Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating
new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help
the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm
to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.
Scott
Edgar DYLESKI
Classification:
Homicide
Characteristics: Juvenile (16)
- Dyleski is believed to have stolen credit card
information belonging to his neighbors and used the cards to order
lighting equipment
Number of victims: 1
Date of murder: October 15,
2005
Date of arrest:
4 days after
Date of birth:
October 30,
1988
Victim profile: Pamela Vitale,
52(his neighbor)
Method of murder:
Striking
her in the head with a piece of crown molding
Location: Lafayette, California, USA
Status: Sentenced to life
in prison without possibility of parole on September 26, 2006
Scott Edgar Dyleski
(born October 30, 1988) is an American teenager who was convicted of
murdering his neighbor Pamela Vitale, the wife of prominent attorney
Daniel Horowitz. He received the maximum penalty allowed by the law,
life without parole. As a juvenile he did not qualify for the death
penalty.
Background
Scott Dyleski was born to Esther Fielding and Kenneth
Dyleski in 1988. His parents separated when he was two years old. After
the separation, Scott and his mother moved frequently, living in various
places throughout Northern California before moving to Lafayette,
California to live with another family.
When Dyleski moved to Lafayette he was in the sixth
grade. He enjoyed playing baseball and played in Lafayette Little League.
He and his mother lived outdoors, then in a small lean-to shack. For
years, he lived without electricity, plumbing, heat, or running water.
He was able to shower only once a week, at the homes of his mother's
friends.
Dyleski's father became concerned about his son's
welfare and contacted Child Protective Services twice. Once on December
17, 1994, for general neglect and again on April 3, 1995, for emotional
abuse, but they failed to investigate the complaint.
In 2002, his half-sister was killed in an automobile
accident. She was the passenger in the accident. Both his half-sister
and another passenger were killed. All passengers were friends and
roommates. Dyleski briefly attended Acalanes High School in Lafayette,
California. He was also a Boy Scout for a time in Lafayette Troop 224.
He was shunned by fellow scouts due to his view that
the September 11, 2001 attacks were government orchestrated and quit the
unit shortly after. In the summer of 2005 he received his California
High School Profiencency Certificate (similar to the GED) and began
studying art at Diablo Valley College in Pleasant Hill, California.
Pamela Vitale
On October 15, 2005, Dyleski's neighbor Pamela Vitale
was found dead. Four days later, Contra Costa County sheriff's deputies
searched Scott's home and seized two laptops, a desktop computer,
bedding, knives and a duffel bag.
The next day, he was charged with murder as an adult
in the death of Pamela Vitale. His mother was accused of helping her son
destroy evidence, but the charge was dropped after she agreed to
cooperate with prosecutors.
Criminal trial
Initially Dyleski was represented by attorney Thomas
McKenna. He later asked to be removed from the case, because he defended
the driver of a car that killed Dyleski's sister and another passenger
in 2002. Dyleski has since been represented by Ellen Leonida, a public
defender.
On November 9, 2005, Dyleski pleaded not guilty. Soon
afterwards, the Contra Costa Superior Court imposed a gag order that
bars all trial participants from talking to reporters. This was the
first gag order issued in Contra Costa County in 40 years.
Investigators believe Dyleski and his friend planned
to start a marijuana-growing operation, with Dyleski in charge of
raising money. Dyleski is believed to have stolen credit card
information belonging to his neighbors and used the cards to order
lighting equipment.
According to prosecutors, one of Dyleski's orders
just days before the killing was billed to Vitale's address, and he may
have gone to her home thinking Vitale was another neighbor, Karen
Schneider. Schneider's credit card had also been used fraudulently.
Authorities believe Dyleski killed Vitale by striking
her numerous times in the head with a piece of crown molding, and then
carved a symbol, widely described in media as a "gothic" signature, into
her back while she was still alive.
Prosecutors also allege that Dyleski stabbed her in
the stomach after she died. Dyleski, who is 5 ft ll in and weighs 110
pounds, had scratches on his face and legs consistent with a violent
struggle when arrested.
During the trial Prosecutors established that the
symbol found carved on the victims back closely resembled the letter "H"
in the word "hate" from a bumper sticker reading "I'm for separation of
Church and Hate", which was seized from Dyleski's bedroom. Goths
do not have any particular symbols as such, however imagery of
Catholicism is very popular, either to express religious affiliation,
satire or for decoration.
On February 17, 2006, Judge Mary Ann O'Malley ruled
that prosecutors have enough evidence for trial. On March 3, 2006,
Dyleski was arraigned on an additional charge of first-degree
residential burglary. Dyleski entered a new plea of not guilty to all
the charges.
On July 17, jury selection began in the courtroom of
Judge Barbara Zuniga, who became the trial judge after defense attorney
Ellen Leonida made a peremptory challenge against Judge O'Malley on the
grounds that the jurist was "prejudiced against the interest of the
defendant."
On July 27, attorneys provided contrasting views of
Dyleski in their opening statements. Prosecutor Harold Jewett said
Dyleski identified with Gothic symbols and art that depicted violence
and stabbed and beat Vitale. Leonida described her client as a gentle
kid whose friends know he isn't a killer and instead valued human and
animal rights.
On August 22, attorneys gave closing arguments,
capping several weeks of testimony. The prosecutor called to the stand
Dyleski's housemates, mother, girlfriend, friend, a forensic pathologist,
a DNA expert and several criminalists. Gloria Allred, an outspoken
television personality, represented Jena Reddy, Dyleski's girlfriend.
She told the jury that while Dyleski never admitted
or denied killing his neighbor, he told her he would take the blame to
protect her and his best friend. Leonida called a number of Dyleski's
friends to serve as character witnesses. Dyleski waived his right to
testify. No DNA experts were called to rebut the prosecution's DNA
evidence.
On August 28, Dyleski was found guilty of all the
charges against him: first-degree murder, the special circumstance of
murder in the commission of a first-degree residential burglary, first-degree
residential burglary and an enhancement for using a dangerous weapon to
bludgeon Vitale. He was formally sentenced on September 26, 2006 to life
in prison without the possibility of parole.
Wikipedia.org
Teen to serve life without parole for killing
lawyer's wife
By Lisa Sweetingham - Court TV
September 27, 2006
A California judge sentenced 17-year-old Scott
Dyleski to life in prison without parole for bludgeoning the wife of a
prominent criminal defense attorney to death.
"You do not deserve to live among decent people,"
Judge Barbara Zuniga told Dyleski.
"You concealed your identity by wearing a mask and
gloves, by wearing a long coat," the judge added, describing the
circumstances of the crime.
"You planned this, sir, and this was a very brutal
killing," she continued. "As she lay dying at your feet, you proceeded
to stab her. That was unnecessary. You added to her pain, Mr. Dyleksi."
Victim Pamela Vitale's parents, her sister, her two
children and her husband, attorney and legal analyst Daniel Horowitz,
gave tearful statements. They described lives shattered by the loss of a
woman whose smile and contagious laughter could fill a room.
Teen is silent
Dyleski chose not to make a statement. He did not
express any emotion during the hearing.
His lawyer pleaded with the judge to give the teen "the
slimmest opportunity" of a chance at parole after he serves 25 years in
prison for the brutal murder of Vitale, his 52-year-old neighbor.
"Scott Dyleski made a terrible mistake," public
defender Ellen Leonida said. "There is always the possibility that he
can mature into a responsible, productive citizen."
A jury found Dyleski guilty of first-degree murder on
August 28. He was also convicted of the special circumstance of murder
committed during the commission of a burglary. He was tried as an adult,
but was ineligible for the death penalty because he was 16 at the time
of the murder.
