Tuesday testimony: Huguely jurors get lesson in brain bleeding

Look up "coup-contra coup" brain injury and you can see what happens when the brain is slammed against the skull.

Next time I'll wear a helmet and make sure the carpet padding is extra thick before I start slamming my head against the wall and choking myself.

JC, why isn't the prosecution bringing it up? Or will they eventually. Sounds like they could make an argument that he should have noticed something was seriously wrong if she were indeed flopping around (and didn't normally do that) and should have called for help. Or is that irrelevant to the case, because he's not on trial for failing to call for help?

I didn't listen to the interrogation tape reenactment, so don't know whether the police asked him to elaborate on that strange description. (And if they didn't...why didn't they? It sounds like something that should have been explored, even from the "what did he know, and when did he know it" angle.)

There has been testimony that some of her injuries are consistent with suffocation.

I haven't heard that Love had a history of seizures, although it appears to be what the defense plans to present. OTOH, there's been eye witness testimony that Huguely has put Love in a stranglehold before. Not sure the defense's explanation will jibe with any other testimony. IMO, they'll need to prove that Love was conscious and talking when Huguely left, and that she said, "Oh, here, take my computer and throw it in a dumpster so I have a reason to call you tomorrow."

It all comes back to consciousness of guilt. You do not leave an unconscious person after seeing them "flop around like a fish." (You call 911.) And you don't steal their computer and throw it in a dumpster. And you don't kick their door down because "you want to talk." IMO, it's surprising such an expensive defense team has come up with such a ridiculous story. Then again, who knows? It worked for OJ. It might work for Huguely. Sadly, juries often seem disinclined to send wealthy people to jail, especially when it comes to domestic violence.

@cin17

There is no question that Huguely will face jail time (including time already served), it is whether he is found guilty of involuntary manslaughter or murder one. I don't think his wealthy background really has anything to do with the issue, other than the fact that it's paying for his defense. Your comment about juries being disinclined to send wealthy people jail is curious as you could say the same about women (e.g. - Casey Anthony).

Do I think Huguely had the intention of killing Love? No, I think he was so enebriated and frustrated that he lost control of his rational faculties and underestimated his own strength.

Last I checked, seizures would leave some physical evidence. If the ME found indications of seizures, he/she would have reported that information.

The point being made by the ME is that it took more than a fall to cause the injuries sustained by the victim.

Mr. Huguely is the only person who knows what happened that night. If he was as drunk as he was alleged to be, it is mighty unlikely that he remembers his actions. Being drunk isn't a defense.

RE: smothering/suffocation, isn't the defense contending (in part) that the way she was lying on the bed could have caused her to suffocate. Isn't one of the Hook article titles (or something, somewhere from day 1) called 'crib death'?

@DAWG - FTW!

@Hawes - "Trial of the century..." - score! We're only 12 years into the century and we've already got THE big one!

All kidding aside, I appreciate your close coverage.

Miss Information, IIRC, the forensic/medical witness stated Love was suffocated at some point but it was not the COD.

Agreed. Anthony wasn't born into wealth. Worse, she and her family made a killing off her daughter's death.

Well, if Huguely gets off, maybe he can go date Casey. As the old saying goes: misery loves company.

bart:

I agree with you. Intoxication as a defense is pretty weak, as that would give reason to every Tom, Dick, and Harry on Death Row reason for filing appeals.

I have no clue about this but perhaps in legal jargon there is a difference between suffocation and smothering. It stands to reason that one can suffocate from otherwise benign circumstances, ie., falling asleep but on one's face, obscuring the ability to breathe before it's too late. Smothering, on the other hand, might connote an intentional act from outside of one's self. I have no idea if this is accurate or not, I'm just being intuitive.

But for smothering, or forced suffocation if you will, this may be where we get the frenulum damage to Love's lip. Forensically speaking the violence indicative in that evidence may point to suffocation versus the non-struggle that may be more indicative of suffocation in non-violent situations, such as "crib death" no matter the age of the deceased.

To me there is nothing accidental about suffocation as an act of intentional violence, GHV holding her until she stopped seeming to breathe. As others have pointed out he had the faculties to remove incriminating evidence and dispose of it and he remembers where he threw the evidence. This is not the stuff of a drunk who blacked out.

