Huguely: 'How the f*** is she dead?'

A police interrogation videotape began with a groggy George W. Huguely V recounting copious amounts of alcohol he began consuming that fateful Sunday morning and ending with him expressing real or staged disbelief about the Monday-morning death of Yeardley Love.

"She's dead. How the f*** is she dead?" (long pause) "She's dead? How, how, how, how is she she dead? I didn't do anything. I didn't f***ing hit her."

It was a painful 20 minutes or so of the taped Huguely continuing to repeat alleged shock and disbelief. It was so awkward that even the present-day Huguely began rubbing his eyes in what appeared to be an effort to remove tears from the face that until now has impassively stared at the lawyers, jury, and audience in his first-degree murder trial.

"The alcohol got a hold of you?" a detective can be heard asking after the big reveal which came about 35 minutes after Huguely's interrogation began.

"She's not dead," Huguely frequently says on the tape which began rolling around 7:52am on May 3, 2010, the day Huguely's badly injured former girlfriend was found unresponsive on the bed of her 14th Street apartment.

"I want to see her," demands Huguely. "I don't believe she's dead. You guys said she had a black eye and a bump on her head."

"Let's calm down," says Charlottesville Police Detective Lisa Reeves as Huguely continues to repeat– perhaps as many as 30 times– some permutation of "She's not dead."

"There's no way," he says, "that anything that happened last night could kill her."

However, the tape also revealed a pile of potential problems for Huguely's credibility. For starters, he blamed any head injuries on Love banging her own head against a wall of her bedroom. He also says he'd never threatened her.

Later, when asked if he'd taken anything from her room, he first answers no, but when confronted about the laptop computer whose case and cord were found in the apartment, he admits he took it as "collateral." Asked where he was keeping the collateral, he finally reveals that he'd tossed it in a nearby dumpster.

Later, Huguely can be heard telling the investigators– who had already surmised what the state medical examiner determined: that Love died from blunt-force trauma– that when he left, "She was standing up looking at me."

But most of the audio after the big reveal was just Huguely.

"How? How? How?" he asks. "No! No! No!" he says. Eventually, his salvo of I-know-she's-not-deads turns into an unintelligible jumble of whimpering and sobbing.

"Tell me she's not dead– please," Huguely implores. "She's alive; she has to be."

Told again that the 22-year-old Love is dead, he exclaims, "Oh, my God," and what sounds like: "Kill me."

As this blubbering played out in the Charlottesville courtroom, Huguely– dressed in a grey sportcoat that fit more snugly the voluminous navy blue he wore during his first appearance– kept his chin down, took a sip from a foam water cup, and continued to rub his eyes. In front of him, members of the Love family dabbed their own eyes.

Conspicuously absent from this pathetic scene were George Huguely IV and Marta Murphy, both of whom are defense witnesses.

Earlier on the tape, before the dramatic denouement, Huguely walked the detective through his version of the fateful evening's events which began with four or five beers on a golf course and included two glasses of wine at dinner.

"After dinner," he says, "I probably had five drinks of vodka."

Huguely repeatedly tells his interrogators– unseen to the gallery but visible to the defendant, lawyers, jury, and judge– that he simply wants to talk to his "former girlfriend," as he described her.

"I sent like six emails saying let's talk, and she didn't respond," Huguely says.

"I was more emotional than I was angry," he explains of his demeanor when he enters her room, which he says was lit only by streetlamps beaming in through a bay window.

"It was not at all a good conversation," Huguely reports. "She's freaking out just seeing me there. I'm like, 'What the hell; we're just gonna talk."

Huguely admits on the tape that he probably woke Love from a slumber.

"I just want to talk to her," he repeatedly tells Detective Reeves. "I was like 'Yeardley, chill out,' and shook her."

And yet even after admitting to that, he seems unable to keep his story straight.

"I never touched her or struck her or anything," Huguely tells Reeves mere minutes after conceding that he might have pushed her arms, might have touched her neck, and that the two definitely ended up on the floor.

"We were like wrestling around," says Huguely, "and that's when her nose started bleeding."

So how did he leave her?

"I tossed her," Huguely says. "I pushed her on the bed. I was like, 'Go to bed.'"

The only other witness to testify Friday morning was cardiac pathologist Renu Virnani, who told the court, "There was nothing wrong with Love's heart that would have led to her death."

Although no transcript of the interrogation video was provided, members of the media expressed astonishment at the repetitive nature of Huguely's utterances, as if he were having trouble understanding the situation– or, in a less charitable assessment– buying time.

