Today on CNN Newsroom

The latest news and information from around the world. Also connect with CNN through social media. We want to hear from you.
December 10th, 2009
08:39 AM ET

Makeup Before Murder Trial

A Florida man accused of murder will be going into make-up before he heads to his murder trial.

John Allen Ditullio is a neo-Nazi who’s accused of murder and facing the death penalty. And Florida taxpayers will have to pay $150 dollars per day for his make-up artist.

A Florida judge sided with Ditullio’s defense attorney, who argued that the swastika tattooed under his right ear, barbed wire on the right side of his face and a very vulgar phrase tattooed on his neck are potentially offensive and could influence a jury’s opinion during Ditullio’s murder trial.

We want you to share your thoughts on the judge’s ruling.

Post your comments and Heidi will read some of them in the 10a hour of the CNN Newsroom.

soundoff (222 Responses)
  1. Byron la Costas

    I believe they should try him as he is.

    December 10, 2009 at 8:48 am |
  2. Renee Estrada

    A person is tried as who they are period. If for instance it was a race trial would he gave a black person made up white or a white person made up black? There is no difference. The judge is totally WRONG!!!

    December 10, 2009 at 9:05 am |
  3. Emily

    It's too bad turtlenecks haven't been invented yet....

    December 10, 2009 at 9:55 am |
  4. Jinx

    Really? This is ridiculous! Buy him a $10.00 turtleneck and be done with it. Why have tax payers pay for this nonesense?

    December 10, 2009 at 9:56 am |
  5. Dave, VA

    He decided to get those offensive tattoos, now taxpayers need to foot the bill to get them covered up for his trial? I understand he doesn't want the jury to see them, but he should definately have to pay for the make-up himself. Doesn't make sense.

    December 10, 2009 at 9:57 am |
  6. Brendan O'Neil

    Are you kidding me? This guy has some skin head phrase on his neck, and he needs makeup to cover it up. Maybe if he wasn't a skinhead in the first place he wouldnt have gotten that tattoo. Let the jury see this man's ignorance for what it is.

    December 10, 2009 at 9:57 am |
  7. FW

    If the judge feels it's necessary, then why not get him a turtle neck from the salvation army for $2.00 and save tax dollars
    However, you are tried how you are, as you choose how to present yourself to society.

    December 10, 2009 at 9:57 am |
  8. Brandon Robinson

    I think the judge is horribly wrong. This defendant chose to make a public statement about who he is/was when he got tattooed. Doesn't the jury deserve to know who the defendant thinks he is?

    December 10, 2009 at 9:57 am |
  9. Marlyn Mattix

    I've several extra pillowcases, you can cut eye and mouth holes in–no reason to put out that $150.00 in make-up to cover the tattoos.
    Besides, this fellow CHOSE to have these tattoos for ALL to see, so let him "man up"!

    December 10, 2009 at 9:57 am |
  10. Tamika

    I think it's ridiculous that Floridian's will have to pay to have this surgery to be done. If it is that much of a concern why not just make him wear a turtleneck instead of paying to have the tatoos removed?

    December 10, 2009 at 9:57 am |
  11. David Druckerman

    I don't think the tattoos should be covered up. A tattoo speaks about the individual, they are statements. Perhaps if he received the tattoos against his will, covering them up would be understandable.

    December 10, 2009 at 9:58 am |
  12. Bill H

    What is wrong with some many of our officials in today's time period? In this case, this person had these markings when/if he committed the crime so why should he be "changed" for the trial? And, definitely the taxpayers should not have to pay for this "service". Take it out of the judge's salary.

    December 10, 2009 at 9:58 am |
  13. Nick

    as the old saying goes, "if the shoe fits, wear it". he chose to tattoo his face, why should people who live in one of the states with the worst economy need to pay for makeup, on a criminal!!!

    December 10, 2009 at 9:58 am |
  14. Kyle Kaiser

    Those tattoos will most likely influence the jury. However, does someone who puts tattoos on their face like he has done really have any expectation to privacy? He has put his feelings on display. If these tattoos on his face had instead been written on paper you can bet it would be admissable in court.

    December 10, 2009 at 9:58 am |
  15. Sig Puchacz

    I believe this is an abuse of public funds. If this is the image that John Allen Ditullio has chosen for himself, he should live with it.

    The judge is definitely out of line. Adults make choices and take actions and should be held responsible for them. The purpose of a trial is judge the person and his actions, not alter them.

    Maybe a better alternative is to have all defendants hooded or behind an one way mirror.

    Respectfully,
    Sig

    December 10, 2009 at 9:58 am |
  16. Matthew Wendel

    If this man's viewpoints are so strong that he had tattoos done, then regardless of their vulgarity or possible influence on the trial they should not be covered up. This is a part of this man's identity, and to attempt to hide that from the jury is like hiding evidence from them. Furthermore, the judge wants the taxpayers to fund this attempt to cover up evidence.

    This judge should be found unsuitable to stand over this trial, and this ruling should be overturned.

    December 10, 2009 at 9:59 am |
  17. Rob Taylor

    Do me a favor and send a message to the Judge......I have a nice dull knife, and I can just remove those tattoos for free, and save the court some $$.
    Rob

    December 10, 2009 at 9:59 am |
  18. G.I. Palikar

    Whatever happened to the Miranda standards? ANYTHING you say or do can be used against you in a court of law! This judge is violating the citizens rights to know that this defendant took specific actions to broadcast specific offensive messages !

    December 10, 2009 at 9:59 am |
  19. Nancy

    Instead of a make up artist being used to cover up Ditullio's tattoos, I suggest they put a black plastic bag over his head and tie it tightly around his neck to insure that it doesn't come off during his trial.

    December 10, 2009 at 9:59 am |
  20. Susie

    This is totally ridiculous and I am appalled at a Judge who ordered this. I agree with Renee if it were a black person made up in white. I know where this guy came from it is a well known area for this activity plus many other drug deals, etc. I wouldn't drive my car through there. I have heard the police have cleaned out his kind and are constantly surveilling the area and getting calls there. I say, try him as is and I am offended that it is our money that pays for this.

    December 10, 2009 at 9:59 am |
  21. Chris

    Why get rid of them? They are no different than pictures of paraphernalia in his house representing the same concepts and beliefs. The tattoos show how dedicated he is to the concepts and ideals of the Arian Nation. Regardless, the EVIDENCE, NOT his appearance should be judged. I realize that we as human beings are emotional and judgmental, but evidence is VITAL to the judicial system, not appearances. Look at the Menendez brothers, rather handsome and innocent looking for the most part, yet guilty by way of evidence.

    December 10, 2009 at 9:59 am |
  22. Shane

    How outrageous! Why not just stick a paper bag over his head. Is going to have his hair done too? Shane, Miami, FL

    December 10, 2009 at 9:59 am |
  23. Tabitha

    Of course this could influence the jury, and it should. These are tattoos that he decided to get, three times. These were conscience decisions that he took time to pick out and have tattooed on himself. He knew what they stood for and also wanted the world know that he agreed with them by placing them on his body. Why now should he be allowed to not show his true beliefs, because he is on trial for murder? This should be the exact opposite; these are merits of his character.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:00 am |
  24. stephan

    Im a tattoo artist .Ive tattooed for 18 years . i believe that when you mark your body you are saying something .This man knows what he has tattooed on him let him stand behind his decision . This is about his crime . If he was planing on hiding what he is he should have never gotten these Tattoos .If the jury discriminates based on the tattoos they are not doing thier job.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:00 am |
  25. Kalyn James

    This is absurd. I live in miami and I think there are much more cost effective methods to hide his tattoos like a turtleneck – it's cold in those courtrooms. Otherwise, his family should absorb the cost, not taxpayers. That would feed some poor foster kid for a week, or buy books for a classroom. He's a criminal and should have considered his appearance before committing his crime. What a waste.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:01 am |
  26. Mike in Mississippi

    The defendant chose to get this tatoo and chose to wear this tatoo, so this tatoo is a part of the defendant that the jury should be able to see. It goes to the defendant's motives, his credibility, and his thinking. Now, should the defendant be sorry for getting this tatoo and wish to have it removed, then he should be allowed to do so at his expense. But, it seems to be a part of the crime that should not be excluded.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:01 am |
  27. Antonio DaSilva

    When he put those tattoos on his face he made a decision that that's the way he wanted the world to see him, SO BE IT. The judge should have his forehead tattooed with the word GULLIBLE

    December 10, 2009 at 10:01 am |
  28. david bell

    The State of Florida should let the tats stay exposed.Why cover up freedom of speech.If he didn't want people to know, why put his tats in such visible places.The jury needs to know his true character.Why pay a character witness.Use the resources They already have.Stop waisting taxpayers money.Shame on the State of Florida.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:02 am |
  29. Dennis Sirman

    Ridiculous...........but not surprising. This guy chose to mark himself this way. It is part of who he is. The judge may instruct the jury to focus on the evidence and not the man's appearance. That would be judicially appropriate.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:02 am |
  30. Kevin Brennan

    $150 a day for a make-up artist??? Do you realize how many rolls of duct tape I can buy for $150 !! I'd suggest the judge run to his local hardware store and pick up a roll of duct tape – one roll should more than outlast the trial !

