Scott Dyleski is a young man unjustly imprisoned in California for the murder of Pamela Vitale. Pamela Vitale was brutally murdered in her home in Lafayette, California on October 15, 2005. Scott was 16 at the time and lived in a planned community about a mile away in the same Hunsaker Canyon area of Lafayette.

Scott was sentenced to Life Without Parole in September of 2006. He was transferred to San Quentin Prison on his 18th birthday, becoming the youngest inmate in the California prison system at that time. Scott was later moved to Kern Valley State Prison.

Scott was convicted based on very flimsy evidence and lack of an adequate defense. He was assigned a relatively inexperienced Public Defender with limited resources who had to go up against an aggressive, experienced prosecutor with virtually unlimited resources in a case that received prejudicial coverage. However, his defense attorney did not even take advantage of the resources at her disposal nor question and follow-up testimony where she could have. At the least, both Scott Dyleski and Pamela Vitale deserve the justice of an intense investigation and a fair trial.



DNA and TOD

About Scott's trial, from Teen Advocates USA ...

Watch the public defender's closing argument which raises troubling questions about the reliability of the state's evidence including DNA samples so insufficient they could not be submitted to the FBI's CODIS program for comparison, forensic evidence collected from the crime scene and elsewhere that was never tested and a time of death that relied upon the opinion of a computer forensics expert instead of medical science. PART ONE   PART TWO

Even though the prosecution claimed Vitale was found less than eight hours after her murder, there was no Time of Death (TOD) estimated by the coroner. The DNA referred to in the Teen Advocates article was a miniscule sample (less than one cell in size). Additionally, this is the only DNA claimed to be directly connected to the crime scene - the ONLY DNA. How is that possible?



Alibi

Scott Dyleski was actually home at the time period the prosecution claims the murder occurred. Two household members testified to this early on, Fred and Kim Curiel, saying Scott arrived home at 9:26 and 9:30 respectively. Their testimony was changed to over an hour later and literally months after they were first interviewed and after the Preliminary Hearing.

The prosecution claimed that somehow Scott committed this crime in 33 minutes - that is given that Pamela Vitale was attacked at almost exactly the time her computer ceased being active (10:12 am) with at least 6 different kinds of weapons constituting at least 10 different objects; two flashlights (one was large and heavy) a vase, at least three pieces of crown molding, a long cylindrical metal post/banister cast, a knife (or knives), and some unknown objects causing blunt trauma (the prosecution claimed this was fist sized rocks and that those rocks dealt the death blows). Dog scent evidence, that was excluded by Dyleski's attorney, could have also been used to show the killer or killers tracked around the Mansion under construction, out a cattle and pedestrian gate by the Mansion, and towards Wheeler's/Lynch's residence at 1571 Hunsaker Canyon Rd and one tracked to the house near Wheeler's presumably still occupied by Fred Blodgett (whose name does not appear in any testimony  - picture of house and description of property for sale by Daniel Horowitz).

Further, the prosecution claimed that Dyleski also picked up and stacked boxes, moved the television set in front of the bedroom door without getting blood on it then neatly placed her glasses on top (they were bloody, but not damaged), went into the kitchen where he supposedly drank from a water bottle and handled at least two cups and a bowl, went into the bathroom and cleaned up possibly taking a shower, got out of the trailer which was a veritable blood bath leaving only a partial footprint on top of the plastic storage container lid, hiked 10-15 minutes to a van on the Curiel property somehow disposing of at least two kinds of murder weapons (a knife and fist sized rocks) and a glove along the way (the murder weapons nor the second glove were ever found), changing clothes and even putting on lace up leather boots, stashing some of the so-called murder scene clothes (that also did not seem to be covered in blood), and then walking to his house where upon arrival he did not seem to be out of breath, sweating, dirty, or upset/excited.

Although an enhanced charge based on burglary was placed on Dyleski, two purses of Vitale's were untouched, unopened and possibly not even taken into evidence. In testimony, Daniel Horowitz claims he never even looked at Pamela's bank accounts. Many papers and such at the scene were not treated as important evidence because they did not have blood on them even though boxes had been rifled through, opened, and some restacked. There was no public testimony concerning the contents of many of these boxes.

There are further problems with the prosecution's timeline and ridiculously setting the TOD based on computer activity as even the prosecutor's defense expert who examined Vitale's computer said the clock on the computer could not be verified. It appears actual use by Vitale the morning of the murder was not thoroughly verified through the websites she is said to have visited (checking with site owners against her IP address visiting those sites). There was actually no evidence presented that verified it was even Vitale on that computer (using that computer hard drive). The evidence shows that Daniel Horowitz logged out of his computer after Pamela Vitale logged into hers.




Excluded Evidence

Dog Scent

Scott Dyleski's attorney, Ellen Leonida, requested that all of the dog scent evidence be excluded. Her request was granted. However, the initial evidence is very compelling and very strong in favor of Scott - several different dogs (including at least one cadaver dog) did not track to Scott's home or even up the trail or road any significant distance. They do, however, track several different times to Gerald Wheeler's house (4.04 acres of Horowitz owned property, purchased from Joseph Lynch, that adjoins his 13 acres at 1901 Hunsaker Canyon). That's where the trail seems to end.

The dogs also tracked near the Mansion under construction that is going away from any path toward Scott's house. The dogs also tracked to an abandoned trailer (South of the Mansion) and a second cabin on the 4 acres that had been rented out to a man named Fred Blodgett. Several people were living on that adjoing 4 acre plot. It could also be argued that this evidence shows Vitale’s killer could not have met the strict timeline.

911 Call

Daniel Horowitz walked into the house after finding Vitale dead and used the home phone to dial 911. He did not talk to the operator, but instead threw the phone down, leaving the line open. The 911 call Horowitz placed at approximately 6 pm the night of the murder was excluded also. Scott's lawyer claimed it was prejudicial to Scott. The public has never heard it. However, it appears that at least 13 minutes of that call was recorded and, in addition to his verbal noises, he can be heard moving around in the house, toward and away from the phone. This could have significant connections to any crime scene changes that occurred before LE arrived or other claims that Mr. Horowitz made. He did knowingly or unknowing tamper with and taint the crime scene. Daniel Horowitz proceeded at some point to use his cell phone to call a law enforcement number that he knew and report Vitale's murder. Horowitz was placed in the back of a squad car at some point after law enforcement arrived and was allowed to keep his cell phone - unmonitored and unsupervised



Forensics and Evidence

No expert
forensic witnesses were called for the defense and many of the tests were merely presumptive tests for blood, even though in testimony Hal Jewett has to be reprimanded several times for calling these 'tests for blood' instead of 'presumptive tests for blood.' Presumptive tests only show the possibility that blood is there, they do not show that blood is there. There was NO confirmatory blood testing conducted on any of the evidence.  Here is an explanation of some presumptive blood tests.

Luminol and phenolphthalein are imprecise and indiscriminate presumptive “screening” tests conducted to detect the possible presence of blood. The tests are so non-specific and non-selective that they can produce a positive reaction to an iron or copper bearing substance, a cleaning agent, vegetable matter, even pollen, horseradish, urine and fecal matter, and they cannot distinguish between animal and human blood. Consequently, if a positive presumptive result is obtained a scientifically precise test must be conducted to confirm if the substance is human blood, one of the other many common substances that can cause a positive luminol and phenolphthalein result, or if the test returned a false positive.

