WillBowden (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-09-09 02:23 PM
Original message http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x152767
Neo-Nazi on trial for hate crime murder gets makeover
(New Port Richie, Fla.) John Allen Ditullio is a walking billboard for the neo-Nazi movement: a large 6-inch swastika tattooed under his right ear, barbed wire inked down the right side of his face, and an extreme and very personal vulgarity scrawled on one side of his neck.
Jurors will never see any of it. A judge has ruled that the state must pay a cosmetologist up to $150 a day during Ditullio’s trial on murder and attempted murder charges and apply makeup to cover up the black ink.
Judge Michael Andrews, acting on a request by Ditullio’s lawyer, ruled that the tattoos are potentially offensive and could influence a jury’s opinion in the state’s death penalty case against the 23-year-old accused of donning a gas mask, breaking into a neighbor’s home and stabbing two people, killing one of them.
Since his arrest in the March 26, 2006, crime in this suburban county just north of Tampa, the self-described neo-Nazi has added tattoos to his body that are prominently displayed and not easily concealed. Ditullio doesn’t have the money to pay to have the tattoos covered up, said his public defender, Bjorn Brunvand, who was worried that a jury might be biased against his client on the basis of the tattoos alone.
===
Yes, because the heinous crime of which he is accused isn't enough to bias anyone against him.
Now...why did he don a gasmask?
other than that, the story is about how tatoos of the accused may lead the jury to think his is a killer...
well....duh.
Kerrytravelers (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-09-09 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. Maybe I'm alone in this opinion, but if he's still getting tats after his arrest, why are taxpayers
paying for make-up?
If the things he chooses to write on his body reflects his mindset and who he is, and still is, apparently, then why are they being covered up?
I have no problem with the accused being allowed to wear a suit to court. I am all for a defendant's rights.
Maybe covering the tats is no different that a suit. And maybe I am completely misunderstanding this. And I will gladly stand corrected.
Can someone tell me where I'm wrong and why?
Excellent questions.
Deep13 (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-09-09 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I think the tata with racist messages are relevant to motive. nt
Sooooo... this is a race based crime?
Toasterlad (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-09-09 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. The Man DID IT TO HIMSELF.
Of course it's going to prejudice the jury. It's going to prejudice anyone he ever meets for the rest of his (hopefully) short life. That's the price you pay for getting a tattoo. That's what they're designed to DO: say something about you.
Since the stupid ****tard CHOSE to advertise the fact that he's a hating, murderous asshole, I see no reason why ANYONE should have to pay to try and disguise that fact, least of all innocent taxpayers, who would be far better served if this ****ing animal were put down, or at least locked away forever.
Interesting that you're such a huge proponent of free speech, but you feel that this ****wad's freedom of expression - which he CHOSE HIMSELF - should be covered up by court order.
toaster is an angry little homo. Oh, yes...this was on the GLBTVSJLO...forums...
Toasterlad (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-09-09 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I'm Assuming the Asshole's Guilty Because Of the Mountain Of Evidence Against Him.
Including witnesses, DNA, and his own writings. I am not on the jury. I do not have to abide by court instructions to consider this filthy animal innocent until PROVEN guilty. He's clearly guilty, and I'm not going to dance your fake impartiality letter of the law wacky dance and pretend he might NOT be guilty, because this is not the forum for that bullshit. He's getting his (more than) fair trial, so you can quit whining about the rights of this SELF-DESCRIBED neo-nazi degenerate who kills people just because they're gay.
After he killed Kristofer King, the piece of shit wrote a christmas card to the dead boy's father, which said, "I hope your Christmas is filled with memories of your dead gay son. Merry ****ing Christmas." That card is being used as evidence in the case. Why is this card admissible when his tattoo of a swastika, which is just as much a self-chosen expression of his bigoted, sociopathic character, is not? He also wrote in a notebook, "I'm ready to die for what I believe in. I now know what it means to die for my race. I'm ready to shoot these cops until my hand stops working. ... I'd rather be killed than to live with those n------ forever." This notebook is also being used as evidence in the trial. Why is the notebook admissible when his tattoo of a swastika, which is just as much a self-chosen expression of his biogted, sociopathic character, is not?