    December 10, 2009 at 10:02 am |
  31. concerned

    This person is displaying symbols and possibly words associated with hate on their body and are in a situation where they could possibly have taken a life, I do not think that covering up this personal expression is necessary. I especially do not think any citizen should have to fund it. There are other causes that are more deserving of this money like feeding our unemployed families or keeping a child warm. Besides, sometimes, a spade is a spade and no amount of covering it up is necessary.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:03 am |
  32. Gage

    This is what makes America unique and proves that judge is able to make smart objective decisions. Despite this guy's offensive tattoos, a judge will not allow a jury to 'read this book by his cover'. By doing this he will ensure not only a fair trial, but will eliminate the possibility for a mistrail, retrial or reason for appeal that would claim he was convicted because of his tattoos and not the evidence. After all, those tattoos are a part of his personal expressions, covered by the 1st amendment.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:03 am |
  33. Margaret

    Individuals have a right to their choice of appearance. He made his choice. He should live with the results. If he and his attorney are worried about prejudice, somewhat ironic considering his own neo-nazi affiliation, they should be responsible for cleaning him up.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:03 am |
  34. Michele Brooklyn

    Why can't they make him wear a scarf instead of make tax payers pay for a makeup artist? If he has them then I'm sure he wants them displayed and doesn't care if it prejudices the jury or not.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:04 am |
  35. Mr. Dixie Wells

    He has painted a very distinctive picture of himself (no pun intended) and the jury should see it, as I just did.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:04 am |
  36. Valerie Lawrence

    This appears to be another example of 'creative lawyering,' in an effort by Ditullio's attorney to make him seem to be something other than what he really is. When Ditullio got the tatoos he made a decision to advertise his beliefs. Are those beliefs any less important now that he is on trial for murder? A person comprises in whole, their beliefs and actions. To purposefully hide his neo-nazi beliefs hides the truth of who he really is.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:05 am |
  37. Patrick

    Leave the tattoo's on. Make up or no make up should not have an effect in this case.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:05 am |
  38. Adrienne

    Every person deserves a fair trial. But I'm sure that providing the defendant with a turtleneck would suffice. Even though that means his barbed-wired would still be showing, I don't think that's a neo-Nazi symbol, and I'm sure others have stood trial with visible tattoos. If this judge's decision is not overturned, it will set a slippery-slope precedent.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:06 am |
  39. Dave U

    We all have to live with the things we do. the Tattoos say something about the man. It is a statement that he was happy to shove at the rest of us until it was a jury that was listening to the hate engraved into to his face and neck. He wanted us to live with his message of hate, Now he should suffer the consequences of that hate, with out makeup.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:06 am |
  40. lucien

    Why should the taxpayers have to flip the bill, plain and simple?
    He was ble to pay for the tattoes, he or his family members should pay for the make-up to cover them.
    Next we'll be so worried about the appearance of the defendants that we won't let the jury members see the defendants.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:07 am |
  41. Danny Blevins

    I think the taxpayers of Florida should be outraged. I am sure that
    when Mr. Ditullio had the tattoos placed on his body that he wanted
    them to make a statement about himself. If the tattoos project a
    negative message, then let the responsiblity fall on his own head.
    The state of Florida didn't require him to mark his body in this way.
    What was the judge thinking? The ruling to hire a make-up artist
    is an injustice to the good citizens of Florida.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:08 am |
  42. Stuart Hoover

    It would seem that there might be other options, such as letting the defendant monitor the trial by closed circuit camera.......but it not, this is simply an example of how far we are willing to go to make sure a man can get a fair trial. How can you put a price on that?

    December 10, 2009 at 10:08 am |
  43. Jean-Louis

    Of course the tatoos are offensive; that's exactly why that accused murderer had them done. It's his way of openly displaying his hatred towards others and of revealing his demented, limited mental capacity.

    What I find truly offensive, however, is that this vermin donned a gas mask, broke into a neighbor's home and stabbed two people, killing one.

    I think the families of the victims should be given the opportunity to remove the offensive markings (as a public service) with a box cutter in order to prevent the jury's opinion from being unduly influenced.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:10 am |
  44. Shannan

    I don't think we should have to pay for the removal/coverup of the judgements that an individual decided he wanted to place in our view. When he chose to place this on his body he wanted to judged on these symbols and phrases for life. Consequences for every action we choose is a part of life so why assist with hiding who he has choosen to be. He should be tried as is.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:10 am |
  45. Tom Slinchak

    This is a just another sickening example of the special treatment given to criminals in our judicial system. Judges don't want their decisions overturned, cases brought back on appeals, or other smudge marks to their records that would otherwise hurt future aspirations they have. If its not this it's clearing courtrooms for child molesters so their fellow criminals don't know their crimes and turn their attention on them. When will these judges stop giving preference to the possible prejudices to criminals and give more concern to the victims and their families?

    December 10, 2009 at 10:11 am |
  46. David Tarsha

    As a near fluent student who has lived in Germany multiple times on exchange trips and have become involved in their culture I find the Nazi Swastika one of the most disgusting symbols on this plant. If this man truly supports the Nazis and is willing to wear the Swastika, along with the knowledge of the the evils that the symbol supports, then let the people know, don't cover it up! He should not be given the opportunity to hide the evils that he supports. Censoring a problem will only make it worse. This judge should face reality and has no right to blind an eye of the jury. Is the judge sympathizing with this murderous nazi and trying to help him?

    December 10, 2009 at 10:13 am |
  47. Mike Mihalek

    It’s all part of the joke we call our criminal justice system, where we spend far more time, energy and tax-payer’s money protecting the rights of criminals than we do providing justice for their victims.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:15 am |
  48. Brownie Shaffer Haracivet

    I think duct tape would work just fine.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:17 am |
  49. Richard

    Rediculous

    Let the judge pay for the make-up

    December 10, 2009 at 10:17 am |
  50. Mary Hart

    A tattoo is forever. If he is brazen enough to get that tattooed on his face – that's who he is. He should face the jury as is. This expense is unjustifiable.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:18 am |
  51. Jim Edwards

    This person chose to have tatoos on his body and any government agency should not pay to cover them up. He chose his destiny.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:18 am |
  52. Christopher Gonzales

    These are the words that just came out of my mouth (when I saw the ridiculous "solution"): "Oh, come on! Stick a Band-Aid on 'em!"

    December 10, 2009 at 10:18 am |
  53. JW Sumner

    The tatoos tell a compelling story about WHO this person really is. To hide them is to hide the truth.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:18 am |
  54. Frankie in OC

    ONLY in AMERICA!! Open the flood gates for appeal. Jury bias.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:19 am |
  55. Joe

    Thats what he is, an idiot with tattos that kills people, he put those there to show his feeling towards the public , so let that public Judge him as HE WANTS US TO SEE HIM.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:19 am |
  56. Dan

    Give this guy a turtle neck sweater and a couple band-aids!! Why should the tax payers foot the bill for his "make-up"?

    Dan
    Atlanta, Ga.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:19 am |
  57. Kevin

    As a Florida resident, I think this is ridiculous! But, if convicted, this doesn't even hold a candle to what Floirda residents will be spending on this convict's daily meals, clothing, and shelter for the rest of his life! The whole penal and system of incarceration needs to be re-examined, especially in the wake of this economy!!

