Prosecutor Hal Jewett told the jury that Pamela Vitale was dead no later than 10:35 AM the morning of her murder. He told the jury that at 10:12 AM Pam was interrupted on her computer by the masked Scott Dyleski who quickly killed her with multiple weapons and then stabbed her abdomen and carved her back. Jewett then opined that after killing Pam, Scott somehow cleaned up, changed clothes and shoes, and walked over a mile back to his home arriving without signs of exertion at 10:45 AM. This was a speculative theory.
Let's take a closer look
At Scott's trial public defender Ellen Leonida came to court with the knowledge that Scott Dyleski had an alibi for the time that the prosecution contended Pamela was murdered. She was armed with early police reports and the preliminary hearing sworn testimony of Fred Curiel. Although public defender Leonida failed to properly convey this important information to the jury, the truth is Scott Dyleski returned from his morning walk by 9:26 AM.
What happened to the testimony of Fred Curiel?
It is important to note that Fred Curiel was called as a prosecution witness at both the prelim and trial. Unfortunately for Scott, the misinformation given to the public by Dan Horowitz convinced Fred Curiel that Scott was involved in Pamela's murder before Scott was even arrested. Scott claimed to his housemate that he had seen a woman that matched Pam's description while he was out walking. Fred Curiel thought that was impossible because Dan Horowitz told the public that Pamela was found in only her underwear and a tee shirt.
Note the prelim testimony of Fred Curiel:
Quote:
A. And I asked him -- I asked him what's -- we asked him what direction they were driving. This was up towards the Vitale house, towards -- this is into Hunsaker Canyon Road. And he -- he had described the woman as having brown hair and round glasses, and -- which is -- which fit a description of Pam. And my wife kind of looked at me, you know, recognizing the description, and -- and I -- without her saying anything I said, "No. There's no way that --" I said, "Pam was found in her underwear and a T-shirt. There's no way she was out driving that morning."
Q. You told Scott that?
A. I said this to Kim.
Q. Was Scott present when you said that?
A. Yes.
Note the trial testimony of Fred Curiel:
Quote:
A. My wife -- and I may have the sequence off a little here -- but my wife asked him to describe the driver. And the description, I believe, was an average height woman, she was middle aged, about our age.
Q. How old are you?
A. I'm 46.
Q. Go ahead.
A. Pam looked young for her age. Anyway, he described her hair and said she had round glasses. Pam had round glasses. When he mentioned the glasses, my wife looked at me.
Q. When he mentioned the glasses, what happened then?
A. My wife looked at me, that look that there was immediate recognition -- I understood that she recognized that to be Pam, without her saying anything. I said authoritatively, "No, there is no" -- I said, "Pam was found in her panties and a T-shirt. There's no way that she was out and about that morning."
Q. And how did he respond to that?
A. I don't recall a response.
Q. What do you recall next being said by anybody in that room?
A. I believe I turned away. I was a bit frustrated. I had intended to talk to him about the credit card issue and this was clearly turning towards murder investigation, which I didn't think was even worth the time at this point.
We will never know how the Curiel's would have reacted had they not been fed misinformation by Dan Horowitz. Perhaps they would have taken Scott to police so he could have been interviewed as a witness. We will never know. What we do know is the Curiels at that point became suspicious of Scott beyond the credit card scam that mixed up the Vitale address in a billing transaction. They now thought of him as a potential killer, and offered him up as just that.
When Scott was arrested the following night, he was taken into custody without ever being questioned by police. That same night Fred Curiel and his wife Kim were questioned by police. Fred and Kim both told police that on the morning of Pam's murder Scott returned from his walk at approximately 9:30 AM. Fred Curiel was specific and said 9:26 AM. When asked by police how he knew the exact time, he informed them that he had looked at his pager because he was concerned about time that morning and activities that needed to be done. Fred Curiel was so concerned about time that morning that he looked at his pager not once, but at least four times.
At Scott's preliminary hearing Fred Curiel testified:
Quote:
Q. Mr. Curiel, were you home the morning of Saturday, October 15th?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. At some point that morning did you see Scott come home?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Did you see Scott at all the morning of October 15th?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What time did you first see him?
A. 9:26.
Q. A.m.?
A. A.m.
Q. How can you be sure it was 9:26 exactly?
A. I checked my pager just before coming out into the living room.
Q. Why would you do that?
A. Because I was concerned about the time.
Q. Why were you concerned about the time?
A. I had things that I wanted to get to do. I knew my wife had a list of things she wanted to do that day, and I was concerned that some of my priorities would not -- might not happen because if we didn't -- if we didn't get -- get started.
Q. When you looked at your pager, was it just to see what time it was? Did it have anything to do with Scott?
A. No. It was just to check the time.
Q. Where was Scott when you saw him at 9:26?
A. He was on the couch -- on a couch in our living room next to my wife.
The fact is under the prosecution's speculative theory, Scott could not have murdered Pam Vitale at 10:12 AM because he had a rock solid alibi in Fred Curiel and in Kim Curiel's initial statements to police. It was up to the prosecution to discredit their own witnesses. To fully understand the manipulative tactics of Hal Jewett, one needs to consider the whole of Fred Curiel's statements to police, thoughts, experiments and testimony. The entire testimony at both the prelim and trial can be read HERE. Take special note of how Fred attempts to talk to Hal Jewett about the prosecution's timeline after the preliminary hearing, and why he told his wife "There had to be a mistake".
A case with no estimated time of death
How does this happen in such a high profile murder in which the body is discovered in a controlled environment the same day of the murder? The medical examiner Dr. Peterson did not examine Pamela's body until two days after if was discovered and transported to the morgue. Although deputy coroners are trained to note specific information upon arrival at the scene, the deputy that "investigated" the scene in this case, M. McDonald, made no such notations.
What SHOULD have been noted: The time of death must be established as soon as possible after discovery. It is one of the central factors in any murder case and can eliminate suspects, break alibis, or place victims clearly with a suspect. The sooner after death this is established, the more accurate it is. At the site of the crime the coroner or medical examiner makes an informed guess at the approximate time when the individual expired, because it will then be subject to photographs, transportation, and other delays, and over that period of time there will be changes in the corpse. At the very least, the ME should take a temperature reading with a rectal thermometer and examine body coloration and eye fluids. source
In this case, Deputy McDonald did not note a single indicator in his report concerning time of death. His report can be read here.
Is this blatant negligence or something more?
On October 16th, one day after Pamela was murdered ABC News interviewed neighbor Mike McKeirnan. They reported:
McKeirnan says police told neighbors someone murdered 52-year-old Pamela Vitale between noon and 3:00 p.m. source
How does this relate to Scott Dyleski?
Scott Dyleski had an alibi the day Pam was killed from 9:26 AM that continued through the rest of the day. At this juncture it should be noted that although the science is available to estimate time of death, in this case the prosecution used Pam's laptop computer to determine time of death. This would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. Public defender Ellen Leonida failed to not only expose the negligence of deputy McDonald, but she also failed to examine potentially faulty computer forensics as the indicator for Pamela's time of death. click to read more about the computer