A unique perspective as to what he was thinking as he prosecuted 17 year old Scott Dyleski in an adult courtroom.
The JusticeForScottDyleski.Com website was given permission by the author of the following to post letters she receive from DDA Hal Jewett.
In October 2006, after the Scott Dyleski trial, I wrote, as a concerned citizen, two letters to District Attorney Harold Jewett, the prosecuting attorney in the Dyleski trial. I let him know that even though I didn't know any of the people involved, I was disturbed and concerned about what I believed to be the unfairness of Scott's trial. I read every article and watched every TV news item about the case, as well as having read the transcript from the preliminary hearing. There were discrepancies and inconsistencies that were obvious to me, yet were never addressed to or by the jurors or by Scott's public defender, Ellen Leonida. Mr. Jewett readily answered both of my letters, and tried in both to convince me of Scott's guilt. In the letters, he used the same manipulative techniques he had used on the jury to distort and twist the truth, and when he had no real evidence or facts, he speculated and guessed in a way that sounded like the truth. In so doing, he'd managed to convince a jury of Scott's guilt, but not me. These letters are being posted to this site. Please feel free to read them, and then compare them to the preliminary transcripts that are also posted on the site. Keep in mind that a prosecutor should be dedicated to finding the truth, rather than just securing a guilty verdict and a conviction.
"He appointed judges throughout the nation in all the fortified cities, and he gave them these instructions: 'Always think carefully before pronouncing judgment. Remember that you do not judge to please people but to please the Lord. He will be with you when you render the verdict in each case that comes before you. Fear the Lord and judge with care for the Lord our God does not tolerate perverted justice, partiality, or the taking of bribes'". 2 Chronicles 19:5-7
The following letters have not been edited from their original version, except to remove personal information.
Dear Mr. Jewett,
I have closely watched and read about the trial of Scott Dyleski. I live in Texas and don’t know any of the people involved personally, but I felt compelled to write. The evidence in this trial was all circumstantial, yet this boy has been sent away to spend the rest of his life in prison. The DNA sample found on the victim was so insufficient it couldn’t be submitted to the FBI’s CODIS program for analysis. Forensic evidence that was collected at the crime scene and elsewhere was never tested (third party DNA found on the mask, third party DNA found on the glove, which had no DNA belonging to Scott, the numerous blond hairs found on Pamela’s back). There was NO DNA on the trench coat, and only Scott’s DNA on the long sleeve shirt. As brutal a beating as Pamela had, there should have been her blood on both the shirt and the trench coat. The sign carved into Pamela’s back (where the blond hairs were found) was SIMILAR, not the same as the sign Scott drew on his art work. As for the partial shoeprint found at the scene, an expert compared the general pattern on the partial print to the general pattern found on Scott’s shoes, claiming the shoes COULD be the same, not that they WERE the same. And Michael Sikkema testified that Scott was wearing lace-up boots the morning of the murder. How did Scott get the Lands End shoes to his closet without being seen? He wasn’t carrying them when he walked in the door. The DNA taken from Scott’s shoes showed Scott, as a contributor, was a limited profile. Yet, it also showed a third party contributor. And the stains found on the shoes could have even been from vegetable juice or rust. Even though Scott’s fingerprints were found on two of the five slips of paper found in the dresser drawer of his room, the “knockout/kidnap, question, keep captive to confirm pins, dirty work, dispose of evidence (cut up and bury)” note had NO fingerprints belonging to Scott on it (fingerprints on paper can last for up to 40 years). However, nine unidentified fingerprints WERE found on the five slips of paper. It was not even confirmed by a handwriting expert to be Scott’s handwriting. And how did it mysteriously “appear” in a drawer that had been thoroughly cleaned out, vacuumed, and searched at least three times before it was found? The five slips of paper found were not wrinkled or stuck together as though having been shoved to the back of or up in the top of the drawer. The timeline presented by the prosecution is also questionable. First, Fred