Brutal force? Love's injuries conjure visions of strangulation, smothering
-
The medical examiner's testimony undercut the "wrestling" claims Huguely made in his interrogation.charlottesville police/uva sports
From a hemorrhage in her neck suggestive of strangulation to facial injuries consistent with smothering to signs of blunt force trauma on nearly every part of her body, the injuries apparent on the body of Yeardley Love conjure an image of a terrifyingly violent encounter.
In painstaking– and for many courtroom observers, pain-causing– detail, Virginia Assistant Chief Medical Examiner Bill Gormley described his observations from the May 4, 2010 autopsy he performed including, in particular, bruising to an area of the neck called the "carotid body," which, among other things, regulates heart rate. When pressure is applied, as in strangulation, Gormley explained to jurors, the body's effort to reduce blood pressure in the brain can cause the heart rate to plummet. Enough pressure to the neck can, in just 15 to 30 seconds, cause a loss of consciousness; if the heart slows or stops, Gormley testified, it may not restart.
Equally chilling was that Love's frenulum– the thread-like structure connecting the top lip to the gum inside the mouth– was torn. Such an injury would be consistent with an effort to smother a person, Gormley said.
And the litany of bruises, contusions, and abrasions covering her body– on her legs, buttock, arms, chest, face and head– could reflect a severe and sustained beating. Strangely absent from this plethora of damage was the one injury George Huguely had mentioned: a bloody nose. Gormley said there was no injury to Love's nose.
If such testimony damaged her client in the eyes of the jury, Huguely defense attorney Rhonda Quagliana fired back during a sustained cross-examination, that the injuries might have resulted from a fall onto the carpeted floor of Love's bedroom. She pressed Gormley to admit that determining the age of bruises is tricky business and that some of Love's injuries may have been sustained long before Huguely came to her room that night– on the lacrosse field or elsewhere.
Gormley acknowledged that multiple injuries can result from a "single impact event" rather than from sustained, separate blows. And according to Gormley, while Love had a hemorrhage between her scalp and skull suggesting a blunt force injury, she did not suffer a fractured skull, nor did any walls in her apartment show signs of impact. Her brain, Gormley testified, appeared normal.
Morning testimony tomorrow is expected from neuropathologists who performed the brain dissection as the prosecution continues building its case against Huguely.
50 comments
Girls lacrosse is nowhere near as physical as boys lacrosse. There is no way she got those injuries from lacrosse.
It's crazy that people like Rhonda feel no shame doing what they do.
Fantastic reporting. Up till now I feel I had the impression that there was little physical evidence of a beating. Love sounds like she was pummeled very intensely after GHV broke through her door. I don't think she had a chance and by his own admission, it was over in 8-10 minutes.
Wow, we all should be more careful a fall to a carpeted floor with padding could kill us all!
and the defense will say that Ms. Love did this to herself..................good bye Boy George- for good!
Brian K --
Why should she feel shame in giving her client the best legal defense possible? Everyone who is accused of a crime has the right to defend themselves, and if no lawyers were willing to do that job, people would not be able to exercise their right.
-- B
The defense attorney has every right to question all prosecution evidence.
Yes, she is doing her job. And one can assume the defendant's family is paying her handsomely.
But, hopefully the jury is doing their job as well. If so, I'd wager that this young man will be spending a very long time in prison and I doubt he'll seldom have the opportunity to invite over girls from the high school softball team or beat up any college girls.
B and Brian K - having an attorney who I saw argue a "case" I thought was fruitless, I asked him about it and I quote, "When your client is an ass, you come up with asinine arguments. Yes, everyone is entitled to a defense. However, GH5 truly did do his attorneys a uphill battle because of his interview on tape.
This autopsy evidence is way more damning than anything else.
the constant harping on the defense salary does nothing to advance your point- it makes my head hurt worse than a photo of someone planking or tebowing or another linsanity joke. we are all equally bitter that there are people with more money, influence, and power then us- get over it.
They say the difference between a lawyer and a hooker is that no matter how high the dollar amount gets there are simply some things a hooker won't do.