Told that he's about to be arrested, Huguely responds once again by asking, "She's dead?" then muttering, "Help."

In the final minutes of the tape, he says three times in a row: "There's no way." Four times in a row he says: "I know she's not dead." Three times he sobs, "Oh my God." And, shortly before investigators turn off their camera: "I did not kill her, I did not kill her, I did not kill her. I did not kill her."

Forensic Detective Mike Flaherty took the witness stand for the afternoon session, and identified pictures of the crime scene, from mundane kitchen counters to Love's bloody body on the floor of her bedroom. "Here are the broken pieces of her door inside her room," he narrated. "At this point her feet have been bagged," he said of another photo.

"That's a close up of Yeardley Love," he said. "Her left eye is open. Her right eye is swollen shut." Other photos detailed red stains on her neck, on her chin, with abrasions surrounded by contusions under the center line, and the red stains on the back of her left hand.

Because of those wounds, Flaherty went around her room and examined her dresser, bay window, desk, and bedside table, and said after photos of each one, "No evidence of impact."

An off-white discoloration on the bedroom wall drew Flaherty's attention. "I didn't know what it was," he said, and swabbed the wall.

Throughout the photo tour of Love's room, evidence of a well-organized young woman emerged. Her clothes were "neatly folded" in her dresser drawers, said Flaherty, and her desk was "orderly," with "neatly stacked items."

Flaherty noted in pictures of Love's bathroom a slightly crushed Natural Light can, and the upraised seat and lid of the toilet.

Commonwealth's Attorney Dave Chapman introduced into evidence items that had been described throughout the trial. He and a police officer held up Love's green comforter and her sheets with holes where the bloodstains had been cut out because those items were too big to send to a lab.

Brown paper evidence bags were opened with her pillow case and it elongated stains, her laptop case with a red stain, and her yellow North Face backpack, which had contained an empty Adderall prescription bottle. A piece of her bedroom wall was admitted as evidence, as was a letter from Huguely found in her desk drawer.

Throughout the trial, the oft-mentioned kicked-in door to Love's bedroom has been wrapped in brown paper and leaning against the wall of the courtroom. It was unveiled, and Flaherty said it was upside down. When it was flipped, an audible "oh" was heard in the media room where reporters saw a hole the size of a basketball up around door knob level.

It remained leaning against the wall of the courtroom, its gaping hole testament to the violence that entered Yeardley Love's bedroom that night.

–story updated 2:45pm Friday

– updated 5:05pm with additional reporting by Lisa Provence

–updated 8:22pm

–updated 7:44am Saturday with audio reenactment of tape (near top, under photo)

Read more on: George Huguely

131 comments

Does anybody know why GHV has been held quite often away from the rest of the prison population?

Who says he has, Kate?

Because he would get beat up by the other inmates? Seems very obvious to me

Where does GHV eat lunch during the breaks? Is there a holding area for inmates?

He has been in seg - because of the fact it is a high profile case and they wanted to keep him alive until trial ... that is why.

In Seg - you eat in your cell. Also another reason to keep him in seg is to keep an eye on him - first timers in jail do commit suicide.

All courts have holding cells while inmates or wards (juveniles) are on trial - where they heck have you people been this is Crime 101...

deleted comment

Well, I haven't been to prison. I've been out here grindin' and winning championships!

First I have heard of this $150,000 to hold him in special or protective custody.

Where can this report be viewed?

Can it be done? Probably. Should it be done? Yes, it's nice when a prisoner can pay his own way in jail. Was it done in this case? Dunno.

Sorry from the peanut gallery that we're not Nancy Grace, nor took her Crime 101 course. Also that not all of us have followed every last utterance about this case until now. I hope the more versed can stay patient, I mean, you don't want to go bludgeon anyone over it.

That said, was she found on the floor, as this article says, "...he frequently says on tape which began rolling around 7:52am on May 3, 2010, the day Huguely's badly injured former girlfriend was found unresponsive on the floor of her 14th Street apartment."

Or was she found on her bed?

Deleted by moderator.

Kate, George admits to pushing her onto the bed. She was found there, face down.

@Kate George: Oops, I messed that up. Testimony indicates that Love was found right where Huguely says he left her: on her bed. Earlier testimony showed that the friend of the roommate moved her from bed to floor to begin attempts to revive her. I've modified that sentence so it's now correct. Thanks for the eagle eye!--hawes spencer

Sorry to input the Crime 101 but I have a family member in corrections so I know basic protocol for the ACRJ. Though this person is not at that particular facility anymore but with the state.

