list to frame SD, it did certainly work, just as it was written.

IMO

[attorneywan2be]

IMO

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

How many times was 17 year old Dyleski involved in a CC fraud or any crime for that matter? "Once" as far as I know..the to-do list is about committing a crime it includes getting a pin number..cut-up and bury..dispose of evidence..it is reasonable to conclude that he wrote the to-do list right around the time he was committing the CC fraud then ultimately the murder..!

[awakening2lite]

IMO

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

How many times was 17 year old Dyleski involved in a CC fraud or any crime for that matter? "Once" as far as I know..the to-do list is about committing a crime it includes getting a pin number..cut-up and bury..dispose of evidence..it is reasonable to conclude that he wrote the to-do list right around the time he was committing the CC fraud then ultimately the murder..!

I don't follow the logic of a todo list = a crime, once planned, must be committed.

It is my firm belief that across the world there are todo lists (of all types and sizes) that are never ever accomplished. We don't do everything we put in writing.

The pin number could also have been a reference to the number on the back of the ccard.

I agree with packy, the cut up and bury could have been a reference to all the evidence in the cc scam.

Again, does anyone know, beyond a reasonable doubt, when the list was written?

IMO

[Carrot]

Your logic is good, and I do hear you.

If I were trying to frame him, I think I'd purposely change it so it would show that part of the plan failed, since it showed that she put up a strong fight which would not necessarily be expected. So kidnapping is planned as the intent because the goal was to get the pin. Grabbing "weapons" from the scene showed someone wasn't prepared maybe to kill, so that would fit the plan. Not thinking "cut and bury" evidence meant a person but maybe plastic credit cards.

I'm just speculating here and not sure how I really feel about this list.

I thought he brought a rock with him to use as the bludgeon. Wasn't Hunsaker Canyon a former quarry and those rocks are everywhere in that area? Didn't someone testify her head wounds were consistent with being hit with a rock?

Early on some news reports talked of the crown moulding being used but that idea was dismissed as they would have broken after a couple of blows - too flimsy. PV may have grabbed one to try to use defensively, -- read that some place. Also, that PV tried to run to get to the door and may have tried to use the vase defensively.

I think I need to go find where I :read: that.

[Carrot]

Here's and excerpt from one source on the rock --- still looking for the one I read about PV using the vase.

Vitale may have been killed with rock
By Bruce Gerstman
CONTRA COSTA TIMES

MARTINEZ - Pamela Vitale's attacker could have used a rock to inflict fatal blows to her head, a pathologist said Thursday after a gruesome presentation of autopsy photographs.

"Either one of these objects could have worked just fine to cause the injuries," forensic pathologist Brian Peterson said after examining two limestone rocks on the witness stand.

Peterson testified as the prosecution's final witness in the trial of 17-year-old Scott Dyleski, accused of killing Vitale on Oct. 15, 2005, in her Lafayette home as part of a plan to steal financial information and purchase marijuana-growing equipment.

Dyleski has pleaded not guilty to adult charges of murder and burglary.

Peterson's testimony comes a week after a criminalist testified that neither the ceiling molding nor shards of pottery, both stained with blood, could have served as the weapon that caused her death.

Peterson ruled out a long object, like a baseball bat, as the murder weapon and said the attack took a matter of minutes.

Deputy district attorney Harold Jewett introduced to the jury the idea of the rocks last week when he questioned the owner of the home where Dyleski was living.

He showed examples of rocks to Kim Curiel, who said that a limestone quarry once operated in Hunsaker Canyon and that similar stones, larger than an adult hand but small enough to clutch, litter trails and the ground everywhere.

An assailant who used a rock to bludgeon Vitale could have ended up with an injured hand because of the impact, Peterson told the jury.

"I would expect, say, pain, bruising," Peterson said.

"How about swelling?" Jewett asked.

"That would be a reasonable reaction to blunt force injury," he testified.

Dyleski's housemates and friends had testified that in the days after Vitale's death they noticed Dyleski's hand was swollen.

