'Out of control': Witnesses say Huguely's drinking escalated


When University of North Carolina lacrosse player MIke Burns came to visit friends at UVA in the winter of 2010, he witnessed an altercation between George Huguely and Yeardley Love that prosecutors allege foreshadowed her death in the morning hours of May 3.

"We heard a girl yelling, 'Help me, help me!" testified Burns, who described attending a post-lacrosse game gathering at Huguely's 14th Street apartment complex the night of February 27, less than three months before Love's death. Following the cries that night, Burns testified, he reached Huguely's bedroom door and opened it. 

"I saw George with his arm around Yeardley's neck," Burns testified, describing Huguely lying on his back on the bed, holding Yeardley atop him as he choked her. 

His sudden presence in the room, Burns said, prompted Huguely to release Love, who quickly departed and sought comfort from friends and expressed her gratitude. 

"She said, 'Thank you so much,'" he recalled.

As previously reported, Burns– who met Love when both lived in New York in the summer of 2009 and "hooked up" with her occasionally in the spring of 2010– would be the trigger of more tension between Love and Huguely, after Huguely learned that Love and Burns had been sexually involved. After Love allegedly taunted Huguely as a less able partner, he sent an email with the seeming threat, "I should have killed you."

Huguely's own "other woman" also took the stand and described a casual but romantic relationship with Huguely that overlapped his relationship with Love.

"I knew that sometimes they weren't dating and sometimes they were," testified Stephanie Aladj, a 2010 UVA grad who was also Love's sorority sister– a fact she acknowledged created tension between the two women. 

Other witnesses testified that as Huguely's relationship with Love was winding down in the spring of their senior year, his drinking was winding up, with the soon-to-graduate senior lacrosse player imbibing to the point of intoxication, one witness estimated, at least four times a week.

He certainly appeared drunk on the morning of Sunday, May 2– the day of the father-son golf tournament, a UVA men's lacrosse tradition. Two of Huguely's teammates described arriving at the Wintergreen Resort golf course at 9am and finding Huguely already slurring his words. By 5pm, said his lacrosse teammate Brian Carroll, who was there with his own father and brother, testified that Huguely "was significantly more drunk," and was behaving inappropriately– at one point interrupting parents, Carroll recalled, "to tell a story that didn't make any sense."

At least two witnesses recalled a springtime altercation between Love and Huguely in which Love, apparently angered by the presence of two high school students visiting Huguely's apartment one evening, struck him with her purse, causing its contents to spill out. 

"Are these your new girlfriends?" Love asked sarcastically, according to witness Kate Kamber, a current UVA fourth year.

"He pretended he didn't know her," recalled Kamber, who testified Huguely might then have called Love a "crazy bitch" or a "crazy slut."

The girlfriend of Huguely's roommate, Elizabeth McLean, described helping Love gather her belongings that evening and making sure she reached home safely. McLean testified that while Love had been drinking, it was Huguely's drinking that concerned her more as it appeared to have increased in frequency and intensity, and, she said, was affecting his mood and his behavior.

"He was out of control," McLean said.

Day four ended with testimony about computer security and emails, as well as information about the location of Love's laptop, which was found in a nearby dumpster after her death.

This story is a part of the Huguely trial coverage special.


Mike Burns played for UNC, not NCSU.

Oops, my bad for not catching that little slip. All fixed now. Thanks!--hawes spencer

as i suspected, nobody will come out of this unscathed. not a flattering picture of student behavior at all.

comment deleted

as usual, thanks to the hook for being the only news outlet in town reporting actual information. this article fills in huge gaps in what we previously knew and brings the awful picture of that tragic night into clear focus. wishing strength and healing to the love family.

@jon. Congrats. That's the type of attitude that gets women killed. If we can learn anything from this is to look at verbal and physical abuse as unacceptable and give abused women the support and strength to get out of these situations. Giving Huguely a long sentence doesn't bring Yeardley back but changing our attitudes toward abus and taking a tougher stance on abusive relationships could save others like her.