The following is an example to illustrate the relationship and difference between a presumptive screening test and a precise confirmatory test. Imagine that a photograph taken at a particular location on a particular day shows a person at a distance that to an observer looks like it possibly could be Joe. That is the equivalent of a presumptive test. To determine if the person in the photo is Joe the observer has the picture enlarged to show facial details, which unmistakably reveals the person is not Joe. That is the equivalent of a negative confirmatory test.  (Justice Denied)

There was third party DNA evidence found in several places including, but not limited to, blonde hair on Vitale's back, the shoes, the glove, and hair in the ski mask. Blood on various items in the kitchen did not match Dyleski. There was blood in the bathroom shower and Daniel Horowitz claimed the killer had taken a shower, yet the drains were not examined to investigate any possible DNA evidence there as far as we know - that evidence was not presented in court.

It was claimed that there was a partial shoe print inside the house on a plastic box lid within a few feet of Pamela Vitale's body (which was lying in a pool of blood radiating out 6 feet), yet no other shoe prints were found on the interior floors even though the murderer was in the living room, kitchen, and bathroom. How did the killer make it through all this blood and only leave one very partial print on a moveable object?

The shoes claimed to have been worn during the murder (not the lace up leather boots that Dyleski was wearing when he arrived home) had been previously stored on a porch outdoors, they were in a duffel bag and in the possession of Scott Dyleski's girlfriend for many days (starting after Vitale's murder and before Scott was arrested) then Scott's belongings were handed over to Scott's mother who was staying at her sister's house. Scott's mother left that house, leaving Scott's belonging there in storage and not in her possession. She later went back and picked up his belonging then handed them over to a PI for the defense who handed them over to the prosecutor where they were then supposedly laid out on a table with other evidence and subsequently taken into custody by LE investigators. These shoes were on the porch, outside in a pile up until the Sunday after the murder. They were also the only pair of men's shoes in the pile. It appears Scott had not worn those shoes for a while and wore his Moo shoes when going to the Renaissance Faire with Jena Reddy the day after Vitale was murdered.
The shoes also had third party DNA on them. The chain of custody was never established in another point also, that is when the private investigator picked up the shoes from Esther Fielding. This would have been the responsibility of Scott's attorney. That PI, John Beauden, was never asked to testify in the trial.

Shoe Print Evidence and Analysis

The ski mask was also stored outdoors in a shed, meaning it was available for anyone to take. It was a ski mask that Scott wore when he went skiing with his father. The ski mask also contained third party DNA. Notable is that the prosecution claimed a gouge on Dyleski’s nose occurred during the murder of Vitale, but Scott’s blood was not found in the nose area.

Scott Dyleski's DNA was NOT found in the glove said to have been used during the murder. Had Dyleski even worn this glove, his DNA would probably have been evident. While kids in the Curiel household did play dress-up, they did not have many girly type clothes in that mix. There was third party male DNA found in the glove. There were only female children in the Curiel household who would have used the costume items so if they had played with the glove, there would have been female DNA in the glove. It appears no attempts were made to identify the male DNA found in the glove.

Most astounding is that there are chain of custody issues in this case with one of the most serious being all the evidence taken from the van on the Curiel property. This evidence was found, mishandled (no gloves were used), and handed over by Rick Kovar, a citizen deputy of the Contra Costa Sheriff's Department (they call them Reserve Deputy Sheriffs - qualifications). 
A low level lab tech processed the van.  It is said that this Deputy went beyond his perimeter, but he also was not permitted by law to search. So is it a coincidence that he happens to be the one who found this evidence and, hence, a search warrant wasn't an issue? Was the search warrant even valid for the van?

At least one of the forensics experts who examined and tested evidence was repeatedly told they could not conduct advanced testing on the evidence.

Hal Jewett, the DA “presented a picture of the suspect being covered up at the scene by a long trench coat, a ski mask, and gloves (ref).” However, nothing linked the crime to the trench coat and the glove was not linked to Dyleski. One has to wonder if Judge Barbara Zuniga followed the evidence presented at trial because she still had Dyleski wearing the trench coat to commit the murder at sentencing. Zuniga also claimed at sentencing she knew he was guilty by the look on his face during certain evidence presentation,  "You leaned forward and your mouth fell open. ... You were absolutely fascinated by your handiwork". How interesting and unethical for a judge to claim she knew a defendant was guilty when she saw a reaction on his face during the trial.


Skelton Hearing 10.19.2005 (.pdf)


Motions or Requests Denied

Change of Venue

Kelly Hearing on Y-STR DNA
(Leonida)

Motion Hearing Admiss. of DNA Evid. (6.19.2005) (.pdf)
People's Reply Motion For Kelly Hearing 7.6.2006 (.pdf)
People's Response to Motion 7.19.2006 (.pdf)
Y-STR Tests/Analysis by Gary Harmor SERI (2009 Resume)


Media Requests

Contra Costa Times Order On Media Request 10.24.2005
CNN Order On Media Request 10.24.2005 (.pdf)
CNN Order On Media Request 10.26.2005 (.pdf)

Requests to Lift Gag Order (News Org & Alred)


Motions or Requests Granted

Gag Order (Prosecution & Defense)

People's Request for Gag Order 10.27.2005 (.pdf)
Notice of Motion for Gag Order McKenna 10.27.2005 (.pdf)
Judge Flynn Ruling on Gag Order 10.27.2005 (.pdf)
SF Chronicle, et al. Opposition To Motion 10.27.2005 (.pdf)
Application to Include Gloria Alred (.pdf)
Amended Protective Order 10.28.2005 (.pdf)
Jewett Support Modification Include Alred 10.28.2005 (.pdf)
(claims 'dark aspect' of relationship that is now public info)
Opposition to Gag Order on Alred 10.28.2005 (.pdf)
Fed Authorities in Support of SF Chronicle  11.8.2005 (.pdf)
Alred Response 11.16.2005 (.pdf)
SF Chronicle's on Vacating Gag Order 11.16.2005 (.pdf)
People's Request for Gag Order 11.16.2005 (.pdf)
People's Reponse to Clarification Request 12.8.2005 (.pdf)



Exclude Dog Scent Evidence
(Leonida - .pdf)

Exclude 911 Call (Leonida)

Supress DNA from Wheeler and Lynch (Leonida)


Juror Misconduct

There were 2-3 incidents with Peter DeCristofaro who is a native of Queens, NY who lived in Concord, CA. He was referred to in court records as juror number 7 and the only juror to interview after the trial (interview with Nancy Grace).

Note: if Daniel Horowitz would have been treated as a suspect by the defense to develop reasonable doubt, Nancy Grace would have been called as a witness  herself as she is the last person who claimed to talk to Vitale other than Horowitz.


Evidence not Tested or Introduced

* Third Party DNA Evidence - this is a fairly long list; blood evidence not tested, fingerprints (van, notes, crime scene, other?), fabric evidence in the trailer, hair evidence (mask, hair band, shower drain, towel, bath mat, Vitale's back) and other third party DNA that was not analyzed or at least that testing was not introduced in court by either side or was not compared to other possible suspects. In testimony, the only DNA sample compared against known criminals was the sample from Vitale foot. It was too small to enter into the database.

* Daniel Horowitz 911 Call - a recording of him moving in and out of the crime scene lasting at least 12-13 minutes. Horowitz did not respond to the 911 operator on this call, but threw the phone down and called a direct police number about 10 minutes later - he is alone at the crime scene for about 30 minutes after he says he found Vitale's body. First responding officers were delayed from entering the property because of the locked entrance gate.

