Scott Dyleski claimed that on the morning of Pam's murder he had a brief encounter while out walking with a woman who fit Pam's description. The woman was in a car, and made a "weird" comment to him and reached for his arm. The prosecution contends Scott lied about where he saw Pam Vitale because he had concerns that his dna would be on her after the rage kill. This is a speculative theory.
Let's take a closer look
"He looked like he was stoned" Mike Sikkema on seeing Scott after his walk
Following consciousness of innocence
The following timeline, backed by court testimony speaks for itself.
Saturday October 15th, 2005 Pam Vitale is found murdered at 6:00 PM. At 8:00 PM Scott Dyleski is at his friend Robin's house picking up some marijuana and he receives a call from his mother, he is told Hunsacker Road is closed off due to a possible homicide. He expresses surprise and the teens speculate. Scott recalls that he saw somebody out on his walk and briefly wonders if it could be the killer.
Sunday October 16, 2005: Karen Schneider exposes Scott and Robin's credit card fraud at a neighborhood meeting and Fred Curiel begins his own investigation into the credit card scheme. Karen Schneider has immediate concerns with the fact that the Vitale address was used in error on the billing transaction involving her card, and the shipping address was the Curiel address. When Scott is questioned about credit cards he denies involvement. Scott's mom suspects that Scott is involved in the credit card scheme and fears that she and Scott may get evicted from the home. She shares that fear with Scott. Scott continues to deny involvement in the credit card fraud.
Monday October 17, 2005: Scott speaks briefly to Robin Croen and tells him there are some problems with the credit card orders. He claims it will take some time to figure it out and seems anxious. Scott had never been in trouble before and the possibility of getting busted on the credit card fraud is looming.
Tuesday October 17, 2005: The tension is building in the Curiel home over the credit card fraud. Scott is confronted by Kim and Fred Curiel. Following is testimony from Kim Curiel:
Quote:
A. I said, "Scott, it looks like no one has broken into this computer and it looks like you did this with Pamela Vitale's home phone number and address on there. Do you see that you could be tied to the murder?"
Q. And who said that?
A. Fred did.
Q. Okay. And how did Scott respond to that?
A. He said, "Well, what do you mean?" He said, "Well, because that number is a number that's only, as far as I know, on this piece of paper. That's not a listed phone number."
Q. And you said -- by this piece of paper, you just referred to People's Exhibit 44, the road association list; is that right?
A. Right. That had been taped on the wall at our house.
Q. Okay. And how did Scott respond to that?
A. He said, "But I didn't do that." And I said, "Well, where were you Saturday morning?" He said he had been -- he said, "I was out for that walk." And I said, "By yourself?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Well, do you remember talking to anyone, do you remember seeing anyone on this walk?" And he thought for a while and he said, "Yes, I do remember talking to someone when I was heading out to the barn."
Q. Tell us everything you can remember about what he said about that.
A. He said there was a woman driving a white four-door sedan with long straight brown hair and large glasses, and she had rolled down her window and stopped the car and he said they spoke and she reached across and grabbed his arm and said, "You've got to believe." And I said, "Scott, that sounds a whole lot like Pamela Vitale. Do you know Pamela Vitale?" He said, "No, I don't." And he said, "Well, what does Pamela look like?" I said, "Just what you described." And he said, "Well, she grabbed me, she grabbed my arm, so she might have my DNA under her fingernails." I said, "Yeah, if that was Pamela." "But what you are describing doesn't sound like something Pamela would do at all, it doesn't sound like her. Can you describe more about this person?" He said, "No." I said, "Which way was she driving?" And the first time he said this, he said she was driving out of the canyon. I said, "So she reached across the passenger's side and reached out the window and grabbed you into the car?" "Well, no, she just reached out the window." I said, "So she was driving out of the canyon or into the canyon?" And he wasn't clear on that. And I said, "This is really important. I mean, if you could describe this woman and we can find her, she's your alibi as to where you were." He says, "Well, I don't know any more about it."
More of Kim's testimony concerning the interrogation:
Quote:
Q. Do you remember anything else being talked about that Tuesday morning?
A. I asked him if he could see the connections being made that he could be at that murder scene and that the DNA could lead to him?
Q. Okay. Was it you who brought up DNA, that the DNA could lead to him, was that you who said that?
A. You know, I said it, Fred said it, and he said it.
Q. Do you remember who said it first?
A. No. (Side note- Fred Curiel testified: "Yes, I believe without a doubt that I am the first person to have mentioned DNA". CLICK for Fred Curiel's testimony.)