How come Starsia gets a free pass through all this? Paterno got burned at the stake for lack of control over his program. That lacrosse program has been home to jerks since its inception, how could a coach not have a clue about a player getting arrested in Lexington and being drunkard. There is always a third string player who snitch. Same excuse as Paterno I guess. UVa just did a better job than Penn State of covering up their mess. Nice job UVa.

Were it not for rampant familial alcoholism, Love would likely be alive today.

Jon, if "whores" were a gender-neutral term, I'd agree with you. Certainly the worst behavior described is attributed to the male characters in the story. Wouldn't you agree?

I would agree that the behavior of these young people is lamentable. Mr. Huguely, however, appears to be little more than a total miscreant whose money and privileged position in society and at UVa covered up the nature of his true character for too long.

Dom Starsia was named college LAX Coach of the Year by FieldTurf just months after Yeardley's death...he won the honor for the second year in a row last month.

WOW -- way to go, people. A young man kills a woman and you reduce it to whores and rampant familial alcoholism. I take away a whole different view of this. If the local police AND the campus police did their jobs and investigated cases of violence against women ... AND then actually INVESTIGATED and ARRESTED people who commit acts of violence, there would be less violence on campus. The fact they continue to hide it under the carpet (ie the coach knew he was a time bomb, the friends knew he was a time bomb, and yes, the Administration knew he was a time bomb) allowed George to continue to behave badly. IF he had been stopped, evaluated, perhaps suspended, then maybe Love would be alive. If he had beat her without killing her, nothing would have been done to stop him. Her death is a wake up call to the entire community and everyone employed by UVA -- it confirms that no one has been listening to the women who have spent years telling you that violence against women is escalating in Charlottesville!

I've followed local and national coverage of this trial -- including the Daily Progress,USA Today, CNN, etc. -- and the best by far is Courteney Stuart's coverage, which easily provides the clearest day-by-day assessments.

I read online from 3 different news orgs that the unc lax player stayed with love and they "hooked up" hours after he witnessed the choke hold. I hope this reporting is incorrect, but if it is correct now I can understand why no one reported the abuse. It appears there was immaturity and a lack of self-respect.

@Doyle ... shouldn't you be playing cards with J.D. Shelnut or something?

The activities involved do not seem to fit the 1st and 2nd definition of a "whore".............

This is a sad commentary about the life and behavior of some young people in college today - random sex, drugs, alcohol, violence and tragically in this case death.

I would be interested to hear the thoughts of those more closely connected with todays college students. Is this generally accepted behavior among all students, or is this more prevalent in the athletes.

Is there anything UVa or any college could do to intervene in a positive way to change this ? Are there programs at other schools that have positive outcomes ?

Of course GH V should pay for his actions, but if the email in question really said,“I should have killed you. You should have killed me. You’re so [profanity] up,”then it hardly seems like proof of intent to murder, and in fact tells a much different story than we'd been led to believe. What's the point of the prosecution trying to pin the worst possible charge on him if it's unwarranted? That's just wrong.

This sort of behavior isn't out of the norm for college or even high school. It depends upon the individual. When you go off to college you no longer have your parents overseeing your activities. As I stated, it depends upon the individuals involved and it transends the clicks. However Frat and Sor lives for the most part this is normal. Gang rapes in Frats have been happening for decades. Where have you all been? Guess not at college or aware of what your children are actually doing.

UVA has inacted programs to help, however, there should be more in high schools, middle schools and all of society. (And they wouldn't cost much to implement.)

I believe the correct exchange between George and Love was from him, 'I should have killed you'
Her reply, 'You should have killed me? You are so effed up'
Hence the first degree charge.

Sue Lord,

Well, then .. hang him high!