*All Dog Scent Evidence - including multiple trackings by different dogs to and around the Mansion, out a pedestrian gate and a cattle gate, to Wheeler's house, and following a recently left foot trail from the trailer. Dogs also tracked to an abandoned trailer and to a second house on Horowitz's four acre plot across from Wheeler's. A cadaver dog also alerted to the bathroom at Wheeler's house where a picture of Vitale was found in the sink. There was also a pair of jeans soaking in a bucket at Wheeler's. Daniel Horowitz testifies the only thing he thinks is missing from the crime scene is a pair of jeans.



If you are poor and even if you can afford to pay your own lawyer, there is no way there is enough money to hire the private investigators, pay for independent forensic evidence testing, and hire experts to testify. The system is inequitable as the Prosecution has far more resources at their disposal. Particularly troubling is that a Public Defender typically also does not have as many resources as the Prosecution so there is no option except to raise funds for an adequate defense.


Inadequate Defense + Lack of Money = Injustice

Scott Dyleski



"The reality is that we provide criminal defense for poor people that is vastly inferior to what rich people can afford"

Quote from Norman Leestein in California Lawyer, May 2010. MR Public Defender: California's Only Elected PD is not afraid to speak his mind about opressive caseloads. 





  ARTICLES - VIDEOS - OTHER CASES
'Convicting the Innocent: Aberration or Systemic Problem?', Rodney Uphoff, Wisconsin Law Review, 2006

'Prosecutorial Lawlessness is its Real Name', Hans Sherrer, Justice Denied Magazine, Vol 1(6)
California Reform Legislation (SB999)


The Tim Masters Case: It turns out that this 'evil' Goth kid who made macabre drawings wasn't so evil after all

What happens to immoral judges like Edward Dufresne who commit illegal acts? Apparently, nothing!

The West Memphis Three
WM3 and Satanic Panic

Ritual Murder of Woman by Satanic Goth 
* comments by Voltaire on 'What is Goth?'


Murder of Sophie Lancaster
* Hate Crime: killed because she was Goth







   RELATED ARTICLES
'Convicting the Innocent: Aberration or Systemic Problem?', Rodney Uphoff, Wisconsin Law Review, 2006

'Prosecutorial Lawlessness is its Real Name', Hans Sherrer, Justice Denied Magazine, Vol 1(6)
California Reform Legislation (SB999)




Daniel Horowitz and his Bizarre Claims/Untruths

Daniel Horowitz, husband of the murder victim Pamela Vitale, has claimed some untruths and promoted misconceptions in a recent "SB399: Comments to State Senate."

"As I stated before you at the hearing on SB 399, Pamela’s killer not only showed no remorse, he enjoyed his work. (And Judge Zuniga remarked on this point at sentencing).

Not only is he not remorseful, he actively participates in a major website that seeks to prove his innocence and for several years accused me of framing him. (The website sponsor has since apologized in writing) (p 37, Daniel Horowitz, Comments on SB399 to State Senate 10, 2009. "

It looks like Mr. Horowitz has taken down his site sb399.com now to the point you cannot even find it on archive.org. But from Google's cache, you can see he was making accusations about  many, not just Dyleski:

SB 399 Outlawing LWOP for Killers under 18
State Senator Yee's Criminal Past. By Daniel Horowitz | September 08, 2009 at 10:00 AM EDT | No Comments. Some people have emailed me asking a good question ...
sb399.com/wikipedia.php?s=state-senator-yees-criminal-past - Cached

Horowitz's claim that Dyleski did not show remorse is moot (comments about the judges behavior have already been partially addressed here). You cannot show remorse for a crime you did not commit. Scott is remorseful for any of the other things he has done and has said so to those who write to him. He continues to proclaim his innocence. Scott has never accused Horowitz of framing him nor did he directly participate in running the website mentioned. Horowitz has no basis for making these claims, yet he repeats again that the website is run with Scott's assistance.

"Her apology followed their hiring of a licensed private investigator with the thousands of dollars they raised to target me.) This website (again, run with his assistance), accused me of committing the crime and claimed that my present wife was part of the killing. My home address was printed along with a detailed map of where to find it (p 37)."

First of all, the address where Vitale's murder was committed has been published thousands of times since Vitale's death (even by one of Horowitz's friends, a Bay Area lawyer who chose to demonize Scott Dyleski on his blog) and maps can easily be accessed via Google or other map sites. Daniel Horowitz led a tour of the site and the Mansion just days after Vitale was murdered that was televised nationally on Nancy Grace (referenced above). Daniel Horowitz has put some of what he knows together into a story that is not true. Whether or not any one associated with that site helped raise money by having the address of or link to a defense fund for Scott, that fund was not run by the owner of that site nor this site.

Any private investigator or attorney wanting to help exonerate Scott and find evidence leading to the real killer would be silly to cut off avenues by focusing in on a killer and a theory and then setting out to prove that theory. The evidence will speak for itself in the end. The preformed theory tactic appears to have been the tactic of the prosecution in Scott's case, it is not the tactic of his defense nor of any private investigator working or that did work for Scott. Maybe Daniel Horowitz would like to review the evidence in this case.

More commentary here on Horowitz and his claims.


While most of Scott's freedoms have been taken away, he still has the right to participate in his own defense, fight for an appeal, hire attorneys, investigators, and forensic experts to search for the truth and we would hope that Daniel Horowitz is not suggesting otherwise.

In addition, there is this article on a speech made by Daniel Horowitz at the Heritage Foundation's symposium on "Adult Time for Adult Crimes" in 2009. One has to wonder why, if the evidence is so compelling against Scott Dyleski  - why, is Daniel Horowitz lying?

Victims, Legal Experts Make Case for Life without Parole for Some Juvenile Offenders
by Penny Star, August 19, 2009

What I didn’t see was the fact that as she lay there dying but alive, the perpetrator had taken a knife and opened up her belly to remove her organs while she was alive. And when she died, he carved into her back his sign, his symbol, his satanic symbol that he used on his artwork” quoting Daniel Horowitz

The evidence presented in court by the prosecution clearly stated that the wound on Vitale's stomach was made after she was already dead or near death (Vol 14, Trial Transcript, Coroner Brian Peterson testimony). There is no testimony or evidence that anyone was trying to remove Vitale's organs. In fact, the wound on Vitale's stomach was 2 3/4 inches in length and 3/4 inches in breadth - it is difficult to fathom anyone would try to remove organs through a wound this size (Official Autopsy, p 10).

Scott Dyleski was not and is not into Satanism. This is a scare tactic and meant to inflict fear and hatred. Furthermore, it is questionable as to what the superficial incision on Vitale's back even was and whether it could have even been caused during the struggle. There is simply no proof that the superficial incision on her back even looked like the symbol Scott would put on his writings.  Explanation of the symbol and what transpired in court.

Furthermore, the Heritage Foundation has produced a videotape interview of Daniel Horowitz for its "Adult Time for Adult Crimes" focus. In that interview, Horowitz makes many claims that are unfounded including Dyleski went into neighbors' houses and got on their computers to steal passwords (most of these claims start about 15:00 minutes into the tape). He also claims 'we' didn't learn about Dyleski ordering equipment from Karen Schneider's credit card until after Dyleski was captured. The facts are that a police report was made the day before Vitale was murdered, that Doug Schneider called police and talked to them aboutDyleski t he day after the murder and again the next day, and that the credit card scam was discussed at a neighborhood meeting the day after Vitale was murdered. Karen Schneider had called at least two people about this the day before the murder in addition to her husband. Those calls were to her nephew and a neighor in Hunsaker Canyon. These are the calls we know of because of public records. It seems likely she would have also called Daniel Horowitz or Pamela Vitale because she already knew their address was mistakenly used as a 'bill to' address. It was never used as a ny 'ship to' address.