    December 10, 2009 at 10:19 am |
  58. catharina j

    I understand the judges position, but this person had the tats put on for all the world to see. if he wants to wear a turtleneck to cover up some that would be reasonable. Other than that he should have to live with his decisions

    December 10, 2009 at 10:19 am |
  59. Linda in Ohio

    Gee, now I know if I ever get a tattoo and decide to have it hidden, I'll just commit a crime!!! or maybe I should go into the make-up business!!

    Totally, totally ridiculous!!! Wonderful way to spend taxpayer's money!!

    December 10, 2009 at 10:19 am |
  60. Arlo Lusby II

    Give the perp a couple of band-aids and tell him to stand trial for his alleged crimes; the jurors are going to know what is covered up anyway.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:19 am |
  61. Edward

    Very simple fix. A few Flintstone, Sponge Bob or plain bandaids will suffice. As for his rights, he can have the right to choose which band aids to use!

    December 10, 2009 at 10:19 am |
  62. Mike Breidenbach

    Put a sack over his head or put in a seperate room and connect with
    TV monitors

    December 10, 2009 at 10:19 am |
  63. Lane O'Dare

    I think the idea of a judge ruling in favor of paying a make-up artist to cover this mans tattoos for his trial is ludacris. I dont believe tax payers money should be spent to cover a mans truths tattood on his body. A jury should make decisions based on truths about the individual in question and for a judge to allow this man to cover his tattoos, is infact covering up his truths to the jury..JUDGE WAKE UP!

    December 10, 2009 at 10:20 am |
  64. Lynne

    Why waste $150.00 per day to cover tatoos with makeup? Just use black magic marker!!

    December 10, 2009 at 10:20 am |
  65. Natia

    I do not feel that it is fair to use taxpayer money any more than necessary. It is very civil of the judge to take this into consideration, however would it be less expensive to put him in different clothing, perhaps a suit? Does not the prison uniform also influence jurors? Nice gesture, but not compelling.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:20 am |
  66. Derrick

    The judge in Florida has lost his frakin mind making a decision like that.

    I firmly believe that dressing an accused in decent attire is one thing, but to hire a makeup artist to cover his tattoos is simply conservative politics.

    The jury should be allowed to view his tattoos. it is a major part of the accused personality that shouldn't be hidden. Hiding the tattoos is an attempt at swaying the jury to believe that the accused mindset is different than what it actually is.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:20 am |
  67. Debbie

    He should be judged the same as the rest of us. He chose his appearance and this does reflect who he is.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:20 am |
  68. Bobbi

    I'm a cosmetologist. Where I work we charge $50 to apply top of the line mineral make-up. Where to I sign up?

    December 10, 2009 at 10:20 am |
  69. Everett Hayhurst

    His Tatoos were his ststement to the world,
    It was how he was known. If he changed his mind
    the tats should have been "Kids Tatoos" that mom
    washed off when he went to bed.
    He is what he is by his own actions.
    Ev

    December 10, 2009 at 10:20 am |
  70. khristian

    The option should have been to have them removed by Laser or not have them covered by make-up.

    Will they have to cover the Tattoo's back up if he is convicted and Apeals ?

    I say burn them off, what if he gets MORE Tattoos in prison?

    December 10, 2009 at 10:20 am |
  71. Glo

    Doesn't this come under the heading "Coverup:? I thought that was illegal. This judge should be impeached.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:20 am |
  72. Tony

    Justice is blind isn't it?

    December 10, 2009 at 10:20 am |
  73. james

    Sorry those tatooes are who he is and should be admitted in the trial, they arent ordinary tatooes, they are display hate. I will put a big spot light on the judge and see what he is into if he want to pay to have this terrorist cover up who he really is everyone else does.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:21 am |
  74. Bob Sz

    What tattoo's did he have at the time of his alleged crime? If all, then so be it. If not all, use the makeup artist. MHO

    December 10, 2009 at 10:21 am |
  75. Keith Newsome

    The tatoos show his true self, his state of mind and how he wants everyone else to view him. Removing them hides the truth and the jury see's a totally different person. Why should we pay for removal, let his attorney buy him a turtle neck!. Keith Newome NN VA.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:21 am |
  76. Dave

    To use taxpayer dollars to cover this up is rediculous. He chose to have them put on his body. Now he should face whatever comes from that. Use his money to buy a shirt or sweater as coverup but do NOT use taxpayer money otherwise.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:21 am |
  77. Ty Bolton

    Personally, I question the judges motives and intent. Hiding his tattoos from who? The whole world knows this guy is a hardcore racist. If he's not ashamed of his affiliation, why should the judge be? I doubt if the large swastika on his neck will prejudice a juror. What might prejudice them is the repulsive crime he committed against a black man and white woman. When black and brown gang members appear in front of this judge on gang related charges? Does he cover their gang tattoos?

    December 10, 2009 at 10:21 am |
  78. Karen

    I think it is a sad thing when the tax payers have to pay for makeup because someone tatooed themselves in an offensive way. I say make him wear a turtleneck, and if that's not enough then too bad, maybe he should of thought of the negative way the tatoos made him look before he got them.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:21 am |
  79. Mark Savegi

    I have been unemployed for 8 month now. Every day is a struggle, I wish they would give me the $150 Dollars a day so that I can put food on the table. It is obvious the Judge in this case is out of touch with the current economic conditions.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:22 am |
  80. Jay

    This man chose to have these tatoo's where they could be seen. It appears that the judge is overstepping his bounds in showing the public who this person actually is. By using a make-up artist to cover his tatoo's the judge is covering the reality of the person and creating a fake identity. It is WRONG, and by no means should the taxpayers pay for a cover-up.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:22 am |
  81. Richard Weaver

    Heidi,
    I think its disgraceful to pu make up on this
    person at tax payer expense why not charge him?

    December 10, 2009 at 10:22 am |
  82. Brian Best

    Burn them off !!!!!! Quit waisting my money

    December 10, 2009 at 10:22 am |
  83. Tom

    This is absolutely ridiculous. If the Judge and the skinheads attorney feel that he will get a fair trial by covering up his beliefs, then they should pay for the cover up, not me. Now I am not up on the case, but why should I site here in my office in Florida and pay for this guy to have a makeup artist help him get a fair trial? Put him on trial for who he is and let's not sugar coat the fact that he is a "neo-Nazi" and hater of other people!

    December 10, 2009 at 10:22 am |
  84. Thomas

    If the man has chosen to follow neo-nazi ideology and shows it openly by tatooing his body with those symbols, then the jury should be able to see who he really is. This would certainlycome out during the trial anyway.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:22 am |
  85. Francesca

    Just when you think you have heard it all!!!
    Those tattoos should be seen, and people should be offended. He made the choice to place them on his body. He should have to accept the consequences of doing so. Taxpayers should not have to carry the costs of hiding his true colors.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:23 am |
  86. Chuck

    I think the tattoos are a part of this individuals personality. He chose to tattoo these symbols on his body and wears them proudly. Nobody forced him to tattoo these symbols on his body and he should not disguise them to influence the jury. The judge is concerned with the jury's interpretation of the tattoos and them swaying thier decision. However, the judge's order to cover up the tattoos is also a method of swaying the jury's decision. Making this person a different man than he was the day/night of the murder. If he only had one arm...would the judge give him another one for the trial?

    December 10, 2009 at 10:23 am |
  87. Kenneth Butler / Tyler Texas

    I think you should check the Judge Neck to see if there is any hatred markings on his neck.

    Let this guy do some community service to help pay for the "COVER UP" the judge and his lawyers are trying to do.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:23 am |
  88. jamie

    duct tape?