Pam, of course you are right . My point is that there is a root problem that needs to be addressed and changed. I grew up in this culture in Baltimore. Private schools and country clubs and alcoholism. Alcoholism that was not only ignored and accepted, but was the norm and passed on from one generation to the next.
As a child, my father always drove with his cocktail by his side. All the while living a life that included golf at the best clubs, a good job and private school education for his kids. Again, this was not unusual at all.
I know that this was the lifestyle that was known to George. This was all he knew. He was a raging, out of control, spoiled alcoholic who was raised in a nightmarish dysfunctional environment.
I know that he is fully guilty here, but I do feel that he is not completely to blame.

Ok, how about this. She wasn't dead when he left. She was alive for another two hours. So if he went there to murder her, he failed. He also seems to have picked her up and put her on the bed (sadly compounding things, as it seems to have led to her death). But was it an attempt to cover up the crime, or was it an act of compassion?

Hmmm, act of compassion? He claims to have thrown or pushed her on to the bed.
Oh, and he left with her computer containing the incriminating emails, which he promptly tossed in the nearest dumpster.

I've been doing some reading up on the viability of the "intoxication defense," which, apparently, is no real defense at all. But not strictly speaking, as defense lawyers try it anyway.

A lot hinges on intent, which is why, I think, the defense is arguing that GHV went to Love's to "talk, make up, and work things out." The prosecution, on the other hand, has the prior e-mail, "I should have killed you," clearly designed to suggest intent or at the least the presence of malice.

GHV's psse is gathering around with a "we almost did something we were so worried about Georgie's drinking." But the fact is, they didn't. Unless there's documentation of some sort of diagnosis, and treatment plan, GHV was not being treated for chronic alcoholism, however much he might have actually been an alcoholic (all that weight loss may be purely due to forced sobriety).

While the defense wants to paint a picture of a loving George all intent to patch things up, that clashes markedly with a kicked in door and the violence that ensued. The downstairs neighbor hearing hurried steps on the stairs, the loud noise, and then the hurried departure —none of this squares with the behavior to "patch things up."

According to the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law in an article on Drug and alcohol intoxication: mens rea defenses, "Drug and alcohol intoxication, since the mid 1800's, is not itself a defense to a crime. Nonetheless, in many jurisdictions in the United States, drug and alcohol intoxication can be used to raise reasonable doubt about a specific intent that is an integral element of some crimes." The question is, can that reasonable doubt really be raised in light of prior violence against Love, the e-mail, and the loud manner in which he approached the apartment, and the violence that erupted almost instantly?

P.S....I hope I don't get in trouble sometime soon for having Googled the term "2nd degree murder". ;)

To perhaps better understand the posturing and strategies of the defense as they relate to the charges faced by GH, readers are encouraged to read the following written by Lloyd Snook, legal analyst and local defense attorney. [Particular attention should be paid to the use of intoxication as a defense of a charge of first-degree murder, specifically as it relates to premeditation and intent.] Snook writes in part:

"The defense opening was trying to set up a number of mental state defenses. The opening suggests that the defense will focus on three issues of fact:

How drunk was he?
When he went into Yeardley Love’s apartment, did he intend to do anything other than talk/argue with her? In particular, did he go in with the intent to steal her laptop?
How exactly did she die?

Here’s why these matter.

First, as a general matter intoxication is not a defense to a criminal charge. The defendant can’t say, “Judge, I know I’m charged with shoplifting that watch, but man, was I drunk! I didn’t mean to take it — I was just so messed up!” That is not a defense. The one exception is in a first-degree murder case. The defense can argue, “I was so drunk, I couldn’t possibly have formed the intent to kill her.” The distinction is sometimes said to be that intoxication is a not a defense to a general criminal intent, but it can be a defense to the Commonwealth’s burden of proof on premeditation.

But there is a somewhat more subtle point here. The Commonwealth doesn’t have any witness who will say, “George Huguely told me that he was going over there to kill her.” So they will have to argue on the basis of circumstantial evidence that he must have meant to kill her. One line of argument that they will rely on is based on a jury instruction that the judge will give that the jury can infer that the defendant intended the ordinary consequences of his intentional acts. To put it more baldly, if George Huguely intentionally did something that caused her death, we can conclude that he intended that she die. In other words, the fact that she died as a result of something that he did to her can be evidence all by itself that suggests that he meant for her to die.