Horowitz claims he helped Scott’s mom, Esther Fielding, in her business. He did give some pro bono advice about a business owned by Kim Curiel and Esther Fielding, but it was Kim Curiel who contacted him to see if he would help.

Horowitz also claims Dyleski studied to be a serial killer, even claiming he had ‘manuals’ although there is no evidence supporting that claim.  Horowitz goes on to twist the story about Esther Fielding finding a duffle bag in the abandoned van (he calls it a truck though) and that Dyleski had saved bloody clothes as a trophy there. He says that Fielding was too afraid to remove the bag because of a Press Helicopter overhead. Fielding was with Joe Lynch working outside and did look in the van, opening the duffle bag and looking inside. There was nothing suspicious there and there was no bloody mask or glove in the bag. In fact, Fielding asked Dyleski about it shortly after and said maybe he should cean it out, but he seemed unconcerned. She wasn't concerned.  Horowitz is telling a story when he says she was afraid of the helicopters and had they not been there the evidence would have been destroyed.

Horowitz also says ‘we’ believe Dyleski took a pair of Vitale's glasses as a trophy. Huh? Fielding did destroy a journal of Scott that had some drawings and stuff in it. It was not something that was evidence of a murder, or as Horowitz spins it and calls it a 'diary'. It “undoubtedly contained his plans for the killing.” Very interesting in light of the manufactured ‘To Do’ list.

*** To make it clear to others -
While he and those who support him are against children being tried as adults, Scott Dyelski's claim has always been one of innocence.


JLWOP/LWOP



The Changing Attitudes About Children Being Tried as Adult
s (view more)


One of the problems with LWOP sentences, regardless of age, is that prisoners are denied access to services and education. Appeals can take years and are difficult let alone getting a wrongful conviction overturned - this is true even in cases where there are blatant reasons to think the person is wrongfully convicted or even solid evidence found of a wrongful conviction. The current California Senate Bill (SB 999 - see below), as well as bills in other states, are very conservative. They are merely asking that the possibility of parole be considered after 25 years.
from Lisa Bloom "Life, Without Possibilities"

Number of prisoners currently serving life without parole for juvenile crimes in the United States: 2,225

Number of prisoners currently serving life without parole for juvenile crimes in the entire rest of the world: 12

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits the death penalty and life without parole for child offenses, has been ratified by 193 U.N. member countries. Only two countries have not ratified: the United States and Somalia. Somalia is unable to ratify the convention because it has no functioning government.

Additionally, California "... state law includes an unusually high number of "special circumstances" that increase the penalties in homicide cases. Youths 16 and 17 who are convicted with special circumstances are sentenced to life without parole...(LA Times Editorial, Jan 16, 2008)."

Life without parole "is an effective death sentence carried out by the state slowly over a long period of years (Sentencing Children to Die in Prison, University of San Francisco Center for Law and Global Justice)."




WHO IS SCOTT DYLESKI?


















A poem by Scott - 5th Grade


Where I'm From

I am from the little black dog
I am from the seven tiny kittens
I am from the beautiful green couch
These are the things of my very old home
 
I am from the stone bridge over the pond full of beautiful orange coy and catfish
I am from the great waterfall
I am from the garden of trumpet vines and hummingbirds
This was the world of my childhood
 
I am from the long steep hill to the town
I am from the beautiful hills and spectacular view of the bay
This was my old neighborhood
 
I am from my wonderful grandfather and Aunt Margie
I am from my free spirited mother
I am from my hard working and organized father
I am from my lovely cousin Judy
These are my closest family
 
I am from new food Tuesday
I am from fresh baked cornbread smothered with butter and honey
I am from Chinese food on Thanksgiving
I am from the freedom to break traditions and make my own rules
I color out of the lines





FORUMS

Scott's Case and
special thanks to these folks

Juvenile Justice

JusticeforJuveniles.org
KidsinCourt.com
WhoopassforJustice.org

Bill Farkas - BillFarkas.com



Scott Dyleski

     

  ...
the real Scott Dyleski loves animals, is respectful and inclusive with others, is nonviolent, is well read in various subjects, is artistic and intellectual, and has a well developed set of spiritual beliefs that are earth-centered

Scott may be different from you and has his faults like all of us, but he is not a murderer.

Scott Dyelski's claim has always been one of innocence.




*********
People vs. Scott Edgar Dyleski

1st Appelate District, Division 1  A115725
Supreme Court Case  S173389

U.S. Supreme Court Petition for Writ of Certiorari turned down 5.24.2010
.  petititon only concerned Juvenile Life Without Parole  .

The next steps are to file habeas appeals to the California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court

*********



Shortly before Scott Dyleski was arrested, the crime scene where Pamela Vitale was brutally murdered was released back to Daniel Horowitz and Nancy Grace gave a tour of the property that included the 'Mansion' - it was still under construction, but nearly completed at that point.

Exclusive Tour Of Horowitz Home (clip)

1901 Hunsaker Canyon Rd., Lafayette, CA

Grace: Why did they make this a crime scene?
Horowitz: Because they want prints of the people that worked here at the house (construction workers).
Grace: Ah, yes, but I don't see...
Horowitz: ... any print dusting
Grace: ... any print dusting (oops?)

It appears Daniel Horowitz now lives in the home with his new wife, Valerie Northrup, and their child. The house contruction is completed and that property as well as adjoining properties are for sale (virtual tour).

Daniel Horowitz has made many bizarre and untrue claims recently that misrepresent the facts and the evidence in this case.  He has done so in an article to the California Senate, in presentations, and in an interview made by The Heritage Foundation. (read here). Why is he doing this?

There are an untold number of problems with this case, many of these will not be fully known until there is further investigation. As an example, Dyleski's attorney not only called zero experts in his defense and to challenge evidence, she often did not ask pertinent questions of the prosecutions' witnesses. 
After very minimal cross examination by Scott Dyleski's defense attorney, Ellen Leonida, prosecutor Hal Jewett asks prosecution witness Alex Taflya about the hundreds of items that were collected and preserved from the crime scene:

Jewett: ... are they made available for anyone associated with the case who wants to have them examined and tested ?
Taflya: Yes
Jewett: including the defense?
Taflya: Yes


Philip Venable arrived at the crime scene about midnight the night of Vitale's murder to take computers into custody. He describes how he had not entered the crime scene (trailer) yet because Taflya was still processing it and affirms in testimony to Hal Jewett that the interior of the trailer was not well lit while it was being processed. You would think processing such a complicated crime scene of a horrific murder would warrant some flood lights, bright lights, extra lights, or something?



<<<<< Please read more about the evidence to the left <<<<<





Gloria Alred/San Fran Chronicle vs. Contra Costa County


"Allred also told the Supreme Court that she offered to voluntarily produce her client/witness for questioning and instead officers appeared with guns drawn to serve a warrant on the client/witness (ref)."


"The time for granting or denying review in the above-entitled matter is hereby extended to and including September 1, 2009, or the date upon which review is either granted or denied (from above link)."
Review was denied on August 12, 2009. Justices Moreno and Corrigan were absent and did not participate, meaning Justice Marchiano, who was a Judge of the Contra Costa Superior Court from 1988 to 1998, was the only Justice present.

It is unfortunate that Scott did not get an adequate defense from the beginning with an equal playing field. We had hopes, that an appeal would be granted, but it has been denied this round. The case is now under review by the Supreme Court.