Dyleski has never publicly admitted to killing Vitale
or divulged details about why he attacked her as she was sitting alone
in her living room in rural Lafayette, California, on a Saturday morning,
Web surfing for news of her husband's recent court cases and researching
her family's genealogy.
"I beg of you, put our minds to rest," Vitale's
daughter, Marisa, said in a pre-sentencing statement to the court. "Tell
us what the last moments of our mother's life were here on Earth."
Victim's son: 'You got lost'
The victim's son, Mario, said he had discovered
during the month-long trial that he had things in common with Dyleski:
They were both raised by a single mother, were considered "weird" in
school, and both had musical aptitude.
"Where we differ is that somewhere along the line you
got lost," Mario said. "Now you're nothing more than a murderer with no
one to blame but yourself."
Autopsy reports indicate Vitale, a former high tech
executive, suffered 26 head wounds, broken fingers and dislodged teeth.
Her body was bruised and battered. She suffered a gaping knife wound to
her abdomen, exposing her intestines.
A symbol that resembled signature marks on the teen's
artwork was carved onto her back.
"The symbol carved into her back by you showed you
were proud of your work," the judge said Tuesday.
Before he left the crime scene, Dyleski took a sip
from Vitale's water bottle and washed his knife in the bathtub, leaving
behind bloody smears.
A black face mask, gloves, shirt and trench coat
which were later found in Dyleski's duffel bag were stained with a
mixture of his and Vitale's blood. The teen also left his shoe print at
the crime scene, and evidence of his DNA was found on Vitale's foot.
Daniel Horowitz came home that evening from working
on a case to find his wife's body bloodied and curled up in a fetal
position by the door.
Horowitz: A 'party of blood'
"What I thought and what I felt when I walked in that
house was almost a party of blood," Horowitz said Tuesday in his
statement.
"He beat her again and again and took pleasure in it,"
Horowitz said, asking the judge to show the same lack of mercy to the
boy who showed his wife no mercy or humanity.
According to witnesses at his trial, Dyleski was a
gentle vegan kid who also had a fascination with Goth music and serial
killers.
"There is more to this kid than the worst thing he's
ever done," Dyleski's attorney Leonida said in his defense.
Lyn Dyleski spoke on behalf of her former stepson and
described him as a child who was the victim of bad fathering, accusing
Ken Dyleski of never disciplining his son, emotionally abandoning him
and allowing him to subsist on a diet of McDonald's Chicken McNuggets
and Trix cereal.
She described Dyleski's broken home, including his
parents' separation when he was 3, his sister's death in a car accident,
and the years he and his mother, Esther Fielding, spent sleeping under a
lean-to on a friend's property.
Fielding and Ken Dyleski sat in the front row of the
courtroom Tuesday but did not make a statement and declined to comment
afterward.
Two adults who knew Scott Dyleski through their
children, and a classmate with a purple streak in her hair said it was
inconceivable to them that he had committed such a horrific act.
Letters from friends
The judge said she took into account letters from
Dyleski's friends and relatives, who focused on his age, his
intelligence, and his artistic qualities, as well as newspaper
editorials critical of sending the boy to life in prison without parole.
Those individuals were not privy to the facts of the
case that unfolded in court, the judge said.
"I can understand why people are struggling to
understand what it was that caused you to do it. Why they're trying to
focus on your age and insecurity," Zuniga said.
"They blame your mother. They blame your father. They
blame your lifestyle," the judge said. "People do not want to understand
and to accept that someone who looks like you, who is the young man
living next door, could be so evil."
"People have also commented on your lack of affect,"
the judge told Dyleski.
She said she recalled catching him expressing emotion
once in court when autopsy photos were shown as a pathologist
described Vitale's wounds.
"I saw you, sir, lean forward and your mouth fell
open," the judge said. "You were absolutely fascinated by your handiwork."
Dyleski Trial: DNA Found On Clothing
Abclocal.go.com
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
DNA testing proved that
blood found on accused murderer Scott Dyleski's clothing matched
that of Pamela Vitale, the woman he allegedly bludgeoned to death
in her rural Lafayette home on Oct. 15 of last year, DNA analyst
David Stockwell testified in Contra Costa County Superior Court
today.
Dyleski's DNA was also found on the clothing,
Stockwell said. The mixture of the two DNA profiles suggests to a
statistical degree that varies, depending on the quality of each DNA
sample, from one in six to one in 13 quadrillion that Dyleski was at
Vitale's home the day she was killed.
According to prosecutor Harold Jewett, Dyleski, now
17, entered Vitale's home and attacked her on a Saturday morning when
her husband, attorney and legal analyst Daniel Horowitz, was out at a
breakfast meeting. Jewett has presented evidence suggesting that Dyleski
murdered Vitale as part of a plot to buy marijuana-growing equipment
using stolen credit card information.
In his opening statement Jewett said that 52-year-old
Vitale fought back against her assailant and kicked him in the mouth.
In his testimony this afternoon, Stockwell said that
DNA found on the bottom of Vitale's foot was a one in 43,000 statistical
match to Dyleski's DNA profile.
The clothing on which Stockwell found Vitale's blood
had been stashed inside a duffel bag in an abandoned van on the property
where Dyleski lived, which was a 10 minute walk down Hunsaker Canyon
Road from Vitale's home. Vitale and Horowitz had been living in a double-wide
trailer while building an Italian-style mansion on the top of the hill.
Vitale's blood was found on four areas of a balaclava
ski mask found in the van. DNA taken from the mouth area of the mask
matched Dyleski's DNA profile, Stockwell said.
Stockwell found Vitale's blood on a glove also found
in the van. DNA from inside the glove, however, came from at least two
different people.
In her opening statement, Deputy Public Defender
Ellen Leonida said that DNA found inside the glove would prove that
somebody other than Dyleski murdered Vitale.
Stockwell said he found evidence that somebody other
than Dyleski had worn the glove. He also found a large amount of
Vitale's blood on the glove.
"If there are only two individuals, Mr. Dyleski is
not the source," Stockwell said. Earlier testimony identified the glove
as an item from a box of costumes shared by Dyleski and two other
families he and his mother lived with. In total, the household consisted
of six children and five adults.
A shirt found in the van had only Dyleski's DNA on it,
but shoes that Dyleski allegedly asked his girlfriend to hold the day
after the murder had both Dyleski's and Vitale's DNA on them.
While some witnesses reported seeing scratches on
Dyleski after the murder, Stockwell testified today that fingernail
clippings taken from Vitale during her autopsy bore only her DNA.
In addition, two mugs found in the kitchen sink had
Vitale's blood on them and DNA matching Horowitz's DNA profile. They did
not have any DNA that could match Dyleski's, Stockwell said.
A folding knife that belonged to Dyleski and could
have been used to cut open an area of Vitale's abdomen and to carve a
symbol on her back had trace amounts of blood in the groove the blade
folded into, but that blood was definitely not Vitale's, Stockwell said.
The blood, however, could have been Dyleski's, he said.
Jewett said as court adjourned for the day that he
expects to rest his case Wednesday. Leonida said that she intended to
question Stockwell extensively.
Vitale Murder Suspect's Dark Life
Peers: Family Woes, Including Sister's Death, Led Him
To Goth Side
By Brian Dakss - CBSNews.com
Calif., Oct. 25, 2005
Newly-released court documents suggest that the slain
wife of celebrity defense attorney Daniel Horowitz, Pamela Vitale, had
violent attack wounds all over her body.
16-year-old Scott Dyleski, who's accused of killing
Vitale, will be tried as an adult.
Hattie Kauffman visited Dyleski's hometown and
learned some there think a difficult family life may have driven the
suspect to the edge.
