I find the news story behind these photos fascinating. A defense lawyer won the right for a make up artist to cover the tattoos on John Ditullio (at tax payer expense) for his court trial. The left photo shows the defendant before concealing his tattoos and the right photo after hiding them. Apparently John Ditullio is charged with murder and his lawyer argued that he would not get a fair trial with the unsightly and prejudicial tattoos (Swasticas, crude words, etc.) that adorn his face and neck.
The judge agreed with the lawyer's assessment. And, I also concede that his tattoos could create a bias.
However, I'm intrigued on several levels. Since it was Dutillio's choice to get tattooed shouldn't the responsibility to cover them up be at his own expense. It doesn't sit very well with me that our court system provide a daily cosmetologist when it was his decision to prominently display offensive tattoos.
Besides, not everyone prosecuted for crimes has the ability to eliminate all possible prejudice in their appearance. For example, it's impossible to change the color of your skin for trial.
While the defense argued that the tattoos are not evidence of guilt, I'm a little skeptical. Apparently John Diluttio is accused of killing a gay man in a premeditated "hate crime" homicide. As a neo-Nazi fanatic, it seems that the Swastica tattoo could almost be considered part of the evidence; perhaps a silent testimony to the character of the defendant.
It's definitely a bizarre story and I understand the complex issues for a judge in his responsibility to grant a fair trial. But I just can't come around to thinking it's okay for taxpayers to spend $125 per day for a makeup artist to conceal inflammatory tattoos that the defendant willingly chose to display!