Your sympathy for the rights of this self-mutilated, murdering douchebag notwithstanding, it is bullshit that taxpayers have to pay to cover up the evil this filth willingly chose to announce to the world in a hopefully futile effort to save his worthless life.
Ah! It's about a ghey based crime!
paulsby (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-09-09 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. your disrespect for civil rights
is sad.
that's the issue. even murderous scumbags deserve the right to a fair trial.
i, unlike many here, support the right to a fair trial for ANY defendant, no matter how heinous.
you, of course, hypocritically would criticize the govt. when the unfair trial was for somebody you were sympathetic to, but it's a-ok as long as the defendant is a racist skinhead.
even the worse of the worse deserve basic civil rights, and a fairl trial.
sad that you don't support that.
i have sympathy for EVERYBODY's rights. you don't like civil rights. you'd fit right in the bush cabal, where it's ok to deny civil rights if the person is unsavory.
sad
paul, the big ghey cartoonist, is a sensitive lad.
Toasterlad (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-09-09 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. As I Said, He's Getting a MORE Than Fair Trial.
A fair trial would be him in court as he has chosen to show himself to the world.
Your ridiculous assertion that I don't believe in civil rights is backed up by absolutely nothing, of course. I never said the piece of shit didn't deserve a trial. I only said that disguising his body-hate is not a civil rights issue, it's an unfair tactic begged for by a lawyer who has no case and is clinging to the hope that he can keep the jury in deliberations for at least an hour if they can't acutally SEE that his client is a murderous ****wad, in addition to HEARING and READING about how he's a murderous ****wad. That the judge would allow it and force taxpayers to pay for it what is TRULY sad.
As for your bullshit assertion that if it was someone I LIKED in a similar situation, find me a gay guy with the words "I hate breeders" tattooed on his face who killed a straight boy. I think you'll find that my position won't change. See? We gays aren't just emotional weathervanes incapable of rational thought like you've apparently always believed.
did I mention toaster is angry?
Toasterlad (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-09-09 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. You Are Clearly Obsessed With Getting This Guy Off.
Edited on Wed Dec-09-09 10:38 PM by Toasterlad
There is no other explanation for your vehement, and, frankly, over the top defense of this blatantly counter-prejudicial maneuver designed to make this murderer look warm and fuzzy.
In all that blathering about how much I hate civil rights, I missed the part where you explained why the things the bastard WROTE were admissible, but why the things he had written on his FACE were not. The card written to the boys father is not evidence that the asshole's a MURDERER; it does not contain a confession of the crime, or place the asshole at the crime scene...it is evidence admitted to show his CHARACTER. Why is THAT admissible, but the asshole's tattoos are not? Would you like to explain, or would your rather go on accusing me of wanting to line up everyone who's ever gotten a parking ticket and shoot them in the back of the head without sending them to court first?
Yes, we get it. You're the ONLY one who understands what true freedom is, and just how much it costs. You are the ONLY true defender of the constitution in America. And you'll gladly free every neo-nazi, gay-murdering psychopath in prison today in order to prove it.
really angry
Toasterlad (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-09-09 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Still No Explanation About Why the Letters Are Admissible, But the Tattoos Are Not, I See.
Gee, I'd have thought that someone so familiar with the legal system would be able to explain away such a simple matter, but I see that you've decided instead to use your time to keep pounding away at the meme that I hate civil rights.
Well, when you get through dry-humping the Bill of Rights, you might want to look around and realize that no one's that impressed with your mighty decree that everyone deserves a fair trial, since not a single person on this thread has suggested otherwise. The fact that we differ on just exactly what constitutes a fair trial simply means that I have a better grasp of what the law is designed to do than you do.
really really angry.
Toasterlad (1000+ posts) Thu Dec-10-09 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. So If We Don't Hide Evidence That the Self-Described Neo-Nazi Is a Neo-Nazi,
it's not a fair trial?
That's the bullshit line you're going with, huh? In order for this guy to get a fair trial, we have to make him look as if he's not the person he really is?
You don't understand SHIT.
Oh, I beg to differ. Paul is quiet familar with poo.
