10/02/2007
Defendant's Kinky Gay Liaisons Revealed at Michael Sandy Trial
Anthony Fortunato, on trial in the Michael Sandy case, had his covert sex life put on display before the courtroom as the defense called three witnesses intended to solidify its argument that Fortunato is gay and therefore could not have committed a hate crime.
Two of the three witnesses testified that not only did they meet Fortunato on the internet for sex dates, but that Fortunato showed up at their door wearing women's lingerie.
One witness, Henry Rudolph, testified: "To my shock he was wearing ladies' undergarments, he had a bra, if I remember correctly, and a G-string."
Another witness "said Fortunato showed up on his doorstep last year wearing panties and a bra" according to the New York Daily News.
Fortunato himself took the stand as well.
The New York Times reports: "When Mr. Di Chiara asked him his sexual orientation, he responded, 'I don’t know.” Asked what he meant, he said: “I could be homosexual. A homosexual. Bisexual.'...Mr. Fortunato testified that since age 13, he had hidden homosexual impulses and eventually encounters from his friends. Luring Mr. Sandy, he said, was intended to gauge their opinions of homosexuality. 'I might someday be able to reveal to a heterosexual group of friends that I was gay,' Mr. Fortunato said, adding, 'I was living two complete double lives.' To his friends that night, he said, he explained his knowledge of gay Web sites by saying he had used them to meet gay men and steal from them. But what, his lawyer asked, did he plan to do when Mr. Sandy arrived that night? 'To get high,' Mr. Fortunato said. He paused, then added: 'With him.'"
According to Gay City News, "He first started feeling attracted to men when he was 13 and masturbated with a male friend. At 15 or 16 he began exploring gay chatrooms and having cyber sex and phone sex with men. He was looking for 'somebody that would be discreet that wouldn't share any of the friends that I had.'"
It has been nearly a year since Fortunato, John Fox, Ilya Shurov, and Gary Timmins lured Sandy via an internet chat room to a parking lot on the Belt Parkway where he was robbed, and, following a scuffle, forced into oncoming traffic. He was then hit by a car and sustained injuries that would keep him in a coma until his family later made the choice to remove him from life support. Sandy died October 13.
The courtroom also heard the 911 calls made the night of Sandy's death: "'I'm on the Belt Parkway on Long Island,' said one caller, Susan Vaillant, who testified for the prosecution. 'There's boys fighting on the highway. This kid just got hit by a car and they're leaving him there.' Another caller, who was not identified, said she saw two white kids attacking a black kid on the parkway. 'One of the kids pushed him into the left lane,' she said. 'The white kid pushed the black kid down towards the left lane.'"
Sandy's parents reportedly wept silently as the calls were played.
Murder Defendant Speaks of His Hidden Double Life [nyt]
'I was leading double lives,' says Brooklyn slay suspect [ny daily news]
A Sandy Defendant Testifies, Says He's Had Gay Sex [gay city news]
For all our Michael Sandy coverage, click here.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 10:45 AM EST by Andy in Crime, Michael Sandy, New York, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
I don't know nor care his sexual orientation, but, one thing he is, a loser and an alleged killer. His being a freak has nothing to do with his part in the taking of a life.
Posted by: Sebastian | Oct 2, 2007 10:54:44 AM
WTF!?!?! Gay men usually don't wear women's panties - fo f-ck that argument! Plus, how many times have we seen self-hating closet-case fags go bashing? Lots!!
Posted by: shane | Oct 2, 2007 11:00:38 AM
I really don't see the relevance here. If a repressed gay man kills another gay man just because he is gay, is it not still a hate crime? What does it matter that he has 'hidden homosexual impulses' if the reason he targeted the victim was precisely his sexual orientation? If anything, I could see maybe an insanity defense based on the fact that being a closeted homosexual drove him mad... but its still a hate crime (as long as hate crimes exist). Doesn't matter if his hate was rooted in himself or not.
In fact, I'd wager that the most vehement anti-gay violence comes from those who are repressed and angered at their own struggle with sexual orientation. Many people don't like gays, but to invest so much energy, passion, and hate towards them really indicates a personal issue.
Posted by: Wes | Oct 2, 2007 11:04:25 AM
I like to assume that NY juries are more sophisticated than in other parts of the country.
However, I do not think the jury is going to find this man guilty of a hate crime. So far it seems the defense is doing a good job of saying he didn't hate himself, he was just scared, and this was something that got out of hand...It was an accident.
