Tough morning: Photos bring tears at Huguely trial

Jurors responded stoically as they got their first painful glimpse of a deceased Yeardley Love on Thursday morning, as the prosecution in the trial of accused murderer George W. Huguely V launched a second day of testimony with graphic photographs amid the testimony of a doctor, two police officers, and a pair of emergency medical technicians.

 

"I happen to remember this photograph being taken," testified EMT Michael Hanshew. "The hands on the side of her head are mine."

He was looking at "P2," an image of emergency responders vainly attempting to revive Love on the floor of her bedroom in her 14th Street apartment. Moments earlier, defense attorney Fran Lawrence had voiced his objection to the introduction of the photograph by prosecutor Dave Chapman.

"We've already heard your objection," said an irritated Chapman, who won the right at a pre-trial hearing to show the raw images to the seven men and seven women who currently constitute the jury.

After the judge allowed the photograph to appear, the jurors betrayed little emotion as the image flashed up on a wide flat-screen monitor, although one juror suddenly seemed to take a few extra notes on a pad of paper. In the Love family's section, weeping could be heard. A few feet away, defendant George Huguely pressed his chin to his shirt, looked at his lawyers, but otherwise gave little indication that he might be seeing the fatal results of his interaction with Love on May 3, 2010.

While medical witnesses took the stand, the prosecutor went on to introduce P3, an image of resuscitation equipment on Love's bed, P4, an image of blood on the floor, and– worst of all– P5 and P78, what may have been close-ups of Love's body after the EMTs got permission from UVA's medical command to discontinue their efforts.

The photographs– seen only by judge, jury, lawyers, and court personnel– remained out of view of the families, media, and other spectators, though the whitish glow from the large-screen monitor added discomfort to the proceedings.

Charlottesville Police Officer K.W. Blackwell was the day's first witness, and he told the court how he was in his cruiser at the Ivy Square Shopping Center when he got a call about a possible alcohol overdose on 14th Street.

Instead, he arrived at the apartment to find a hole in the center of the bedroom door and a young woman wearing only panties. He knelt down to listen for breathing and saw dried blood on Love's face, an abrasion under her chin, and an eye swollen shut. Blackwell said he noticed something else about her body.

"She was a little cool," said Blackwell. "Around room temperature."

Later, during the testimony of Charlottesville Police Detective Shawn Bayles, the man who took the photographs, defense attorney Fran Lawrence blasted the reappearance of the pictures as "redundant and unnecessary." He was overruled.

Bayles revealed how he was driving over to the apartment to oversee the situation when he received word on his radio that the initial report of an alcohol overdose was mistaken. Seeing the smashed door helped convince him that he needed to warn the EMTs.

"I told them to continue what they were doing, but I wanted them to be aware they were in an active crime scene."

Shortly after saying that, Bayles revealed, an EMT remarked the bathroom's toilet seat was in a raised position. Before that remark could be analyzed, another debate broke out over introducing photographs before the judge decided to break for lunch recess.

Other witnesses who testified Thursday morning included a female EMT and William J. Brady. A doctor who chairs the UVA medical center's rapid-response team and its resuscitation committee, Brady testified that he was the person who gave the EMTs permission to discontinue their life-saving efforts.

Read more on: George Huguely

12 comments

My guess is Lawrence is not endearing himself by making a continual fuss about the photos. One other characteristic about Charlottesvillians they value niceness.
That said, I believe gruesome photos will not be the deciding factor. So I'd advise Mr. Lawrence to hold his fire and not annoy the judge or jury.

What's worse is some dbag is filing for the photos to be made public

Nancy, I imagine Fran Lawrence is speaking up because he wants it well documented in the record that he has objected to the photos being admitted on more than one occasion. This is done for purposes of appeal.

I respectfully disagree. Since they have already argued this pre-trial, the record of objection is already established. So he is doing it to speak to the jury. To argue to them how unfair this is, etc.

I listened to Mr. Spencer's comments tonight on the Coy Barefoot show and I don't think more lenient sentences, that might be expected in towns other than Charlottesville, have to do with the presumed killers being UVa students, as in the Allston case, but more to do with- what some attorneys recognize as a compassionate, forgiveness of wrong doing attitude in our town for anyone who ( as mytwobits has explained ) suffered from a life of deprivation ( even when wealthy) .

http://www.wina.com/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=5680418

correction-I listened to Mr. Spencer's comments tonight on the Coy Barefoot show and I don't think more lenient sentences, than might be expected in towns other than Charlottesville, have to do with the presumed killers being UVa students, as in the Allston case, but more to do with what some attorneys recognize as a compassionate, forgiveness of wrong doing attitude in our town for anyone who ( as mytwobits has explained ) suffered from a life of deprivation ( even when wealthy) .

http://www.wina.com/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=5680418

Hookreader is correct in saying "Since they have already argued this (the photos) pre-trial, the record of objection is already established. So he (defense counsel) is doing it to speak to the jury. To argue to them how unfair this is, etc."

Fran is making every effort to have the jury--that is, to have just one juror (remember, that's all it takes)--believe that the prosecution is intentionally over-stating their case to the detriment of his poor, maligned client.

God willing these jurors are all able to see the various strategies employed by the defense for what they really are. Sadly, I am not confident that all possess such awareness.

Mr. Churchill, its a public trial that the taxpayers are financing. The public has the right to see the pictures to ensure that the Commonwealth is putting forward the best case possible. Need I remind you of the Casey Anthony trial? That's a prime example of the prosecution putting up a very poor case and the taxpayers are paying the price. Just because it may be emotionally questionable doesn't mean that everyone should be barred from looking at them. If you disagree, then don't look at them.

Photos are the best evidence in this case. They reveal the truth. You cannot argue with a photo especially if it is a photo of a beat to death white girl. Fran knows that these are images that will burn in the jury's brain come deliberation time. They cannot argue that George did not do the damage in the photos only that he did not intend on killing her. I hope the world gets a glimpse of what George did. Photos reveal the truth about what he did and who he is.

So, what has been discussed, or not discussed, about the toilet seat being raised?

I've read several article suggesting that it indicates a male most certainly used the bathroom, especially since only females lived there.

It seems like a strange detail to point out, and could possibly be thought out a bit further.

For instance, has anyone discussed the possibility of the toilet seat being raised for the purposes of throwing up, i.e. after a night of too much drinking or alcohol poisoning, whether male or female? What implications could that have on either person's side of the case?

The prosecution will have put the toilet seat being raised into evidence in the hopes that the jury will use their imagination and come up with an explanation that helps the case -- the obvious one being that he took a leak after beating the hell out of yeardley, highlighting his indifference to what he had done. Neither side will be able to prove why it was raised, but juries routinely take facts like this and come up with their own explanations as to what they think happened.

Dirt Kicker February 9th, 2012 | 11:15pm

Mr. Churchill, its a public trial that the taxpayers are financing. The public has the right to see the pictures to ensure that the Commonwealth is putting forward the best case possible. Need I remind you of the Casey Anthony trial? That's a prime example of the prosecution putting up a very poor case and the taxpayers are paying the price. Just because it may be emotionally questionable doesn't mean that everyone should be barred from looking at them. If you disagree, then don't look at them.
________________________________________

BS. the public has no right or need to see them. The reason people want to see them is for titillation, not to make sure the prosecution is doing its job. The casey anthony trial was poisoned by far too much info being released to the public, a prosecutor who was trying out for a TV job or book deal and folks like nancy grace who make money from murder and made the public/prospective jurors think the case was going to be sexier than it was.