Talk:Daniel Horowitz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recurring Conflict on Changes[edit]

Can anyone say why this was tagged as possible BLP/vandalism issue?

  1. 00:31, 17 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Daniel Horowitz ‎ (→High Profile Cases) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Horowitz&diff=314449479&oldid=314449017

The content that was tagged is simply

"A third defendant had pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter testified against the other two defendants, saying that Hall had recruited him while Hudson fired the gun."

And, it is sourced, doesn't seem to be inaccurate or a secret.

67.161.170.205 (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Polk[edit]

Look, this is atrocious: "On January 12, 2006, one of Horowitz's clients, Susan Polk, asked to fire him as her attorney because "I have come to suspect that Horowitz may have been involved in the murder of his wife based on statements he made to me". [7]"

Susan Polk, as the article linked in [7] states, has been accused of being mentally imbalanced and possibly insane. For this to be left in the article with no statement regarding Polk's sanity is most definitely an issue where libel could be a problem. 67.10.133.121 21:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I honestly am having a difficult time understanding, not your wanting something taken out, Mr Horowitz, but your adding further info like this about Polk's sanity. It seems contradictory. You have conducted interviews where you said Susan Polk was not crazy and she acted in self-defense. One example...

Dateline

Friday, October 14, 2005 (updated June 16, 2006) [1]


Daniel Horowitz, lawyer for Susan Polk: She killed him for one reason, he had a knife in his hand and if she didn’t take it from him and defended herself, she would be dead.

...

Felix Polk's mental health problems

Susan’s attorney, Daniel Horowitz obtained records which reveal that Felix attempted suicide decades earlier while he was in the Navy, spent months in a psychiatric ward, and was diagnosed as having a psychotic disorder.

Felix, claimed the defense, had been taking anti-anxiety medicine for years. But his autopsy revealed that at his death, he had stopped taking his medication.

Horowitz: There is no question that he was delusional from the 1955, before Susan was born when he was hospitalized for chronic mental illness to when he died when he had psychiatric drugs in his medicine cabinet. There is no question that this man was delusional.

Morrison: And yet he was able to have a successful practice. He had colleagues who believed in him. He was a respected man in the community. Now—what you’re describing and that doesn’t jive with those facts.

Daniel Horowitz, Susan Polk's lawyer: Well, it does in a way. Because we know that both things were true. He was very, very delusional. He was rageful. But he also was a pillar of the community.

Was it really self-defense?

But Susan and her lawyer will have to overcome some troubling evidence: Did she in fact threaten Felix’s life in the weeks leading up to his death?

And after, we know she didn’t call 911. She said it herself: She simply cleaned herself up and went to bed. And then why did she lie to police when they first questioned her? How will she respond to an autopsy report showing Felix suffered blunt force trauma to the head and 27 different wounds.

Horowitz: Those wounds that she inflicted on him were not intended to be killing wounds. Tiburonforthree (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9698604/page/4/ Why did Susan Polk kill her husband? A relationship that began with a secret would end decades later in violence

Hans Reiser case[edit]

Daniel Horowitz is reported to have joined the defense team of Hans Reiser, a famous computer scientist who is alleged to have murdered his wife [1]. Would this be a notable case in Horowitz career? John Vandenberg 11:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horowitz only stayed on the defense team of Reiser for two weeks due to lack of funds to pay him.

Redirection of Pamela Vitale[edit]

I have redirected the article on Pamela Vitale to this page, as the only suggestion of notability in that article is that Vitale is the victim of a murder. Per WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E, it is not currently Wikipedia's standard practice to create articles on victims of relatively non-notable crimes. If the crime itself is notable, it is common to write an article specific to the event, as for instance with Murder of Victoria Climbié. I am, of course, perfectly willing to discuss this and, if there is disagreement, to seek further input at WP:BLPN. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have noted possible conflict below for the record User:Greenhornet1010 User talk:Greenhornet1010(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Nieto/Willie Green trial context[edit]

The section on Nieto and the Willie Green trial is essentially lies by taking everything out of context. I have repeatedly posted and others have posted the truth only to have the malicious vandals change it. I have obtained a copy of the Court of Appeal decision. You will see it posted in the next day or two on sb399.com. It makes it clear that I properly raised the claim that the prosecutor deliberately challenged African American jurors. Fully 25% of his challenges were to African American jurors when only 8% of the jury pool was Black. Damn right I'm going to raise this point. He got away with it but that does not make it right. His opening statement also referenced something along the lines of out of the streets of Oakland came darkness ... imply to me that this Black man was coming out of the "darkness" to kill a white guy. I read the riot act on that. When the prosecutor smirked at my client during a break and then used my clients outrage (and threats) as a way to get him executed. I told the jury what happened.

There is more ... the matador comment and the pinyata comment & the 18 year old girl comment are truthfully addressed by me in posts that I made on Wikipedia or others made for me. Of course these immediately get erased.

I am trying to get a copy of the appellate briefs to post. Willie Green has the actual trial transcripts and he is in prison but I will see if I can get them.

I save my client's life. I beat a racist attack that appealed the most base prejudices in an attempt to take a man's life. That is what defense attorneys do. They bring out the hidden racism, confront it and fight it.

