Diagram of Scott Dyleski's TravelSmith Raincoat

Harold Hal Jewett, the Deputy DA who prosecuted this case “presented a picture of the suspect being covered up at the scene by a long trench coat, a ski mask, and gloves (ref).”  Lisa Sweetingham wrote an article for CourtTv during Scott's trial (July 27, 2006) that claimed, "Dyleski disguised himself in a black ski mask, gloves and trench coat before allegedly entering Vitale's home..." However, after Dyleski was convicted, Deputy DA Jewett corresponds with a woman concerned about the fairness Dyleski received and he tells her "Nobody suggested the trench coat was worn at the time of the murder." (the ski mask was not black either and Sweetingham failed to mention only one glove was found, a ladies evening glove without Scott Dyleski's DNA in it)

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 unethical for a judge to claim she knew a defendant was guilty when she saw a reaction on his face during the trial, while at the same time she mischaracterizes very basic evidence.  Or was Zuniga just engaging in her own demonization of Dyleski to justify her decision?

Imagine a duffel bag with a couple of old or seldom used clothing items in it, a rain coat and a shirt, stored in an old van sitting away from the main house on the Curiel property. The duffel bag contains a rain coat and shirt of Scott Dyleski's. The ski mask was stored in the shed with other camping and skiing items.  At some point the ski mask was put into the duffel bag and one bloody glove shoved in on top of it (further down, we point out some severe chain of custody and missing picture issues withi this evidence). Some of the blood from the glove transferred to the ski mask.  It is likely this happened between Mon, October 17 and Wed, Oct 19 (the day the Curiel Property was searched).

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 or anywhere else on the ski mask. His DNA was found around the mouth area and, logically, was from sweat or saliva, not blood. You, and the jury, were supposed to surmise that the flimsy DNA evidence on Vitale's foot came from blood on his nose. More about that non-evidence later.

Scott Dyleski's DNA was NOT found in the glove, one of a supposed pair of gloves, said to have been used during the murder. Had Dyleski even worn this glove, his DNA would have been in the glove. There was third party male DNA found in the glove. It appears no attempts were made to identify the male DNA found in the glove. The table below shows several samples with third party DNA

DNA Analyses of Duffel Bag & Items found in Van
Item	Samples	Dyleski as Source	Other Source
Duffel Bag Exterior	* two bloodstains (13-9-1 & 13-9-2) contain Vitales' DNA, contain one allele that does not belong to Dyleski or Vitale	No Dyleski's DNA	Third Party DNA
Black Right-Hand Glove	* three samples (13-9B1,2,&3) all contain Vitale's DNA and at least one sample has male DNA,	No Dyleski's DNA	Third Party DNA
Blue Ski Mask	* four bloodstains (13-9C1,3,4,5) contact transfer from the bloody Glove, all contain Vitale's DNA - none of these stains are located below the eye opening, e.g, not near the nose,  mouth, or neck area	No Dyleski's DNA
	* one stain (13-9C2 around the mouth area (sweat or saliva) is from a single source, most likely Dyleski background, No Vitale DNA
	* one stain (13-9C6, top of eye opening) has a weak mixture of DNA with Vitale and Dyleski as possible contributors and three alleles that belong to someone else.		Third Party DNA
	* redddish hairs on the inside of the mask		Third Party DNA
Black Long Sleeve Shirt	* stain (13-9D3) with Dyleski as the only source, No Vitale DNA
Black Rain Coat	* No Vitale DNA, no further testing

How is it that a volunteer Deptuty, Rick Kovar, who does not have the proper training in evidence collection, finds the majority of evidence that convicted Dyleski?  It's probable that Kovar also contaminated the evidence upon inspecting it, placed the contents unbagged on the Curiel porch, did not maintain the chain of custody, and did not wear gloves when handling evidence (there was no testimony he had on gloves nor was he asked - ref).

Recent examination of crime scene photos showed that the duffel bag contents were laid out on the Curiel porch. However, in the photograph are only two of the four articles purported to be in the bag. The coat and the glove do not appear in that photograph.

"At the scene, no one reported seeing a glove, and a picture of the bag and its contents was taken with the items haphazardly laid out on the porch of 1050 Hunsaker. However, this image only shows two items of clothing, not the four items as later reported (Dec 2011 Habeas Petition, Exhibit A) ...

In fact, nobody mentioned the glove. Mr. Collins' handwritten field notes state: 'Kovar reported finding a black duffel bag, contaiing dark clothing, a ski mask, and a clunp of loose reddish hairs' (Exhibit AA, Field Services Information).

Although Mr. Kovar did not report finding a glove, he was permitted to authenticate the glove at trial."

Needless to say, this treatment also makes contamination of evidence a key concern as well as raising chain of custody issues.


More Third Party DNA and Fingerprint Evidence

Vitale's back had longer blondish or light brown hair on it that was used in the beginning of the investigation to rule out suspects.

Unknown fingerprints were found on the To-Do list and other notes.

Unknown fingerprints were found on a diet coke in the Master bedroom, a Whiskey bottle in the Master bedroom, and on the printer.

There was unidentified DNA on the bottom of the shoes - there are also chain of custody issues with the shoes and it was never established they had ever been worn by Dyleski - the inside cuttings taken from the shoes were never tested for DNA.

The rest is a fairly long list; blood evidence not tested, fingerprints (van, notes, crime scene), fabric evidence in the trailer, hair evidence (mask, hair band, shower drain, towel, bath mat) 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. Not all third party DNA is going to be relevant, connected to the perpetrator, but certainly some of this DNA is relevant. Third party DNA would also be relevant to possible contamination of evidence.

Scott Dyleski had not worn the Land's End shoes for about a year, switching to vegan Moo shoes. His Land's End shoes were stored outside on the Curiel's porch along with some of the other children's shoes. When Scott Dyleski came home in the morning, he was wearing canvas lace up boots. No one disputed this. Pertaining to the sample below from the bottom of the soles of the Land's End shoes, amazingly Pamela Vitale blood is not found in the crevices of the soles even though Daniel Horowitz had described the scene as a blood bath and Vitale's body was surrounded with a pool of blood.

DNA Analyses of Land's End Shoes
Item	Samples	Source
	Bottom of Shoe * one sample from the bottom of one shoe (22-1I) showed a degraded profile with at least three donors. Neither Vitale nor Dyleski's DNA could be completely excluded as donors, but the statistics are so small they are meaningless, e.g., 1 of every 6 Caucasians, 1 of every 9 Hispanics, and 1 of every 13 African Americans * no other swabs were subsequently sent for DNA analysis although ~ 7 were taken from the soles mostly in recessed areas	Unknown
	Back Lower Sides of Shoes * two samples (22-1H, 22-1P) contain Vitale's DNA and only her DNA	Vitale
	Top of Shoe * no result (22-1N) -  no other samples from the top of the shoe were sent for DNA analysis Shoe Interior * although several cutting were taken, none were sent for DNA analysis	N/A N/A

All of the data above was testified to by Mr. Stockon, there were no independent analyses of the shoes by defense and no defense expert questioning the procedures or results. Deputy District Attorney Hal Jewett tries to plant in the jury's mind that Dyleski had the Land's End shoes on the day after Vitale was murdered when he went to a Renaissance Faire with Jena Redding. He's hoping this explains the painful fact that Vitale's blood could not be found in the crevices of the soles.

Hal Jewett when questionning Mr. Stockton (Trial p. 3653):

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.

In a series of back-and-forth correspondences with a concerned citizen written on official letterhead. 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 David 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 replications on the internet) 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? 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.