The opinion of the three Justices is riddled with inaccuracies and promotes many of the same myths that have been passed around in the media. It's astounding that a young man's life is placed in their hands, yet they do not seem to know the real evidence in this case.


Just one example ...


The Infamous 'To-Do' List

"A fifth piece of paper, in defendant’s handwriting, had a vertical, unnumbered list of five bullet points (Filed 4/27/09  P. v. Dyleski CA1/1)"

There was no credible forensics or testimony showing this infamous 'To-Do' list was written by Scott. The only witness to claim this was Scott's handwriting, David Curiel, had huge credibility problems himself (A Flipper or a Fibber). Scott Dyleski's fingerprints were not on the  'To-Do' list nor were they on two other of the five notes that David Curiel claimed he magically found in a dresser three months after Scott was arrested  (there were, however, nine unidentified prints on the notes). The dresser had been cleaned at least twice and searched by LE (A Planted List). For David Curiel to claim he knew this was Scott's handwriting was ludicrous as he had only lived in the home on the couch for two weeks at the Curiel residence, 1050 Hunsaker Canyon Rd.  (or was that two months or was it three months since each time period was claimed by Mr. Curiel).

Hal Jewett Letter About Scott Dyleski CaseIn a series of back-and-forth correspondences with a concerned citizen written on offical letterhead (ref), Hal Jewett, the prosecutor, even went so far as to claim that Scott's attorney had taken pictures of the dresser drawer, but chose not present them in court. He presents this as a little known secret about the case and implies that meant those notes could have been lodged in the dresser and neatly fallen out months later with the notes being undamaged and that Scott's attorney did not want that known in court. The dresser was returned to Scott's mother and has been examined by a professional investigator. There is no way these notes were lodged in the dresser and fell, unblemished, into the drawer only to magically be discovered by Mr. Curiel. (more on DDA Hal Jewett)

No handwriting expert was called as an expert witness for the prosecution concerning the 
'To-Do' list, yet the jury and the press used this as a damning piece of evidence against Scott Dyleski. An entry that appears or appeared on wikipedia and, hence, about.com pages (and other viral replication on the internet - 1 ) emphatically claims that “A chilling to-do list in Dyleski's handwriting was also compelling evidence according to jury spokesperson, Peter De Cristofaro”. How could a jury find this to be compelling evidence? The "To-Do" note actually did not fit the evidence in the Credit Card fraud that Dyleski engaged in since one of the items on that list was "Get PINS". It was not chilling, but looked amateurish and childish with the step-wise procedure outlined not even fitting the crime of murdering Vitale. In addition, there were nine third party fingerprints found on the notes that were not Scott Dyleski's and no effort was made to determine to whom those fingerprints belonged, even on the "To-Do" list.



It also appears that the Justices opinion follows one of the same strategies as prosecutor Hal Jewett at trial, that being  the strategy of obsfucation, serving to claim Dyleski looks guiltier because of the way evidence or events are presented or obscured. Whether that is on purpose in the written opinion or just sloppiness is difficult to know.

Excerpt from Opinion
The caller called back at 3:54 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on the 14th.  This time, he asked if the merchandise could be shipped to the billing address on the orders.  In the second call, Jahosky told him the credit card company had declined the charges and he would need to contact the credit card company.  He accepted that information and did not make further contact with Jahosky.  According to telephone records, both calls originated from the Curiels’ telephone number.

On October 14, defendant called Robin after school and told him that “some of it hadn’t gone through and he was going to try to find a way to make it work.”

Both of these events are on October 14th, 2005, in the afternoon, but should read more like this:

On October 14, defendant called Robin after school and told him that “some of it hadn’t gone through and he was going to try to find a way to make it work." After that, defendant did attempt to make it work one more time by calling the credit card company and asking "if the merchandise could be shipped to the billing address on the orders (the billing address would be Karen Schneider) ... Jahosky told him the credit card company had declined the charges and he would need to contact the credit card company.  He accepted that information and did not make further contact with Jahosky."

By inverting these events in the text of the Opinion, it makes Dyleski look as if he was still going to pursue getting the equipment delivered after having talked with Jahosky at 3:54 pm instead of this being in Dyleski's favor because he had already made his last attempt to 'make it work'. One also has to ask, again, why wasn't the credit card fraud fully investigated when Dyleski was not sophisticated enough to have obtained all the personal financial information even presented at trial. The Justices go out of their way to discuss how unsophisticated Dyleski was in the whole CC fraud scenario.



More to come ..



What was Gagged - Computers

"Thanks to Judge Flinn’s gag order, the question from now on will be:  What did he gag, who did he gag and when did he gag it? 

And the most important question of all is:  WHY did Judge David Flinn REALLY issue a gag order in the murder trial of Pamela Vitale? 

Was it to insure a fair trial for Scott Dyleski or to assure that he would be the only one convicted?
(Bruce Gerstman)"

see also:  Punishing Pundits: People v. Dyleski and the Gag Order as Prior Restraint in High-Profile Cases, LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW 39 Loyota Law Rev. 1197 (2006).


Mr. Michael D. Seplow and Mr. Paul L. Hoffman authored the article tit: led "Punishing Pundits: People v. Dyleski and the Gag Order as Prior Restraint in High-Profile Cases". The article discusses the constitutionality of gag orders passed in People v. Dyleski, restraining Ms. Gloria Allred, a nationally known legal commentator from taking part in a public debate of the case. It argues that Courts cannot prevent commentators like Ms. Allred from expressing their views over pending cases, especially matters already in the public domain. It discusses leading cases that lay out how far a court can go when it regulates speech in the interest of promoting fair criminal trials. The authors opine that First Amendment protection should bar courts from issuing such gag orders that restrain public debate and media coverage (ref).



Misinformation Spread by the Media (coming ...)


The Demonizing of Scott Dyleski (under construction...)

SYMBOLOGY 101 According to Hal Jewett and The HATE Strategy  (link)



Questionable Connections and Expertise
(under construction...)

Judge (Dyleski Gag Order) Flinn threw out a suit that involved unethical/criminal behavior by Sheriff Warren Rupf and Coroner Brian Peterson in a death case at Kaiser (Coroners and Corruption: MARK MILLER - 41 YEARS OLD DIED AFTER RECEIVING MORPHINE, 2001, Contra Costa County)


Reasonable Doubt and Other Suspects (under construction...)

DNA Evidence -  Reasonable Doubt That Other Suspects are Involved by Kathryn Dixon (link)

Zealous defense will peck at Horowitz's actions after wife's death by Jonna M. Spilbor (link)

Below is just a discussion of the possible suspects that could have been presented by Scott Dyleski's attorney, Ellen Leonida, to create reasonable doubt. She presented none. Just like she presented no experts testimony for the defense. This discussion is not to point the finger at someone for being Vitale's killer, but for the same purpose that should have been followed in Dyleski's trial.

