According to the prosecution's theory, Scott Dyleski wore long black evening gloves when he went to the home of Pam Vitale and wore those gloves while he viciously beat Pam Vitale to death with multiple objects, leaving wounds literally all over her body, including her feet. According to the prosecution, Scott then disposed of most of his blood soaked clothing, but for reasons unknown, left a mask and one of the gloves in a bag with his name, in an unlocked van.
The prosecution's theory stemmed from the fact that a right handed long black evening glove was discovered that undoubtedly contained the DNA of Pamela Vitale.
Let's take a closer look
Note: "Alleged" Blood. No confirmatory tests were done on any item in this case to determine the actual presence of blood. They were all presumptive tests, which included numerous false positive results. The crime lab has the ability to do confirmatory tests, but they chose not to do those tests.
There are several problems with this evidence as it pertains to Scott Dyleski. First of all, why would Scott Dyleski dispose of only one glove, and leave the other glove in a bag with his name attached?
*LOGIC ALERT* He wouldn't.
There are other issues. There was NO DNA from Scott Dyleski in or on the glove. For one to get an idea of the exertion that went down in the murder of Pam Vitale, click HERE to read her autopsy report.
Leonida questions DNA expert Stockwell:
Quote:
Q. And is -- are you more likely to leave DNA on your clothing if you're like -- if you're exerting yourself, if you're sweating?
A. The more contact that occurs, the more likely you are to increase the number of cells which may contain the DNA that we type, yes.
There was however, unidentified MALE DNA from INSIDE the glove that did not belong to Scott Dyleski. Prosecutor Hal Jewett anticipated this problem, and at trial tried to elicit information from DNA expert David Stockwell that perhaps the DNA came from the glove being in a costume box with other items at the Curiel home. It should be noted that the glove was never proven to have come from the costume box in the first place, this was speculation on the part of Jewett. Stockwell explained that a tertiary transfer of DNA was not usually seen in case work. Jewett didn't give up. He had Stockwell admit that if children were trying on gloves, it is possible they could leave DNA behind. It should be noted that the only male child living in the Curiel home at the time besides Scott, was under the age of three. The four other minors in the home were girls. The unidentified DNA is male.
*LOGIC ALERT* If simply trying on a glove can leave DNA behind, then imagine what wearing the glove during a rage kill using the hands would leave behind. There was no DNA from Scott Dyleski in or on the glove.
The long black evening glove was also examined for other evidence using a fluorescent light. This type of examination will reveal numerous material including hair, biological fluid such as blood, semen and perspiration. It will also reveal man made materials such as fibers. It is important to note that the fluorescent exam did not produce any forensic evidence beyond the DNA of Pam Vitale and the unknown male. Noticeably absent was fiber evidence. No fibers from the long black evening glove were found at the scene. No fibers from the clothing of Pam Vitale, or from the materials in her home were found on the glove. We know the killer came into close contact with Pam Vitale's clothing. One of her socks was ripped and pulled up around her ankle. There was no hair on the glove, even through massive assault took place to her head, leaving hair on some of the weapons. There was no trace evidence from crown molding or vase shards, also absent was rock residue from Jewett's speculative theory. To use something as a weapon, one would need to grip very tightly, and blows with force would crumble materials such as crown molding, leaving behind trace evidence.
*LOGIC ALERT* Lack of evidence IS evidence. Re-read the above and then ask yourself, why is there no DNA from Scott Dyleski inside the glove? Why wasn't a speck of trace evidence found on the glove? The glove was found inside out. It was not washed. It had not been cleaned.