    December 10, 2009 at 10:23 am |
  89. Jodie

    Seems to me that John Allen Ditullio made the choice to get these tatoos to advertise his beliefs he is so obviously very proud of. The Judge's ruling to cover them up during his trial to procect him is outragious! Let the jury judge him on ALL aspects of his behavior and personality. If John Allen Ditullio wants to talk the talk let him walk the walk.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:24 am |
  90. Sharron Berk

    Why on Earth would they spend the taxpayers money on this hateful degenerate when they could easily wrap an ace bandage around his neck and band aids on his face for the barbed wire. The lack of thrifty and creative thinking is just mind boggling to me.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:24 am |
  91. Thunderbird

    He got those tatoo's on his own and wore them proud on the streets with no reguard as to what people thought . They represent what he feels and believes. Is he now upset because what people think will have an actual affect on him ? Leave them on , it's part of who he is and people should know.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:24 am |
  92. Peter C Frost

    $150 a day for make-up! A scarf costs $5

    December 10, 2009 at 10:24 am |
  93. Cindy

    I don't know how to approach the topic of sublimnal advertising being used today, other than to comment here. So I apologize for changing the subject. I object to Prius being distorted in digital glitch-like interruptions about every 30 seconds. Please make advertisers use traditional advertising time, not the sneaky interruptions to regular programming. I would appreciate a response if someone has time or cares.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:24 am |
  94. Sandy Warman

    It seeems like a good thing- that the judge is trying to get this guy a fair/unbiased trial. The defendant CHOSE to mark himself with permanant words or symbals in an effort to advertise his beliefs and interests. I am sure any Florida taxpayer would be happy to by him a $5 bottle of cosmetics and he can hide his opinions for himself, or the judge could cover the expense

    December 10, 2009 at 10:24 am |
  95. Cori

    Just go buy a brown paper bag and cut out two eye holes. No need in waisting all that money.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:24 am |
  96. shemaya

    All the guy needs is a "sack" with holes cut out for his eyes, mouth, etc. No one would see his identity at all to sway their judgment. Maybe they could "black" his face each day with shoe polish instead taking the trouble to disguise his skin.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:24 am |
  97. Bob Mueck

    A man gets tatooed with extremist markings, comitts murder, and then worries that it might sway a jury in thier decision? Oh well. It seems to me that he made that decision when he got the tatoo. I disagree with the order of the judge to have makeup applied to this person at the states' expense. If he wishes to cover it with makeup, then let him do that himself. We do not owe him that. He has the absolute right get the tatoos – so be it. Why should we now worry about how he looks? He didn't worry about that before.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:25 am |
  98. Kenneth Skelton

    I understand the need for this man to get a fair trial but us would be a lot cheaper for him to wear a turtle neck. If he refuses to wear a turtle neck he should face the consequences of his actions. Too many criminal hold the justice System hostage by their unreasonable behavior.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:25 am |
  99. Winston

    If the tattoo said "I love God, Country and my Mama" would the judge require it to be covered? That could also potentially influence a jury to view him differently. If he thought the statement was important enough to broadcast 24/7, let the jury see it. A court of law requires full disclosure, not selevtive cover-up.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:25 am |
  100. Ryan Pacocha

    What??!? As a Florida tax payer, I am offended at this judge waisting my tax paying dollars on something so rediculious as this.

    Mr. Ditullio made a concious decision to mark his body with offensive language and symbols, no one else.. If he feels those markings will harm his case, then HE should be a responsible adult and hire a make up artist to better his appearance. It is NOT the responsibility of the Florida tax payers to better his offensive look.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:25 am |
  101. Robert Barnett

    I'm sorry, but if you get vulgar tattoos you should take responsibility for them. Paying 150 dollars per day with taxpayer money to cover up these tattoos amounts to jury tampering. And if the court insists on doing this then everyday before the start of the trial the jury needs to be told that offensive tattoos have been covered up @ taxpayer expense. Why waste the money? A roll of duct tape for a couple of bucks will also cover them.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:25 am |
  102. RON WILLIAMS

    He made his bed, let him sleep in it. He wanted to look intimidating,lets see how intimidating he is in court. His tatooing shows what he's all about, so let the jury see just what he is! That's the trouble with the court system now, we cater to these people too much.
    Ron.....a non liberal

    December 10, 2009 at 10:25 am |
  103. Christopher Burns

    I think that this man deserves a fair trial by all means and it is not the taxpayers of Florida's fault that he has adorned himself in racist tattoos. He obviously believes in his hate group and why should the State pick up the "tab" for his cosmetic cover-up? I would feel mor

    December 10, 2009 at 10:25 am |
  104. james

    We're talking about catering an alledged murderers needs with taxpayer money. Not to mention all of the stated tattoos were aquired after his incarceration. If he cant control his own judgement why should the court? Yes the tattoos will offend, but if its so concerning to the court and not himself why go out of your way? Let him wear a turtle neck if need be. He wont be the first to go on stand with offensive tattoos and he wont be the last. This could open a door to a whole new aspect of spending taxpayer money.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:25 am |
  105. Jacqueline

    He should appear in court with the tattoos just as they are; the same way he wanted the tattoos to be representative of who he was prior to the criminal charge of murder. Isn't that what the jury is entitled to see? I could see if we were just talking about getting him a suit for court appearances. Even that would be non-representative of who he is really is.

    Jacqueline
    Meriden, Connecticut

    December 10, 2009 at 10:25 am |
  106. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    Does this mean that all criminals are intiteld to make up roorms now just put a bag over his head and lead him around with a rope.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:26 am |
  107. Melissa Laurie

    I think his attorney should pay for his makeup artist. When people get tatoos they have to think about the image they are displaying to the world. If they don't want to be judged then they should get their tatoos on a place on their body where they can cover up. What a waste of my hard earned money!

    December 10, 2009 at 10:26 am |
  108. Angela Tacoma Wa.

    I think personal body markings are personal reflection who and what we are or what we perceive our selves to be. I think the judge should pay for the makeup artist, as the judge is trying to sway the jury by not allowing them to see the person he has chosen to display himself as or proven himself to be the Judge is guilty of trying to control the verdict.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:26 am |
  109. Ray Williams

    Hello Heidi, What a farse. This man wants to hide that he is a Nazi, now after he has murdered (allegedly) someone? Weren't the tatoos put there to annonce to the world that he is a "Nazi," that he hates Jews and Blacks?
    In this country we are allowed freedom of speech, even if it is hateful, I believe by him covering up his tattos is to lie about who he is and who he has always proclaimed to be. I believe that it is a travesty of justice to assist this man in lying ot the jury and to the world by helping him to cover up his tatoos. If he wants them off, let him pay for it.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:26 am |
  110. Kelly Arnold

    Hey, food for thought for all: few people think what a tatoo may or may not be worth sometime in his/her future, good or bad (evil). Some choose the tatoo to speak/make a statement of their view of the world. This mans tatoo simply speaks visually what he thinks and lives. NO COVER-UP is necessary for justice to be served! No difference than a email discovered that would speak the same thing.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:27 am |
  111. rhonda

    Why not use makeup to change a persons color ... This person choose to have this stuff put on his body to say who and what he believes that is his freedom to do. The State of Flordia should not change him by covering up what he clearly wants to show off. The State should not have to pay for changing a persons hair color, body color or body art . If you do not want someone to think you are a duck , do not try to look like a Duck !!!

    December 10, 2009 at 10:27 am |
  112. spheather

    I live in the Tampa Bay area. I'm so happy national news has picked this up. I'm very upset my money is going to "change" his apperance. We all make choices, he chose to put thease on his face, neck.... I chose to put mine in other places. I thought he was proud to wear what he belives in??? He chose to offened people with his tattoos let him get what he wants??? Stop saving people from themselves.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:27 am |
  113. Manny

    This man got this tattoos to show the world who he is. He stood through the pain of being tattoed to show who he is and what he believes. I don't think that any tax payers should be paying to hide the messages that he has so painstakingly tried to show. Now, if his attorneys think that would be a detriment to their case, then it is up to them to spend the money to hide the tattoos. But, I don't think it is the responsibility of any judge to make us pay fo cover up tattoos that someone takes upon themselves to get. It is clearly a testiment to his state of mind, it should not be covered up.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:27 am |
  114. Jose

    Instead of applying makeup to this clown's tattoos, why not just apply it directly to the jurors' eyes? Just take a big brush, dip it in cover-up, and jab it right into each and every one of their eyeballs. Basically the same effect.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:27 am |
  115. ed

    I think the judge should be given a lesson in economics.depending on how long this trial is going to last. I think it would be much more economical to the tax payers if he just ordered a turtleneck to be worn during trial.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:29 am |
  116. Brad Fallbrook, Ca

    Mr. Ditullio has rights granted to him under the U.S. Constitution. One of them is the freedom of speech which includes various methods of expressing oneself ie. words, music, clothing and tatoos. I am also very confident that Mr. Ditullio is aware of his right to remain silent. To remain silent in public , in other circumstances, Mr. Ditullio may choose to wear clothing that hides his tatoos. Being that he is now only allowed to wear clothing issued by the penal system (which does not cover his neck) the court should assist him with his right to remain silent.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:30 am |
  117. Charles

    Our hypocritical society is ultimately responsible for the existence of people who exist solely to hate and is morally liable to pay in more detail in other ways; but should not pay this $150/day fee because the individual has gone to great lengths to advertise that he is a social deviant of his own choice and his jury should not be deceived in this fashion or any other way from seeing who he truly is and willing to be. His tatoos represent who he will kill or has killed and that he will kill if allowed to live as a hater of democracy and peace!
    These type of people exist to destroy our social order because lies and corruption dictate the need to reform and/or replace the current social order with truth and finally an intelligent management of global resources such that all people of Earth may have free access to food, clothing, shelter and a legimate chance to become all they can be for the glory of humanity without being suppressed by the super tiny minority of the rich and powerful "parasites" of the world!