Curiel had originally stated on at least eight instances that he had looked at his pager at 9:26 and at that time had seen Scott sitting on the couch with his wife Kim. Kim, too, had originally told the sheriff’s detective that she had seen Scott come into the house at 9:30. Sikkema had said that he had seen Scott between 10:00 or 10:30 and 11:00. However, by the time you got through with Kim, she had Scott coming home at 10:45 (quite a difference from the earlier time she and her husband had given) and Fred couldn’t remember a time at all. Per the prosecution’s own computer expert, Pamela stopped using her computer at 10:12, and it takes, as stated by the prosecution’s witness, twenty minutes for a strong man or boy to walk up and/or down the road from the Curiel residence to the Horowitz/Vitale residence. If Scott walked in the house at 10:45 that would leave only thirteen minutes for Scott to inflict almost thirty brutal wounds to Pamela’s head and upper body, all while Pamela’s fighting furiously. How long does it take to inflict each deadly blow when the victim is fighting back as hard as Pamela fought for her life? Additional time would have to be allotted for the stabbing to the front of her body and the symbol scratched into her back. Then, too, it would take more time for the killer to drink water and then turn on the shower. To make matters worse, the Curiels conducted their own investigation for four days, replacing the police as neutral investigators. They contaminated the investigation of the case, yet DA Jewett used what they found in the amateur investigation as circumstantial evidence. No murder weapon was ever found, no viable motive was ever given, and there was no conclusive proof that the defendant robbed or attempted to rob the victim. The timeline relied upon the opinion of a computer forensics expert instead of medical science. When Scott was arrested, he had no remarkable lacerations or bruises. The connective tissues in his mouth, which can tear during a violent struggle, were intact. His injuries were superficial in nature. He had no prior criminal record nor any history of violent behavior at home, school, or the community. Yet this kid had been thrown into hell. He’ll spend the next 60 to 70 years locked away in a hard core penal institution where he’ll be beaten and raped because of his young age and small stature. He’ll be there until he either dies from natural causes, takes his own life out of despair, or is killed by another inmate….and all on circumstantial evidence. There are so many discrepancies and holes in the prosecution’s evidence. There was evidence found that was not tested. Nothing was run through databases. Doesn’t Pamela deserve the best murder trial possible? Doesn’t this kid deserve the best defense? And what if the real killer is still out there? The public defendant was young and inexperienced, yet she went up against you, the powerful DA, unprepared. How do you sleep at night knowing this was an unfair trial? You ought to DEMAND that this be retried and that the holes be closed, and ALL the evidence be processed. I pray that you’ll do the right thing by not only Ms Vitale, but also by Mr. Dyleski.
Sincerely, (name deleted)
Following the scanned image of each page is the transcribed text for easier reading
October 16,2006
I am in receipt of the letter you sent to my home certified mail dated October 5, 2006. In the future, if you want to correspond with me about matters related to my work, please show me the courtesy of addressing that correspondence to my work. I am quite sure you could have located that address with fewer web stops than it took to get my home address, and you did not increase the probability of my reading or responding to your letter one whit by sending it to my home. You did, however, succeed in making me wait in line at the post office, and for that I believe you owe me an apology. Now, on to other matters.
You have indeed paid some attention to the evidence in the Dyleski case, but have missed a number of crucial details. Nobody suggested the trench coat was worn at the time of the murder. Its relevance was related to the fact it was seen and identified by “Scott’s” mother at the time she found the duffle bag with the mask and glove. The very fact there was only one glove found should have been a clear indication to you that we are missing some clothing. You are also probably not aware that evidence of an outer garment, probably a weatshirt, was found at the scene. That evidence was a fabric print in blood, probably from a cuff. Obviously, some of the clothing worn by Ms. Vitale’s killer was never recovered.
