Posted on 06/06/2006 3:12:15 PM PDT by SmithL
LAFAYETTE - The attorney representing murder suspect Scott Dyleski has asked a judge to consider whether evidence obtained by tracking dogs can be used at trial.
The dogs were not reliable, deputy public defender Ellen Leonida argues in a motion submitted last week to a Contra Costa County Superior Court judge.
Dyleski, 17, is charged with murder and burglary in the Oct. 15, 2005 killing of high-tech executive Pamela Vitale.
Leonida raises instances she argues show that the dogs became interested in material unrelated to the case.
On the day after the killing, a tracking dog focused on a bucket filled with clothes and red-tinted water on a nearby property, Leonida wrote. The clothes ended up having no value to the case.
Investigators also rubbed gauze pads on evidence at the crime scene and sent the same dog and others out looking for trails leading to a suspect during the next several days, Leonida wrote.
The dogs found nothing.
"They 'followed' the scent in opposite directions, bypassed routes they had previously taken, and generally wandered around while their human handlers attempted to assign meaning to their contradictory actions," she says in her motion.
About a week after Vitale was found dead, the dogs smelled the gauze again, and investigators brought them to Dyelski's home and other places investigators believed Dyleski had been, Leonida wrote.
The dogs showed interest only after investigators brought them there. Hearings on evidence are set to begin June 19. Dyleski's trial is scheduled to open on July 17.
I'd trust a dog's nose before I'd trust a lawyer any day of the week.
Scott Dyleski is accused of murdering his neighbor, Pamela Vitale.
Pamela was married to Daniel Horowitz at the time of her death.
At that time, Daniel Horowitz was defending Susan Polk against charges that she murdered her husband, psychiatrist Felix Polk.
Susan Polk subsequently fired Horowitz, claiming that he admitted to her, a role in the death of Vitale, and the framing of Dyleski.
Susan Polk is now representing herself at her murder trial, claiming that she too, was framed.
All clear now?
Especially the defense attorney for the accused murderer. LOL at the comment about "clothes soaking in a bucket" not having anything to do with the case.
I won't take her word for it, since Dyleski did walk past that exact location between the murder scene and his house. However, I don't know about those clothes - we never found out for sure what was soaking, whether it was jeans or something else and whether the red color came from blood or not. It was supposedly soaking in OxyClean or whatever the protein-busting detergent is that can get rid of blood evidence.
Not that it matters at all, when Pamela's blood was found on his *other* clothes that he had hidden and *were* found by the scent dogs. There's a ton more evidence linking him to the crime, but the gag order has been very effective in this case. All we really know is the minimal outline that was presented at the preliminary hearing.
I was very interested in this case and wanted to follow it through to see that Ms Vitale got justice -- and mainly to find out what the motive or excuse was on Dyleski's part. Also to hear more from his girlfriend Jena.
But once I heard what the DA had, I just totally lost interest and haven't been back to sleuth any more or add to my notes. He is quite guilty, IMO - I don't think there will be any surprises.
My Beagles, when I had them, were as reliable as the sunrise. Dogs don't lie!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.