    December 10, 2009 at 10:30 am |
  118. Gerald Lynn

    Let him exercise his First Amendment Rights! Come what may.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:31 am |
  119. Bridget in Chicago

    The judge wants to hide evident.
    Did we hide Hitler’s concentration camps? No they were exposed so that the world would know the type of person we were dealing with.
    The tattoos is clear proof of his guys character , Why should the tax payers pay to cover of his mans hated?

    .

    December 10, 2009 at 10:34 am |
  120. Bob Sz

    I'm curious how this will affect potention witnesses that could/might
    identify him because of his tattoos as their giving their testimony.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:34 am |
  121. Dave

    ...Sooooo, I'm black, would the judge authorize for me to have my skin bleached (Sammy Sosa style) before my murder trial. Statistics show that I'd have a better shot. Besides, I had nothing to do with my skin color... it wasn't my fault. Not like I sat in a chair on at least 3 different occasions getting tattoos carved in my skin...

    December 10, 2009 at 10:34 am |
  122. Zach

    I am not a lawyer. But, it seems to me that laws relating to the presentation of a defendant in a negative light should be a restriction on requiring the defendant to have a particular presentation. That is, the state can not force a defendant to be presented in a negative fashion (for example, force the defendant to wear a prison jumpsuit). This is not the case.

    The individual chose to exercise his freedom of expression by getting the tattoos. This ruling seems to suggest that a freedom of expression that may have a negative impact on the jury is not permissible. What nonsense!

    I do not own a suit. Wearing street clothes may have a negative impact on the jury's opinion of me. Do the taxpayers then have to buy me a suit?

    December 10, 2009 at 10:35 am |
  123. Jean-Louis

    Gage, you can't be serious stating, "those tattoos are a part of his personal expressions, covered by the 1st amendment".

    It's like saying some people are free to speak freely, but others are prohibited from listening.

    This thug made statements of his "personal expression" by getting inked and by stabbing 2 innocent people. The jury (and public) are entitled to see the results of that "personal expression".

    After going to all of that trouble to "express" himself, why should he now "muzzle' himself and prevent others from seeing (hearing) what he insists he has a right to say?

    December 10, 2009 at 10:35 am |
  124. Barbara

    While I strongly believe in the saying that innocent until proven guilty, I do not agree with a decision by a judge to order "us" to pay for a make-up artist to cover up what this guy oboviously believes is art. Tattoo is an artistic portrayal of our true beliefs. This is who he is ( A man filled with hate, enough to put it on his body)! I truly therefore believe his tattoos should be shown in the courtroom to drive home what kind of man he is and what he stands for and believe in. Why was Charles Mansion's tattoo on his forehead not covered?

    December 10, 2009 at 10:35 am |
  125. Susan

    Without a doubt one of the most egregious uses of taxpayer dollars I have ever heard of.

    JC Penney Men's Turtleneck – $9.99
    Box of Curad large bandages 10 count – $0.99
    Dermablend Cover Foundation – $20.00
    Total – $30.98

    That should get him through the whole trial! Far, far less than $150 A DAY!!!

    December 10, 2009 at 10:35 am |
  126. sheila wilbur

    presumably this guy wanted to send a message when he got the tat; so, why does he care now? He's a coward..if he must cover it up, how about a turtleneck and a band aid!?

    December 10, 2009 at 10:36 am |
  127. Alexander

    What is great about Saudi Arabia is the fact that murderers lose their heads. $150 dollars is nothing compared to how much this parasite will cost the state for food, housing, medical care.
    Our penal system is a joke and needs reform.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:36 am |
  128. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    This showes how screwd up our leagle system has gotton the courts are more worried about the criminal then the victim just a bag a rope and a trap door is needed.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:37 am |
  129. Beth Patel

    Are you kidding? His tattoos show his mind set not just when he committed the crime but for the rest of his life. I think we should let the nazis/skinheads in prison know that he requested to have his tattoos covered up and see how they treat him in prison for not standing up for what he believes in. Why doesn't the judge just cover up the whole crime and let him out, because that is what covering up the tattos could accomplish! A trial is to expose the complete person behind the crime, what the MIND SET was during the crime and why the person committed the crime. He is nothing less than a terrorist.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:37 am |
  130. Mike

    It is really a simple solution, have him pay to have the tattoos covered up. He had someone to put them there, and I can not believe he did not know what the swastika meant, and how offensive it could be, when he had someone put it on his neck. Furthermore, I will refuse to believe that he was unaware of a tattoos permanence. So if he wants it gone its on him or his attorney, not the state. It is not the states responsibility. Of course a jury will look at a man with an offensive tattoo differently than an individual without one. That isn't right, however to ignore such a thing would remove that which makes us human.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:39 am |
  131. Sharon Lim

    If this man is getting defended by a public defender, then this cost would much lower, than the cost of an appeal trial declaring juror prejudice. My assumption is he has a public defender. Do I like this – no not at all. This is covering up who he actually is. I call this outrageous decision. The man does appear quite mean and he psychologically wants people to think he is mean. He personally put these tattooes on . What about personal liability for permanent actions a person does to himself?

    December 10, 2009 at 10:40 am |
  132. Gary Sandman

    Why doesn't the judge require he wear a turtleneck sweater to cover the tatoos – I am sure that for the cost of one day of cosemetic applications, he would solve the problem and pay for the sweater – that would save hundreds of dollars

    Gary Sandman

    December 10, 2009 at 10:40 am |
  133. shemaya

    Seriously, there's a bigger problem. If you are expected to go to court for almost anything a lawyer will insist you disguise your appearance. You are supposed to look like a clean-cut, conservative hair-styled "business man" type. You'll see serial rapists, murderers, chain-saw killers, street thugs, whatever suddenly looking like little johnny dressed up for Sunday school.

    As a religious Jew who wears the beard, I was told by my lawyer to cut it to look respectable! To whom?? And I wasn't the defendant. But this is blind justice when you have to transform yourself into a particular image (of lawyers, upper class insurance salesman, what??) in order to be acceptable in the courts? Hey, I'll go as a Jew, a bearded rabbi, and this fellow can go as what he is–a neo-nazi. That fact won't come out???

    December 10, 2009 at 10:40 am |
  134. Mary

    In North Dakota, you can get a turtle neck at the local Walmart for probably $5. Where's common sense anymore?? Put masking tape on his neck if they are "afraid" he might get too warm in a turtle neck shirt!! Come on people!

    Perhaps, Jacqueline from CT, is right.....he has the tattoos for a reason, let him represent his true identity.

    Mary
    Minot, ND

    December 10, 2009 at 10:41 am |
  135. B Crawford

    Does this mean anyone with any scar-tatoo-ugliness, etc. should get makeup (especially paid for by the state) so they can face a jury of their piers?
    If this man needs makeup to 'fool' the jury ~ he should pay for it himself!

    December 10, 2009 at 10:42 am |
  136. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    I think since the judge wants this gester then it should be up to the judge to foot the bill.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:44 am |
  137. Ellen Unger

    If he hadn't wanted his choice of tatoos to be seen, he wouldn't have chosen to put them on his face and visible places on his neck. The jury should be able to see him as he is – not with make-up to hide his hateful beliefs.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:44 am |
  138. ROBERT SINGLETON

    No the state should not pay to cover up a tatoo. They are covering up who he really is. Body art and peircings display what you represent. It is crazy. Why hide him.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:45 am |
  139. Krystina

    He deserves a fair trial just as much as the rest of us would if in his situation and if the judge believes that his tattoos would stop him from receiving one, then his choice is acceptable. We have to remember that the charges are just allegations and he has not been found guilty yet no matter what personal opinions we may have about his status of guilt or innocence.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:47 am |
  140. Ro Fisk

    People get tattoos to show them . The judge should not help the
    defendant to look like some nice guy who happened into the court by mistake. It's up to the defending attorney to dress up his client, not a judge who should stay neutral. That man needs to be seen for who he is!