While you are correct that the criminalist did not positively ID the shoe print to “Scott’s” shoes, you overlook the fact that Ms. Vitale’s blood was also found on them. These shoes were obviously worn by her killer, and “Scott” had ample opportunity to change his clothes and dispose of evidence both before and after he walked into the house and sat on the couch.
Your observations about trace evidence not linked to “Scott” are also incomplete. There has never been a criminal investigation in the history of mankind where all trace evidence can be related back to the suspect or some other known party. As I told the jury, all you have to do is clean out your own vacuum cleaner. In virtually every home in this country there is unidentifiable trace evidence (whether that be DNA, hairs and fibers. or fingerprints). It has long been known by virtually all forensic experts that the presence of identifiable trace evidence gives us meaningful information, but the absence of such evidence tells us nothing. This was a red herring orchestrated by the defense, and you are falling for it. Also, regarding the slips of paper,
it may interest you to know that Ms. Leonida took pictures of the inside of the dresser they were found in. She showed me the pictures in anticipation of their introduction. Clearly visible was a small gap between a supporting cross-member and the underneath side of the top perfectly situated to hide a few pieces of paper where they would not be found. They were only knocked loose by happenstance because David Curiel over stuffed the drawer immediately beneath that area in anticipation of a party he was cleaning up for. Suffice it to say Ms. Leonida chose not to introduce her photographs.
Your concerns about the timeline are also misplaced. Fred Curiel did not initially say he saw “Scott” at 9:26am “sitting on the couch with his wife Kim”, That came Later, and after Fred asked Kim whether or not Scott was on the couch. Why would he ask such a question if he knew the answer? What’s the point? If Fred Curiel saw “Scott” at 9:26am,it was not the same time he came into the house and sat next to Kim. We are talking about two separate times here.
Of greater import is the fact that we have not only the time Ms. Vitale stopped using her computer. We also have the time (to the minute) the Curiels made a purchase at the Spirit Store. which was their first stop after leaving their home. It was from that, and a close approximation of how much time it took for them to drive from their home to the Spirit Store, that we were able to closely approximate the time “Scott” walked into the house. That is what Kim Curiel testified to, and that testimony was based, in part, on irrefutable computer generated evidence of time (which was thoroughly authenticated by the president of the credit union the Curiel’s had their credit card account with).
Furthermore, the testimony was that it took ten minutes to walk from Ms. Vitale’s house to the property “Scott” lived at, not twenty. And lest you be misled, the amount of time it takes to strike someone over the head with a rock twenty six times is actually quite short. Try hitting say ... a 2” x 6” piece of lumber with a rock (about the size of your fist) as hard as you can twenty six times, and time it You should be able to do that in less than one minute. Be careful though. Your palm and wrist might swell up....just like “Scott’s” did. That is not to even mention the scratches “Scott” had to his arms and face (which would look superficial given the fact he was wearing a mask, long sleeve shirt, and gloves). Of course, Ms. Vital’s efforts to defend herself would add additional time to the assault. However, if you saw the photographs of the scene (which are a matter of public record if you are so inclined to come to California and look at them), you would know the struggle was very limited in space. As a consequence, it was also very limited in time. I believe the time between when “Scott” entered Ms. Vitale’s home, and when the last blow was struck, was less than five minutes.’ 1
Finally, conspicuous in their absence from your letter are the numerous statements “Scott” made about the mysterious lady (matching Ms. Vitale’s description is several notable respects) who scratched his arm, and his concerns about how his DNA might be on Ms. Vital&s body. You did not even mention those and yet, those were some of the most compelling and powerful pieces of evidence in the case. Let us not be too selective, (name withheld).
In the final analysis, there was not one area covered in your letter that was not explored during the trial. The jury heard everything you addressed, and much, much more. I can only conclude that your letter is actually an indictment of the criminal justice system itself... a product of a profound distrust of government, and even contempt for the jurors who participate in it, Perhaps you might consider going down to your local courthouse and watching the process yourself. You might be surprised.