She describes Lafayette, Calif., as a beautiful,
affluent suburb east of San Francisco, and says there's disbelief there
that the homegrown Dyleski could be a brutal murderer.
"I was really shocked," says a former classmate of
Dyleski's whose first name is Jennifer, "because this kind thing doesn't
happen in Lafayette. It's just kinda like crazy, because people think we
live in a bubble."
"The bubble popped," added another former classmate,
whose first name is Roya.
Lafayette is the kind of place where kids know each
other.
Former middle school classmate Ian Charles remembers
Dyleski as a "completely normal" kid when they spent a year in Spanish
class together.
"He was just like any other kid," says Jennifer.
Jennifer and Roya agreed that Dyleski wasn't like an
outcast, and wasn't picked on.
By all accounts, says Kauffman, Scott Edgar Dyleski
grew up a normal kid in Lafayette. He was in the Boy Scouts. He played
Little League.
But, according to his classmates, that normalcy
evaporated two years ago in a fatal car accident.
His 18-year-old sister was killed in the crash.
The sudden loss of his sibling, Kauffman observes,
was a further deterioration of Dyleski's family. His mother had twice
divorced, his father remarried.
With the accident, classmates say, Scott changed
immediately.
"It was pretty sudden," Charles says. "It was very
pronounced in his daily activities."
"He started wearing like dark clothes and eyeliner
and stuff," Jennifer says.
"He became Goth. Satanic," Charles adds. "He wore a
black trench coat to school every day, until the school told him he
couldn't anymore. … He was just dark. That's the only word for him."
The darkness continued in high school where, as a
freshman, Dyleski wrote in the yearbook about what he liked to wear: "I
don't expect everyone to go out and make themselves look unique. I just
want everyone to understand that the ones that do are just being
themselves, and your judgments will never stop them."
A student whose first name is Rob tells Kauffman
Dyleski was in his math class in Dyleski's sophomore year, and Dyleski "probably
wasn't the most popular guy, but he was nice."
Jeff Norman came to know Dyleski in the high school's
Gay-Straight Alliance club and says Dyleski "was incredibly smart for
his age."
This fall, Norman has been attending the same
community college where Dyleski has been studying art.
But, on October 12th, Dyleski's family disintegrated
yet again. His father and stepmother filed for divorce.
Three days later, Dyleski allegedly committed murder,
killing Vitale.
"This is a brutal homicide," said Contra Costa County,
Calif. Deputy District Attorney Harold Jewett, "and, because he is very
close to his to his 17th birthday, we believe that it is a situation
where he is not entitled to the protections afforded him under the
juvenile law, and it is appropriate to prosecute him as an adult."
Jennifer says what shocks her most is "how he (Dyleski
allegedly) killed her. And that he's going to get tried as an adult."
Those who know him debate whether the 5-foot-5
Dyleski would have the strength to bludgeon someone to death.
"He couldn't be capable of this without an accomplice,
or something like the use of drugs," suggests Norman. "We suspect
methamphetamines, but it's all guesswork."
"Small guys do big things sometimes. Look at Napoleon,"
remarks Charles.
The kids in Lafayette may differ on the likelihood
that their schoolmate could be a murderer, Kauffman concludes, but
they're united in feeling a sudden loss of safety the community had once
give them.
The Scott Dyleski Sentencing
– Why? Why? Why?
by Kathryn Joanne Dixon
newsmakingnews.com
On September 26, 2006 Judge
Barbara Zuniga sentenced Scott Edgar Dyleski to life in prison without
the possibility of parole for the bludgeoning murder of Pamela Vitale.
Before sentencing, the judge, the Contra Costa community, the family of
the victim, and the defendant’s family were facing one issue – should
Dyleski be sentenced to 25 years to life without possibility of parole
for the offense? Because he had been convicted of a special
circumstance, residential burglary in the commission of a felony, that
sentence was on the table. However, because he was 16-years-old at the
time of the offense, the Judge had the discretion to impose a term of 25
years to life, which meant that in 25 actual years he would go before
the parole board and apply for release from prison.
One word summed up the horrible
day – why?
At 9:30 a.m., Judge Zuniga
started by letting the record reflect that she read and reviewed the
following documents received by the court:
Probation Report and
Recommendation
Letters from Jurors numbers 6 and 8
Letter from Linda Sutton
Letter for Viola Bolick
Letter from Debra Groves
Letter from Calence Ethan
Letter from Barbe Stamps
Letter from Ruth Ketvirtis
Letter from Carol Dutcher
2 letters from Esther Fielding (mother of Scott Dyleski)
Sentencing memorandum by Ellen Leonida, deputy public defender
Hal Jewett, deputy district
attorney, stated he had no sentencing memorandum to file.
He pointed out the letters
attached to the probation report which the judge then listed as read
and reviewed letters from Karol Dondero, Susan Lane, Roger Nicholson
and from Pamela Vitale’s mother, father, son, daughter and sister
and Pamela's husband Daniel Horowitz.
The DA stated he would call
six family members as witnesses.
First to testify was Daniel
Horowitz, known in California as one of its most talented attorneys.
The packed courtroom fell silent. Horowitz’s words came from some
place where the heart and mind are ripped apart. His words were
jagged, not the usual soft-spoken voice of a counselor-at-law.
He condemned Dyleski to his
face. He described discovering his wife’s lifeless body inside the
doorway of their home. He said “What I thought and what I felt when
I walked into that house was almost a party in blood. You took such
a pleasure in killing. It was clearly something you wanted. You
can’t be honest. You have a complete absence of remorse. I never
had a client who took such complete pleasure in the act of killing."
“Pamela would have screamed
‘I don’t believe this is happening!’ She would have said, ‘Stop!’
But you did not stop. She probably cried and asked for mercy. You
kept on hitting her, striking her at least 26 times in the head with
a rock, causing her brain to bleed, breaking her nose, fingers,
knocking out some teeth, bruising and cutting almost every part of
her body.”
Horowitz told the judge, “He
took pleasure in the killing as engaged in it. He beat her again and
again and he took pleasure in it. It was horrible to listen to
Dyleski’s foolish teachers describe his good character during the trial
and to watch Dyleski flirt with his defense attorney during the
preliminary hearing. I had to take a phone call from his mother who
wanted to give me a soufflé as she was destroying the evidence of the
crime.”
Horowitz asked the judge,
“Do not let Pamela’s family have to go into the parole board in 25
years and have to testify to keep him in prison for more time. I
ask you to show Dyleski the same lack of mercy and humanity that he
showed to my wife, Pamela. I am asking you to take him out of my
life and my family’s life forever.”
In his speech, Daniel Horowitz
answered the question “Why did Dyleski take Pamela’s life?” He viewed
Dyleski as a man who wanted the sick pleasure of sadistically and
brutally killing Pamela. Horowitz wanted Dyleski out of his family’s
life forever. Horowitz did not ask why Dyleski chose to kill Pamela
rather than some one else, nor did he ask him what exactly happened when
Pamela was murdered. Horowitz appeared to have the answers after his
many months of anguish without his beloved wife.
Next to speak was Pamela’s son
Mario Vitale, 31. His voice was very strong and filled the courtroom.
He said he got the worst phone call of his life on October 15, 2005,
when Daniel Horowitz called him from the back of a squad car and
described a nightmare – Pamela was dead. “Blood everywhere, dead, dead.
Not sick, but dead and gone.” Then Mario experienced the second worse
phone call of his life. He called his sister Marissa and told her “Mom
is dead.” The Vitale children tried to book the next flight out of Los
Angeles. They could not. So Mario and Marissa immediately drove the
long night through from Los Angeles to Lafayette, California.