Once a sentance is handed down and he goes to DOC - there will be no way to pay for him to be in "protective custody". As for people blaming his parents, there have been plenty of good parents who had a child go wrong and people who had bad parents and they managed to do right.

Speculative here but Yardley received this email from him stating he should have killed her. They had been arguing. She didn't reply or respond to his requests of seeing him to "talk". She had come back to C'ville, went out with friends and then later decided to stay home and sleep behind her LOCKED bedroom door - to not be disturbed. Appears to me she was trying to stay away from him to prevent any altercation. She just wanted to graduate and move on.

I think it states volumes that he said he "should have killed her" drunk or sober and then breaks down her door to her room, beats the hell out of her and leaves her (for dead) and takes the laptop to take any "evidence" of his threats to her. You don't throw collateral away!

Come on, someone emails you that they think they should have killed you - isn't that INTENT there? I know - up to the Jury but I curtainly HOPE they see it that way.

Stop feeling sorry for this dude - he made his bed - he needs to lay in it.

@Sue, it does seem that the culture both kids came from was one of lax privilege, heavy drinking, and all access to whatever toys and enjoyment they wanted. But there's nothing on the law books that makes that punishable, nor an excuse. People from far less privileged backgrounds whose financial, emotional, physical, and cultural stress and strains make their actions a whole hell of a lot more understandable almost never get a whimper of sympathy. Need I add the lack of sympathy for anyone who displeases the court by being born black and then becoming a criminal?

So while some context is interesting, there's little more to add concerning what a raw deal Huguely got because he was born to narcissistic boozers.

The bottom line is that the court sees him as an adult who is responsible for his own actions, not that he should lay them at the feet of mommy, daddy, or the burden of a country club upbringing.

Good point re: "you don't throw collateral away."

I agree with your above comments, Kate, and if I was a juror I would be able to put those feelings aside and make a decision based on evidence rather than my emotions. It is just the human side of me feels for this kid. I also feel much deeper sympathy for Miss Love.

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the King's horses, And all the King's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again

He grabs her by the neck and she's saying "no no no, stop it". Then she bangs her "own" head against the wall and strangles herself. This is like the scene in Blazing Saddles when Sheriff Bart strangles himself, it's ludicrous. This guy is a text book sociopath, living in a "Peter Pan" world of magical thinking, constantly lying, distorting, obfuscating and otherwise distorting reality to justify his homicidal tendencies. It's on full display in his pathetic interrogation.

Oh and the rest of the Lax team knew what was going on and could have cared less. Burns sleeps with Love less than an hour after witnessing her being assaulted. "Bro's before Ho's" is their mantra. The bit about them planning to stage an intervention "AFTER" the season was over is complete BS. They are saying that now, to in some sense, mitigate their collective guilt (if any of them is even capable of feeling guilt).

I'm sure there will be more punks with George Huguely's temperament and basic attitude to walk the hollowed corridors of the UVa. Lax facilities. And I'm sure Dom Starsia will continue to project an image of how superior these guys are to the rest of the student body, with absolutely no reflection or introspection on why this situation occurred.

Georgie Boy really screwed up, had he just controlled himself that one time, he, like so many of his beloved teammates, could have found easy work at any number of real estate firms, law firms, or investment banks, with Daddy's connections and a well established network of other well heeled Lax alumni, all of whom seem to have nothing to really offer other than a cocky attitude, some athletic prowess, and family name.

I hope the jury does the right thing in this case and hand down a verdict of Murder 1.

Huguely quotes:
"I tossed her"
"I pushed her on the bed. I was like,'go to bed'".
"she was standing up looking at me"-- when he left
"She's freaking out just seeing me there. I'm like 'what the hell; we're just gonna talk'".
He sent six emails to her 'to talk', she didn't respond. He goes over, kicks the door in, stands in her bedroom that he says is lit only by the streetlamp beaming in through a bay window, and he's shocked by her reaction???

So he doesn't say anything about her getting back up after he 'tossed her' to the interrogators? Wouldn't that be helpful to share, if that happened? Is there any record of her calling for help on a phone after 'she was standing....'?

"kill me", he says. Perhaps because he knew then he had done something more heinous than imaginable and instant death would be better than the hell he has just put on everyone else and the trouble that would follow.

boooo! February 10th, 2012 | 2:40pm

@ Gasbag

It's been reported that George's father paid the jail $150K to have him held protective custody, away from the rest of the inmate population.
____________________________________

I doubt that is true.