Sincerely,
Harold W Jewett
Deputy District Attorney
1 As an aside, it might also interest you to know something very few other people do know.At the time I showed a couple of rocks to Ms. Leonida in anticipation of their introduction. I kept my eyes focused on “Scott” (the jury was not present at the time). The defendant sat up in his chair, leaned over to look at the rocks with what I would I would describe as substantial interest, and then looked me right in the eye, nodded twice, and smiled. What do you make of that?
October 30, 2006
Harold Jewett Contra Costa County Office of the District Attorney P.O. Box 670 Martinez, CA 94553-0150
Dear Mr. Jewett,
Let me apologize to you for sending my first letter to your home address. I never searched the web for your address—I simply went to the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa website. It had a lawyer referral service with an attorney search that listed attorneys and their addresses, e-mails, and phone numbers. I searched for Ms. Leonida’s name first and it gave her new law firm’s name and address. I assumed that all addresses and phone numbers were work related. After all, if one is going to hire an attorney, one would contact them at their workplace. So I naturally assumed that the address listed for you was your work address. You stated in your letter that nobody suggested the trench coat was worn at the time of the murder. Yet Judge Zuniga said to Scott, “You concealed your identity by wearing a mask and gloves, by wearing a long coat.” And yes, maybe only one glove was found, but that very important piece of evidence, covered with Ms. Vitale’s blood, didn’t have ANY of Scott’s DNA in it. But it did have someone else’s DNA. Why wasn’t that DNA tested and run through any database? If the killer was striking Ms Vitale fast and furious, there would be DNA from sweat or from sloughed off skin. And the “fabric print in blood, probably from a” sweatshirt cuff as evidence is based on speculation. With the boxes and clothes lying around the Vitale house, that piece of cloth could have come from anywhere. And as far as the shoes, they may have shown DNA from Ms Vitale and Scott, but Scott’s contribution to the sample on the sole of the shoe was a limited profile. Why wasn’t the third party DNA found on the shoe tested? You state that in every investigation, there is unidentifiable trace evidence…..that may be so, but in an important murder trial such as this, with only three DNA contributors on the shoe, all should have been tested. And why weren’t the “numerous” blonde hairs found on Ms Vitale’s back (where the symbol was carved) tested? They clearly didn’t belong to Ms Vitale, Mr Horowitz, or Scott. It seems that the lab that performed the tests on various forensic evidence was very selective by choice and made no attempts to identify third party DNA, unidentified hair or third party fingerprints. Which brings me to ask also, if Scott wrote the “kidnap” note, why wasn’t a handwriting expert brought in to verify it? Also, why weren’t Scott’s fingerprints found on that particular note, when they were on some of the other notes? And your explanation about the notes being hidden in the small gap underneath the dresser and falling when David “over stuffed the drawer” is weak. What a coincidence that all five of the notes “fell” at the same time. As for me leaving out the statements Scott made about the mysterious lady, I didn’t mention that because I’m not questioning that statement. I only listed things that weren’t tested that should have been. But speaking of Scott’s statement, was Ms Vitale’s car tested for fingerprints? Was it gone over with a fine tooth comb? Was this theory even considered as a possibility? Every theory and every possibility should have been checked. The evidence shouldn’t be cherry-picked to fit a suspect. I realize Scott was an easy target, but in all fairness to Ms Vitale, everything should have been checked. As far as the timeline goes, Fred did say that Scott came home at 9:26 that Saturday morning and was there with him and his family at least until they left to go shopping after 11:00. He originally testified that he looked down at his pager when Scott came into the house that morning, because he was concerned that he and his wife would be late for their planned shopping trip. He stated that he saw Scott sitting on the couch with his wife at that time. The timeline Kim gives is purely speculation. She never referred to a clock or watch. And Judge Zuniga repeatedly ruled the credit card history report as hearsay upon Ms Leonida’s objections when you attempted to introduce it for the truth. The report is hearsay because it is an out-of-court statement, so to speak, of a machine or series of computers which capture images based upon some initial swipe of a magnetic credit card through a terminal and/or some typing of a store clerk into her