If he was blacked out drunk, he wouldn't have gone over to Yeardley's flat in the first place. He was p!$$ed drunk, angry, and sexually frustrated. Not to mention jealous.

The principle of reasonable doubt has already been satisfied . Hugley has already admitted to manslaughter . The onus of prof that the killing was not murder now is on him . He will have to take the stand as there is nothing for him to lose now . M1 is a non starter ,therefore, we are between manslaughter and M2 . Huguely having to try to wriggle out of the M2 charge will have to take the stand as his taped statement just doesn't cut it .Too many lies there . If he doesn;t take the stand it will signal the defense has no confidence in their client and they are just going to accept the M2 conviction and try to get it reduced on appeal .

The more I hear about this case the more I am willing to accept that M1 is on the table. GHVs intent was formed over a period of weeks, escalating in the final days of before Love's killing. Drink didn't inhibit his ability to intend. It allowed him to act on that intention without mercy.

Frank Speaker:

So basically this trial has all the necessary ingredients of becoming a huge legal clusterf---?

@JeffersonChurchill indeed. There is everything to indicate that GHV was ruminating obsessively on Love, with an undertone of humiliation and rage. She had belittled his prowess in bed, and of late had refused to communicate with him any more through e-mail and, without her phone, was otherwise unreachable. She wasn't seeking reconciliation, or to continue their alleged "pattern." All of this would have made him feel very emasculated and helpless which, coupled with a history of rage and abusiveness, plausibly lead him to focus on giving her "what for."

In a more or less sober state of mind the combo of humiliation and impotence might have lead him to pursue more conventional channels while still remaining obsessed: all the e-mails, and, potentially attempts to call her. But throw a few drinks into an obsessed mind, and there's fuel to fire. This doesn't logically mean an impaired ability to intend. It can also mean a willingness to disregard internal objections and potential consequences.

For the umpteenth time from me (sorry) I believe his tolerance to alcohol was extremely high so I don't buy that he was impaired from judgement to action. In fact, based on several pieces of evidence and the timeline, I see him as highly functioning throughout the situation and lucid enough to recall key details (or put a spin on key details) during his questioning.

@Kate George

Yeah, a dude who's 6'2", 205 pounds, and spent a good three and three-quarter years partying in the lax crowd (not to mention probably some pre-gaming in prep school) would likely have a high tolerance to alcohol. Having gone to a rival of his prep school alma mater in Baltimore, I can attest that the partying is excessive and the tolerances impressive.

One thing that is puzzling me, Huguely has significantly slimmed down since his arrest. Was he using roids at the time?

Not this again. He was a second string bloated boozer, not a star lacrosse player abusing steroids. I'm not sure that steroids are even that widely used in the lacrosse world. This is not a money sport. One doesn't have much of a future as an olympic or professional lacrosse player. Is there even such a thing as professional lacrosse player?

@sue lord

Somebody said, "...I feel strongly that George never got a fair chance in life..."

WHAT???

Of course I think he should be punished. I also stated that I believe he should get first degree based on what we know now.

I am also sad for him and hugely sympathetic towards him, as I know his background. I would feel the same compassion for any young defendant on trial for a crime who had been neglected as a child. Anyone in that position would have my sympathy.

I do, however, feel much deeper sympathy for Miss Love, as I have stated before.

It is tiresome as hell to constantly have to defend that position. Of course I know that he is a menace etc., and that Miss Love is far more deserving of our sympathy, but can't we also comment on some of the deeper implications here?

Perhaps if we took greater notice of these all too common problems earlier, there would be less of this type of crime.

Sue Lord:

How do you know whether George was neglected as a child or not? From what I've heard from people who actually KNEW him, he was the "All-American" guy. Sending kids to expensive private schools, buying them brand new cars for the 16th birthdays, and pushing to excel in sports in order to get a scholarship to a good college is hardly what I'd call neglect. Where I come from we call that coddling. I've heard some psychobabble in my day but good God!