He does have the right to a defense and I have the right to think that a lawyer who chooses to defend such a person is in the same category as a person who clubs baby seals when they could be a carpenter but like the fatter paycheck of clubbing the seals.
Edgar --
So because it is "obvious" to everyone that Huguely is guilty, it is wrong for a lawyer to defend him? How is it immoral to provide someone with a defense in court? If lawyers are not willing to defend people in Huguely's situation, then why bother to have a trial at all -- why not just have a lynching and save judicial resources?
-- B
@Edgar - I like that!
And it is a dirty job and I'm glad I don't have to do it! (I'm also for the removal of all Warning Labels out there too - it would reduce the stupid in society but we would have to get rid of a whole lot of lawyers out there too.)
@ Edgar Summer
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Anybody arguing for Rhonda Quagliana is either an attorney themselves, or somebody crushing on George. Because anybody with any bit of decency in them can see that the lengths Quagliana is stooping to in order to "defend" George is just ridiculous.
Again, I'm reminded of the Al Pacino, Keanu Reeves, Charlize Theron movie "The Devil's Advocate." What these people do for a living really is like doing the devil's work. And all that matters to them is the paycheck. They don't care how they get it. Quagliana sold her soul a long time ago.
how hot was charlize in that movie. whoa.
RE:Women's lacrosse - there was a NY Times article not too long ago about how rough it actually was and the number of concussions the women were suffering as a result of not wearing helmets ( ranked 3rd in scholastic female sports (behind soccer and basketball) and only 15% less than the men)
pete, by the end of the movie, she wasn't so hot, was she?
Nothing is stopping Mr. Huguely from defending himself in court. Except, that is, for his parents' money and his lawyers' greed.
I'm starting to feel he may get a hefty sentence after all. What would be truly just is, after this harsh sentence, his parents choose to file appeal after appeal for their darling little boy, thus bankrupting themselves.
These people are monsters.
I'm not a lawyer. I have been accused on more than one occasion of things I haven't done. I am glad that we have lawyers because I believe that the mere fact they they exist does keep many of us from being sent to jail or worse after being falsely accused by people who have something to gain by doing so. That said, I couldn't do that particular job myself, but we have a legal system. Systems are by their nature more complex than the individual parts that make them up. It would be quite a challenge to devise a system that had only the lawyers we want (those who defend only the innocent?) and none of those we despise. Better a system with some good, than none at all.
............but they weren't playing lacrosse!
Boy George was playing "beat the crap" out of girls!
And it has yet to be determined that Boy George was intoxicted.
The sooner the defense gets to the end of their evidence and "reasonable doubt" stream , the sooner the case will be over.
What are the chances that Boy George will take the stand? Right, NONE! And why not? Prorbably because he can't keep his stories straight and doesn't want to break down on the stand.
Question: What is the significance of the prosecutor not reading into evidence the note found in Love's desk from Huguely, but rather having only the juror's see and read the letter? Is it because there is something too embarrassing for Chapman to have read aloud? Like a lot of curse words? Or is there another reason, maybe because the contents were someway redundant? I wonder if Heilberg or any of the legal commentators can shed some light on this. Is the fact that the letter was not read aloud more likely to be a consequence of the letter being exculpatory or of such an ominous and incriminating nature that Chapman only wanted the jury to see and read it (perhaps out of respect for Love's family)? Also, did anyone in the court take any notice of the facial expressions of the jurors responding to the note?
Enough is enough. People may freely express their opinions and make them as cynical or short-sighted as they wish. But when they get so cynical and so short-sighted as to advocate throwing away a freedom that helps define us as Americans (and when one of those people does so by actually claiming a very fine lawyer has lost her soul for playing her crucial role in the exercise of that freedom), then someone has to speak up.
You say you want to get rid of lawyers who defend the accused. Why? Because you read a few media reports that magically gave you enough information to divine who is guilty and who is not? I doubt that is your motivation, because you don't strike me as someone who loves and trusts the media to get everything right. So why? Because a prosecutor has claimed that the accused is guilty? But you don't strike me as someone who loves and trusts the government to get everything right, either.