machine and/or by the entry of a PIN # by the customer. You did not produce the Spirit store clerk or any expert to authenticate the accuracy of the terminal and various computers and their transactions that day and to try to show the times are reliable and accurate to the minute. And why was the killer only allotted thirteen minutes to kill Ms Vitale if it takes only ten minutes to walk from her house to the Curiel’s? I repeatedly read that it takes twenty minutes to walk down the steep rugged hill from the Vitale-Horowitz home to the Curiel home. Your timeline is too tight if Kim’s version is off by even five or ten minutes. As a first degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do, who has broken many boards with her bare hands, I know that it would take a lot longer than “less than one minute” to strike someone twenty six times. And having sparred with other black belts, if someone is fighting back, it takes a lot longer than you, Mr. Jewett, realize. And having broken boards, as I have, with my bare hands, for some reason my hands never swelled. Why didn’t the coroner give the time of death? The time of fixed lividity is variable. Postmortem lividity becomes visible in ½ to three hours after death, postmortem lividity becomes irreversible or fixed after six to eighteen hours, and maximum postmortem lividity occurs from eight to twelve hours after death. At the time of the autopsy, lividity wasn’t fixed. If Ms Vitale was killed in the morning hours, the lividity would have been fixed by 11:00 p.m that night. And as far as me having a profound distrust of government and contempt for the jurors, you couldn’t be more wrong. I am a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican. I vote in every election, and serve as a juror when I am called. My brother is a DPS trooper, and I have a brother-in-law and a nephew who are both police officers. I’ve been blessed with 51 years of life, am a stay at home wife, mother of three grown sons, and grandmother of a beautiful granddaughter. I home schooled my two younger sons, after having quit work to stay home with them. I must admit, I have never championed a cause before, but felt compelled to speak out on behalf of Scott. I realize that you have to put a guilty “spin” on your statements about the accused just as the defense attorney has to put an innocent “spin” on her statements. But in all fairness to Ms Vitale and to Scott, ALL evidence should have been tested, not just the evidence to get Scott convicted.
Sincerely, (name deleted)
November 13,2006
I am in receipt of your letter dated October30, 2006. Let me make one last effort to persuade you that “Scott” received a fair trial. Judge Zuniga’s statement notwithstanding, none of Pamela Vitale’s blood was found on the trench coat. I am sure you would agree there is no way this trench coat was worn during the murder.
All of the DNA (on the glove, and elsewhere) was analyzed, Perhaps a little background in DNA is necessary here. There are 13 locations (loci) of the DNA molecule that are examined in a forensic context. At each loci, there are various numbers of types of DNA (referred to as alleles), Sometimes we get results at all 13 sites. In those cases, and only those cases, the DNA profile is then entered into a data base to see if there are any matches. Frequently, however, we get results at fewer than the 13 loci, This is due to the degraded nature of the sample, the size of the sample, and whether the sample is a mixture. This last factor is particularly important where, as here, there was a substantial opportunity for the victim and assailants DNA to become mixed, and where,as here, the victim and assailant shared the same allele at several loci. In that case, the examiner doesn’t know if the allele is contributed by the assailant or the victim, so it is ignored (which favors the accused). Here, all of the DNA results you refer to were partialprofiles, consisting of usually 6 or less loci. With this type of result, it is not particularly useful to conduct any kind of search because so many people have the same profile at that limited number of loci. Indeed, that was part of the problem with the DNA found on the sole of Pamela’s foot. It matched “Scott”. but only at about six loci (at several other loci, “Scott” and Pamela shared the same allele). That was why that sample was sent to a different laboratory for Y-STR analysis. This is a process where only the Y (male) chromosome is analyzed. By examining only the Y chromosome, we can filter out the female contributor (since she does not have a Y chromosome). It is a relatively new technology that is picking up steam. In this case, we had a full profile at 17 loci of the chromosome that matched “Scott” at every single site. A data base search revealed that no other person in the data base had that same profile. That seems like fairly compelling evidence to me.