    December 10, 2009 at 10:47 am |
  141. Bob griffen

    Will Black defendants now have the right to have their faces whitened so they won't be judged by race...

    December 10, 2009 at 10:48 am |
  142. Marilyn

    Leave the tattoos where they are. Maybe the rest of the prison inmates will take care of him so we don't have to feed this poor excuse for a human being the rest of his life.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:48 am |
  143. bill mattingly

    yeah remove those tatoos, with 80 grit sandpaper

    December 10, 2009 at 10:48 am |
  144. Joanna Ceciliani

    Yes, the jury should see and know as much as possible about Mr. Ditullio. Mr. Ditullio also has the right to make his own choices, including the tatoos. From here, it is up to his attorney to advise him and then up to Mr. Ditullio to do whatever he chooses.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:49 am |
  145. Terry

    If hiding those tattoos is so important for the judge,let him pay for it. Or just use some cheap make-up fpr court!

    December 10, 2009 at 10:49 am |
  146. Mark Simonds

    I agree 100% with the judge's decision. The jury is suppose to go into the trial with a fair and impartial view. How is this possible with the tattoos being displayed? If you were a juror on this case and saw the symbols commonly associated with hate groups tattooed on the accused, wouldn't you immediately formulate an opinion thus abandoning the impartial view without hearing the facts of the case?

    December 10, 2009 at 10:49 am |
  147. Linda

    He proudly announces to the whole world, with his tattoo's, Therefore
    by hiding them from the jury, they are taking away his individual rights.
    If he did not want anyone to see them, he would have placed them in hiding positions on his body.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:49 am |
  148. JD

    If the man wants to present a better appearance to the jury, he can pay to remove the tattoos! If he had the money to get the tattooing done in the first place, he can also shell out some cash to get rid of them.

    What's next? If he doesnt get convicted, he'll probably insist the tax payers put some more money and get tattoos redone!

    December 10, 2009 at 10:49 am |
  149. Kirk

    Well, to be honest, I like the idea. As an African American, I will demand makeup to look white at any future jury trials.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:49 am |
  150. Kenneth Spiegel

    I think the judge should be tattoed for making such a dumb decision! He is making a statement to society, so the jury should see it!

    December 10, 2009 at 10:49 am |
  151. John

    I personally had Judge Andrews as a divorce judge... This is not something that surprises me at all. My ex-wife and I actually postponed our divorce until he rotated to the criminal court because he would not allow us to settle. Once he was gone, the new judge settled the case with the same terms...

    December 10, 2009 at 10:50 am |
  152. Jim - Las Vegas

    If John Allen Ditullio is in fact a neo-Nazi, This is the lifestyle and appearance he has chosen. By his outward appearance it would appear he is proud of his appearance and the statement he is making. It took time and effort to accomplish. Why would a judge insist we pay to make him appear to be someone he is not. Confused!

    December 10, 2009 at 10:50 am |
  153. ryan

    The jury is going to hear about his and end up using it against him otherwise, so why make taxpayers pay for that stuff. Our country is already in a deficit, why spend money on stuff like this?

    December 10, 2009 at 10:50 am |
  154. Mario

    You would agree that one of the goals of our judicial system is to know the truth about any matter brought before it. Leaving the tattoos exposed would give the jurors a clear view of this defendant's character leaving no room for doubt about who he is. We are what we do.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:50 am |
  155. Paul

    He could easily use salt and a wet rag to remove the tattoo`s,instead of costing the tax payers to cover up the image he chose to represent himself with. the judge should buy him a new suit too,the jury might think less of him in that orange jump suit!!

    December 10, 2009 at 10:50 am |
  156. Kathy

    "Has the Judge gone bonkers"? If he thinks the tatoos should be covered up, let him buy some clown make-up at the Dollar Store and he can cover it up himself".

    December 10, 2009 at 10:50 am |
  157. Jim McClements

    Much as it may offend us and seem ridiculous, the judge is undoubtedly trying to avoid grounds for a future appeal of a guilty verdict, thus saving time and money.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:51 am |
  158. Linda Procida

    I am lived about this. I live in this area. He should have gone to court how he looks. He will get convicted for what he did to that boy.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:51 am |
  159. Debbie Hensler

    The judge has made a poor judgment in this case. If the defendant wanted to come to court in a wheelchair to try to garner a different reaction from the jury, would that be allowed? Those tattoos are not "potentially offensive" - they are offensive. But that's how he has chosen to portray himself to the world, so that's how he should be seen by the jury.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:51 am |
  160. Bill Medley

    The judge should be removed for such a ridiculous ruling.
    Why doesn't the judge just buy the defendant a Donald Duck costume if he wants to change his appearance.
    The tattos are part of what this man is and should be seen by the jury so that they can make a fair ruling.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:51 am |
  161. Bob

    While I think his tatoos are abhorrent and should be shown to the jury as a symbol of who he really is, it is an established practice to allow the accused to exhibit the best face (no pun intended) possible.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:51 am |
  162. MadWill

    In a time when every household plus every Local, City, State and Federal government has budget shortfalls, how can this kind of money be waisted.
    This person decided to announce to the world his belief through skin art, this is a freedom of speech right, that a judge had taken away from him, at the expense of the public.
    This is absolutely wrong and at $150 a day it is unconscionable in todays economy.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:51 am |
  163. Marvin Crane

    Tattoos were his choice. If he chooses not to go to trial with them, let him pay to have them removed.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:51 am |
  164. Patrick W.

    "I think that they should just have him wear a ski mask and be done with it. Why waste the taxpayer's money? Afterall, no one twisted his arm to have the tattoos in the first place."

    December 10, 2009 at 10:51 am |
  165. Lori Britt

    After all of this media coverage it won't matter if people can see them or not. The jury will know that they are there regardless of any make-up coverage.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:51 am |
  166. Larry

    Taxpayers should not be responsible for the appearance of an accused murderer. His attorney should decide on his appearance in court and the prosecuting attorney should be the one to decide if his tatoos are related to the crime.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:52 am |
  167. Ro Fisk

    When people get tatoos they expect the tatoos will be seen, as a statement from them to the rest of the world. The judge should not help the defendant to disguise himself to look like a nice ordinary guy. The accused obviously is expressing some angry thoughts and the jury has a right to see him as he is.
    It's the defending attorney's job to try to make his client look nice, and the judge needs to remain neutral!

    December 10, 2009 at 10:52 am |
  168. Katharine

    When a person chooses to project an image of him or herself to the world, that is his or her choice. The judge is already affecting the natural process of the courts by choosing to cover up the tattoos. If you ask me, the judge is interfering....not helping the process. It's just wrong. Taxpayers should be left out of this one!

    December 10, 2009 at 10:52 am |
  169. Nancy

    This man chose to tatoo himself in this manner. He should have to suffer the consequences of his choice. If his tatoos offend or affect the jury's verdict,so be it.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:52 am |
  170. Linda

    Hi Heidi,

    I think the jury should see this man as his victim would have seen him.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:53 am |
  171. Mark Siegel

    I am not an attorney, but would like to know why the prosecutor did not object to the defendant's motion. The ink on the defendant's neck is directly relevant to the his mind set and arguably his state of mind. Let the evidence prove guilt or innocence.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:53 am |
  172. diane

    This judge, like the judge in California that recently ruled in favor of suing good samaritans, is an unfortunate appointment to the bench. Where has America’s “Common Sense Factor” gone??

    John Allen Ditullio is an admitted and proud neo-Nazi with permanent body art stating and maintaining his belief systems to the world! Why would anyone, judge or otherwise, want to cover-up and conceal who this person is?? Especially one that is on trial to determine WHO he is!?