So here's the reality. Fran Lawrence and Rhonda Quagliana are class acts, and they're doing exactly what they should be doing. And I'll say more. From what I have read, the prosecutors are doing their jobs very well, too. And the judge obviously is working extremely hard to run this difficult trial smoothly and in accordance with the law and all of the competing concerns out there. In a nutshell, the system is working as it should. And at the end of this trial, I'm willing to bet that the jury is going to do the right thing, whatever that is. In other words, you should be proud of this system.
Yes, of course there are a small handful of bad-acting lawyers out there (though most I know are decent, hard-working people who give a lot to their communities and who earn every penny honestly and honorably). Yes, many defendants are guilty as heck yet swear to their innocence. And of course this particular defendant deserves very harsh punishment if he in fact committed this crime against that poor young woman. But none of that -- none of it -- should cause a single American citizen to advocate giving away voluntarily, in a cynical tantrum while tapping away at their keyboards, the right to trial by jury with the assistance of competent counsel. This right, together with the right to vote, is what makes us free.
Let me say it differently, because I want to drill this home. This is important now, and it comes down to a question for you. Are you sure you will never be accused of a crime you did not commit? Are you sure? Are you really, really sure?
@Bart - good question! Inquiring minds want to know!
@SkipD- yep they were playing exactly what you said, however, imho - whether he was intoxicated or not is immaterial - people CHOOSE to use the drug alcohol, if they do something while under the influence of the drug, too bad. It was their choice.
@Edgar Summer - True that!! Rhonda sold her soul long, long ago for that paycheck...wonder if she thinks she can take it with her when shes goes? Sorry, that was mean....
@Shay - nice try but no prize for you, doesn't hold water with the testimony of the med. ex.
Now to all that want ta bash lawyers (me included, because if given the change I WILL), if we needed one that was the biggest shark, devil, etc. in the pond, we would probably use them because we know the best offense is a good defense. So while we bash away, just keep in mind they do have a function whether or not they have sold themselves to the highest bidder....so sad we live in a society like this, but it could be worse.
Darnit- but I believe that he was in full control of his faculties at the time of the assault and death, unless someone can prove differenty- he was stone sober.............
@John Davidson - you speak true words, however, the system we have created has led to the feelings we all seem to have. So my attitude is if you don't like how things are progressing, change it.
Your point was driven home (at least to me) that we could live in a much worse society where we have no right to legal council at all and if accused, too bad...no pasing go, no collecting 200 dollars, go directly to jail.
While Fran and Rhonda may be a "class act" in your book, I am sure accepting such a high profile case could either be a positive feather or a negative bounce.....depending on who you talk to.
In then end, however, I still agree with you on which society I would rather live in.
SkipD - right on point! Drunk or not, he was and should continue to be held responsible for his actions.
Oh, and SkipD- and with the information in the article above, I think he knew exactly what he was going to do BEFORE he did it. Thank God, I am not on the jury.
@John Davidson, you are correct in your statement that the system by having attorneys defend the scum of the earth is the system. There have been many innocent who have been accused of crimes and by good attorneys were able to prove this or prove reasonable doubt but there are quite a few who due to incompetent attorneys were convicted.
Having had to deal with attorneys from various venues of the law, worked for them and with them and taught by them - they are all arrogant and have to be. They lose 50% of the time. I can however tell you it makes absolutely no sense that I hired an extreemly good attorney for less money who had a Park Avenue, NY address compared to two Charlottesville attorneys who wanted much more money and truly were not as "good". (Federal TM case.) With all - shop around. I have heard attorneys bashing their own!
However, to indicate that our criminal justice system overall does it's job? Yes, so far this case it appears from what has been presented all is done very well. From the police investigation, to the gathering of evidence to the so far Commonwealth's presentation. We have yet to see the full picture of the defence but what we have seen - truly, be careful of falling on your carpeted floor, it could kill you! (Asinine argument.)
@Bart - I donno, but it wasn't introduced as evidence without it holding some key piece to the puzzle. My guess is perhaps it is to shield it from the public and her family until the end of the trial. We shall see. (It could contain the nail of the so-called coffin here.)
A lawyer that takes a case like this may be a fine lawyer from a defendants standpoint, but it is the life they chose... to do the bidding of the worst of the worst. She would still be defending him if it were all on video . She is there for the fame and fortune and not because she thinks he is innocent.
There are Doctors that do abortions for the money.
There is a difference between a person who brutally slaughters an animal to feed his family because it is that or starve and one who chooses to do it because it pays well enough they can buy a BMW.
I don't think he should be denied the right to hire her, but I do think that it gives me the right to believe that she is a bit iof a vulture capitalizing on a young girls death to make a buck.
If she were truly in it for the justice she would be using these so called fantastic skills on some poor black guy in Richmond getting framed by the system, not some rich kid from UVA who has already had (and wasted) more opportunities than 90% of the kids his age.
You all are so stupid in criticizing Huguely's RIGHT to a defense. This isn't Republican France or Code Napoleon where they still cater to the belief of "Guilty Until Proven Innocent," no we live in the United States where one is "Innocent Until Proven Guilty." The defense is NOT painting Huguely as innocent of this crime, HENCE why they are seeking a judgment of MANSLAUGHTER. This guy couldn't premeditate anything except how "wasted" he was going to get after the game, bro...
@John Davidson - I can understand where you are coming from and respect your opinions, but this case is particulary tough to stomach. I think we can all agree that George has not been wrongly accused. He admitted to being at Love's apt and getting physical with her which ultimately lead to her death. And after hearing the details of her injuries yesterday, this was no light "wrestling" match. The fact that his lawyers are defending him when he is admittedly responsible (whether the intent was there or not) for Love's death makes me sick. Their client is a monster in my opinion. No amount of money would be incentive enough for me to defend someone like GH, even if it was my job. How would you feel if this was your daughter, or your sister? I think your opinion of his defense lawyers would be a little different...
@Elizabeth. Personal opinions regarding the defendant are irrelevant in a court of law. Like doctors, lawyers are trained to separate themselves emotionally from their clients, otherwise they wouldn't be good at what they do. Do I think the terrorists who were responsible for 9/11 deserve a trial in the United States, no, but I recognize that BY LAW they have a RIGHT to representation. It is this process that makes our country free.
If I were a betting man, I'd say you will probably vote for Obama again, won't you?
Huguely, and others like him, have a *right* to a defense, yes, but it doesn't mean lawyers *have* to take their case. That's what's being said here. Nobody *forced* Quagaliana and McQ. to take on Huguely as a client. So why did they? Because they believed Huguely was innocent? No. Huguely freely admitted on the night of his arrest that he invaded Yeardley's apartment, beat her up, stole her stuff to hide evidence, then left her there gravely injured and fled the scene.
Knowing that, and then seeing the crime scene and autopsy photos on top of it detailing the level of injuries that Yeardley sustained, Quaggy and McQ *still* chose to take this guy's case? For what reason exactly?
They're not defending that he wasn't there, because he was, and he admits it.
They're not defending that he didn't kick in her door, because he did, and he admits it.
They're not defending that he didn't come into physical contact with her, because he did, and he admits it.
They're not defending that he didn't steal her computer to try to hide evidence, because he did, and he admits it.
They're not defending that he didn't sent her email(s) saying that he should've killed her, because he did, and there's proof.
So yeah...what exactly are they defending here, exactly?
The only thing that they can do with this case is to try to shift full culpibility off George and onto other things such as "Oh, she was on some sort of medication that helped speed along her death that might not have otherwise happened" or "Oh, some of those bruises could've happened if she'd fallen on the floor by herself" or "Oh, yeah, didn't George tell you? She banged her own head repatedly against a wall..."
That's where it goes past the point of doing an honest job and being a great defense lawyer who's defending somebody that's truly innocent, and selling one's soul. There's nothing to defend here, there's only paychecks to collect for showing up and creating half baked excuses and theories to weasel somebody out of taking full culpibility all so that they can try for a reduced prison sentence. Why bother taking on a case where it's guaranteed that your client *will* be serving time, it's just a matter of how *much* time? That's when it become selling your soul.