But when the Commonwealth is basing its case on this attempt to assess what George Huguely knew, or what he observed, and whether the reasonable person in his situation would have realized what was going on, the question then becomes whether he was a “reasonable” person. The evidence will strongly suggest that he was drunk. The toxicologists will testify that someone who is drunk won’t observe as closely as someone who is sober. Someone who is drunk won’t mentally process conflicting bits of information in the same way as someone who is sober. One fact that the Commonwealth will talk about is that after George Huguely left Yeardley Love in her room, she apparently lived for up to two more hours. The argument will be made that he must have meant for her to die, because he left her alone and bleeding, and over the next two hours she died when she could easily have been saved.

But if Huguely was drunk and was not aware in the same way as a sober person would be of what was happening around him, perhaps we shouldn’t say that he is just as responsible as someone who was stone cold sober and who realized that she had suffered a serious, bleeding wound and left her alone to die. The argument will be made in terms of the jury instruction that says that intoxication can be a defense to premeditation, but don’t be surprised if the argument occasionally morphs.

The second point is to ask why he broke down her door. He is charged with burglary, which requires proof that he broke and entered into her property in the nighttime with the intent to commit a felony or larceny. It is not burglary if he broke down the door with the intent of getting into an argument, or with the intent even to slap her in the face or punch her in the mouth (typically, those would just be assault, which is not a felony). He had no weapon. He wasn’t carrying a sack to take away things that he might steal. The defense will say, “Find him guilty of illegal entry. But don’t find him guilty of burglary, because he didn’t have the intent to steal when he went in.” But wait, you say — he took her laptop when he left! But that turns the question back to his intent when he went in — not when he left. Can the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to steal anything when he went in? In his first statement to the police, George Huguely told the police that he took the laptop because he wanted to force her to come talk to him — “collateral,” he called it.

And in the confusing morass of criminal charges here, this question of burglary turns out to be key. George Huguely is charged with two different kinds of murder. He is charged with first-degree murder — an allegation that he intended to kill her and he did. He is also charged with felony murder (lawyer purists note — this is not the same as Model Penal Code and law school felony murder — more on that later), which is defined as follows:

The killing of one accidentally, contrary to the intention of the parties, while in the prosecution of some felonious act other than those specified in §§ 18.2-31 and 18.2-32, is murder of the second degree.

Virginia Code §18.2-33. The felonious acts specified in those two sections are “arson, rape, forcible sodomy, inanimate or animate object sexual penetration, robbery, burglary or abduction.” So if the Commonwealth can prove that George Huguely caused the death of Yeardley Love while he was committing a burglary, it wouldn’t matter whether he intended to kill her or not — he’d still be guilty of second degree murder and he could still get up to 40 years in the penitentiary.

Let’s take one more step down into the rabbit hole here.

If the Commonwealth cannot prove that George Huguely intended to steal or to commit a serious assault when he broke in to Yeardley Love’s apartment, they have no burglary. If the Commonwealth also cannot prove that he intended to kill her, they have only manslaughter. If he killed her accidentally, and without an intent to kill her, this may end up as a manslaughter charge, punishable by up to 10 years."

Spellchecker, I think you are avoiding the middle at 2nd degree murder. No, this might not be premeditated in the sense of a hit, but he most certainly went to harm her, based on his previous interactions with her. His strength and intoxication might have led to him killing her, but this is not manslaughter, where he went to have a chat, they got into it, and he beat her senseless.

Of course the computer didn't exactly contain the emails -- they were in webmail, out there in her account in cyberspace somewhere, though it does seem that you could find traces of them if you're a specialist in computer forensics.

Of course we know that the emails exist anyway, but In George's mind that night, he was getting rid of evidence when he threw the computer in the dumpster. Or so it would appear.