Q. Okay. Whoever said it the suggestion was made, "The DNA could lead to you," how did he respond to that?
A. He was shaking.
Q. You mean, physically shaking?
A. Physically shaking. He was visibly nervous and saying, "But I didn't do that. I didn't do that. What can I do? I didn't do that."
Q. Did he look at you in the eye again?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Was there anything else said during that conversation on Tuesday morning?
A. At that point, we began to speak about a lawyer.
Q. Okay.
A. That he should --
Q. So that was something that was brought up by the adults?
A. Yes.
Q. Was there any other conversation that morning with Scott about credit card fraud, Pamela Vitale, what happened on Saturday?
A. He said he needed to get to school.
Q. Scott said that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And so did he say anything else before he left?
A. Not that I can recall.
Q. Was Esther there at the time that this conversation was going on?
A. No. She was at work.
Q. Okay. So it was just you and Fred?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Scott leave?
A. Eventually, Jena came and got him.
Q. And at some point after Jena came and got him, did he return?
A. Ah, yes.
Q. And was that with Jena?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you have any -- a conversation with him when he returned?
A. Yes. He actually called on the phone and said, "I did the credit card fraud, I stole the credit cards, I ordered the lights, that is me, I did it." And I said, "Are you saying that because you want this to just go away, because you just want it to be about the credit card fraud?" He said, "I'm saying it, because that's what I know."
Q. Okay. And that was on the phone?
A. That was on the phone. And then he said, "I'm going to come back home."
Q. And then what happened?
A. He arrived and said he said to both Fred and I, "I did the credit card fraud." I said, "So you lied to me?" He said, "Yes, I did."
Q. Was there anything else said?
A. Fred said, "Well, perhaps saying this can clear you from the murder." He said, "Yes, I just want to go to school, I just want to go to school, I want to admit to this and get this fixed and go to school," and then he started to cry.
Q. And that was in response to Fred's -- what did Fred say?
A. Fred said, "Are you saying this because you want to not be associated with the murder, or are you saying this because this is all what happened?"
Q. And it was in response to that that he started talking about just wanting to go to school, and to get this behind him?
A. And get on with his life.
Q. And then he started to cry?
A. He started to cry.
Q. Visibly the tears?
A. Visibly the tears.
At this juncture, to demonstrate Scott's consciousness of innocence, it is important to note what Scott says to his friend and partner Robin Croen when he met with him at school on Tuesday, October 18th, AFTER Kim Curiel informs Scott the woman he described on the road sounded like Pam Vitale, AND AFTER Fred Curiel brings up DNA.
Quote:
Q. In the course of that conversation, did he offer further information about this person he said he saw on his walk when he mentioned that to you for the first time Saturday night?
A. Yes. He said that it was the woman who had been killed.
Q. And what did he say with respect to that particular subject matter?
A. He said that while on his walk, he had seen her and she had grabbed his wrist. I got the impression it was out of surprise that they just walked into each other or something like that, and he said he was afraid of being linked to the killing by some kind of DNA evidence.
Q. Did you ask him any follow-up questions about that?
A. Yes. I asked him how and where they came in, the contact.
Q. And what did he say?
A. Again, I didn't get a coherent answer. He just said on his walk.
Quote:
Q. And did Scott also tell you when he was talking to you that Tuesday, at school, that if the murder hadn't happened you guys could have gotten away with the marijuana growing?
A. Yes.
Quote:
Q. Now, immediately after that conversation, did Scott tell you it would be fine because he had an alibi?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell us everything you remember about the statement made to you that Tuesday, three days after Pamela was killed, about how and why he thought he had an alibi?
A. He said that he had been with people the whole day and that people had seen him in his house taking a shower.
Q. Okay. Do you remember anything else?
A. No.
Consciousness of innocence is demonstrated several times. First, if Scott was guilty, he would not have needed Kim Curiel to inform him who the victim was, he would already know. He would not have needed the Curiels to inform him of a "possible connection" to the credit card scheme, that "connection" too would already be well known had Scott been the actual killer. The real killer would not realize and feel frustration AFTER the fact that the killing would put focus on the credit card fraud, and lastly, Scott's contention that he had an alibi for the "whole day" demonstrates Scott had no idea what time Pam Vitale was murdered.
Why was the possible sighting of Pam Vitale ignored by police?
We know (from testimony) why the Curiels did not believe Scott's claim to have seen a woman matching Pam's description on the road. It was because of misinformation they heard in the media that included Pamela was found in only her underwear and a tee shirt, implying she had never left the house. We know this is not true and in fact Pamela was found also wearing a long black skirt and socks. The fact is there is no proof that Pamela never left her home.
Scott was never questioned by police, let alone treated like a potential witness, and the disturbing question remains... WHY?