Pamela Vitale could have been a revenge kill related to one of Daniel Horowitz's clients. At the time she was murdered, Horowitz was representing a young man who had committed a murder in Lafayette in 1998 with two other men. His client, Maury O'Brien fingered the other two suspects. In 2007, O'Brien pled guilty but got only a 25 year sentence. Another man involved, Jose Perez, received a Death Sentence and the third, Lee Snyder, received LWOP. (ref)

If Daniel Horowitz had been treated as a suspect, we would have either had his lawyer giving him an alibi for the morning Vitale was murdered or we would have had his lawyer claiming confidentiality. That seems just a little too coincidental or a little too disturbing. "His lawyer, Robert Massi, said he met Horowitz for breakfast between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. that day. When the two parted, Horowitz was on his way to meet a colleague, Ivan Golde, at their office to work on their defense of Susan Polk, Massi said." (ref)

According to Valez-Mitchell, Daniel Horowitz received death threats from people connected to the Pavlo Lazarenko case (see also Organized Crime and Corruption Watch for info on Lazarenko). Pamela Vitale was extremely important to the successes in that case and was more of a threat to Lazarenko's enemies than Daniel Horowitz (also see November 18, 2005 Contra Costa Times article by Bruce Gerstman). Vitale's true database and research genius were never presented after her murder. Additionally, she spoke five languages. She was integral to and indisposable in defending Lazarenko and could have had enenies herself due to this, even though Horowitz told one reporter that, " she would not have made enemies of his clients or detractors (ref)." Close in time to the murder, Horowitz had filed motions in the Lazarenko case. Was this lead investigated? It appears both Horowitz and Vitale had to get National Security Clearance to work on the Lazarenko case so the FBI would have been informed of her murder. Did Vitale know too much? Was that case at a point where she ws not needed anymore? Would this case have been impossible to prosecute if something and someone connected to the Lazarenko case were involved? If the answer to this questions is 'Yes', then would they have just let a murder in this rich neighborhood remain in limbo, remain unsolved?

Ivan Golde, Daniel Horowitz's colleague also stated that Horowitz had received threats and that's why he carried a weapon. So what were these threats? Who made these threats? And, why did the property and home where they were living have such a lack of security?

Horowitz not only claimed these threats, supposedly from clients, but had also filed a Restraining Order (below) against neighbor Joseph Lynch shortly before Pamela Vitale was murdered claiming that Joseph Lynch might hurt his wife- filed 4 months, to the day, before. In addition, Lynch had been served a 3-day eviction notice, meaning this occured just a day or two before the murder
(ref). It is not clear whether Lynch was given that notice by Vitale or Horowitz or on what grounds. Horowitz also claimed in interviews that Lynch was to drop off a check the day of the murder when Pamela Vitale would be alone on the property (although it appears Lynch did not go to their home that day). Publicly, there is no confirmation from Lynch that this was even arranged, but he clearly stated he did not see Vitale the day of the murder. It is also not clear what the 'check' would have been for. Lynch had sold the properly abruptly to Horowitz and Vitale about a year before her murder with them agreeing he could live on the property in his RV for 10 years (till 2014, although that property is now for sale - link).

Mr. Horowitz appears to have a history of claiming threats by others, some such as with the Schneiders in Hunsaker Canyon and towards another lawyer in court (
Mudslinging marks death penalty murder case
))where Mr. Horowitz engages in intense battles appear to be far less than the threats of psychotic neighbors, powerful enemies of the ex-president of the Ukraine, or of possible threats because of murder cases  he has worked on.


Case MSN05-0778 - Complaints/Parties (ref)
CIVIL HARRASSMENT
Select
Party Name
Type
Case Name
Category
Case Number
Filed
HOROWITZ, DANIEL   PETITIONER  DANIEL HOROWITZ & PAMELA VITALE VS. JOSEPH LYNCH  CIVIL HARASSMENT  MSN05-0778  06/15/2005 
  06/23/2005 1:35 PM DEPT. 59  HEARING ON OSC/TRO RE: HARASSMENT (CIVIL) FILED BY DANIEL HOROWITZ & P VITALE   DROPPED BY COURT   
  06/23/2005 1:30 PM DEPT. 59  HEARING ON OSC/TRO RE: HARASSMENT (CIVIL) FILED BY DANIEL HOROWITZ & P VITALE   NOT HEARD/CONT   


10/17/2005   COPIES x 10  Not Applicable   


There is a legal record of Horowitz filing a similar claim over a decade earlier on the Schneider's - they have lived next door to him in Hunsaker Canyon. Horowitz claimed he thought Doug Schneider might hurt his wife. Only then, it was a different wife. Ironically, even though the Schneider's and Horowitz had been through a back-and-forth legal battle over land issues, Karen Schneider testified in Dyleski's trial that she didn't really know Horowitz. Why would she claim this?

Did anyone involved in Scott Dyleski's case, prosecution or defense, go back and check these records? The witness lied.

Doug Schneider is the person who called LE the day after Vitale was murdered claiming he thought Dyleski was connected to the murder, but falsely or erroneously claimed Dyleski was having something shipped to Vitale's address. Karen Schneider had contacted police the day before Vitale was murdered about Credit Card fraud Dyleski said he was involved in. She also contacted a neighbor, Partridge, about this the same day (the day BEFORE Vitale was murdered). Her two nephews knew because she called them to come stay with her that night - those nephews were still at the Schneider house very early Sunday morning the day after the murder when Det Barnes went to their  house, they said the Schneiders were not home at that time.  Does anyone wonder if she also called Horowitz or Vitale the day before the murder? Or if LE called them? Just 'coincidentally' LE claimed that Doug Schneider told them Dyleski intended to send an order to Vtiale's address, LE used this in their search warrant, but this was not true. What this obviously means is that Dyleski could have been chosen as a patsy before the murder took place or even the day of the murder.



Case MS308882 - Complaints/Parties (ref)
PERSONAL HARASSMENT

Complaint Number: 1
Complaint Type: COMPLAINT
Filing Date: 11/25/1987
Complaint Status: ACTIVE
Party Number Party Type Party Name Attorney Party Status
PLAINTIFF  DANIEL A. HOROWITZ   Pro Per   
DEFENDANT  DOUGLAS SCHNEIDER   JACKL & KATZEN  Serve Required (WaitS) 


Case MS308882 - Actions

Viewed
Date
Action Text
Disposition
Image
  01/17/2007  COPIES   Not Applicable   
  12/28/2006  COPIES   Not Applicable   
  02/01/1996  ** FILE ENTERED ON MICROFILM ON 2-1-96      
 

Case MSC88-01182 - Complaints/Parties
PROPERTY DISPUTE

HOROWITZ, DANIEL A.  DEFENDANT  DOUGLAS & KAREN SCHNEIDER VS DANIEL & LESLIE HOROWITZ, CAROL ALTNEU (SISTER)
OTHER REAL PROPERTY/QUIET TITLE  MSC88-01182  03/24/1988

Complaint Number: 1
Complaint Type: COMPLAINT
Filing Date: 03/24/1988
Complaint Status: ACTIVE
Party Number Party Type Party Name Attorney Party Status
PLAINTIFF  DOUGLAS SCHNEIDER   SCHURICHT, DAVID A.   
PLAINTIFF  KAREN SUE SCHNEIDER   SCHURICHT, DAVID A.   
DEFENDANT  CAROL ALTNEU   KAHN, TERRY J.  Serve Required (WaitS) 
DEFENDANT  LESLEY COFFIN HOROWITZ   HOROWITZ, DANIEL A.  Serve Required (WaitS) 
DEFENDANT  DANIEL A. HOROWITZ   HOROWITZ, DANIEL A.  Serve Required (WaitS) 
DEFENDANT  ATTY - CAROL  HOROWITZ, DANIEL A.  Serve Required (WaitS) 
DEFENDANT  ATTY - DANIEL  KAHN, TERRY J.  Serve Required (WaitS) 
DEFENDANT  ATTY - LESLY  KAHN, TERRY J.  Serve Required (WaitS) 


HOROWITZ, DANIEL A.  PLAINTIFF  DANIEL A. HOROWITZ VS LESLEY A. COFFIN  PETN FOR DISSOLUTION  MSD93-01083  03/10/1993 

And, how was Joseph Lynch cleared so quickly? Law Enforcement officers apologized to and cleared Lynch less than two days after Vitale's body was found. Based on what evidence was Lynch cleared? The blonde hair on Vitale's didn't match, but it didn't match Dyleski either and apparently wasn't even pursued. Lynch had no alibi, he even said he was home with his dog at his RV all day. That RV is on Horowitz's property. A reporter also claimed Joseph Lynch said he was still attending "a drug and alcohol problem that made him violent and abusive (link)."  This is not quite the truth as Lynch's license had been taken away and he had no car.