The fact that some people want to spin this relates to greater battles that I am fighting. These attacks are from groups that I am fighting politically and from people involved in supporting the murderer of my wife, Pamela. These people have posted pictures of the interior, exterior and address of my house and a description of who lives there. Now, they are trying to create a Wikipedia image that is so horrific that some angry person, some nut, somebody acts out ....

That is what is going on.

I do not have all day, everyday to deal with this. If the Wikipedia community does not fix this, then only I will suffer the consequences.

I should add one thing. It is interesting that someone who purports to know, claims that I did legal work not for my wife's killers family but for Kim Curiel. That is not true. I did the work for both and the killer's mother was my main contact. (And I did not charge them for the work). Who would change that? Why? What is their claimed basis of knowledge? I obviously am implying a clear answer and I hope as you ponder this you will understand ... Daniel Horowitz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.98.36.198 (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the substance of this, but the edits you made were poorly done. They removed the actual citations (you seem to have cut'n'pasted the displayed article rather than working on the source). Need to keep the actual footnotes, which are embedded in the source and become clickable links to the References list, not just the "[1]" plain text. I've reverted because it made a mess of the article. You're welcome to re-edit (and I leave it to others to address the content itself) but don't break the refs. DMacks (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the accusations either. If this is Mr. Horowitz editing his own page, then surely he must realize Wikipedia content cannot just be added because he says something is valid. Also, Mr. Horowitz has publicly listed his own home for sale with 15-20 pictures of the inside of his house/property and Nancy Grace publicly announced who is in his immediate family. This is all public knowledge, some or all of which was obviously sanctioned by Mr. Horowitz. Tiburonforthree (talk), 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This "Tiburon" person has ZERO History on Wikipedia. He (actually probably She) is part of the very group that started the postings on my blog on my website sb399.com, (lies of course), Wikipedia (lies and the grossly / massively out of context statements that are essentially lies). I posted the appellate decision on the Willie Green case and added context based upon that cited decision and the news articles.

As for my home pictures. It is one thing for a real estate agent to post the pictures of my house as part of selling it. It is another thing to have the girlfriends, fans and groupies of my wife's killer post these along with shots taken days after Pamela's killing from Nancy Grace.

Then his people like "Tiburon" and others enamored with him, butcher my Wikipedia listings so that it becomes very clear that they are deliberately attempting to incite violence.

This should be a MAJOR issue on Wikipedia. If this is tolerated and if I have to fight this alone, then what does Wikipedia stand for ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.217.95 (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been to your website (you actually just asked me to look at it before I make any major edits on your page, but I haven't been there and don't intend to go there). As I stated in one of my edits, it does not seem right that you post something on one of your own sites, then come back here and use that as a source. This has nothing to do with your horrible accusations on inciting violence - frankly, I have no idea how you are coming to that conclusion and it appears to either be a threat itself or intimidation. Tiburonforthree (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Claims that Mr. Horowitz's address is not public aside from currently selling his home are unfounded no matter who Mr. Horowitz is falsely accusing. Here is just a very small sampling as there must be hundreds of such references on the web:

http://www.sfchronicle.us/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/22/MNG3MKN3GE5.DTL&hw=curiel&sn=024&sc=215 http://www.sfgate.info/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/23/BAGF5KNFKI1.DTL http://fromwhisperstor.6.forumer.com/a/scott-dyeleski-murder-of-pamela-vitale-trial-71706life_post1885-15.html http://www.cbs5.com/local/Dyleski.Pamela.Vitale.2.440525.html http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is.../ai_n16652985/ http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-149869435.html http://www.news.findlaw.com/court_tv/s/.../22aug2006174850.html http://www.smartfellowspress.com/_Iago2005/_1005/00000257.htm http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/A115725.DOC http://www.socialissues.wiseto.com/Articles/149878871/?print http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/util/prestitialShell?ad=3&goback=http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=4469340 http://www.jaygaskill.com/Vitalehorowitzdeath.htm Tiburonforthree (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


TIBURON FOR THREE UNMASKED

After I wrote what I did above, I checked the link to the history of the murder trial and guess what, "Tiburon For Three" edited that page with changes that were not accurate and favored the killer. (I will not edit those pages nor have I ever looked at them before for obvious reasons) But check out the history. Now you have the evidence you need to understand. Daniel

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Dyleski&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.217.95 (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Here are the edit notes to what she changed on the site regarding the murder. It is self explanatory in the context of what she and her friends have been doing to my Wikipedia page. (She also doesn't really know what the evidence is or what happened at the trial. As many of you know, I was there every minute of the preliminary hearing and trial. Daniel