He'll get time. But I don't think he'll get the hate crime level.
Posted by: T. Zac | Oct 2, 2007 11:12:12 AM
The clothing seemed to be some sort of M/O confusion as he tried to get close to gay men so he could rob them. He didn't know how gay men actually dressed and assumed they wore women's clothes. He seemed to have no confusion when it came to having a girlfriend.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Oct 2, 2007 11:21:14 AM
Let's just all remember that because of the overwhelming percentage of heterosexual men who confess to having experimented at one time or another with homosexuality, that the majority of homosexual sex is performed by straight guys.
Posted by: rascal | Oct 2, 2007 11:42:30 AM
Gay, straight, bisexual or confused, I don't think it matters all that much. He set Sandy up for robbery. He allegedly participated in the attack and did nothing to stop it. Perhaps he is a self loathing gay man who projected that hatred onto Sandy, who knows? Maybe it's all a ruse to get favorable treatment from the jury.
He's on trial for murder. I think he will say anything to minimize his chance of being found guilty and drawing a harsh sentence. His lawyer will do all he can, using every trick in his experience to get his client off. That's what lawyers do. They don't care if their client is guilty or innocent, they are paid to get an acquittal, or at least a minimum sentence.
I truly hope that if these men are found guilty they get the maximum sentence. That will give Fortunato plenty of time to explore his sexuality and perhaps the other sociopaths may be exposed to what it is like to be attacked and beaten.
I have no mercy for any of this group. Sandy could have been my son, or another family member, a friend or neighbor. I am tired of these violent assaults and murders of gay people. This kind of violence is inexcusable.
Posted by: Bob R | Oct 2, 2007 11:45:15 AM
I wonder when Fortunato (and all those who commit violence against gays) decide to attack gay people, they make the distinction between gay men and transgendered males? I don't think so. To them "faggots are faggots" whether dressed in a woman's dress, or saggy jeans and Timberlands.
If I have to go from thread to thread this morning, I shall work this issue (bigotry within the gay world) till I ease it off my mind.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Oct 2, 2007 11:45:22 AM
Duh, his orientation has nothing to do with whether or not it was a hate crime. Self-loathing closet cases have been hating on out gays since time began. It's still a hate crime.
Posted by: Gary | Oct 2, 2007 11:49:45 AM
Good point ANON. Does anyone know if anything was stolen from the other men that he met online? I don't think it matters if he is gay or bi, it seems pretty obvious that he and his friends lured that poor kid out there with intent to commit a crime. Sandy was picked by them and coaxed out there because he was gay. I hope the jury sees that as a hate crime. On another note, can you imagine being subpoenaed to testify in court about a past hook up?
Posted by: Davey | Oct 2, 2007 11:59:14 AM
In purely legal terms, the perpetrator's sexual orientation is not relevant to a hate crime sentencing enhancement. It's the victim's orientation and whether it played a part in motivating the crime that is important. I do think, however, that a jury could be misled into nullifying the hate crime enhancement if they are not well educated by the judge.
Posted by: Ken | Oct 2, 2007 12:20:24 PM
still sounds like a hate crime to me, regardless of the orientation of the killers.
there is plenty or internal homophobia within the community - gays kill gays all the time it seems....
if you kill someone because they are GLBT, black, hispanic, etc. it's a hate crime, regardless of whether you share the same diversity as they do.
Posted by: Heath | Oct 2, 2007 12:53:52 PM
For me at issue is only whether he specifically targeted gay men. It doesn't matter where he put his private parts. He seems like a criminally dangerous individual who needs to be in prison.
Posted by: queendru | Oct 2, 2007 3:39:10 PM
"If a repressed gay man kills another gay man just because he is gay, is it not still a hate crime? What does it matter that he has 'hidden homosexual impulses' if the reason he targeted the victim was precisely his sexual orientation? ...
Posted by: Wes | Oct 2, 2007 11:04:25 AM"
EXACTLY!
Posted by: So Left I'm Right | Oct 3, 2007 12:07:27 AM
I'm surprised they haven't made more of the fact that the victem was black and the perps were white. It could reasonably pointed out it may have been a hate crime from the race angle, too.
Posted by: Wheezy | Oct 3, 2007 12:59:33 AM
that waz so flippin wrong. why did they do that to him. they shouldnt have discriminated against him just because of that. gay people are so fun and shouldnt be judged
Posted by: Lesbians rule | Oct 4, 2007 11:37:33 AM