    Very confused American.
    Diane

    December 10, 2009 at 10:54 am |
  173. Tom LaCroix Maui

    This can't be real. The judge should not inject their allbeit
    deserved repulsion into the mix.
    These holdoversare and will always be scum. There should be no room in our society for these Nazi wanta be's.
    This is his right of" freedom of speech." Don't deny him !
    After all that is ironically the same law that forces us to put up with their like!

    December 10, 2009 at 10:54 am |
  174. Harley Lauren

    I don't think taxpayers should pay to have these tat removed. I hope someone is fighting this. Let the judge tell the jury they are not to take those tattoos into consideration. They are at best a look into this mans psyche at worse an eyesore, perhaps like an obscene gesture or like bad graffiti. But it is legal and a personal statement.
    It may be illegal TO REMOVE THEM, afterwords that's what his next lawyer will say so I say leave them. The judge can tell the jury to dismiss them as evidentiary...just like every other personal outburst in the court..

    December 10, 2009 at 10:54 am |
  175. David F Ward Weymouth MA

    What is wrong with the judges in this country. Who put the tatoos on the jerk?
    If the judge feels the tatoos should be covered give the guy a paper bag.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:54 am |
  176. liz

    I think all parties in this situation are being completely ridiculous. The man because he chose to get those tattoos, the judge for making the decision, yet even the news for broadcasting this whole thing. Now the jury will just look at the guy who got a makeover with their tax dollars.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:54 am |
  177. Jessie Martori

    Is someone with tattoos more or less likely to commit murder? If you can answer that question, you are a bigot who will judge someone on how they look rather than evidence. How much for a fair trial? How fair do we have to be? Why not let bigots decide - it's so much faster. This judge is a great judge, a dispenser of justice, a hero in a time of intolerance and rampant moralizing without a commitment to any ideals.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:54 am |
  178. David

    It seems to me that the judge is denying John Allen Ditullio his right to free speach by requiring that his tattoos be covered up. He should be allowed to make his statement openly.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:54 am |
  179. Danielle, Florida

    This is a disgusting action by our legal system which many times protects the rights of the wrong party. Was this guy forcibly held down in prison and given these hateful, ignorant tattoos? What is that you say.....No? Yeah didn't think so. Oh he got them of his own FREE WILL? To send the world a message about who HE is what WHAT he stands for? Well then let the tough guy who wanted to send a message of fear to all that looked upon him stand with his values AND HIS TATTOOS to be judged by his peers. These tattoos say something about him – it is part of a profile and I cannot believe a judge agree to HIDE something like this. This judge should be strung up by his toes – UNBELIEVABLE! Yet Another way the American tax payers are being fleeced by a messed up system.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:54 am |
  180. Sury

    What next? Perchance they should reduce the breast size of a woman who might distract the jury? C'mon! The defendant made a choice, why is the judge 'covering-up' for him now? UNCONSCIONABLE!

    December 10, 2009 at 10:55 am |
  181. Frederick Sanchez

    He made up his mind how he wanted to live his life, so let him show off who he really is, the judge is wrong on this one. People need to know the truth about these kind of behavior and let the jury see what he really stands for and that's hate!

    December 10, 2009 at 10:55 am |
  182. Ro Fisk

    When people get tattoos they expect the tattoos will be seen, as a statement from them to the rest of the world. The judge should not help the defendant to disguise himself to look like a nice ordinary guy. The accused obviously is expressing some angry thoughts and the jury has a right to see him as he is. Why should the citizens of the state pay for a makeup artist?
    It's up to the defendant's attorney's to try to make his client look nice, but the judge should remain neutral!

    December 10, 2009 at 10:55 am |
  183. tj

    understand consideration to not offend others and right to fair trial, but really life is about choices and this man chose to project himself in this way, so we should allow him to decide if covering up is best for his defense or what he wants otheres to perceive. On the other hand, i don't agree we the taxpayers should have to pay extra for a decision he made in his life.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:56 am |
  184. Vernell

    The tatoos he chose to put on his face were clearly chosen by him to express himself and his opinion. Why in the world should we cover them to give him a fair shake? He will be judged by a jury of 12, as per the constitution of our country. Nowhere does it state that our government is supposed to upgrade the images of the defendants for their trials. It is just rediculious to spend this money on this defenfant in a time when $150 per day could help someone in this country with needs that had nothing to do with their choices.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:56 am |
  185. Cynthia Knight

    Heidi,

    Leave him look as he did when he committed his crimes. He should not be looking as if he was the "guy next door". You know how hoodlums usually look – pants hanging very low, caps on backwards, sneers on their faces, tatoos, piercings all over, etc. then when you see them in court - OH MY what a change. All dressed up in a suit, hair cut nicely, they look as if they work on Wall Street. No, they should HAVE TO go to court looking exactly like they did when the crimes were committed. The juries need to see them in their natural state.

    I agree with a previous writer – no tax money to "fix" him up. Let everyone know who and what he is!

    Cynthia

    December 10, 2009 at 10:56 am |
  186. trese

    Don't members of the jury watch CNN news reports? His tattoos are already widely broadcast. No further cover-up is necessary. Try him as he is. The state should save the much needed money for a more worthy cause.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:56 am |
  187. Theresa Roy

    Has the taxpayers of United States lost all their senses. That is wasting money that the poor could use!!After all he is going to be put to death anyway.What a terrible,terrible shame on those politicians.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:56 am |
  188. Kathy Dumais

    As a taxpayer I'm amazed that our money would go to a man who made a choice to let people know who he is when our retarded citizens have barely enough money to fund their care.. I have a retarded daughter and I have to support her with my SS money because the gov. froze their raise....Kathy

    December 10, 2009 at 10:56 am |
  189. Angela Savage Austin

    What is more offensive than murder?...what is more merciful than to welcome a man/woman or child who has seen the "Light" and changed their ways, pleading forgiveness. What is it that this child of God is asking of himself and us?. At what cost should we denied him? Another moment,minute,hour,day,eternity we will again reduce ourselves of the infection that our hatred, racism, prejudices and fears...(the current denial of fault and personal responsibility), hand over to our children?" I still cry...because you hate me when you don't care to know me... I am sure that this man may feel the same way.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:57 am |
  190. Beth Patel

    Actually we should just pay for it and why not? JK! We pay for his clothing, food, electric, phone to speak with his attorney, television, library, work out equipment, water, housing! Oh hell, we even wash his clothes for him, cook his food, give him soap to wash his privates, toothpaste and toothbrush to clean his mouth, provide transportation and pay for the fuel to take him back and forth to court (not to mention paying the salary to the guards and police for the transport time), make sure he gets where he needs to be, safely. GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK! don't we already provide enough for this SCUM BAG!!

    December 10, 2009 at 10:58 am |
  191. Joyce Giampaoli

    We all make choices in life. He made the choice to tatoo himself, he made the choice that landed him in jail. In this heavily burdened economy taxpayers are already providing a roof and 3 squares. Let the judge pay for the $10.00 turtleneck or, better yet, give him a couple jail towels to cover the "artwork".

    December 10, 2009 at 10:58 am |
  192. Lori Bergman

    If the issue is cost concerning the offensive tattoo cover-up, I believe the Judge should pay for this out of his/her pocket if it is solely his/her decision. However, I believe the Judge is trying to influence the jury in persuading them to think the defendant is someone he is not. Tattooing something on one's body is solely a reflection of who that person is. People with visible tattoos want others to notice, react and judge them. So, leave him be.

    L Bergman
    Tulsa, OK

    December 10, 2009 at 10:59 am |
  193. Anthony

    Make him wear his white hood. I know he's got a few in his wardrobe.

    December 10, 2009 at 11:00 am |
  194. K&B (Buckeye City)

    Is it ironic that the per day cost of the make up is probably about the daily salary of so many "average Joes" that have recently become unemployed. Just pointing out another of the many ways to better use taxpayer money.
    In any other situation, he would be fighting this "violation of his 1st amendment right". Let him enjoy the bed he chose.

    December 10, 2009 at 11:04 am |
  195. Netta

    I think that if his tattoos have anything to do with the person that was murdered, they should continue to be visible. For example, if the person was of a race or religion that is generally targeted by neo-nazis, he should be made to show his tattoos, because that's how he has chosen to portray himself to the world. But, on the other hand, if his neo-nazism has nothing to do with the murder or the victim, it is only fair that the tattoos be covered up. However, I do not believe that tax payers should pay for the makeup artist. And $150 a day?!? That's outrageous! It doesn't take much to cover a tattoo with the right foundation and powder.