Daniel Horowitz had arranged Lynch's participation in the V.A. drug and alcohol rehabilitation program at the begging and persistence of at least one neighbor - after weeks of violent and dangerous behavior by Lynch in Hunsaker Canyon, but that program was too far away for Lynch to really attend. Why did Horowitz and his colleagues finger Lynch on TV shows when Horowitz otherwise did not seem concerned. Why would Daniel Horowoi claim that Vitale turned her wedding ring around when she was afraid of someone, then finger Lynch. Wouldn't Vitale have expected him to come by that day based on what Horowitz said?

Additionally, there was fairly damning evidence at Wheeler's residence, a cabin on the Horowitz property. The dogs tracked there and alerted in certain spots (Motion to Exclude Dog Evidence). There was a photo of Pamela in his sink. There was a pair of jeans soaking in OxyClean in a bucket. It appears Wheeler was properly treated as a suspect at the time, was vigorously interviewed, and had an alibi (based on the TOD set by Vitale's unverified computer clock).

Although the dog tracking evidence was excluded, it could have helped Dyleski. Furthermore, one has to wonder how thoroughly that was used to explore possible evidence left by the killer. Here is just on exerpt from the Motion to Exclude referring to the dogs tracking to an abandoned mobile home - away from any path towards Dyleski's residence.


Exerpt of Dog Tracking Evidence excluded from Scott Dyleski's trial



Other case related to Vitale/Horowitz construction ...


Case MSC05-01397 - Complaints/Parties (ref)
FRAUD

HOROWITZ, DANIEL   PLAINTIFF  HOROWITZ VS PEREZ  FRAUD  MSC05-01397  06/30/2005 
PLAINTIFF  DANIEL HOROWITZ   GOLDE, IVAN   DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 02/03/2006 
PLAINTIFF  PAMELA VITALE   GOLDE, IVAN   DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 02/03/2006
  10/17/2005  COPIES   Not Applicable   
  09/14/2005  (U.J.) ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF DANIEL HOROWITZ FILED BY JUAN PEREZ (ALL SEASONS ROOFING)  Not Applicable  N/A











 



  RESOURCES


Media Demonizing

Mythical Predatory Teens: Pam Vitales Murder & Alleged Killer Scott Dyleski Are Unique
, Seamus McGraw, Crime Library


Music to Kill For: Prosecutors in the Scott Dyleski trial evoke the specter of Marilyn Manson, er, make that Velvet Acid Christ, Justin Berton & Rob Harvilla, East Bay Express (2/22/06)

 
Summaries from a Trial Watcher

This site also contains a wealth of information and analyses on the case from someone who attended court.

(2/02/06) The Murder of Pamela Vitale. Why the Media Can't Report Much on Suspect Scott Dyleski.

(2/13/06) Deputy D.A. Hal Jewett Lets The Cat Out of the Bag? Why is He So Concerned About the Criticism of Government Officials in the Scott Dyleski Murder Trial?

(7/17/06) A Killer On The Loose? The DNA Evidence in the Dyleski Case May Raise Reasonable Doubt That Other Suspects are Involved.

(7/27/06) Opening Statements In The Scott Dyleski Murder Trial (July 27, 2006)

(8/06/06) Bombshells at Dyleski Trial On Day 4 - Who Is The Man In The Car?

(8/07/06) Do Scott Dyleski's Statements Show Intent to Kill And Guilt, or The Panic Of a Mixed-Up Kid Linked to the Victim by His Credit Fraud Scheme?

(8/08/06) The DA Tries to Smash the Alibi in the Dyleski Murder Case. He Twists His Hearsay-Based Time Line So Tight It May Not Fit the Facts.

(8/09/06) The Dyleski Murder Trial -- With Friends Like This You Don't Need Friends. And With Cops Like This You Don't Need Cops.

(8/14/06) Did Scott Dyleski More or Less Confess? Five Little Pieces of Paper Raise The Question: Is Witness David Curiel a Flipper or a Fibber?

(8/20/06) Dyleski Murder Trial - Will Loose Ends Cause Reasonable Doubt Regarding the DNA Evidence or Will Facts Add Up to a Conviction Despite Them?
 
(8/28/06) The Scott Dyleski Sentencing - ’Why? Why? Why?
Jury Finds Scott Dyleski Guilty of 1st Degree Murder, With Special Circumstance of Murder During the Commission of a Burglary. This Means Life in Prison Without Parole. Sentencing September 26, 2006 At 9:00 A.M.


Justice for Scott Dyleski

This site contains a wealth of information on the case.
link





  CONNECTED COURT CASES


Gloria Allred et al. v. Superior Court of County of Contra Costa et al.

Case No A112615
filed 1/11/2006 concerns lifting gag order on Dyleski Trial also included the San Francisco Chronicle

History

Unnamed sources in law enforcement and Horowitz' neighbors in-the-know immediately leaked a great deal of information about the young suspect, Scott Dyleski...

The media ate up and spit out every bit of information they could obtain about the sensational case.  Newspapers and audio and video media captured witnesses’ observations and opinions. Day after day Nancy Grace interviewed the grief-stricken Daniel Horowitz as she trudged the obscure trails of the Lafayette hills reporting on the case.  She conducted an exclusive tour of Pamela’s and Daniel's unfinished Italianate dream home, the trailer where Pamela died and the surrounding land ...

Leaks from law enforcement were allowed to continue until much of the reading and viewing public were convinced that the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s investigators and the District Attorney had the sole guilty party behind bars and that party was Scott Dyleski.  The prosecution then announced that he would be tried as an adult thereby removing the specter of a case hidden behind juvenile law rules and regulations.  It was announced that he would face a maximum term of 25 years to life in prison if he was found guilty.

On November 21, 2005 the other shoe fell. Contra Costa Superior Court Judge David B. Flinn issued a gag order in the case of People v. Scott Edgar Dyleski ...

Judge Flinn rejected the San Francisco Chronicle's argument that the standard of a “clear and present danger” to a fair trial was the First Amendment Constitutional test regarding any gag order.  Instead, Judge Flinn used the less strict standard used to test change of venue in the Odle case  -- “reasonable likelihood of a fair trial”.

Do Judge Flinn’s four findings stand up to legal scrutiny?  That is a question for the court of appeals and Supreme Court.  On January 11, 2006 Attorney Gloria Allred who represents a witness, Scott Dyleski's teenage girlfriend, filed an appeal to the First District, with an appearance by the San Francisco Chronicle.  Her petition for writ of mandate, prohibition and request for stay were denied on January 12, 2006 (Case No. A112615).  On January 23, 2006, Attorney Allred appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of California (Case No. S140816) and on February 15, 2006 her petition for review was denied. Justice Kennard was of the opinion the petition should be granted and Justice George, C. J., was absenta and did not participate. The San Francisco Chronicle did not appeal to the Supreme Court.

The question remains: Do Judge Flinn’s four findings and his protective order stand up to public scrutiny?   