Mario then addressed Dyleski
to his face, “For long days I have been agonizing. You cut a symbol
in Mom’s back. You killed a woman who had every right to live. She
would have helped you. She was the quintessential humanitarian.
She would have bent backward to help you. But you snuffed her. She
will not see her kids get married or see her grandchildren or the
fruits of her labor, her dream house. She never had a house of her
own. This has been horrible for my grandparents, for her not to
come back – her laugh, her huge smile. Scott, you robbed us of a
mother, a daughter, a wife."
Then Mario addressed the
question “why”. He said, “I don’t know exactly why you did what you did."
Suddenly Mario’s anger seemed to sink, and he spoke softly with
compassion. Perhaps the spirit of his mother was on his lips. He said
to Dyleski, “We have a lot in common. We were both raised by a single
mother. We wanted to go to music recording school. We were considered
weird when we were growing up. Now I have a music recording job. But
somewhere you got lost. Plenty of others had living circumstances worse
than yours and did not become murderers.”
Mario addressed the judge,
“Scott Dyleski is now asking for leniency. But the time for leniency is
when he pleaded and said he didn’t do it. He wanted to get away with it.
Now he wants mercy. He should be given the maximum. Now Scott feels this
is inconsistent with his character – he played on the Frisbee team and
was well-liked.”
Mario turned to Dyleski,
“No, you went the way of Ted Bundy and Scott Peterson and John Wayne
Gacy and you killed a woman out of greed and malice. Then there's
Scott Dyleski, loved by Frisbee coaches and art teachers alike. You
messed up. You made your bed; lie in it! This is not a crime of
passion, or self-defense. You had no reason to hate her. Yet you
beat and stabbed her to death. Your carving a symbol in her back is
despicable. You only felt self preservation. You took her life.”
Mario addressed the judge and
asked that Dyleski be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
Why? Mario could not believe a
woman as wonderful as his mother was killed by someone whom she could
easily have helped. Throughout his speech, Mario waited for Scott to
break down – to cry -- to even bow his head in shame. He did not. He
maintained the same expressionless mask – his own face. Mario mentioned
that Dyleski could have pleaded guilty and sought leniency. Dyleski did
not react. For Mario, the question – why did his good mother have to
die at the hands of this merciless 16-year-old killer – would not be
answered. Dyleski would admit nothing, not even to obtain leniency.
Nor would he protest that he was innocent.
Next, DA Jewett called Marisa
Vitale, 29, the daughter of Pamela as a witness.
Marisa addressed the judge,
“How can I address a person who killed my mother? Usually I can
relate to people on some plane of understanding. But if he did it, I
do not know how to relate to him."
“It is unbearable pain."
“I know Dyleski felt pain –
his sister was killed in a car accident. His parents separated. He
knows how it feels to lose someone.”
Marissa turned to Dyleski. “How
could you do this? Your sister’s death was an accident. My mother’s
death was planned.”
She spoke to the judge, “My
mother would have helped Scott. She was a role model. She improved
lives. Warm and tender.”
Marissa was almost crying. “I
wish you could have felt the unconditional love,” she said to Scott, "It
was a great person you destroyed. She would have gone out of her way to
help you."
“Just weeks before she died,
she saved a man’s life. A contractor had been left to die by his
doctors. My mother researched his symptoms and took him to a
different hospital. He regained his health. So why?"
“This was not a passion
killing. It was calculated. You didn’t offer her leniency. Why?
Why? Tell us why. Why at a young age did you do something like
this? I beg you. Explain exactly what happened. Do one good thing
– tell us about the last moments of my mom’s life. Give us peace of
mind!”
Dyleski did not respond. He did
not even turn his head to acknowledge Marisa’s presence. Was this the
“kind and gentle” Dyleski his friends knew or another man?
She said in complete and
utter despair, “Remember our faces – those faces you ruined. You
just didn’t kill mom, you killed a huge piece of all of us as well.”
Marissa asked the judge that
Dyleski be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of
parole.
Why? Marissa put Dyleski on
the spot. She asked why he did it and wanted to know about the last
moments of her mother’s life.
If Dyleski did not commit this
crime, why did he not tell Marisa Vitale right then and there, “I didn’t
kill your mom." Or if he committed the crime, why didn’t he answer her
questions and tell her why? After all, he was seeking the mercy of the
court, according to his attorney’s sentencing memorandum, in which she
said repeatedly and shockingly, by implication, that he was guilty of
the crime. Didn’t Dyleski realize that this was his last chance, that
he could have answered Marissa and Mario? He could have asked them for
mercy. No. Instead, he followed his mind already made up by himself or
perhaps by his attorney. He would follow the script and plan his
attorney laid out.
His attorney had brought in
some kids and teachers to testify at trial that he was a good boy;
she would do that again. And his defense was at trial, that “I am a
good boy”. That would also be his defense at sentencing. Well,
perhaps all his life he was viewed as a good boy. But not now.
This was Judge Barbara Zuniga’s courtroom. This was the end of this
road. Didn’t Dyleski see the difference?
Next, DA Jewett called as a
witness, Pamela’s father, Verne Ludtke.
Mr. Ludtke told the judge, "Children
are always children to a parent no matter what their age. The murder of
Pamela by this human predator was the greatest shock. That Pamela was
beaten and stabbed was devastating to us, her family and friends. It
was like an emotional tsunami. Everyone asked why? Why did he do this
to such a wonderful person? She saved a friend’s life just before she
died.”
He turned to Dyleski in anguish,
“Dyleski, you took a valued life!"
Mr. Ludtke described his own
physical and mental pain and suffering caused by the loss of his
daughter. Then he recalled a happy time. He described how he and
Pamela played piano duets – classical and contemporary. “Our family
has musical talent.”
He said to Dyleski very, very
slowly, “As a Christian man, I try to forgive. I try to forgive you for
this vicious attack and murder. But, I see no remorse. If I see
remorse, I hope I can forgive.”
Dyleski said nothing to Mr.
Ludtke. Didn’t he know Mr. Ludtke was ready to forgive – that he
wanted to as a Christian man? Dyleski did not even show pain. Many
of the people in the audience were reduced to tears as Mr. Ludtke
talked about forgiveness. Dyleski did not cry, or would not cry.
He seemed programmed to be a stone – no expression allowed.
Next, DA Jewett called Carol,
Pamela’s mother to the stand.
Mrs. Ludtke told the judge,
“The death of a child is devastating. This savage butchery is
something from which I will never recover. The loss of Pamela in
this horrible way is stunning."
Mrs. Ludtke said her family was
small – just two daughters and Vern and herself. Now, she said, “We are
reduced to only three --completely shattered. This has broken my heart.
I miss her vibrant presence, her intelligence, loyalty and larger than
life personality. I shall miss her forever."
“At 10:30 p.m. on October 15
I got a phone call. It was unbelievable. I was expecting a return
call from Pam. When I heard she was dead. I fainted, screamed.
This can’t be happening! Not my beautiful Pamela! We flew to
California immediately. Still I felt it can’t be happening! The
funeral took place. I did not have time to say good-bye. My heart
was broken.”
Mrs. Ludtke described the
physical and mental pain and suffering caused by the loss of her
daughter. She described having to go to emergency rooms in several
hospitals.
“I could not live without my
Pamy-girl. He has condemned us to a lifetime without her. I am
completely exhausted. I ache when I think of her last moments. I want
to protect her from Scott. I play it over and over in my head—her
scream, her cries for help when there is no help available.”
Then Mrs. Ludtke described
the brutal savage attack on her daughter in detail. After that, she
said, "When I first saw Dyleski in court, I felt like a blow to my
body – I was physically ill.”