  1. (cur) (prev) 23:15, 12 September 2009 Tiburonforthree (talk | contribs) (10,484 bytes) (→Murder of Pamela Vitale and criminal trial: need another source, removed source to blog discussion, no evidence Dyleksi was even accused of carving the symbol while she was alive) (undo)
  2. (cur) (prev) 23:12, 12 September 2009 Tiburonforthree (talk | contribs) (10,633 bytes) (→Murder of Pamela Vitale and criminal trial) (undo)
  3. (cur) (prev) 23:04, 12 September 2009 Tiburonforthree (talk | contribs) (10,493 bytes) (→Background: unsourced - this does not appear to be in any court testimony or official records) (undo) (Tag: references removed)
  4. (cur) (prev) 23:03, 12 September 2009 Tiburonforthree (talk | contribs) (10,687 bytes) (→Background: Scott Dyleski only sister was a half sister - his father was her father. I don't think she ever lived with him and his mother who is unrelated) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.217.95 (talk)

\ Mr. Horowitz. If you can find a source that states Mr. Dyleski was accused of carving the symbol while Pamela Vitale was alive, then you are free to put that back on the page for him and source it. Likewise, about his sister living with them. This is very easy to look up on Google and is not nefarious on my part. Dyleski's sister was his half sister and they shared the same dad, not the same mom. Why woul dshe have been living with Mr. Dyleski and his mom? How is this edit in favor of Mr. Dyleski? Are you saying that anyone who uses Google or edits something you don't like has to be subjected to your unwarranted accusations? Tiburonforthree (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Horseofcourse66, 26 August 2011[edit]

The petition exhibits include original law enforcement interviews with Pamela Vitale's sister, Tammy Hill, who claimed there were incidents of rage and domestic violence during their marriage along with the couple experiencing financial problems.

This part is untrue. As a close friend of the couple, I know neither was the case and so this information is downright devastating and hurtful to Daniel Horowitz.

Please remove.

Horseofcourse66 (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the paragraph in question - see below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 99.117.55.54, 26 August 2011[edit]

The ,most recent edit is from a serial attacker of Daniel Horowitz. The claims are posted as fact when they come from the killer of his wife and from his attorney. Local newscasts have the attorneys back tracking from their claim and there is no evidence to support. It is impossible to post corrections but somehow the person was able to post. 99.117.55.54 (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the President of NOVJL, cited in this article, the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Lifers (www.teenkillers.org)we wish to strongly object to the content which attempts to connect Mr. Horowitz to the murder of his wife in any way. Scott Dyleski was convicted of the crime with overwhelming physical evidence, including his DNA on the victim and her blood all over his clothes and possessions. Mr. Horowitz is a prominent and highly respected attorney. The killer and his attorney are using Mr. Horowitz's high profile status to try to create a desperate ground for any kind of appeal of his deserved conviction and life sentence. This is "blaming the victim" of the worst kind. This wikipedia page does not mention the clear physical evidence that led to an undisputed conviction of the true killer. And worst, these attacks on Mr. Horowitz's character did not begin until after he joined the organized opposition to free his wife's killer that NOVJL formed. NOVJL (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the slanderous comments re: Daniel Horowitz, Attorney at Law. Scott Dyleski was convicted of murdering Mr. Horowitz' wife Pamela with undisputed DNA evidence, according to trial transcripts. Brookebud (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the paragraph in question as synthesis, a violation of WP:NPOV etc. Can I ask that any reverts etc be discussed here first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect here, but I think Wiki pages should be as accurate as possible. The president of NOVJL is Daniel Horowitz per the website teenkillers.org.

http://www.teenkillers.org/index.php/memorials/california-victims-2/pamela-vitale/

I will not edit Daniel Horowitz page, but the facts cited by NOVJL about Mr. Dyleski's case are not all true and not supported by transcripts. I also do not see why a victims sister is called a liar here and it seems a violation to continue to let MR. Horowitz or his friends edit his Wikipedia page. I did not think Wikipedia's purpose was to serve as a personal public relations page for any individual. It seems that if Pamela Vitale's murder is on Daniel Horowitz's wikipedia page and what is contained in legal documents about his wife's murder is considered unacceptable, then "The Murder of Pamela Vitale" should be removed from this page and Mr. Horowitz should be banned from continually claiming others are attacking him when they are posting content that links to official records and/or the content contains cites. User:Greenhornet1010 (User talk:User:Greenhornet1010) —Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Daniel Horowitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Dyleski and Pamela Vitale[edit]

Where is the empirical evidence Dyleski murdered Pamela, at the age of 16? I keep looking into Pamela's murder, and it is starting to look more like a hired hit for the purpose of possibly intimidating and silencing one of the most successful and influential Defense Attorney's, in the nation. I think he may have upset someone associated with either the FBI or some sort of organized crime syndicate. Were Scott Dyleskis fingerprints or DNA found at Pamela Vitale's residence? The wife of Dan Horowitz...was there a high profile case he had coming up that certain individuals didn't want him to defend, or refuse to defend? Did he say something starkly offensive on National TV, upset someone who despises him and how he may have helped someone dangerous get away with high crimes and murder?

Feel free to comment and share. I am a Private Investigator, and this this is indeed a very odd situation. 2601:404:C501:BE70:ACC1:E1C3:12E5:D5D3 (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag (July 2023)[edit]

Subject of this BLP has been commenting on the article talk page for over a decade. Numerous editors have expressed concern about possible sockpuppet accounts of BLP, see talk FeralOink (talk) 07:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Horowitz&oldid=1202798222"