In fact, his order and findings do shed light on some of what’s really going on in the Scott Dyleski case and in the Susan Polk trial.

The gag order obviously makes it very difficult for the media – ranging from the New York Times to the local press and internet bloggers  to obtain any accurate information from authorities such as the District Attorney, law enforcement, defense counsel or from witnesses.  In other words, all those entities that so eagerly sought out the media to make certain that their leaks pointed to the guilt of suspect Scott Dyleski were now conveniently insulated by Judge Flinn's precedent setting gag order. 

In his gag order, Judge Flinn defined “witnesses” as “those who have been advised that they might be material witnesses in the matter or who have appeared and testified at either a preliminary examination or a grand jury investigating the matter, and all agents, attorneys or other representatives of such witnesses”.

Apparently at any time, the trial judge, law enforcement or the District Attorney can just advise someone he or she is a witness and he or she is barred from speaking to the press and to others.  A scenario which could test the parameters of the order is the following:  A person named X has some information about the existence of another perpetrator besides Dyleski.  X calls a TV commentator and gives a tip.  X has not appeared at the preliminary hearing or before the grand jury and has not been advised he or she is a material witness.   Is X now a witness, bound by the gag order?  Can X now be held in contempt by Judge Flinn?  The order may freeze X’s right to free speech and the right to freely speak of a reporter about what X knows. 

This is exactly where murder defendant Susan Polk now finds herself as she awaits trial on February 27, 2006.  She now represents herself.

On January 20, 2006, Susan Polk fired the defense team of Daniel Horowitz and Ivan Golde alleging that Daniel Horowitz revealed information to her in attorney/client discussions that implicate him in the murder of his wife Pamela Vitale.

On a Geraldo At Large broadcast on Monday, January 30, 2006, Susan Polk said that Horowitz made statements that could help Dyleski's defense.  She is a potential defense witness in the Scott Dyleski/Pamela Vitale murder trial.  Her disclosures and her demeanor make it apparent that she has not been made aware of Judge Flinn's gag order or she has chosen to ignore that order.  In either case, why has not Judge Flinn moved to silence Susan Polk and make her comply with his gag order?

It was apparent that Daniel Horowitz was very aware of Judge Flinn's gag order when he said that he had no comment on the Dyleski case and he would not be allowed near the courtroom because he was a potential witness for either the prosecution and/or the defense.  On Geraldo At Large, Ivan Golde, Horowitz’ co-counsel on the Polk case, vigorously proclaimed Horowitz’ innocence in regard to Polk’s allegation that he, by his own statements to her, implicated himself in the death of his wife.  No witnesses appeared on television in defense of the deceased Felix Polk, who had in the past been strenuously defended in national media by Oakland lawyer Barry Morris.  Did he feel inhibited by the Dyleski gag order too?

Speech appears to be frozen in the Dyleski case. Only Susan Polk is speaking out.

The San Francisco Chronicle’s attorney pointed out the danger that Judge Flinn’s gag order could freeze free speech in his November 8, 2005 memorandum:

The Supreme Court in Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 set forth the proposition that because a gag order enjoins individuals from uttering words not yet spoken, it is a classic "prior restraint" on speech.  As a prior restraint, a gag order bears a "heavy presumption against Constitutional validity."  Prior restraints are the "the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights."  As Chief Justice Burger's opinion for the Court in Nebraska Press declared, "A prior restraint . . . has an immediate and irreversible sanction. If it can be said that a threat of criminal or civil sanctions after publication 'chills' speech, prior restraint 'freezes' it at least for the time.

It is clear that an agenda of Judge Flinn’s order is to preclude the press and others from gathering evidence from other witnesses, ranging from the admission of another perpetrator involved in the offense to some person who may not even realize they are a witness, yet who holds a  piece of the puzzle.  Judge Flinn let that cat out of the bag when he stated in the gag order that the parties and witnesses he names are to refrain from giving extrajudicial statements about (read more at link below):

(link)




Related Articles/News

Michael D. Seplow & Paul L. Hoffman, (2006), Punishing Pundits: People v Dyleski and the Gag Order. As Prior Restraint in High-Profile Cases, 39 Loyola L.A. Law Review 1197
(.pdf) (.html)

Kate Dixon, (2006), DEPUTY D.A. HAL JEWETT LETS THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG?

Why is he so concerned about the criticism of government officials in the Scott Dyleski murder trial?

(link)



Curiels, et al.  vs County of Contra Costa

Violation of Civil Rights - Case No. C06-05751 WHA

Plaintiffs,

vs.
 
THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, CALIFORNIA; SHERIFF WARREN RUPF, sued in his individual capacity and as an employee of Contra Costa County; LIEUTENANT KATHLEEN PARKER, sued in her individual capacity and as an employee of Contra Costa County; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT SERGEANTS JAMES MAHONEY and KEVIN DALEY, sued in their individual capacities and as employees of Contra Costa County; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF�S DEPARTMENT DETECTIVES JASON BARNES, GARY CLARK, CARY GOLBERG, JOSEPH MOORE, GUY UYEDA, AARON VAN ZELF, LAURIE BAILEY, TODD SANTIAGO, MARTIN RYAN, ROQUE BARRIENTOS, ADALBERTO GARIBAY, RACHELLE FAWELL and RUDOLPH OEST, sued in their individual capacities and as employees of Contra Costa County; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES OSCAR ARANDA AND DALE HADLEY, sued in their individual capacities and as employees of Contra Costa County; AND DOES ONE though ONE HUNDRED, et al.,

Page on Justice for Scott Dyleski (JFSD link)
linked .pdf files (at bottom of page)
  Judge Alsup's Decision 08/13/07
  Defendants' Brief 08/10/07
  Plaintiffs' Opposition 08/10/07
  Order on motion for summary judgment, filed 8-3-07
  Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment
  Plantiffs' Opposition to Summary Judgment


Appeal Case Number: 07-17233

ARGUED AND SUBMITTED TO Judges CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, WILLIAM A. FLETCHER and RICHARD A. PAEZ.
Hearing Date: 07-15-09
Office of the Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals
James R. Browning US Courthouse
95 Seventh Street, P.O. Box 193939
San Francisco, CA 94119-3939
(415) 355-8190


Recording of Hearing: 07-17233.wma


On review of the hearing tape, a huge number of lies and inaccuracies were presented as related to Scott Dyleski's case. These include but are not limited to comments about:

* dog tracking evidence taken from the Skelton hearing (ref)

The dogs never tracked to the Curiel household from the crime scene and they did not track in the direction of the Curiel household, they tracked on a path away from the Horowitz/Vitale trailer to an arroyo/thick bush (that was possibly not searched thoroughly for a murder weapon) to Jerrry Wheeler's house where a pair of jeans were soaking in a bucket w/ OxyClean and outside of the bathroom (where the killer might have clean-up) and where a picture of Vitale was found lying in the sink. All of this evidence was discounted in court because Scott's attorney asked that evidence be excluded. (ref)

* a gun in the Curiel household belonging to Ken Dyleski (Scott's father)

It was argued in this hearing that LE might have thought Dyleski was in the Curiel house before they entered, they had info there was a gun inside, and entering the house without a search warrant was justified because Dyleski might take his own life with the gun. The big problem with this is that the gun (or guns) in the house belonged to Ken Dyleski was a BB gun.


(Much more to come as we review the hearing tape)















  This site was made by a friend of Scott's
contact


all original content is copyrighted by ScottDyleski.org 2007 - 2010

artwork entitled, "Earth LIfe Sun", in the background is by Jean-Francois Colonna, Ecole Polytechnique, France