She said to Dyleski, “You have
just begun life, yet you chose to be a murderer.”
Mrs. Ludtke addressed the judge,
“It disgusts me how he planed the crime and that it was butchery. I
believe the only justice is a life sentence without possibility of
parole. Let his life be taken, as he as took Pam’s life and as he
effectively, if not literally, took our lives away.”
Why?
Mrs. Ludtke did not have to ask
why. The picture of her daughter’s death and screams for help played
out in her own mind. She knew intuitively how Pam died. Thus, for Mrs.
Ludtke, the question was not why – but rather, what is justice for my
dearly beloved? And she asked Judge Zuniga for justice plain and
simple.
Finally, DA Jewett called Tamara
Hill, Pamela’s only sibling as a witness.
Tamara recounted to the
judge the pain and suffering of her sister as she was murdered,
“Pamela suffered 26 blows to the head, and every surface of her
brain bled. The official cause of death was blunt force trauma to
the brain. She had a broken nose, broken finger, a gaping wound to
her abdomen exposing her intestines, a carving on her back and
injuries to all her limbs."
“She was only 52-years-old."
“I felt shattered and broken.
How her life is part of what was, might have been and never will be
again."
“It is overwhelmingly sad.
Nothing can bring my sweet sister back to me. I have to face another
day without her and it hurts."
“Pamela was a gentle caring
sister, daughter and mother, and wife. She saw good in others and was
trusted. Her smile would literally light up a room --her infectious
laughter that caused tears to run down her face. Her strength and
intelligence. Her brilliant talent. She played the piano since age
seven. When I heard her fingers were broken – I recoiled in anger."
“She had astounding mental
capabilities. Scott Dyleski slowly and painfully destroyed her
incredible mind with blow after blow to her head."
“This is a great loss to my
family. Who knows what she would have contributed if she had lived?
She had a vulnerable, tender heart. She liked to listen to the
sound of the waves of the ocean, and to the falling rain and to the
sounds of a storm in the Midwest. She liked life’s quite and
ordinary moments. To hold her children. A child playing in the sand.
A couple holding hands. She wanted to live in her house. She had a
window seat designed to so she could sit there and hold her
grandchildren. To Pam, all things were possible. Like a mother
lion, she protected those she loved. She even fought off this
monster. She had no judge and jury. She was sentenced to death by
him. He sentenced our family to a lifetime of pain. We cry every
day."
"She was looking forward to
having time with her husband, family and friends in her new home."
"When I heard she was
murdered, I fell to the floor as though hit. I became the only
child. I lost the only one who shared childhood memories with me."
Then Tamara described the
physical pain and suffering caused by the loss of Pamela. She said
her own husband had suffered too.
She condemned Dyleski, “He
knows nothing about love and family. He felt pleasure as he carried
out his check list. I heard his girlfriend testify about how he
inflicted pain."
“To watch my parents and
Pamela’s kids suffer is unbearable, shocking and unbelievable. The
stress affected my parents’ health. Pam’s kids will not have a
mother to see their marriages, and the births of their children.
Pamela and Daniel will never spend their lifetime together. Daniel
will live with the image of finding his wife dead in his doorway."
Then Tamara addressed Dyleski,
“All of our lives changed forever because of you, Scott. I will love
her every day of my life. This monster from the depth of hell took a
life! He no longer deserves to be called human! Who can take a life
with his own hands as he heard her screams to stop? He watched her die.
He has lifeless shark eyes. He was there at her last moment of life.
It was her family’s right, not his, to be there at her last moment of
life. He murdered our hopes for the future. How dare he? How dare he
hope he can change in the future? He could have stopped, given her a
chance to life, called 911 and left the phone off the hook. He deserves
to spend the rest of his life behind bars. His leniency is in his not
getting the death penalty. He doesn’t deserve parole. The citizens of
California deserve to be protected. He needs to go away forever. He
gave inhuman and cruel punishment to her family. I saw you Scott with
your smug face and little smile. You will experience this unforgiving
pain. I want no other family to have to experience this pain."
Tamara addressed the judge,
"I request this – a sentence of life without possibility of parole.
There is nothing more I can do. I request this sentence -- for
Pamela."
Why? Tamara perhaps found
the answer to this question in what she described as Dyleski’s
“shark eye”. She said she saw Dyleski’s “smug face and little smile”.
Did that tell her all she needed to know? For Tamara and for her
mother, the question was not why, rather the question was “Is there
justice for Pamela?" They requested that Judge Zuniga impose a just
sentence.
Judge Zuniga asked DA Jewett
if he had any more witnesses. He had none. Ms. Leonida began her
presentation. Her first witness was Lyn Dyleski, the ex-wife of
Kenneth Dyleski who is Scott Dyleski’s father.
Lyn Dyleski described Esther and
Ken in their youth. Esther was a hippie in San Francisco's Haight
Ashbury. Ken was a draft dodger who obtained a bachelor and masters
degree in psychology at the University of Texas as he participated in
the anti-war movement. He believed the government had a file on him.
Ken boasted that he and his friends helped stop the Vietnam war. Lyn
said Ken analyzed everyone and frequently found others had problems.
Lyn met Ken in 1994 when he was
living in Castro Valley. He had lost custody of his daughter, and saw
his son on Fridays because Esther had custody of Scott. He worked two
jobs and paid child support to his ex-wives, $300 per month for his
daughter and $400 per month for Scott.
According to Lynn, Ken didn’t
control his children’s behavior and blamed others when the kids
misbehaved. He did not take responsibility for them. He fed Scott fast
food. She said Ken and Esther had a history of domestic violence and
sometimes the police were called. Ken took his children on vacations,
but did not interact with them much. He was obsessive compulsive and
lacked social skills. He talked about himself a lot and engaged in
repetitive behavior, regarding matters such as food preparation.
At this point, DA Jewett
objected on grounds that the testimony was irrelevant. “This is about
Scott Dyleski. Attacking Dyleski’s father is irrelevant.”
The judge overruled the
objection and nodded to the witness, “You may proceed.”
Lyn continued, her voice
rising with anger as old memories flooded back. “Ken could not carry
on two-way conversations. I learned not to socialize with him.
Scott and his sister survived vacations with their dad by talking
with each other because Ken seemed to ignore them. Yet Scott was so
nice to his dad, so unfailingly respectful. He believed his father
deserved respect because he is his father. But Ken abandoned Scott
as a teenager."
“Esther married and moved to
Petaluma and Ken saw Scott less often. Then Esther moved to
Lafayette and lived on unimproved land. In my opinion it was
uninhabitable."
“I visited them in Lafayette.
The Curiels and Esther liked to live off the grid. They had a port-a-potty.
There was a trailer that was attached to the back of a truck. There
were beer bottles around. They had parties on weekends. Esther and
Scott lived in a lean-to during about a year of Scott’s early
adolescence. The Curiels had a relative in Concord, and they went
there for showers."
“When Scott was a toddler in
pre-school, he spent time in Esther’s Costume Shop. Esther made him
costumes such as dinosaur costumes; I believe Scott created a
uniform to hide. He could not compete with kids in the rich
Lafayette school district, so he had a different wardrobe. He may
have dressed in black, because it was an artistic avenue available
to him. Scott talked about his friends he socialized with on the
Curiel property. I suspected they were adult friends of the Curiels
and Esther."
“Scott was a Boy Scout and
played in Little League. He was a good catcher. If Esther knew that
Scott was teased in school, she never told Ken. Ken asked Scott
after he was arrested if he had been bullied at school and he
admitted it."
“According to Ken, Esther
didn’t like to hear that she was less than the perfect mom."