How do we know what's in George's mind? That's kind of the big question of the whole trial -- what was he thinking? What did he intend? What was in George's mind? And was George even in his mind?

Does it seem odd to anyone that this email was only recovered by the FBI six days before trial?

How is this possible with all of the time that has passed?

That's true Misinformation. I am only speculating.

But why did he go there that night at that time? What exactly prompted his visit? Why was Love's door locked?

Something transpired immediately before this interaction. Something that enraged George. He was drunk and furious about something.

Sue Lord, It does seem odd, since the friends seem to have told the cops about it (and wouldn't that have been at the beginning of the whole investigation?). Dunno, tho.

So is/are a different email(s) being discussed in this Aug 2010 Hook story?


And how did he know she was home? Did he know she was alone? Who left the toilet seat up?

Sue --

The FBI might have had other things to do, and so recovering this particular email was not high on their priority list. Despite the media's attempts to play up this case, it is not really all that unusual of a crime. A man with a history of drunken violence killed his ex-girlfriend, after having sent her threatening emails and having previously attacked her. It is tragic but it is fairly routine for the FBI -- do you really thing that the same story does not play out with regularity in this country?

To put it another way, the FBI's computer specialists are busy tracking terrorists, child predators, and organized crime. An email related to a murder does not seem terribly pressing compared to all of the above, especially when the suspect who wrote the email is already in police custody.

-- B

With the express exception of the first paragraph of my 9:09am post, the comments offered are from Lloyd Snook, legal analyst and local defense attorney.

To my mind, Miss Information is correct as much of this case turns on the question of what was in GH's mind when he entered Yeardley's residence. No one knows except GH--who will not be testifying on his own behalf. The defense has only to persuade one, single juror that GH arrived with no mal intent and sans premeditation and a conviction of first-degree murder evaporates into the ether.

The cynic in me believes that our system of criminal justice is centered not on truth or justice, right or wrong, or guilt or innocence. It is instead about two things: theater and the power of persuasion. A trial is theater and drama at its zenith and, at its core, the finding of the court is based upon which side of the aisle--defense or prosecution--can be most persuasive in their argument.

"This sort of behavior isn't out of the norm for college or even high school. It depends upon the individual. When you go off to college you no longer have your parents overseeing your activities. As I stated, it depends upon the individuals involved and it transends the clicks. However Frat and Sor lives for the most part this is normal. Gang rapes in Frats have been happening for decades. Where have you all been? Guess not at college or aware of what your children are actually doing."

This behavior isn't out of the norm?? Gang rapes at Frats?

I went to UVa, and I was in a frat. This behavior (very drunk 4 times a week, drunk at 9 am, incoherently drunk at a parents event, choking women, telling a girl you "should have killed her", etc) is certainly not normal. And 'gang rapes at frats'? Please.

Huguely (and Love) belonged to a subculture, a subculture of very rich and privileged prep school kids who hung out in their own circles. Some of these were lacrosse players, many were not. They are not the average UVa students. Many of them, including Huguely, use(d) cocaine as well. (Wait until they release his toxicology report.)

If someone in my fraternity or among my friends was out of control like Huguely was, there would have been an intervention much earlier or he would have been ostracized. However, in that circle of kids who were used to seeing their parents drunk at country club parties, I guess it had to go a bit farther before something was done.

Curiously a lot is made of GHV's mind during the event, and now, in retrospect, when drunkenness is being bandied as a bulwark against 1st degree murder or intent to kill. Yet at the same time, his statement to police, shortly after the incident, is being taken with such wholehearted veracity, that he took the computer for "collateral," a curious terminology at best, sounding somewhat like an intent to bribe her into quiet. Let's face it, after a day in which he was perceived of as being drunk already at 9am, continued to drink on the golf course all day, and yet his father was willing to split a bottle of wine with him that night, after which he drank some more, how "sober" could he have been when making statements on his behalf to cops at 9am the next morning (or whenever that early questioning took place "a couple of hours later").

