|
|
|
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
"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
Murder
of Sophie Lancaster
* Hate Crime: killed because
she was Goth
|
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 Other Death
Penalty
'Juvenile
Life Without Parole: Sentencing Our Children to Die in Prison', Center
for Law and Global Justice, University of San Francisco.
'When I Die,
They'll Send Me Home’ - Youth Sentenced to Life without Parole in
California, Human Rights Watch, Jan 14, 2008
'Redemption
and Rehabilitation', Editorial, San Francisco Chronicle, Jan 18, 2008
Innocence,
Betrayed
CA
Juvenile Life Without Parole Act
The Changing
Attitudes About Children
Being
Tried as Adults (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.
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).
In
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
| |
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 |
| 1 |
PLAINTIFF |
DANIEL
A. HOROWITZ |
Pro
Per |
|
| 2 |
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 |
| 1 |
PLAINTIFF |
DOUGLAS SCHNEIDER |
SCHURICHT, DAVID A. |
|
| 2 |
PLAINTIFF |
KAREN SUE SCHNEIDER |
SCHURICHT, DAVID A. |
|
| 3 |
DEFENDANT |
CAROL ALTNEU |
KAHN, TERRY J. |
Serve Required (WaitS) |
| 4 |
DEFENDANT |
LESLEY COFFIN HOROWITZ |
HOROWITZ, DANIEL A. |
Serve Required (WaitS) |
| 5 |
DEFENDANT |
DANIEL A. HOROWITZ |
HOROWITZ, DANIEL A. |
Serve Required (WaitS) |
| 6 |
DEFENDANT |
ATTY - CAROL |
HOROWITZ, DANIEL A. |
Serve Required (WaitS) |
| 7 |
DEFENDANT |
ATTY - DANIEL |
KAHN, TERRY J. |
Serve Required (WaitS) |
| 8 |
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.
Other case related to Vitale/Horowitz construction ...
Case MSC05-01397 - Complaints/Parties (ref)
FRAUD
| 1 |
PLAINTIFF |
DANIEL HOROWITZ |
GOLDE, IVAN |
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
02/03/2006 |
| 2 |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|