Oh and those sobs on the interrogation video are more about Georgie Boy feeling sorry for himself than feeling remorse for the victim. Sociopaths only cry for themselves.

From the source, you can't PAY for protective custody but you can REQUEST it - his attorneys could have requested it.

I liked this from FB comments about this article: "I think he's innocent. Every time someone kicks in my door in the wee hours of the morning, I instantly begin to bang my own head against a wall. I'm lucky to still be alive. Man up and take your medicine punk." :)

Didn't "The Situation" bang his own head against the wall in Italy?

As another commentator correctly noted, one doensn't "throw away" collateral into a dumpster. A bank doesn't collateralize a tangible asset like an expensive piece of art work by safekeeping it in the trash. Come on Georgie Boy, we aren't suckers.

He was probably still drunk in the interegation.

Don't put the cart before the horse until the jury has spoken.

Only then will we know if we're suckers or not. :)

Doesn't excuse anything... but he loved her... ALCOHOL factored in to what happened here... yes, it was his choice to drink alcohol, so ultimately has to be responsible for his actions, but he didn't WANT to kill her he loved her.... his friends should have intervened earlier... he had a drinking problem... he had a sickness that contributed to this... he needed help desperately, he was sick... it made him lose control... it's sad all around. if you know anyone that has thins kind of problem... get in there and intervene before it's too late.... and btw my friends are friends with the lax guys and it is true that they were going to have an intervention, they were not just saying that to try to look good after the fact. i remember at the time, hearing about it.

I recall reading that the defendant stated yl was wearing a black shirt and underwear when he saw her. So how did her shirt come off? Was it when they supposedly "wrestled". I like to hear more about the crushed beer can. Fingerprints? Raised toilet seat.? Didn't the neighbor hear noises around 10pm? But saw the man around 12am? And if I have the times correct, wouldn't this mean huguely may have hung around the apt after he assaulted love. When he described her "as a fish out of water". Could she have been convulsing from his attack? Then he put her in the bed, covered her with the comforter. Realizing what he had done, he panicked, drank a beer, "used the toilet", and grabbed the computer fearing its contents.

He's clearly being held in protective custody because of the high profile nature of this case. That seems to be standard procedure. Whether his attorneys or the state requested it, it makes sense. You don't want him to commit suicide or get beaten up in a trial this high profile - that would reflect poorly on the Charlottesville/Albemarle Corrections Department.

Everything we know he did is consistent with someone who was extremely angry and went to confront his girlfriend/ex-girlfriend and harmed her badly on purpose. When he found out she was dead, it sounds like he was still mad at her: "How the f*** is she dead." Like it is her fault! The defense is grabbing at straws because they have nothing to lose. I am sure the prosecution only offered a chance to plead guilty to Murder 1. I only hope the jury applies the law reasonably. Yes, there may be a hair of a doubt about whether he is guilty, but that does not rise to the level of "reasonable doubt." People get confused about first degree murder. It doesn't mean that the defendant planned to kill, it just means that the defendant intended to kill. The intention to kill can exist even in a split second as an individual commits the murder. By that standard, and without knowing all the evidence because that is up to the jury, I think he probably intended to kill her, as sad as that is. The fact that he regretted it later, whether for her sake or his own, does not matter at all. The only question is what his intent was when he did it. And by the way people, don't blame "lacrosse," "privilege," or his parents. Keep your eye on the ball. George did it. I'm sad for her, for him, for their familes, and for all of us. I'm just glad I'm too old to get that angry, even when I'm drunk.

He is definitely kept by himself in the jail. Like others have said, they do that for high profile cases and sometimes suicide watch people. I saw and talked to him while I was locked up there myself.

I listened to the tape. I do not believe that he knew she was dead before they told her. I believe it was not an act and that he was blown away when he learned. He was shellshocked. He loved her, but he also knew he was the suspect- so he was flabbergasted and acted accordingly on both counts. Yes, he knocked the door down, but she sounds volatile too, what if she did bang her head some on her own? People do that. I have seen it. Surely he was physical with her, but I don't think he left her there knowing she was dead. He may be not that smart, but he can't be that dumb either. He would know that he would be the suspect. And he really wouldn't want her dead. He adored her. Why would he leave and not call authorities? Just a thought.

Unless it was Love's private bathroom, not sure what significance beer can and position of toilet seat have. She had roommates and one has already testified, that she brought a boy home that night. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

On the other hand, I thought expressions of surprise at her death were more on the theme of "I didn't think I beat her that badly" Hard to see a jury being swayed in Huguely's favor on that basis.