So which is it —is he the out-of-control drunk who was just on the verge of a friend-assisted intervention/commitment to Rehab, or is the straight talking post-beating regular Joe who shrugged off his interaction with Love as a misunderstanding in which he palmed her computer for "collateral"? Why is one more believable than the other?

It is the same email that is being referenced. Apparently police were aware of the emails existence, but had not actually retrieved it.

'Prosecutors confirmed the explosive e-mail three days before the start of the trial, after ongoing attempts to get it from computers and a BlackBerry used by Huguely and Love. The content was recovered a week ago by an FBI computer team, who “rushed” to get the job done before trial, one of the federal specialists testified.'

The above is from the Washington Post.


Brian K, I completely agree with you. This was the world in which they lived, and you are right about the blase attitude that exists toward alcoholism in that world.

Thanks, Sue Lord. Meanwhile, back at the trial, they're about to play the hour-long interrogation tape. That should be telling.

Kate, his statement to police is being taken as truth by whom? I sure as hell don't believe that he threw the computer away to get Love to call him the next day. Maybe the jurors won't either.

I believe the two fought over the email that contained a 'death threat'. I think she threatened to go to police, perhaps get a restraining order or something along those lines. I think this is what prompted the angry visit from George.

Good points, Sue. My concern was not that anyone on here is buying the defense's song and dance. What I am saying is that he can't be seen as both fundamentally impaired and therefore not fully culpable and lucid and able to offer a coherent explanation. You get one pick there, GHV.

Two jurors are crying (as is George, and Love's mom and sister). Does that bode well for him?

@miss information, I'm wondering the same. No reports of crying when the pics were shown, but tears at the playing of the interro tape. Sympathy for the defendant?

Miss Information - I would say no, unless daddy can pull a rabbit (or money) out of a hat. His legal team seems to be trying to just that, but that remains to be seen, not their turn yet.

I feel sorry for both Love and George. Both lives ruined. I don't think he would have ever done this sober, and I think he is a victim of his lousy environment.

Of course, I think he should pay for his actions, but not spend the rest of his life behind bars.

sue lord, I feel the same way. Just a stupid, senseless tragedy that's hurt so many people on both sides. I'm trying to imagine what justice would look like here. As you've said, some kind of just punishment, but not complete ruination.

I hope that's the end of his drinking -- I mean, I hope he has realized within himself that drinking was not working out for him ,and that he's mentally sworn off it. He can emerge a better man, with the right attitude and insights. I'm all for redemption.

Sue --

Really, you are blaming alcohol for Huguely's behavior? Let us suppose that alcohol is the culprit, and that Huguely would never have become violent if he had not been drinking. He was arrested years before the murder for his alcohol-fueled violence, and failed to stop drinking or even moderate his drinking. He had gotten into fights while drunk in the past, and did not stop drinking then. You would think that after having gotten in trouble while drunk, he would have done the responsible thing and stopped getting drunk -- instead, he continued to get drunk, and continued to get in trouble, until he finally caused someone's death (I'll wait for the jury's decision before calling him a murderer).

Do you really expect us to feel sympathy for someone who was given second, third, and fourth chances, and did not change his behavior?

-- B

B, I am not simply blaming alcohol abuse, but the long standing acceptance of alcohol abuse that exists in George's world.

George grew up surrounded by alcoholics and their dysfunctional behavior. This is all that he knew. Of course he didn't stop when alcohol caused him problems. No one, namely his parents, made him stop. They neglected him during his youth and were likely half in the bag as well.

He was still relatively young when his alcohol related problems began, yet Mom and Dad did nothing to help their son.

You don't have to feel sorry for him, but I do, as I know why he is the way he is and I know that he is not entirely to blame for that. Somewhat, yes, but not enough to pay by spending his entire life in prison.