SNIPPED for space

[packy]

IMO

I must say that this is not a reasonable analysis of the to-do list...it's like you are trying to find an explanation that would be consistent with Dyleski being innocent.. but is it reasonable? not IMO..the killer is not going to totally change the murder plan to kidnapping..he can change some details as I mentioned earlier..that would still give the impression that there was some deviation from the original plan due to unforseen circumstances...BTW..he doesn't have to discard the shredded credit card in his own garbage can..he can discard it in a garbage can in a shopping center for example....!!

An example of a to-do list that would be fairly consistent with what actually happened:

Take glove..ski mask.. knife
Question to get pin number
Strike and torture to get pin number
Stab to kill
Dispose of evidence

This is basically a murder plan that would be consistent with what really happened except that he was not possibly able to murder her by stabbing her because she put up a strong fight..

I understand your logic. I'm not positive that he's guilty so by nature I'd would most likely look for possible scenarios that may fit, so true enough. Sometimes truth can be stranger than fiction. And I wonder why that "stab to kill." step was not in there.

Got to go for awhile but your input is very interesting and it's good to see every side possible.

[Carrot]

Does anyone actually know when the "to do" list was written? Assuming it was written by SD, could it have been written years before the crime? Could it have been written after the two boys got together and hatched the "growing maryjauna" sceme? Could have been the product of an imaginative mind as to one way to get the money, tucked in the drawer and forgotten? It is certainly full of the drama that is characteristic of teenagers.

The pin number could have also been for a checking account, not necessarily a credit card withdrawal.

How long were the notes in the drawer and assuming again that it was indeed a to do list for PV's murder, why on earth would it have been left behind?

And lastly, if someone were to have created the list to frame SD, it did certainly work, just as it was written.

IMO

Just trying to think through the possibilities . . .
How would a "framer" get the slips of paper into Scott Dyleski's dresser drawer? And why plant them there when they might never be found? And how did they get SD to put his fingerprints on the notes?

[Mysteri]

Just trying to think through the possibilities . . .
How would a "framer" get the slips of paper into Scott Dyleski's dresser drawer? And why plant them there when they might never be found? And how did they get SD to put his fingerprints on the notes?

:biggrin:

:seeya:

[Carrot]

This must be where I got the vase idea from. Not necessarily evidence that was presented, but a speculation by the prosecutor.

Excerpt from San Francisco Chronicle article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2006%2F08%2F23%2FBAGF5KNF KI1.DTL&type=printable):

Vitale's assailant was clad in a ski mask and gloves and brought with him a "rock-like object" that he most likely used to hit Vitale repeatedly in the head, Jewett said, referring to rocks common throughout Hunsaker Canyon, the site of a former quarry. Vitale may have tried to defend herself using a ceramic vase that was a wedding present, the prosecutor said.

In any case - just mentioning the rock as some have said SD was searching for and grabbing weapons throughout the house to use.

[attorneywan2be]

I understand your logic. I'm not positive that he's guilty so by nature I'd would most likely look for possible scenarios that may fit, so true enough. Sometimes truth can be stranger than fiction. And I wonder why that "stab to kill." step was not in there.

Got to go for awhile but your input is very interesting and it's good to see every side possible.

IMO

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

What do you think of this?

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

Is this reasonable interpretation of the evidence?

[awakening2lite]

Just trying to think through the possibilities . . .
How would a "framer" get the slips of paper into Scott Dyleski's dresser drawer? And why plant them there when they might never be found? And how did they get SD to put his fingerprints on the notes?


Framing is but one possibility.

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

IMO

[awakening2lite]

This must be where I got the vase idea from. Not necessarily evidence that was presented, but a speculation by the prosecutor.

Excerpt from San Francisco Chronicle article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2006%2F08%2F23%2FBAGF5KNF KI1.DTL&type=printable):

Vitale's assailant was clad in a ski mask and gloves and brought with him a "rock-like object" that he most likely used to hit Vitale repeatedly in the head, Jewett said, referring to rocks common throughout Hunsaker Canyon, the site of a former quarry. Vitale may have tried to defend herself using a ceramic vase that was a wedding present, the prosecutor said.

In any case - just mentioning the rock as some have said SD was searching for and grabbing weapons throughout the house to use.

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