For the Huguely apologists in her midst, if you really love someone you don't choke them, express regret at not having killed them before, and then--at the very least--bloody their nose

To Brangelina, I assume you work with Fran Lawrence and are trying to sway public opinion. But keep in mind, as Observer notes, the intent merely need existed before he committed the act. If, when he comes out of the foggy haze of his drunken rage, his intent has subsided, it doesn't matter.

Obviously he was shell shocked, but my sense is that he was not shocked so much that she was dead, but rather that he realized in that instance that his life may very well be over. His is crying and whining over what was going to happen to him. This was not an expression of remorse over Yeardly.

If we are to believe your interpretation, then I'd have to ask why was it that the only time Georgie Boy has shown any emotion during this trial was when he shed a tear listing to his own voice during the play back of the interrogation. He has shown no remorse, no emotion, at any of the prior testimony, much of which has depicted a graphic account of what had happened. What that tells me, is that he is crying for himself, during that moment, as if to say: "Why does all this s#@t have to happen to me?"

It seems that the only people who are rallying to this monster's defense are the lacrosse team and their trashy girlfriends, or sycophantic fan boys. Most reasonable people long ago realized this was a bad crowd.

In a portion of tape police interrogation, Huguely states "There was a whole commotion, I may have grabbed her neck, but I never strangled her." More importantly, he goes on to describe her reaction as "a fish out of water."

What does a fish out of water do?

It gasps, gulping big breaths of air.

What does a person do who has just been strangled, i.e., whose neck has just been grabbed, but is still alive?

They gasp, gulping big breaths of air.

One might only hope that the jurors listened closely to this portion of Huguely's statement.

Brangelina - Wow - You are living in some kind of alternate reality where guys break into girls' rooms and the girls spontaneously kill themselves by banging their heads against walls. If you are a girl, get out of whatever sick relationship you are in. It doesn't matter whether he knew she was dead or not, the question is whether he intended to kill her. He "adored" her? Are you twelve years old? If you think that proves he didn't intend to kill her, grow up. That is the very thought that people hold in their heads when they are killing their family members.

After today the jury has their worked cut out for them - this will be a very tricky case to adjudicate. On the one hand everyone can probably agree that he killed her, so as the Hook's legal analyst has said, it all comes down to intent . Did he come over that night with the intent of killing her or was he drunk as a skunk and in a jealous rage feeling as if he could kill her for sleeping with the other Lacrosse player ? If it was the latter, it is a crime of passion, and a subtle difference from a crime of reasoned intent. I doubt anyone could deem his behavior reasonable and even if he was lying to detectives his rambling, contradictory statements add more credence to someone too drunk or to unstable to act with reasoned intent. Let's say he did beat her up badly, and knew that she was seriously hurt, and was covering his tracks; I doubt that his behavior was that of someone who knew he killed her . I do agree that he was angry enough to feel like killing her but again, does that passion translate into the legal definition of intent that justifies first or second degree murder ?

The jury must now decide what was his state of mind before he came to her apartment, and that will be no easy task.

It may all hang on the difference between malice and passion.

Crime of passion as defined by Barron's Legal Dictionary:

A crime committed under the influence of sudden or extreme passion. For instance, a man’s attack on another person with an axe after that person insulted the attacker’s wife might be considered a crime committed in the heat of passion. 3 So. 551. More frequently, killing an adulterer or adulteress upon the sudden discovery of adultery is characterized as a crime committed in the heat of passion. Heat of passion is a defense to the mens rea , or intent element of murder, the rationale being that a person whose passions are suddenly provoked is incapable of premeditation. Id. The defense will reduce a murder charge to a manslaughter charge and hence reduce a defendant’s possible punishment.
LaFave, Criminal Law 7.10 (4th ed. 2003). In determining whether the act was impelled by heat of passion or by malice, all circumstances must be taken into account, including the length of time between the provocation and killing, the manner of the killing, and the previous relations of the parties. 10 Mich. 212.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/crime-of-passion#ixzz1m259K4HD

the number of reasonable doubt trolls in the employee of the Huguely defense team seems to be rising as the night darkens

The "like a fish out of water" statement is creepy. The fish struggles until it dies. I don't think this was adoration but obsession. In a prior arrest he refered to the female officers as "b**ches, and that he would kill them. Some feel sorry for him, and want him to get help and another chance "at life". I believe in second chances for truly rehabilitated individuals. But this young man needs to get some serious time. He is a menance to society. I say this not to be cruel, but when he verbally assaulted those female officers he should have got jail time.