At least the UVA Honor Committee will excuse him

Hi sue. While I completely agree with you about GHV growing up in a culture of alcohol, that really does not explain this behaviour. I am more inclined to wonder about violence at home in combination.Alcohol releases inhibitions, and it means that underneath it all, he was an angry, violent person.

Plenty of people get drunk and don't do that sort of violence.

Sue --

So growing up in a dysfunctional home is an excuse now? We should not treat this as an ordinary murder case, but should give him special treatment, because his family had problems? That is as bad of an argument as blaming alcohol.

I have a friend who grew up in an abusive home, and she went through a period where she abused alcohol. After getting into some trouble, she did what Huguely did not do: she stopped drinking and cleaned up her life. It is not as if there is something special about UVA that breeds killers; there are plenty of UVA students who grew up in circumstances similar to Huguely's who are not out killing people.

-- B

What is known about that t-shirt she was wearing and that stain on the wall?

I am a recovering alcoholic who has had problems staying sober for years. I have NO sympathy for GHV whatsoever. I don't think this sounds like first-degree murder, but it definitely sounds like second-degree. He may not deserve life, but based on the circumstances as presented so far, he should get 25 minimum, probably more like 40. Just a couple of years ago, I served on a jury that put an 18-year-old away for 15 years for a non-lethal shooting. It was one of the most difficult and heart-wrenching things I have ever done. But based on the circumstances, he deserved it, so we put our personal feelings aside and did it.

Thanks for your comment, Prainva. I do agree that George needs to be punished and should serve substantial time behind bars. Do you think that some people are inclined to do things drunk that they might not ever do while sober? Particularly those who are mean, angry drinkers?


I agree that he likely grew up in a violent environment combined with excessive drinking. He nine during a very bitter custody battle between his parents. I suspect there was much dysfunction there.

This is why I feel for him and it has nothing to do with the color of his skin or his looks. I am a mother and feel like he is still somewhat of a child, as was Miss Love. I also feel that no one ever got him the help that he so obviously needed, namely his parents.

Of course I don't think he should be completely exonerated for those reasons, but that they are mitigating factors, among others which I won't post here.

Not sure, but I don't recall any of this type of thing happening during my college daze.....

then again, that was back in the most recent ice age. I suspect things have changed at college, and certainly high school- for the worst, and this type of activity will continue to grow in numbers.

Idiotic article.

whoops I meant that last comment for the ridiculous "Steroids" piece

don't be surprised if the defense introduces the "Robert Chambers' defense" when all goes bad....that would be the time to make him the victim


just a thought..............

I'm starting to wonder if George hit Love over the head with the laptop. The emails would have been in her account, not just on her laptop. I don't think he's dumb enough to think he could get rid of email evidence simply by throwing the laptop away. A laptop across the skull could do major damage.

I'm a local to the cville area and have been hearing / seeing some very disturbing techniques used by the Defense attorneys. No doubt GHV has lost a lot of weight, but i see him suits that are at least 2 sizes too big. If he comes from so much money couldn't he afford a fitted suit? this is a common technique used to make people look smaller and less intimidating. I've also seen that GHV is considerably taller that his legal team, but when he sits down at the defense table with his attorneys he looks shorter than all of them. They have purposely given him a shorter seat. Again another trick to make the jury think "how could someone of such normal stature do such damage." This kind of attorney trickery makes me absolutley sick. It's just further confirming GHV's guilt.

She was not a good person. she provoked fights. she shouldn't have slept with burns - she slept with burns the same night he 'saved her' from hugeley who was her bf. Huegely is an alcoholic in love. you dont provoke an alcoholic, especially one that is in love. if she knew how to behave, she'd still be alive and he would not be in jail. he needs alcohol treatment.

young girls need to understand that they can't go around sleeping with whoever, provoking lovers, and expect everything to be okay. just like i wouldn't go punch a pitbull in the face a bunch of times and then be upset when he barked. then, when someone comes and pulls me away from the pitbull go ahead and have sex with that person. that is idiotic behavior. its too bad that this happened, but love was a participant. it could've easily been the other way around.