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