@JeffersonChurchill - I have a RIGHT to express MY personal opinion in this type of forum as we are not in a court of law, we are commenting on news article, so relax. I realize GH has a right to representation and I have no issue with that and no issue with the process. Did I say he did not have a right to representation? No. All I'm saying is that I would have a very hard time defending him in this particular case. I question his lawyers morals, that is all. That doesn't go for every single defense lawyer, I'm speaking about Fran Lawrence and Rhonda Quagliana in particular. I truly question their judgement taking on a case like this one. And I have every right to feel this way. I just wonder how they sleep at night.
Also, not sure what voting for Obama has to do with any of this but you happen to be wrong.
Huguely, and others like him, have a *right* to a defense, yes, but it doesn't mean lawyers *have* to take their case. That's what's being said here. Nobody *forced* Quagaliana and McQ. to take on Huguely as a client. So why did they? Because they believed Huguely was innocent? No. Huguely freely admitted on the night of his arrest that he invaded Yeardley's apartment, beat her up, stole her stuff to hide evidence, then left her there gravely injured and fled the scene.
Knowing that, and then seeing the crime scene and autopsy photos on top of it detailing the level of injuries that Yeardley sustained, Quaggy and McQ *still* chose to take this guy's case? For what reason exactly?
They're not defending that he wasn't there, because he was, and he admits it.
They're not defending that he didn't kick in her door, because he did, and he admits it.
They're not defending that he didn't come into physical contact with her, because he did, and he admits it.
They're not defending that he didn't steal her computer to try to hide evidence, because he did, and he admits it.
They're not defending that he didn't sent her email(s) saying that he should've killed her, because he did, and there's proof.
So yeah...what exactly are they defending here, exactly?
The only thing that they can do with this case is to try to shift full culpibility off George and onto other things such as "Oh, she was on some sort of medication that helped speed along her death that might not have otherwise happened" or "Oh, some of those bruises could've happened if she'd fallen on the floor by herself" or "Oh, yeah, didn't George tell you? She banged her own head repatedly against a wall.."
That's where it goes past the point of doing an honest job and being a great defense lawyer who's defending somebody that's truly innocent, and selling one's soul. There's nothing to defend here, there's only paychecks to collect for showing up and creating half baked excuses and theories to weasel somebody out of taking full culpibility all so that they can try for a reduced prison sentence. Why bother taking on a case where it's guaranteed that your client *will* be serving time, it's just a matter of how *much* time? That's when it become selling your soul.
@booooo! THANK YOU! well said!!!
@ Elizabeth: I concur and glad to hear you're not voting for the big B.O. As "boo" said, it's all about bucks, but I don't think you should condemn the attorneys just because they took a controversial case. It's almost as if you're comparing it to Casey Anthony debacle.
One more thing: even if Huguely does get sentenced for murder 1, do any of you really think that his family won't push for an appeal?
@Boooo! It doesn't change the fact that he has a right to a fair trial.
@JeffersonChurchill - once again, I think you are misreading the comments. We are not saying GH doesn't deserve representation or a fair trial. We are questioning the morals of a lawyer willing to take on this case. The discussion is about Fran Lawrence and Rhonda Quagliana, not about the actual process. I suppose we can agree to disagree; condem is a strong word but I am going to pass judgement on his lawyers, whether you think I should or not. And once again, you bring up irrelevant one-liners, not even going to engage on a Casey Anthony comment. Ridiculous.
Elizabeth, fair enough. Do you think a public defender would come to Huguely's aid if no one were to take his case? Personally, I have the same regard for lawyers as I do for politicians and other scions of higher authority which is one of mistrust and loathing. However, I do think it's interesting why these two barristers chose a case that they knew they probably couldn't win.
@ Jefferson Churchill
What part of what I said here: "Huguely, and others like him, have a *right* to a defense, yes, but it doesn't mean lawyers *have* to take their case. That's what's being said here" .....are you not understanding?
It's called reading comprehension. Get some.
@Boooo!:
There is no need to be insulting. I have re-evaluated what you wrote thanks to the *polite* responses of Elizabeth. With that said, perhaps the prosecution should ask George what part of the word "NO" didn't he understand?