“I wanted Scott to live with us.
I owned a big house. But Ken didn’t like the idea. He said Scott could
choose where to live, and he chose to live with his mother. I don’t
think Ken wanted to pay for the custody of Scott. Ken stashed money away
for his retirement. He said, he wanted to “get out from under Scott."
“I knew I would be the one
who would have to spend time with Scott if he were to live in my
home."
“At some time the Curiels
owned a deli shop. Esther may have had an interest in it. Scott got
up at 4:00 a.m. to work at the shop before going to school. I
believe he had sleep deprivation. Ken would not help Scott more
financially."
“After Scott’s sister was
killed, Scott visited Ken and me. I didn’t want to interfere with
Scott’s time with his dad. They went to a Chinese restaurant and
talked. At that time Ken was taking classes at Diablo Valley
College and he took Scott with him. Ken liked to walk trails and
they walked trails together. Ken didn’t show interest in things
Scott did. I asked Scott to bring his GED certificate and he was
happy when I praised him. Sometimes I went with Ken on his visits
with Scott."
“I want to tell you about the
Scott that I love. He knew all the names of all the dinosaurs. He
liked baseball, and went to Oakland A’s games. He joined Little League
and became a catcher even though he took up baseball later than the
other boys. He joined Boy Scouts and wanted to be an Eagle Scout."
“I raised two teenage girls.
I know teenagers. Scott was the most polite and respectful teenager
I knew. He was considerate to everyone. He was always respectful to
his father. He was concerned about his mother. After he was
imprisoned, he was glad I was talking to his mother. He had
selfless concern for his mother. He was interested in animal rights.
He made a full time commitment to being a Vegan. Scott has met many
goals he set for himself. He showed no self pity. He did not get
in trouble. He did not trouble his parents with his own struggles.
He obtained his high school degree early and went to college. He
wanted to be a sound engineer and found a college he would attend
for that purpose. Now that he is in prison he has not lost his
focus. He has no self pity at juvenile hall. He can only get high
school courses at juvenile hall and wanted his Diablo Valley College
texts. I helped him with that. He wants to obtain a bachelor
degree in prison."
“Scott shows grace under
pressure. He maintained a pleasant attitude during his year in juvenile
hall."
“Scott loved his sister.
However they did not see each other much. Esther was afraid his sister
would harm him. Scott rose above this situation, however, and loved his
sister."
“Scott’s letters to me from
prison are delightful. He is well-spoken and has good communication
skills."
Then Lyn Dyleski stopped
praising Scott and suddenly she launched into a different topic –
her own distress. She said the media hounded her and subjected her
to rude comments and she spent thousands of dollars to move out of
the Bay Area. For months she was in shock and had to put a new life
together at age 59. She is not bitter or negative to Scott because
of this and still loves Scott and can forgive what happened to her.
She said, “I will continue to love him and get to know him better
through letters and visits. I will support his efforts, even
financially if he needs that.”
Why? Why did Scott murder
Pamela if, in fact, he did? Lyn Dyleski did not get to that
question. She was called as a witness to corroborate the Sentencing
Memorandum that Ellen Leonida had filed. In her memorandum, Leonida
asserted that both of Scott Dyleski’s parents were emotionally
abusive to him. So Lyn Dyleski dredged up her memories about Ken
and Esther and their children and recounted those memories which
depicted Scott’s difficult life. She also talked about his
achievements – obtaining a high school degree early, and attending
college, participating in Boy Scouts and Little League. He did
obtain $400 per month in child support from his father. Was the
abuse of Dyleski so bad that it could drive him to commit a brutal
murder filled with rage? He seemed to have overcome the effects of
any abuse at least to the extent that he had participated in
activities and achieved scholastic goals which were normal for his
age. There was no testimony from Lyn Dyleski that he suffered
physical or sexual abuse.
Next, Leonida called witness
Carl Brown, the leader of Dyleski's Boy Scout Troop.
Mr. Brown said, “I knew
Scott since age 11. He is a kind honorable person. This is a
tragedy. I don’t want a double tragedy. This issue has been tried
emotionally in the papers. Why has he done it? I don’t believe I
could misjudge his character to such an extent, that I could say he
did it. I don’t believe he did it. He was always outside –
different. But he handled himself well. In spite of the fact he was
short and small and easy to pick on, he was very tolerant of people.
I don’t believe he would have done this."
“Step aside from emotions. Get
to the facts of the trial. This doesn’t make sense. Don’t let it be
two tragedies!”
Why? Carl Brown simply
didn’t believe Scott Dyleski committed the crime, because he felt he
knew Scott’s character. This testimony matched the theme Ellen
Leonida tried to use at trial in Dyleski’s defense – the “good boy”
defense. She put several students and teachers on the stand to
testify that it was not in Scott’s character that he could kill
someone. Obviously, the jury didn’t believe it. It didn’t work.
Did Leonida think it might work this time. The good and sincere Boy
Scout leader Carl Brown testified as to what he believed to be true.
Why? Carl Brown didn’t have to even ask that question. Scott was of
good character. He knew it. That was it.
Next, Carl Brown’s wife,
Linda testified.
She said, “Today is not about
guilt or innocence. I have known Scott since age eleven. He is kind and
gentle. He did not fit into Lafayette. Please give him a chance.”
Why? Linda Brown said so
little that the question hung in mid air.
Next, Viola Bolick testified.
She appeared to be a teenager. She said, “I met Scott in first
grade and we attended Stanley Middle School. He was good to me. He
did not lose his temper in the face of insults and harassment. He
was gentle and cared deeply. He and I hung fliers at the mall
regarding animal rights. If he is offered parole he will remain
kind and gentle.”
Why? Well, Scott never
harmed this beautiful young girl.
Leonida said she had no more
witnesses. Once again the black hole of no evidence appeared! After
Jewett presented his case in chief at the trial for approximately four
weeks, Leonida presented her defense case which lasted eight hours and
consisted only of character witnesses. When Leonida finished
interviewing her last character witness at the trial, one of the jurors
blurted out “Wow!” The audience and media could not believe that she
had no expert witnesses to present. That was it? The black hole of no
evidence had appeared! There was essentially no defense, except the
“good boy” defense. And it didn’t work. Now on the day of sentencing
she did the same thing – she presented just four character witnesses and
brief testimony, this time using the “good boy” defense and the
testimony of an ex-wife of the father to establish Dyleski was somehow
abused emotionally. No expert testimony. No explanation of why Dyleski
did what he did or did not do.
It was time for Judge Zuniga
to impose sentence. She asked counsel to argue.
DA Jewett said, “This is an
emotional tragedy. But today is not about compassion but about
justice. The death he caused goes beyond Pamela. He deceived others.
There was no mercy shown by Scott Dyleski. No mitigation. This
murder was not because of a drug transaction or a crime of passion –
it was a cold premeditated act. He left his mark or signature – the
sign of the fruit of his labors (the “H” or “T” carving on Pamela
Vitale’s back). This goes beyond the killing itself."
“Mrs. Lyn Dyleski seems to
say the sins of the father are visited on the son. But some parts
of Scott are only from him – his art, costumes, his look. Mrs. Lyn
Dyleski can’t have her cake and eat it too. The other shoe has to
fall. If good seeds are bad seeds as well?"
“As for lack of remorse,
identification was the defense. It is understood that there could be
a compromise of rights on appeal with an admission."
“However at trial, there was
testimony by Kim Curiel that two days after the murder, Scott said
to her regarding Pamela’s death, “Those things happen."
