Webb Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 Didn't think that through, did you Jeff? US: Accused Killer Jeffrey Chapman Wants 'Murder' Neck Tattoo Removed Before Trial A murder suspect who has the word "murder" tattooed on his neck is hoping to have the tattoo removed as he fears it will prejudice him in front of a jury. Jeffrey Chapman is accused of murdering Damon Gailart in 2011 in Kansas and is worried that the tattoo would have a negative impact at the trial. Prosecutors said they were not opposed to Chapman removing or covering his tattoo, but Barton County police department said they would not transport the suspect to a tattoo parlour for the removal process. Under Kansas law, tattoo artists are only allowed to practise in licensed facilities, which also rules out a professional coming to visit Chapman in jail where he is currently held in custody. "Mr. Chapman's tattoos are not relevant to any material facts and Mr Chapman asks for the court to exclude any mention of his tattoos at trial and further to be allowed to cover them up in an appropriate manner," court documents said. "The fact that he has 'murder' tattooed across his neck is irrelevant to the State's case and extremely prejudicial to Mr Chapman if introduced at trial or observed by the jury." State prosecutors said Chapman could simply cover the tattoo with "clothing, a bandage or other means compliant with jail policy". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 Sounds like wearing a deep turtleneck would be a much better solution since he's in jail and likely can't afford the very expensive, painful and not all that effective removal procedures. It also leaves terrible scarring that is thickened and can be painful for years. This lady I know that had a tattoo and had remorse a year later said it cost thousands of dollars for the laser treatments needed to make it dim. It never went away entirely. It was still visible and it did damage to the skin to the point that it was thickened and still painful a year later. It wasn't covered by insurance either. She had to pay for who thing. It took so many visits to complete it and it was just a flower and leaf maybe 3 inches in diameter that it was like $650 each visit at that time a few years ago. Now it's $100-$250 per some doctors. But as I say she said she wish she had left it alone. Before it was just color on skin. Now it's thickened, ugly, and still uncomfortable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross549 Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 He should keep it.... and guarantee the fastest trial ever. Adam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.T. Eric Layton Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 Just remove his neck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross549 Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 Maybe this is his best strategy? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abarbarian Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 bring back public hangings. do it in the malls. great for business. the murder rate would dramatically fall, immediately. I certainly think hanging should be mandatory for serial killers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.T. Eric Layton Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 WOW! What a bloodthirsty bunch we have here at Scot's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.T. Eric Layton Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 +++ Content DELETED by author +++ Temmu and I had a little misunderstanding due to the inherent weaknesses of a text only communication medium. We have corrected everything and are moving on. OK, folks... nothing to see here. Move along now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.T. Eric Layton Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 I don't agree with the coddling of murderous thugs. I think they should be escorted into the basement of the courthouse after their one and ONLY appeal has failed and shot in the back of the skull with one .22LR caliber round, thus saving the tax payers thousands of dollars. For some of these individuals, I would even donate the round to be used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abarbarian Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 I'm with you on that Eric. If the murderers are in prison for life the stories surrounding them keep on getting dredged up by the media. Which must be awful for the relatives of the victims. Shoot them or hang them and they get buried and along with them their story. I grew up with the tales of Hindley and Brady from the 60's and the story still makes headline news even today 50 years on and no doubt will be front page news when Brady finally dies. If they had been hung back in the 60's no one today would even know who they were. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors_murders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.T. Eric Layton Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 No burial... waste of good land. Cremation, then sprinkle to fertilize prison garden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webb Posted April 29, 2014 Author Share Posted April 29, 2014 I'm with you on that Eric. If the murderers are in prison for life the stories surrounding them keep on getting dredged up by the media. Which must be awful for the relatives of the victims. Shoot them or hang them and they get buried and along with them their story. I grew up with the tales of Hindley and Brady from the 60's and the story still makes headline news even today 50 years on and no doubt will be front page news when Brady finally dies. If they had been hung back in the 60's no one today would even know who they were. http://en.wikipedia....i/Moors_murders Or Charles Manson, still alive at 79. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.T. Eric Layton Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 There was no DP in CA at that time, was there? Besides, Manson was Conspiracy to Commit, right? Or was he actually convicted of M1? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Per wikipedia article on Charles Manson, "In 1971 he was found guilty of conspiracyto commit the murders of seven people, actressSharon Tate and four other people at Tate's home, and the next day, a married couple, Leno and Rosemary LaBianca, all carried out by members of the group at his instruction. He was convicted of the murders through the joint-responsibility rule, which makes each member of a conspiracy guilty of crimes his fellow conspirators commit in furtherance of the conspiracy's objective." More in the Trial section, however the entire article is worth a read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.T. Eric Layton Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 eric - my apologies. deleted inflammatory posts. edit to add bold & color. It just caught me at a crabby moment, Temmu. No harm, no foul. I was tranquil again after a few moments. I think I'll delete my reply, also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webb Posted April 30, 2014 Author Share Posted April 30, 2014 Charlie was convicted of conspiracy and given the death penalty. He didn't so much as conspire to kill 7 people as he did order his goofy "family" to kill them in the hope that it would be blamed on blacks and start a race war. The fruits and nuts that are called the California Supreme Court declared the death penalty unconstitutional and all existing death sentences were commuted to life without parole. When a later California Supreme Court watched some Dirty Harry movies and came to its senses it reinstated the death penalty but left all of the commuted sentences in place. I hope Californians enjoy supporting him. In Florida we kill them. And I don't care how much it costs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunrat Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 I totally support instant deletion of murderers. Unfortunately the number of cases of wrongful conviction is high enough that it would be precarious to mandate it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.T. Eric Layton Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Along these lines... Oklahoma Postpones Execution After First Is Botched Here's what this fellow was convicted of: "Mr. Lockett was convicted of shooting a 19-year-old woman in 1999 and burying her alive." Aww, darn. That's too bad about his execution going bad. I hope his pain and fear was at least as much as his victim's was in '99. Golly! They should have zapped him back alive to kill the bastage again. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abarbarian Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 I totally support instant deletion of murderers. Unfortunately the number of cases of wrongful conviction is high enough that it would be precarious to mandate it. That is why I specified serial killers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.