GUILTY FL - Kristofer King, 17, stabbed to death, Hudson, 23 March 2006

Discussion in 'Recently Sentenced and Beyond' started by Missizzy, Dec 9, 2009.

  1. Missizzy

    Missizzy New Member

    Messages:
    10,557
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/12/neo-nazi_in_florida_murder_cas.html

    "NEW PORT RICHEY, 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......

    .......As is common with defendants on trial, Ditullio's appearance had been scrubbed clean: his hair was trimmed, and his unruly beard was cut into a neat goatee."


    And why, may I ask, is the jury not allowed to see Mr. Ditullio as he has chosen to adorn himself? If I were on the jury, I would find this pertinent information, wouldn't most jurors?
     
  2. Loading...


  3. impatientredhead

    impatientredhead New Member

    Messages:
    6,476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is exactly why they are going to allow them to be covered.
    Prejudices the jury based on something other than the evidence of the crime.
     
  4. Muffet

    Muffet Autocorrect is my worst enema

    Messages:
    4,053
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But evidence of the crime isn't the question; evidence of who committed the crime is.

    Not to go too far astray, but we went through this in the Davidson trial, where the jury wasn't allowed to be told that he had just gotten out of prison for a very similar crime, or that he had put a gun in the face of two other women less than a week before he killed the victims he was being tried for.

    I understand the reasoning, and we must be cautious, but IMO, some judges take avoiding prejudice too far when they don't allow juries to see anything about the accused that shows his propensities.

    Previous behavior is the strongest indicators of future behavior. So it's a critical variable to consider when trying to decide whether or not someone did something. .../rant

    Back to this case... :blush:

    What's strange is:

    1. He isn't denying he's a neo-Nazi

    2. The tattoos they are spending so much time and (taxpayers') money to cover up are ones he got since his arrest for this crime.

    The ones he had before (a cross under his eye, and several small ones on his hands) will be left alone. I'm unclear as to why. Is it just a matter of wanting to portray him as, well, as something he is not? i.e., cleaner and more decent a man than he is?

    I'm so tired of seeing juries being deceived. :sheesh:
     
  5. OkieGranny

    OkieGranny New Member Staff Member Forum Coordinators

    Messages:
    21,517
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    From December 2010:

    http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts...-gets-life-sentence-in-2006-stabbings/1140326

    http://archive.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=162652

     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice