Articles:
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)

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)

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 or she could have been a hired hit by someone.



1. Daniel Horowitz Clients


Murder of Janet Daher in Lafayette, CA

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. Law enforcement was well aware of this case at the time based on comments in the news, but there is no evidence any individuals connected to Horowitz's cases were investigated.

2005: Vitale's death marked the first slaying in Lafayette since March 1998, when 46-year-old Janet Daher was found stabbed and strangled in her home. Three men were convicted in her killing. "This is very unusual for us," Fisher said, "a funny co-incidence, it seems that Horowitz defended one of the accused in the other murder 7 years ago. Coincidentally, Lafayette's last homicide seven years ago is now one of Horowitz's cases.

"After O’Brien and appellant used some cocaine in the restroom, they exited BART by jumping the turnstiles, and began walking toward the hills on the main road. O’Brien was wearing a black leather jacket, black pants, a black T-shirt and a black knit cap ... All three put on gloves, and O’Brien put a bandana over his face. O’Brien was carrying a “very large knife and two smaller knives.” ... Perez then told O’Brien to hand him a knife to “finish the job.” O’Brien handed Perez a hunting knife, and Perez stabbed the victim repeatedly while O’Brien and appellant watched. At that point, there was no doubt the victim was dead. (ref). "


2007: "Perez, O'Brien and Lee Snyder entered Daher's home on Rose Lane through an open garage door. The men had come to Lafayette on a BART train from San Francisco in search of a crime of opportunity, police said.

Authorities found Daher's body hog-tied with a telephone cord and covered with stab wounds. Police said the mother of two put up no struggle and had guided the suspects to jewelry hidden in the house before she was slain...

Today, prosecutor Paul Sequeira formally dropped a number of charges against O'Brien, including the special circumstance of murder in the commission of a robbery, which would have made him eligible for the death penalty, Horowitz said.(ref)."

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.


Pavlo Lazarenko

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 it appears and was possibly 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. 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 could have held 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? Some of Lazarenkos money was laundered through a bank in San Francisco.






3. Claims of Death Threats by Daniel Horowitz and...

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 has also claimed there is bad blood with Douglas Schneider because Schneider is anti-semitic. However, this is far from the first claim of anti-semitism by Daniel Horowitz and various others - in the habeas petition, Rick Ortiz says Horowitz made a claim of anti-semitism to get a building permit.

Horowitz claimed a foe of Pavlo Lazarenko, Past Presidedent of the Ukraine Leonid Kuchma, made anti-semitic remarks on a tape that was never presented in court (2004). But why did Daniel Horowitz have access to those tapes?




And, are these racist comments against a Puerto Rican prosecutor in the case below?



Per Rick Ortiz, Horowitz claimed his family saw Puerto Ricans as not so worthy and was threatened with some mob connection.

Daniel Horowitz is not a man without enemies.






4. Horowitz/Vitale Problems with Neighbors in Hunsaker Canyon


Joseph Lynch

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, the property next to the trailer and mansion.

In 2004, Lynch had sold his 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). Horowitz and Vitale purchased the property for around $350, 000 it appears and Horowitz listed the property for sale around 2009 for ~$1,000,000 (link).

In the Spring of 2005, Lynch reported to police that Horowitz had threatened him twice with bodily harm or worse.

Daniel Horowitz had arranged Lynch's participation in the V.A. drug and alcohol rehabilitation program at some poin - after weeks of violent and dangerous behavior by Lynch in Hunsaker Canyon it was said. That program was too far away for Lynch to really attend, surely Horowitz knew this?


Horowitz filed a Restraining Order 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 she was murdered (Summer 2005, shown below). No one showed for court and Joseph Lynch never knew there was a restraining order.

In addition, it is rumored that 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 pick up a check for the water delivered 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 and that pertains to a water bill that Lynch oversees). Lynch clearly stated he did not see Vitale the day of the murder nor did Lynch really ever see Vitale much.


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

Doug and Karen Schneider: Mr. Horowitz appears to have problems with other neighbors as a threat also, namely, the Schneiders in Hunsaker Canyon who he also filed a restraining order against years ago (see court record).

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, same as with the RO claim against Joe Lynch. Only then, it was a different wife, Leslie Coffin. 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, Karen Schneider, seems to have lied about knowing Daniel Horowitz.




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

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 had 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.



5. Other Suspects

David Elder
A man, and meth addict, named David Elder had apparently told his girlfriend who lived in Hunsaker Canyon that he killed Pamela Vitale, bludgeoning her with his skateboard. David Elder appears to have a history of arrests and violent tendencies. This was reported to law enforcement (see letter below and habeas petition) and the girls' mother went to Kim Curiel (a witness in the case) with the information. It appears responses to this information was "We already have a suspect." There is no evidence that this was investigated or that David Elder was even considered prior to Scott's conviction and for several years after until it was raised with Scott Dyleski's current attorneys. (reference: Habeas petition and Exhibits).