    December 10, 2009 at 11:07 am |
  196. Shirley

    Since when do we aid a coverup of people to protect them from their previous choices, whether it be displayed on their skin or otherwise. Their track record should be made public as well. Previous behavior is the best indicator as to inocense or guilt and should be displayed or reported so juriors can make informed decisions.

    December 10, 2009 at 11:07 am |
  197. Elizabeth Cantu

    It's the polestar of the American Justice system to give all defendants a fair trial. To not cover up the tattoos on the defendant would be unfairly and unduly prejudicial because it would no doubt influence the jury in a manner that the Constitution has sought to prevent.

    December 10, 2009 at 11:08 am |
  198. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    The man decided to brand himself he chose to reveal his character to the world so why should his true beliefs be hidden when he's being prosecuted for exercising his beliefs.

    December 10, 2009 at 11:09 am |
  199. Debby

    NO!
    He wanted to have the tatoos placed on his face and neck. So if that is the image he wanted people to see him, why changed now? He needs to accept the consequences. The US has to stop spending the taxpayers money on all problems that are not worthy. That is why US has such a large debt. Prioritize in on whats the US needs and work toward repairing it. We cannot fix the whole world. Start with problems here at home. Good grief common sense does not cost anything!

    December 10, 2009 at 11:10 am |
  200. Willie Smith

    What should happen. They should tattoo Guilty on this guys fourhead!

    December 10, 2009 at 11:12 am |
  201. linda

    I THINK THIS JUDGE SHOULD BE THROWN OUT . this guy did this to himself and he should suffer the consequences of his actions . I have 3 year old twin great grandson's who live in Florida and they could use this money to help feed them . They are innocent and need help . This guy disfigured him self LET HIM LIVE WITH IT .

    December 10, 2009 at 11:13 am |
  202. Mark Simonds

    Reading comments already posted proves the point that in today's society people are guilty until proven innocent.

    What if the guy got the tattoos as a younger person, has since had a change of heart, found religion, and could not have the tattoos removed do to financial reasons. What if he was falsely identified? Those tattoos would then, at that point, convict him. I would hope the jurors that are selected for this trial are more open minded then some of these people posting comments on this issue.

    The judge made with right decision in my opinion.

    December 10, 2009 at 11:13 am |
  203. bbg

    The judge or the lawyer should pay the $150.00 per day out of their OWN pocket and not squander the taxpayer's money. If it is that important to Ditullio's case that the tatoos be covered-up then hand him a bottle of make-up and a mirror and have him do it himself. He has two hands. Did the judge even consider the safety of the made-up artist or the raminifications of his ruling???

    December 10, 2009 at 11:16 am |
  204. CJ

    Justice is never about getting at the truth but a game played between attorneys that want to win. Given that, why not allow this tattooed guy's court appointed attorneys appointed to represent him, also be required to overcome his tattoos through their intellect and cleverness. Try winning the game without distorting the facts...those that are seen and heard.

    Disgusted in Denver!

    December 10, 2009 at 11:25 am |
  205. Alidad Vakili

    This is a rather sad state of affairs. This individual chose to get the tattoos he has; they were not unwittingly placed upon his body in places where they were highly visible. For better or worse, they depict an aspect of who he is and they should not be hidden. Some decisions in your life you have to deal with...including getting permanent tattoos. Yes, it is true he could have gotten them when he was younger or in a drunken state, but then that can be explained by the defense attorney.

    December 10, 2009 at 11:25 am |
  206. Ankeet

    This is absurd! This man chose to display his hate on his face so that everybody knows where he stands. Now, why should the Judge spend taxpayer's money to cover that up – matter of fact, now it is NOT a fair trial. Seems like day-by-day our justice system is becoming more and more gullible!

    December 10, 2009 at 11:26 am |
  207. Nancy Kuttesch

    What about permanent removal of the tattoo? If the man refuses to have them removed, then he should wear them in court.

    December 10, 2009 at 11:27 am |
  208. Bud in MO

    This judge obviously needs to be retired

    December 10, 2009 at 11:42 am |
  209. Rita

    Don't cover up his tattoos you will take away his freedom of speech!

    December 10, 2009 at 11:44 am |
  210. Dave

    He should face his accusor and jury of his peers as he is and how he wishes to be seen by the world, and accept responsibility for his actions. Hiding his public face also unfairly influences the jury.

    December 10, 2009 at 11:56 am |
  211. Jennifer

    Put a sheet over him and cut out holes for the eyes. What a waste of money!

    December 10, 2009 at 11:58 am |
  212. Angie

    The murderer is a neo-natzi with a tattoo. No other murderer in history so far has had their tattoos covered while on trial.

    Why play favorites?

    If his tattoo is allowed to be covered because the judge claims that showing his tattoo would cause an unfair verdict,
    Then all the other convictions of murderers with tattoos will have to be thrown out.

    Now that should include all the murderous gangs, white supremists across the country.

    Gee, one dumb decision that a judge makes could send all those murdering thugs back into our towns, cities, subburbs all across this great nation of ours. Wont that be just grand.

    December 10, 2009 at 1:43 pm |
  213. Mary

    I am a Floridian.
    This is OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!

    There are consequences for every choice each one of us make. This person made his choices. So why should we the tax payers have to pay for even more than we already are.

    Criminals make the choice to do the things that they do. We the tax payers are forced to support them while they are incarcerated.

    I whish someone would pay for my housing, food, medical, TV, extended education.... for the rest of my life.

    December 10, 2009 at 3:26 pm |
  214. chris

    i think the ecomony is better to spend the money on then some low life creep give the 150 buks a day to a homeless person who could use it instead of someone thats just going to get the death sentence money will be wasted... poor justice system this world has

    December 10, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  215. Paul Card

    What is wrong with covering his head,,, Burlap bag, Box?

    December 10, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  216. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    Is this court policy to hide a jury of the true nathure of this persons true self this practice is neglecting the rights of a victim .

    December 10, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  217. marie pierre

    I believe that this nine month pregnant woman took a great risk, but her courage and her love for her neighbors is greater than fears. She is a very strong woman... Her brave exemple shows that for exemple, when, few months ago, a young girl was publicly beaten and rape, somebody could and should have done something... Pregnant women should be very careful however, using their cell phone, scream for some help for we never know wat can happen.

    marie pierre , Rhode-Iland.

    December 11, 2009 at 10:14 am |
  218. Julie

    That individual had the tatoos put on their own body and the public is not responsible for protecting him from his judgement to permanently identify himself with those tatoos. It seems that it is deceiving the jury to not have him stand before them in truth reflecting who they are and if the tattoos are visible in business dress that is not anyone's responsibility but that individual. It seems very ironic that it was even up for discussion as that is a part of the individual's chosen permanent images. Whatever happened to common sense and not trying to protect those that make bad choices? This country was founded on self-responsibility, natural and logical consequences, and accountability. It is not rocket science but that may be why the term criminal justice seems like such an oxymoron term.

    December 11, 2009 at 11:12 am |
  219. Kim in Texas

    Hey judge! Get your head out of your "robe". Offensive tats! $150.00 a day for a makeup artist. You gotta be kidding me. Hello REVLON, LOREAL, MAYBELLINE!!! The the reality is I think MURDERING somebody is offensive enough to sway the jurys decision. Give me a break.

    December 11, 2009 at 12:05 pm |
  220. Andrea

    This is a waste of taxpayer money. If the man's tattoos are believed to be offensive it should be the man's responsibility to cover them up. After all, he is the one who decided to put them there.

    December 12, 2009 at 1:08 pm |
  221. Savannah L

    Get the man a long wig to cover it up. While he should be judged on the facts of the case and not his (hideous) racist, anti-semitic sentiment, that doesn't mean we should have to shell out for him when he made his choices. There are less expensive ways to make the trial about the crime instead of the person, and he should be punished for what he DID rather than what he IS- a benefit he never gave others.

    December 12, 2009 at 8:35 pm |
  222. Brooke

    I guess now we should start painting black people white.... the color of their skin might sway a jury!

    come on! this guy was proud of his beliefs before, why not show how he really feels now? His lawyer is smart for getting away with this but the judge might as well throw out any evidence that's incriminating as well... it might sway a jury too!

    December 15, 2009 at 10:45 am |