In other news, just heard about the Hollywood version of the Huguely trial:
Justin Bieber as George Huguely V
The Olsson twins as Yeardley Love
Paris Hilton as Lexie Love
Updates to follow.
@Jefferson Churchill
Don't care if you think I'm insulting, or if somebody else was more polite. You clearly weren't reading what I said and fired off an inane comment as a result, causing me to have to respond yet again, taking up unnecessary comment space. So I shake my head, point out the part of my post you clearly didn't read, and tell you to get some reading comprehension skills. I'm not going to lose sleep over whether you think I'm impolite about it. Next time try harder to really read the posts you're responding to.
I believe GHV is guilty as sin—as in he obsessed over Love, was regretful that he didn't kill her when he had the chance ("I should have killed you then") and went to her place lucid enough to intentionally kick his way through the door, and intentionally and with malice snuff out her life through a combo of strangulation, suffocation, and blunt force, and that he intended to steal and dispose of evidence in an attempt to cover his tracks.
That said, I believe he's entitled to a defense and that there's no reason to vilify all defense attorneys simply because some take the job too far. They are preserving a principle. Now, I don;t think that principle should mean that anything goes in mounting a defense, and it's unfortunate that some defense lawyers take that approach. But to suggest that they are all corrupt because some go so far as to concoct wild explanations is neither fair nor accurate.
And, we should remember, some over-zealous prosecutors have put more than a few innocent people behind bars, often being accused of doing it for career gains.
But the truth, as always, is likely somewhere in the middle. There are good and bad lawyers just as there are good and bad folks in all professions.
As for GHV, his defense is overreaching, and it does damage their credibility. I don't think this is what is meant by being entitled to a defense, or the "right" to a defense. What I think is meant is to not to be left with no recourse simply because one is accused, and to avoid hotheaded vigilante justice.
Thank you, John Davidson. Unfortunately, most don't appreciate their right to a defense until they or someone else in their family needs one.
For those on this board who claim to want all to have a right to a defense, but then vilify attorneys who represent unpopular defendants, you can't have one without the other. For those who pull out their knives for the defense team because the defendant is "clearly guilty" in their minds (despite the fact nobody here has access to all the evidence the prosecution and the defense will present before this matter goes to the jury), you are missing the entire point of the trial. The pivotal question here is guilty of what?? Sure, most commenters on The Hook's board were convinced the defendant is guilty of murder 1 before the trial even started -- but the bottom line is the defendant is entitled to present a defense to rebut the prosecution's case. And, I for one, am pleased there are attorneys out there willing to take on difficult and unpopular defenses. Believe it for not, prosecutors are not always right. (And, I am withholding judgement on the prosecution here until all the evidence is in.)
They are working on "reasonable doubt", the basis for all defense techniques in a case like this...........
Bart,
Your above questions are good ones. Maybe post them again on the latest article. I haven't seen that topic discussed much, but am curious to know why the letter was only shown to the jurors too.
There does seem to be an enormous effort on the part of the state to respect the privacy of Miss Love and her family. Maybe the reason is the same as the reason the photos were only shown to jurors.
Wasn't the document Bart referenced a printout of a string of emails between Ms. Love and Mr. Huguely? This is speculation but I would bet the reason the document was for the juror's eyes only was that is was somewhat embarrassing to Ms. Love, but was shown to the jury nevertheless because it somehow provided more context for the prosecutors theory of the case. While that process is somewhat unusual, I chalk it up to the circus atmosphere created by the news media covering the case.
I believe, ( although not sure ) that a letter was found in Miss Love's room from George to her. It might have been a print out of the emails, but the state only recently was successful in retrieving the actual email containing the death threat from George, so I doubt it.
They knew that the email existed, but didn't actually have a hard copy of the email. Maybe the 'letter' contained a string of different emails or a completely different exchange between the two.
I got the impression that it was some hand written letter from George to Miss love.
software makes it very easy to find those with pertinent and specific email content- the accusitory Enron emails were found in a matter of hours-I would guess that it may well be a hand written message, but that is so out of character with kids today.........