Jewett concluded by saying that
because of his age, Scott Dyleski is getting mercy in that he is not
eligible for the death penalty. “He committed a truly depraved act, with
a complete disregard for life. There is plenty of aggravation in this
case and the result could be a death penalty if he were eligible by age.
However, the District Attorney's office acknowledges that the death
penalty does not apply to persons under age 18.”
Jewett stated that the case
is about justice, not about the hope of rehabilitation. The Vitale
family and Dan Horowitz were stripped of hope. Jewett recounted
Mario Vitale’s letter. He said, “Where is justice if 25 years from
now, the family must re-visit October 15 by attending a hearing of
the Board of Prison terms and revisit that and say he should not be
released. Your Honor, let them leave today with the certainly that
he will never see a free day again. It is the People who ask for
Justice – and the only judgment consistent with the ends of justice
is life without the possibility of parole.”
Leonida then rose and addressed
the court. “I ask for mercy, not that he not be punished, but
that the sentence not be life without the possibility of parole. We are
asking that after 25 actual years he can appear before the parole Board.
There is remote possibility he could be released after the parole board
hears from everyone. In 2002, only six persons convicted of first
degree murder were on parole in California. We are asking for the
slimmest possibility. I do not intend the court have sympathy for Scott
Dyleski rather than for Pamela Vitale."
"Your Honor, It is just that
the court can make a decision to allow the possibility of parole in
the context of this being a special circumstance case regarding a
juvenile. At age 16, Scott Dyleski was not as responsible as an
adult."
"The Supreme Court of the United
States has held here can be no death penalty for juveniles" At this
point, Leonida read from the case out loud and it is quoted here in this
article, directly from the case text:
It is difficult even for
expert psychologists to differentiate between the juvenile offender
whose crime reflects unfortunate yet transient immaturity, and the
rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption.
See Steinberg & Scott 1014—1016. As we understand it, this difficulty
underlies the rule forbidding psychiatrists from diagnosing any
patient under 18 as having antisocial personality disorder, a disorder
also referred to as psychopathy or sociopathy, and which is
characterized by callousness, cynicism, and contempt for the feelings,
rights, and suffering of others. American Psychiatric Association,
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 701—706 (4th ed.
text rev. 2000); see also Steinberg & Scott 1015. If trained
psychiatrists with the advantage of clinical testing and observation
refrain, despite diagnostic expertise, from assessing any juvenile
under 18 as having antisocial personality disorder, we conclude that
States should refrain from asking jurors to issue a far graver
condemnation–that a juvenile offender merits the death penalty. When a
juvenile offender commits a heinous crime, the State can exact
forfeiture of some of the most basic liberties, but the State cannot
extinguish his life and his potential to attain a mature understanding
of his own humanity. Supreme Court of the United States, Roper v.
Simmons, No. 03-633
Leonida asked the judge to find
that the minor’s character can be reformed. She urged the judge to look
at the circumstances of his life. She said, “There is more to this kid
than the worse thing he’s ever done.” She also said, "Scott Dyleski
made a terrible mistake. There is always the possibility that he can
mature into a responsible, productive citizen."
Suddenly Leonida was actually
again implying Dyleski was guilty, just as she had done in her
Sentencing Memorandum! Was this a tactic to obtain mercy at sentencing
or her sincere conviction?
Leonida continued, “Mrs.
Dyleski flew down from Seattle and explained Scott’s circumstances.
There is a letter to the court from a student who said Scott is the
only boy who did not tease or hurt her. A mother who has known him
since age 5 says he can turn himself around. There are letters from
two jurors who ask for the parole option. Juror No. 8 said Dyleski
is a teenager and not accountable as an adult, has talent, could
mature and should be given a second chance."
“In juvenile hall, Dyleski
took advantage of educational opportunities and tutors others. He
did not get into trouble. He is bright, and talented, with no
history of violence. He has never been arrested. It is impossible
to say at age 17 that he is completely unredeemable. There is no
guarantee he would even be released from prison."
DA Jewett rebutted: “Two things:
First, the purpose of sentencing is punishment not rehabilitation. The
focus of the penal statutes is punishment. Second, justice is not giving
hope and the slimmest of opportunities to Dyleski. It is not justice to
give Dyleski hope when he gave no hope to Pamela and so many people.”
Leonida replied, "The
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is also a department of
Rehabilitation. His will not be a determinate sentence.
There is no release date. He would have to prove to the parole
board that he should be released. Only six first degree murderers
have been released by the board.”
The Judge called a brief
conference with the lawyers, and then took the bench again.
First Judge Zuniga gave the
reasons for her sentence choice. She noted that the community was
concerned about giving a life sentence without parole to a person
who committed this crime at age 16. She said these people did not
hear the trial and hear all the evidence. They didn’t realize that
at trial it was proved that “This was a deliberate planned murder.
Dyleski concealed his identification, by using a mask, gloves and a
coat. There was a scene of horror for Mr. Horowitz to see his wife
dead at the doorway.”
The judge directed her
comments to Dyleski, “You planned this, Sir. A very brutal murder.
Any murder is brutal. But this case was very brutal and shown by
the autopsy and photographs. This killing was full of rage and
hatred and very personal. It takes lots of personal animosity and
rage to kill as you did. While dying at your feet, you stabbed her
and added to her pain."
“Photos of the wounds showed
you live out your fantasies, like one of your idols Jack the Ripper.
You carved a symbol into her back, proud of your work."
“I understand how two jurors
ask that I show you mercy. It is hard for jurors and the audience
to reconcile your appearance and demeanor in court with killing.
You went to some of the best schools in an affluent community in
Lafayette. Although you were teased, you had friends and we heard
you were intelligent, artistic and kind. Letters to the court state
you had intelligence and maturity. I can understand why people
struggle to understand what it is that caused you to do this. I
understand the focus on your age and immaturity. They look for
justifications—to blame others, your father, your life style."
“Sir, I understand the need
to find justification for what you did."
“People don’t want to
understand and accept that people who look like you, the man living
next door, can be so evil."
“Why in this day and age
does our society produce someone like you?"
“You inflicted terrible pain
on this family and on Pamela Vitale. You destroyed this family."
“I was appalled your former
stepmother (who has lot of animosity toward her ex-husband) who
equated her position with that of the Vitales and Daniel Horowitz --
that she has forgiven you. She is not in the same position
as Daniel Horowitz or the Vitales (to grant forgiveness). Shame on
her!"
“Yes, we are products of our
environment. We have free will. We make choices. You made the choice
to murder Pamela Vitale."
“There is a concern of this
court – I don’t think any attorney or jurors saw it. You had a lack of
affect during the course of the trial. The only time you had any
emotion was only when the autopsy photographs were shown and Dr.
Peterson described the injuries to Pamela Vitale. You leaned forward
and your mouth fell open while the photographs were on the wall.
Absolutely fascinated by your handiwork."
"Sir, you do not deserve to
live among decent people. Your commitment is going to be for life.”
“Mr. Jewett and Ms. Leonida,
do you incorporate your statements into the record?"
Mr. Jewett agreed. Ms.
Leonida, added, Lyn Dyleski did not state her experience was in any
way comparable to that of the Vitale family or Mr. Horowitz.
The judge replied curtly, "Ms.
Leonida, that is not what the witness testified." Leonida then
incorporated her statements into the record.
The judge continued, "Arraignment
for judgment and sentence is waived and there is not legal cause why
judgment should not now be pronounced. The court's judgment is now
imposed. Count One - Penal Code 187 Murder in the first degree,
with enhancements of Penal Code 190.2(a) (17) and Penal Code
12022(b) (1) found true -- the sentence is life without the
possibility of parole. For the enhancement of Penal Code 12022(b)
(1) -- one additional year sentence imposed. Regarding Count Two,
Penal Code 459/460(a) residential burglary -- the middle term of 4
years is imposed and is stayed and will become permanent upon
completion of the life sentence. Pursuant to Penal Code Section 296
defendant is to provide samples, specimens and fingerprints.
