A lot of his tattoos he got while he was in prison. I’ve seen some before/after shots on this guy.
I mean - they may as well put this guy out of his misery. He is NEVER going to be a productive member of society. As it stands he’s just going to leech off the tax payer until he dies.
I was gonna say, he’s probably already Streisand-ed himself with this request.
I don’t know about Australia, but in the US if a Juror saw this story before going to the trial, they would be dismissed from the trial.
It can make it really hard to get juries in cases like OJ Simpson, where you really have to root around for people living under rocks or completely out of tune with the world.
I’ve often wondered about that. Where do they find people who haven’t been tainted before the trial? Sure, in boring local cases, they can probably find people who don’t follow the local news closely and might not have already developed an opinion on the case. But in a more headline grabbing case, wouldn’t most everyone who’s even remotely smart enough and aware enough of the world around them to be a competent juror have already been over-exposed to the case? I could see in cases where the headline was dominantly of local interest, you could maybe move the trial a little further away and find some folks that hadn’t heard about the case or at least hadn’t followed it closely enough to have any real idea about what was going on or opinion about who might or might not be guilty. But what about major flashy cases, like national news kind of cases? Do both sides just sort of give up in those cases and accept that pretty much everyone’s heard some about the case and then just pick the people who are the least firm or extreme in their opinion on it?
As far as I can tell, they go out into the sticks and look for people who are completely out of touch. This is probably bad news for getting a jury full of competent and thoughtful people, but it’s the way the system works.
my spelling of embiggen…
Maaaaybe. I’m not going to go hunting in the Kansas evidence rules, but the federal rules of evidence and most state rules contain a balancing test under which a piece of evidence can be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a risk of unfair prejudice. (It’s Fed. R. Evid. 403.) This looks to me like a classic 403 situation–especially since the prosecution could very easily raise the tattoo in ways that don’t let the jury know what it actually says. If I were the guy’s lawyer, I’d be objecting all over the place the moment a prosecutor carelessly or intentionally elicited that testimony.
(Again, I’m a lawyer, but not yours, and this isn’t legal advice.)
It’s backward! I mean forward.
The odds are not in his favor, but you never know. This guy’s prospects weren’t looking good either.
Seems to me this whole debate suggests that there were no eyewitnesses. I mean, there’s really only two options for an eyewitness; either they described him as the perp having a big MURDER tattoo, in which case it’s admissible evidence and could not be covered up by the defendant, or the eyewitness didn’t describe the perp as having such a tattoo, in which case the tattoo would actually exonerate him.
Maybe he thought of himself as meat?
You fall asleep at ONE white supremacist tattoo convention party…
OK - fair enough. His grandma could leave him a small fortune and he could get it lased off.
Hmmm, cad or bounder? Tough one.
Crows would be a good meta-cover up tattoo.
You were using the wrong word; ‘enbigen’ is to artificially praise, ‘embiggen’ is to make larger.
You guys got it all wrong. It’s REDRUM". He a big fan of “The Shining”.
I thought he was a fan of the three time Grand National winner
Strangely enough he apparently married his longterm friend, who is of half Hispanic, half Hawaiian descent. Oh and just to clarify, this is not Jolene, the woman his forehead currently claims he is the property of!
And I thought it was strange that two of my friends, one Vietnamese, one Maori lived with a Nazi obsessed idiot who decorated his room in Third Reich Memorabilia.
It’s a crazy world!
I had the pleasure of overhearing the following conversation once:
A: Hey, why doesn’t Dan talk to me anymore?
B: Do you think it could be because he’s Jewish and you are a Nazi?
A: Oh, yeah, I guess.
People have a remarkable ability to not connect their politics with their actual lives.