Sue Lord:

Quite the contrary. I am angry at those who, because they have had such advantages and oppurtunities, take them for granted. Read Evelyn Waugh's "Brideshead Revisited," however Huguely is no Sebastian Flyte. As stated in an earlier post, I went to a rival prep school like George's in Baltimore, went to two ivy league universities, partied, but knew my limits and knew that eventually I would have to work for a living. I was also taught that if a girl dumps you, you simply go find another one not bash her cranium open.

Whatever neglect —emotional, physical (hugs), psychological (connection)—GHV may have experienced, or even patent abuse (I have no idea) the one thing we can say about such cases is that it is hardly unique, somewhat eroding the sympathy one feels beyond the tragedy of life in general.

Let's face it, few who are well loved and nurtured, leading to a well adjusted psyche, commit serious crimes. There's always something in the background of a human life gone terribly wrong to contextualize an explanation if not an excuse.

Probably most folks imprisoned for violent crimes, socio or psychopathic crimes, and even crimes of passion have a story to tell of no bedtime stories, drunk parents, being forgotten after practice, plays unattended, and even abuse, physical, sexual, or emotional.

The thing is, we don't have a system that says to the poor, the downtrodden, the abused, the neglected, or the rich, privileged and made to grow up too soon, "we get how rough you felt life was. Someone should have loved you. Someone should have treated you with dignity. Those folks should have never hurt you or you would know how to care, to love, to be gentle."

Instead we have one that says you could have been beaten to a bloody pulp from day one to your 18th birthday but on the day you became legal, we expect you to know the difference between right and wrong, to act with restraint, to be free from crime, battery, abuse yourself.

This may be unfair, but if a violin is playing for GHV, it's playing for millions of imprisoned souls the world over. And on that note, the time for the sympathy is not so much when the real victim is having a shot at posthumous justice. No amount of sympathy for her will give her a second chance. He should be seen on that par, and then, if he's convicted, and sentenced, he can seek tea and sympathy with the rest of those who breached the borders of society's tolerance.

We all make choices. Such is the bittersweet nature of human existence.

I too went to a private school in Baltimore. ( Landon is just outside of D.C., not in Baltimore ) Unlike you, Jefferson, my take away was that attending such a school was not necessarily an advantage.

You likely were taught to be a human being by your parents, hence my point. I just think that George was the product of such tremendous dysfunction, that he was not taught the appropriate lessons in life.

Again, I am not trying to excuse or justify his actions, just expressing that I feel sympathy for him. Needless to say, our opinions aren't worth much anyway, as how the jury comes to see George is what matters.

Ms. Lord,

For the record, there are two professional lacrosse leagues, one indoor and one outdoor. That said, only a handful of players make a living playing lacrosse. Nearly all have full-time jobs during the week, often states away from their weekend teams, and most are responsible for their own travel to their games. They are really one step above pick-up leagues at this time. There are a couple families of lacrosse players who make a living between coaching, camps, and endorsement deals, but I am presently aware of only one former Johns Hopkins player who has parlayed his college lacrosse success into full-time employment.

trials have ebbs and flows, and george was looking good last week as this started for perhaps a lesser charge, he has not had 3 good days at all. it will tilt back as they all do, but he better have some good days soon or he will be in a tough spot. i think he ends of with murder 2 unless he lawyers can turn this around. agg manslaughter was my opinion last week, but he has had 3 bad days.

There are wealthy families and poor families who take their responsiblity of raising their children right and teach them to be productive members. Sometimes even from those families you have murders, rapists, etc. There are poor families and wealthy families who do not value the responsibility of raising a child and the results can be less than adequate human beings that pass that on to the next generation. There are those products of such childhoods who rebel and in the worst of it come out and prove all wrong. Overall this is a tragedy - moreso with Love's family than GHV's family. Truly, I believe they are paying the bills because "what would the neighbors, club members, etc. think" if they didn't.

Intent to kill - for 1st degree murder can be formed 2 seconds prior to the death. Example: If he stated two seconds after busting down her door, "I'm going to kill you" - but there is no witness to it.

Utimately - it is up to the jury to decide.

And please don't pair him up with Casey Anthony - my God the spawn they would produce? If they lived..

@ Cville Native

The only positive thing that could come out of a Huguely and Anthony pairing would be that two negatives would end up cancelling out each other. I mean, seriously, the adult film industry is non-discriminatory and if you're good, quite lucrative. Talk about a controversial paradox!

