Neo-Nazi on trial for hate crime murder gets makeover

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.

Oh. I get it. It's $5 for applying the makeup - and $145 for having to be in close proximity to the creep.

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?

Since he knew he was going to face trial, he had every opportunity to not adversely affect the jury by not getting the new tats, but did it anyway.

Fuck him.

And it would be a public service as well. :shrug:

:rofl:

:rofl:

regardless of anything else, the tats clearly would prejudice the jury.

i can't believe they can't find somebody who charges less than $150 to cover the tats up with makeup, though.

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 fucktard 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 fucking 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 fuckwad's freedom of expression - which he CHOSE HIMSELF - should be covered up by court order.

there is ample precedent that you can't allow stuff like this that is CLEARLY prejudicial to influence the jury.

for example, courts have also ruled against allowing friends/families of victim in murder cases of wearing pins, clothing, etc. that visually depict the victim FOR THE SAME REASON. this can prejudice the jury against the defendant accused of murdering that victim

freedom of speech is not the issue. the issue is a fair trial.

speech is very controlled in a trial. they have these things called rules of evidence, admissible vs. inadmissible hearsay, as well as the fact that random spectators cannot freely express their views about the defendant, whereas IN PUBLIC, they can say whatever they want. they can stand outside the courthouse and call him a murderous assmunch. IN THE TRIAL, there are strict rules about this stuff. for good reason

and you can see how it IS prejudicial by the fact that you call the guy a hating MURDEROUS asshole. iow, you have already made up your mind that he is guilty, which is a good example of why the court would pay to have the guy's tats covered. many jury members might also be influenced to act on his tattoos VERSUS the only thing they are supposed to consider, which is evidence presented in court.

even scumbag racist skinheads deserve the same protections under the law that other people do. i don't even know if this guy is guilty or not, you seem willing to make that assumption.

if you respect rule of law, equal treatment under the law, and the right to a FAIR trial, then you will see that this court's decision is sound

here's another reason to support the decision, it would give the defense a GREAT grounds for appeal if the guy is found guilty.

assuming he is guilty, i would like to see the case SURVIVE appeal and see the death penalty applied.

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 fucking 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.

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

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 fuckwad, in addition to HEARING and READING about how he's a murderous fuckwad. 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.

as you have already demonstrated. the tats would be prejudicial, and that's why the govt. is paying to cover them up.

clearly, your knowledge of legal issues is culled from an old episode of law and order and your jr high civics textbook.

here's a little hint for you. having hateful racist tattoos does not mean one is a MURDERER. lots of people wear racist tattoos w/o ever having murdered any one. it would be prejudicial.

here's a little hint. lots of stuff is inadmissible that you would like to see admitted. if you murdered somebody 5 yrs ago, served a 5 yr sentence, just got released and murdered somebody else. guess what? your previous murder conviction would not be admissible either. (unless you were stupid enough to say on the stand "i never murdered anybody before" or something stupid like that, or unless the modus operandi probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect)

we live in a country with a rule of laws, and civil rights. and yes, the right to a FAIR trial IS a civil right.

and you don't believe in that right.

which is sad.

and like i said, it's also TACTICALLY stupid to not cover up his tattoos, since it would be an EASY appeal.

and for the record, i am not defending him or his action. i am defending his RIGHT to a fair trial.

if you were under arrest for threatening george bush, and you had "i hate republicans" on your forehead, the court would also pay to cover that up. because it's... wait for it... prejudicial.

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.

you clearly are not.

it's that simple.

assuming the guy is guilty, i would love to see him executed.

here's another hint, although i realize legal analysis and understanding escapes you.

the fact that people have civil rights mean it is true that guilty people sometimes go free, when they would have been convicted but for those rights. see: fruit of the poisonous tree. or escobedo or miranda etc.

our very system of justice is based on the precept that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than that 1 innocent man is convicted .

our civil rights mean that state power to investigate, search, arrest, etc. has a lot of limitations.

you don't respect civil rights

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.

and you have trotted out strawmen (such as i want the guy to get off).

i gotta give you props for "dry humping the Bill of Rights". thtat was frigging funny.

you have no grasp of the law. i do. that much is clear from this thread

in brief, the letters are admissible BECAUSE THEIR PROBATIVE VALUE EXCEEDS THEIR PREJUDICIAL EFFECT

the opposite is true of the tat's.

if you don't believe me, ask a lawyer. god knows you don't grok the law.

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.

Is it happening because it could be overturned later down the road? Effectively using the tattoo's as an excuse for an appeal. After all, you can be a neo-Nazi and NOT be guilty of the crime you're accused of... so I can see it from that point of view. I'd want to do everything in my power to ensure that the creep remains in prison for life.

On the other hand, if the above does not factor into it at all... what is the prosecutor saying? I don't really buy the argument made otherwise, and actually view his tattoo's as evidence for motive. It would be like having Fred Phelps accused of killing someone who is gay, but then denying the jury the right to see photos of him and his family protesting outside of a gay funeral because the vulgar messages on the signs might bias the jury. Of course it would! It makes it clear that he'd have motive. In my mind, the tattoo's are no different than pictures.

Jeez...