Regarding the handwriting on the note, in California a fact finder is absolutely permitted to draw their own inferences regarding the similarity of handwriting, just as they are the similarity of faces, or any other evidentiary question requiring a visual comparison. I should add that “Scott’s’ mother identified the handwriting on all of these notes as “Scott’s” at the preliminary hearing (although she did say the notes looked somewhat more “messy” that she recalled her son’s handwriting to be). It was also positively identified (without any equivocation whatsoever) by David Curiel (Fred’ brother). Furthermore, there is nothing at all suspicious about all the pages becoming dislodged at the same time ... they were all wedged into a small slot together.
I have already spoken to the limits of trace evidence (whether that be hair or DNA) and will not repeat them here.
Yes, Ms. Vitale’s car was gone over with a fine tooth comb, including an examination for fingerprints. No, “Scott’s’ prints were not there.
At no time did Fred say “Scott” came home” at 9:26am.. At no time did Fred say “Scott” “was there with him and his family at least until they left to go shopping”. At no time did Fred refer to “when Scott came into the house that morning”. You need to check your facts. Also, we did call an expert regarding the credit card records (the CEO of the bank), and those subpoenaed records did come into evidence for the truth of the times indicated therein. What did not (initially) come in for its truth was Fred’s copy of those records (since he was not a custodian of those records). Regardless of whet you may have read, Detective Barnes specifically testified the time to walk the required distance was 10 minutes. The 20 minute estimates were regarding the time it took to drive from the Curds to the Spirit store.
Regarding your martial arts expertise, I take it you did not actually try to strike a board with a rock 26 times. If you did, you would know that it can easily be done in less than 1 minute (indeed, it can be done in less than 30 seconds). Yes, striking another human being trying to defend themselves is going to take substantially more time. On the other hand, most of those blows were inflicted after Pamela was face down an the floor (and not resisting at all). There is no question in my mind that the deadly assault of Pamela Vitale took less than five minutes.
I don’t know if your reference to lividity is a product of conversations you have had with law enforcement relatives, television shows you have watched, or personal experience. I do know that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, (name withheld) Pamela Vitale was killed on Saturday. The autopsy was Monday. That is - the time estimates you have provided.
While it is true that in certain limited circumstances, lividity can give us some information about time of death, and the position of the body (at least at the time lividity sets in), throw the information you have about lividity out the window ... it is just plain wrong (I suspect you may be confusing “lividity” with “rigor mortis” ,.. they are two separate things).
Congratulations on what sounds like a relatively recent addition to your family. I am sure your granddaughter truly is beautiful. Many people who have a profound distrust of government have good, healthy, joyous relationships with their families. Nothing in my prior letter to you could be even remotely characterized as questioning either your family values, or your commitment to those who you love the most. However, you have now undertaken on two separate occasions, and with seriously incomplete and woefully inaccurate information to question the fairness of a trial held; early two thousand miles away. I can only conclude that some sort of bias is motivating you. To the extent it may be a bias most women harbor in favor of children, make no mistake about it ... Scott Dyleski was no child when he murdered Pamela Vitale. Furthermore, the jury heard everything you have addressed (at least that which was accurate) and a great deal more as well- The vast majority of those jurors were parents and grandparents themselves. If you cannot trust to the jury’s determination here, then I am compelled to suggest something is going on that has nothing at all to do with the evidence in this particular ease.
Sincerely,
Harold W. Jewett
Deputy District Attorney
The content of Mr. Jewett's letters will be addressed in future articles. Please feel free to send any comments to info@JusticeForScottDyleski.com.