Anyway, all jokes aside, I do feel sorry for George only because he is going to have to live with this for the REST of his life and I do not think he was thinking about the consequences. One can be drunk and act impulsively without regard of what one is doing. I honestly think that this is what happened here, but why didn't his teammates, or parents, intervene? Or Yeardley, for that matter? This whole affair represents the decline of society as a whole: too much too young, too much focus on materialism and aestheticism, too much reliance on text messaging rather than actually physically talking, too much reliance on social media (thanks Zuckerberg), and the timeless spotlight on the athlete and not the scholar.

Yes there is not much he could clear up by taking the stand . He would likely just make himself look worse in view of the damage done to YL . Digging a deeper hole with his testimony would lessen his chances to get a murder conviction reduced on appeal .The capable defense lawyers have the victims BAC and legal drug combination , parts of GWH V taped statement and expert opinions of cause of death .There doesn't seem much more that they have but going through the evidence point by point with a contrarian attitude is necessary to get paid . Each day makes GWH V look like he is losing this trial on a murder charge but as bad as it is M 1 doesn't seem probable .

Choking another human being is not routine behavior .It is criminal behavior . Most grown men go through a whole life without having to hit or choke women . Expressions of sympathy for this person and making numerous excuses for his conduct are off the wall .

Agree with Frank. Rationalizing bad behavior is what enables this type of behavior to continue.

I am not trying to rationalize bad behavior. Absolutely, it is not acceptable. But, it was not premeditated, in my opinion.

Of course, death is the ultimate punishment for GH, if convicted of 1st degree. I do not mean to imply that Yeardley egged him on or deserved any type of physical abuse or otherwise. I am only saying it was acceptable to her as part of thier relationship. She thought it would stop. Or that he would change. And when she realized she deserved better and could not waste any more of her time with him, it was too late. All very common of domestic violence victims.

I do not have pity for GH only the families and friends he has left in his wake. But I do not believe it was 1st degree.

I grew up "country club" and attended private school. Had alcoholic parents as well. My brother and I turned out to be productive members of society without arrest records or charged with murdering someone! Quit making excuses for this guy!

I think some of you are over-thinking on behalf of the jury members.

The prosecution is being factual and laying out detail upon detail.

Common sense says he did it. The prosecution's case spells out how he did it. His video-taped police questioning all but makes it clear he did it.

The defense attorneys are pocketing some large coin and will be for quite some time...but they are just grasping at nonsensical straws. Straws which the jury members must act like they are considering, but they're probably having a good chuckle about at the end of the day.

@Al

Whether you think George is remorseless or not is beside the point. Already, he has this indelible stain on his reputation (or whatever synonym you want to call it). While some might say his emotional breakdown in court may have been staged, I really don't think so. We don't know what those photos contained, we can only speculate. I wonder if it was the first time he saw them and the memory came back tenfold.

Jefferson

The graveyard near Old Dorms? I was got in on there as well .

@Patrick

No, this was up in Saratoga Springs, New York.

@Bill Marshall

What does the aristocracy have to do with this? Otherwise, yes, I think he should've owned up to his mistake. But, his family obviously doesn't see it that way. Kind of like how entertainers who screw up seem to think that going to rehab will automatically clear them of past blunders.

I seriously doubt that the prosecution would not have accepted a murder two or even a manslaughter charge to spare the families and the media circus.

This trial is about a snot nosed rich punk who eqauted wealth with integrity and superiority and lost bigtime and now wants another free pass... (other than his birthright)

People born into such wealth SHOULD be held to a higher standard because they squandered the opportunity they were born with.

The aristocrats.... I don't feel sorry for him, Pat kluge, whitney houston, mel gibson lindsay lohan or for that matter JFK junior who thought he could fly because he was a kennedy....

They blew it and they need to pay the piper....

Just reasons for Murder 1 :

1. "I should have killed you," email. He'd at least been thinking about murdering her. It had crossed his mind.

2. Strangulation - people strangle to kill. It's not a punch or a kick. It's cutting off ones ability to breathe. This was his second attempt in strangling her (perhaps there were other attempts we don't know about.

Isn't that enough to convict of Murder 1?