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/sc...olidalibi.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?

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

[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




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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?sec...cal&id=3913606

[Jadedblueeyes]

Originally Posted by 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.

Hi Bee.

I don't know why it is important that Scott's injuries must be like Pamela's. 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. 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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


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


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]

Originally Posted by One2Snoop

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?sec...cal&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]

Originally Posted by 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/sc...olidalibi.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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/m...9/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...sy.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]

Originally Posted by 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?

All your questions were explained well in the court room.

http://www.newsmakingnews.com/kd,dyl...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/m...5/ai_n16700379


Kim Curiel said that it wss mistaken identity.


imo

[Jadedblueeyes]

Originally Posted by 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 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

[One2Snoop]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

imoo

[Mysteri]

Originally Posted by Jadedblueeyes

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Jadedblueeyes

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.

imoo

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]

Originally Posted by Mysteri

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
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