Gerald 'Gerry" Wheeler
There was fairly damning evidence at Wheeler's residence, a cabin on the Horowitz property. The jury did not hear this evidence. No discussion of Jerry Wheeler took place at Scott Dyleski's trial although scent dogs tracked to his home, adjacent to the Vitale/Horowitz main property. A cadaver dog alerted outside his bathroom and inside clothes were found soaking in a plastic box in OxyClean.  The water was red tinted.


Jerry said the blood on his mirror was his own and, oddly, there was a picture in his bathroom sink that had Pamela Vitale in it. Jerry initally failed a truth telling test given by police investigators. It appears he was never eliminated as a suspect, but merely dropped after Scott Dyleski was arrested. Jerry was a sometime methamphetamine user and worker on the Vitale/Horowitz mansion, however his name was not raised in court.

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.






6. Vitale/Horowitz Problems with Construction Contractors


Rick Ortiz
Mr. Ortiz was the main/original builder on the Vitale/Horowitz mansion. (reference: Habeas petition and Exhibits). He was never interviewed by police investigators, the prosecutor, or by either of Scott Dyleski's attornies (Ellen Leonida and Philip Brooks). Mr. Ortiz came forward in April of 2011.  Mr. Ortiz says he was threatened  by Mr. Horowitz, actually that Horowitz could not protect him from what his family would do to him because of construction problems and that Mr. Horowitz changed documents that eventually gained him Ortiz's entire property only months before Vitale was murdered.



Tehama County, CA Public Records


08/02/2004 DEED OF TRUST


08/02/2004 ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS



06/20/2005 SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE

06/20/2005  RECONVEYANCE



06/20/2005 DEED OF TRUST


06/20/2005 ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS




Numerous Construction Contractors

Horowitz announced his mansion was completed the day he testified in court in the Scott Dyleski case, the Summer of 2006. Yet, lawsuits against construction contrators are numerous and have yet to be settled.


04/13/2012 9:05 AM DEPT. 19      JURY TRIAL - LONG CAUSE/ 15 DAY(S)              
03/21/2012 9:30 AM DEPT. 19      ISSUE CONFERENCE             
07/15/2011 9:05 AM DEPT. 19      JURY TRIAL - LONG CAUSE/ 15 DAY(S)  



Case MSC08-01349 - Complaints/Parties

Complaint Number:     1
Complaint Type:     COMPLAINT
Filing Date:     05/23/2008
Complaint Status:     ACTIVE

PLAINTIFF      DANIEL HOROWITZ            
ATTORNEY      DANIEL J  RUSSO     

         Party Type         Party Name            Attorney          Party Status
2      DEFENDANT      TIM VAN SANDT       RIDDLE, JOHN E      Answer 07/21/2008
3      DEFENDANT      A K PLASTERING      RIDDLE, JOHN E      Answer 07/21/2008
5      DEFENDANT      FERNANDO SOLIS             PARTY REMOVED 10/28/2008
6      DEFENDANT      SOLIS MASONRY            PARTY REMOVED 10/28/2008
7      DEFENDANT      FERNANDO SOLIS, DBA SOLIS MASONRY      LEE, MARK S.      Answer 10/28/2008
9      DEFENDANT      MARVIN WINDOWS, INC.      FICENEC, JAMES J      Answer 02/13/2009
 
Complaint Number:     2
Complaint Type:     CROSS COMPLAINT
Filing Date:     07/21/2008
Complaint Status:     ACTIVE
Party Number     Party Type     Party Name     Attorney     Party Status
2      CROSS COMPLAINANT      TIM VAN SANDT       RIDDLE, JOHN E      First Paper Fee Paid
3      CROSS COMPLAINANT      A K PLASTERING      RIDDLE, JOHN E      First Paper Fee Paid
4      CROSS DEFENDANT      ROES 1-200            Serve Required (WaitS)
 
Complaint Number:     3
Complaint Type:     CROSS COMPLAINT
Filing Date:     10/28/2008
Complaint Status:     ACTIVE
Party Number     Party Type     Party Name     Attorney     Party Status
7      CROSS COMPLAINANT      FERNANDO SOLIS, DBA SOLIS MASONRY      LEE, MARK S.      First Paper Fee Paid
2      CROSS DEFENDANT      TIM VAN SANDT       RIDDLE, JOHN E      Answer 11/03/2008
3      CROSS DEFENDANT      A K PLASTERING      RIDDLE, JOHN E      Answer 11/03/2008
8      CROSS DEFENDANT      RICK ORTIZ             PARTY DISMISSED 11/09/2009
 
Complaint Number:     4
Complaint Type:     CROSS COMPLAINT
Filing Date:     03/01/2011
Complaint Status:     ACTIVE
Party Number     Party Type     Party Name     Attorney     Party Status
2      CROSS COMPLAINANT      TIM VAN SANDT       RIDDLE, JOHN E      First Paper Fee Paid
3      CROSS COMPLAINANT      A K PLASTERING      RIDDLE, JOHN E      First Paper Fee Paid
10      CROSS DEFENDANT      D.L.M. PLASTERING COMPANY, INC      MENEKSHE, AYHAN M      Answer 03/24/2011
             




Juan Perez

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

HOROWITZ, DANIEL

PLAINTIFF

HOROWITZ VS PEREZ

FRAUD

MSC05-01397

06/30/2005

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