Defendant is to pay restitution to the victim fund and/or
restitution fund. The court retains jurisdiction over restitution.
A restitution fine of $200 is imposed. The defendant has 342 days
credit for time served with no good conduct time because this is a
life sentence."
“Mr. Dyleski you have a
right to file a Notice of Appeal within 60 days. Mrs. Leonida will
take care of that?"
“Yes, Your Honor.” Leonida
replied.
The judge concluded: “You
are remanded to the custody of the Sheriff to be transported
forthwith to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.”
A sheriff took Dyleski’s arm.
Scott Edgar Dyleski walked with a long stride out of the courtroom.
He looked straight ahead and did not look at his parents who sat in
the front row. His next stop will be San Quentin’s processing
center.
But, why?
DA Jewett did not delve into
the question, although he probably thought about it many times. At
trial he argued that Dyleski committed the crime out of rage or
because he mistakenly thought he was attacking Karen Schneider,
against whom he committed identify and credit card fraud. Now DA
Jewett spoke only about justice for the family of Pamela Vitale.
And his six witnesses made powerful, classy, compassionate
presentations
Why?
Deputy public Defender
Leonida wanted to blame Scott’s parents. She presented three
witnesses who said Dyleski was a “good boy” who couldn’t have killed
anyone and the ex-wife of Ken Dyleski who recounted what she knew.
Her knowledge was limited because information about Scott’s life
with his mother was not presented. Esther Dyleski wrote two letters
to the court, presented over Leonida’s objection. She wanted to
testify, but Leonida barred her from testifying and shouted at her
the day before sentencing, “Anything that comes out of your mouth
hurts your son”, and “Judge Zuniga does not like you”, and “I do not
want you saying Scott is innocent.” Esther Dyleski was crushed she
could not speak out for her son. For Esther, the question “why” is
important. She wants to know everything that happened that day and
why. Still she does not know. She wants to help her son on
appeal. Because of the gag order imposed upon witnesses she could
not see her son for a year. Since the trial ended and the gag order
was lifted, she visited with him frequently.
As for Judge Barbara Zuniga, she
sensitively explored the question "why". She noted that the community
and two jurors were concerned about the sentence of life without
possibility of parole and about the question "why". She had no answer
to the question in terms of any type of psychological analysis. However,
she had the power to answer the question why by giving a judgment that
gave justice. Not hope. So much hope died with Pamela. Not mercy. The
judge stated the killer gave Pamela no mercy. For many, the question "why"
transformed itself into a cry for justice. Judge Zuniga gave the
maximum sentence in response.
Only Scott Dyleski knows the
answer to the question – why? If he did not commit the crime, he
either lacked the courage to testify or his attorney controlled him
and demanded he not testify because she felt the cross-examination
of DA Jewett would devastate him anyway. There is also the
possibility he was afraid to testify because of some other pressure
upon him. If he did commit the crime, then given the total lack of
defense as presented by Leonida, it seems Dyleski would have been
better off throwing himself on the mercy of the court, telling the
truth, and asserting any mental defense he had, given his youth.
Dyleski had a psychiatric history and used marijuana and absinthe.
According to Jason Dearen, in
his article of September 26, 2006, Dyleski sentenced to life without
parole, the probation report stated:
According to the probation
report prepared for his sentencing, Dyleski's father notified Alameda
County Child Protective Services twice — once in 1994 and again in
1995 — that Scott Dyleski was neglected and emotionally abused when in
his mother's care. No action was taken on either claim, according to
the report.
Dyleski told a juvenile
probation officer that between the ages of 10 and 12 he smoked heroin
and marijuana regularly. "Maybe once or twice a week for a couple of
months," the report states.
Before this acknowledgment,
Dyleski was believed only to have dabbled with pot and absinthe, a
liquor-like spirit made from the herb wormwood. Dyleski also admitted
he had experimented with cocaine, ecstasy and LSD.
Dyleski also claimed his
stepfather abused him when he was between the ages of 6 and 9. Neither
his mother, Esther Fielding, nor his father, Kenneth Dyleski, ever
admitted any physical abuse.
Despite this history of abuse
and drug use, no mental defense was ever presented by Leonida. She only
presented the “he’s a good boy” defense. Her alibi defense, which she
promised to the jury in her opening statement, was based on the
testimony of Fred Curiel . That alibi crumbled when, on the day of trial,
Fred Curiel abruptly stated he couldn’t remember if he saw Scott Dyleski
at all during the morning of the murder, let alone give an exact time
that Dyleski was in his home, and not at Pamela Vitale's home. Leonida
apparently did not pin Fred Curiel’s testimony down, one way or the
other, with declarations or tape recordings before she embarked on a
defense almost totally based upon the alibi.
Leonida’s only remaining defense,
promised in the opening argument, was that there was third-party DNA
inside the bloody glove found in Dyleski’s duffel bag. Yet she never
presented one DNA expert to explain that contention or to rebut any DNA
testimony presented by the prosecution. She never showed that some of
the statistics presented were actually meaningless in their import. She
never presented an expert to rebut the shoe imprint found at the scene
and on Pamela Vitale’s shoulder. That partial print of a Land’s End
shoe, according to the prosecution’s expert, could not be matched with
certainty. Yet, it was the basis of the conviction.
Leonida did not interview the
jurors. Why? She never filed a motion for new trial. (Note and
compare: Susan Polk, briefly represented by Daniel Horowitz and
convicted of second degree murder for the death of her husband while
representing herself, has been given a six month continuance, a
transcript of the trial and the appointment of a prominent lawyer, in
order to file a motion for new trial in January 2007.)
According to the Contra Costa
Times, Leonida had conducted the defense of only one murder case
before the Dyleski case. However, she did win a drunk driving case
wherein it turned out the victim was driving on the street the wrong way.
Yet, the public defender’s office put the inexperienced Leonida up
against one of the top homicide DAs in California. She simply could not
or did not present a defense. Her cross-examinations consisted of just
a few questions. Time of death was never established, for example,
through her cross-examination of the coroner. Testing of third-party
DNA was not conducted, even though blonde hair was found on the back of
the deceased. Leonida abandoned all expert testimony in favor of
character witnesses in a defense that was fatally flawed.
However, it is apparent that in
order to defend Dyleski, Leonida adopted a more or less Goth appearance.
See a current photograph above and compare it to the photograph of her
on the Contra Costa Public Defender’s website seen here on the left side
of this paragraph. Why did she go so Goth in appearance when there was
only testimony at trial that her client Scott Dyleski gave up Goth about
a year before the murder? Her appearance reminded the jury daily of
Goth as she sat at the defense table next to her clean cut client. And
DA Jewett referenced Goth practices and lifestyle as a context for
Dyleski’s motive to murder. This was a trial----- not a costume ball!
The September 28, 2006, the
Contra Costa Times in an article by Bruce Gertsman announced that
just three days after the sentencing of Scott Dyleski to life in prison
without parole Ellen Leonida resigned from the Contra Costa Public
defender's office to "move on".
One more why!
Everyone has a why question that
is most important to him or her.
Someday sitting behind bars, age
17 or 45 or 70, even if his appeals succeed, Scott Edgar Dyleski will have
to ask himself the question "why?". It is a question that will haunt
him -- the one question that he could not or would not answer when he
had the opportunity to speak up for himself at a time that could have
helped those who suffered the most by this act of unspeakable horror.