When the detectives interrogated him they said "you killed her "- I am not well versed in interrogation techniques, but isn't he presumed innocent until proven guilty, so what is the legal justification for this statement.

"Like fish out of water" reads to me as SEIZURES. Ouch!

Hey, for those of us too lazy and clueless to have followed every permutation of this case until now, a timeline please. Esp., how long is it alleged that GHV was in Love's apt? I heard ten minutes. Is this true?

NancyDrew February 10th, 2012 | 8:44pm

When the detectives interrogated him they said "you killed her "- I am not well versed in interrogation techniques, but isn't he presumed innocent until proven guilty, so what is the legal justification for this statement.
___________________________
Legal justification? He is presumed innocent in a court of law. Of course the police think he is guilty, otherwise they would never be able to arrest someone. With all due respect, yours is one of the dumber statements I have read here, and that is saying something.

He's innocent until proven guillty "in a court of law" -- but not in a police interrogation.

Nancy - A "crime of passion" does not mean that if you have a very strong emotion when you kill someone it is not murder. Rightly or wrongly, it means that if you are suddenly and unexpectedly seized by such an emotion, to the point that it blinds your mind to issues of right or wrong, you might not have the intent to commit the crime in question. There is no reason to think that is the case here (notice his defense attorneys have not brought it up). He did not discover her with another guy. If anything, the fact that she was sleeping and he went to her apartment and broke her door down clearly proves that he had time to think about what he was doing. He was not suddenly seized by an unexpected passion. Why is it easy for some people (identifying themselves as women - Brangelina and Nancy Drew) to sympathize with the perpetrator of violence, while forgetting the victim. Is it because the victim isn't here any more, but the sad, gaunt, handsome defendant is? If you want to feel sorry for someone, at least care about the victim as much as you care about the defendant.

Curious...at what point was this interrogation w/ police? Did Huguely refuse a lawyer? Was a lawyer present? What were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation?

To arrive at a collective verdict may require some compromise amongst individual jury members. One of the reasons that he was charged with 1st degree murder, I believe, was so that a potential compromise point would be 2nd degree. Had he been charged with 2nd, the compromise point moves down to manslaughter, which the State was not willing to accept.

The felony murder charge does not require intent, however. Kicking down the door and taking the laptop was a very stupid move on his part, because involuntary manslaughter committed in the course of a felony can result in a 1st degree felony murder conviction. There is a difference- not just legal nitpicking- between killing someone in a bar fight and breaking into someone's domicile; U.S. legal and cultural tradition is steeped in the people's right to security on their own property.

In a civilized society, someone's home is a very important boundary. Inside the mid-Atlantic lacrosse bubble of frat-boy arrogance and privilege it might be OK to kick in a girl's door, but in the real world it's a felony.

I agree. First you have an email threat, direct or implied. Then you have drunkenness, building up liquid courage. Then an alleged attempt to "talk things out" which really meant stomping up stairs, kicking in a door, staying for ten minutes, seeing she's a "fish out of water," and flinging her on a bed. Then, grabbing the email threat evidence, disposing of it and moving on.

In the end, I think he wasn't going to be chagrined by another lover, and she would be shown what for.

Moreover, if he was drinking at least four nights a week, maybe more (who knows what he did in private or whether outside observers can make an accurate count of his binges), he was clearly building up a tolerance to alcohol. This brings up the question of whether, even if his BAL was high, was he really impaired after all, or impaired in the same way others might be who had that much to drink? If he was used to pounding the booze, perhaps he was a "high functioning" alcoholic. After all, if the knuckle bruises were fresh because of "lax", (when did he last play, anyone?) and the father-son golf game/drinking binge, clearly he was interacting with folks all the time, and the "interventionary" aims were not enough to move from idea to action.

So...it get's less and less easy to see GHV's actions as the bumblings-about of an addled drunk and more like the typical behavior of a high functioning alcohol dependent individual who, able to move about town and attend various functions, expected to extract through aggression what he couldn't win through reason.

The Baltimore Sun has a great piece on this with a lot more details of the interrogation. Excellent reporting!

I recall that somewhere in the interrogation, georgie says that he had four vodkas that evening (I imagine he had more). Does anybody know where george had been drinking that evening after he left his father? I am wondering if georgie had his vodkas as shots with red bull. I drink myself but not that concoction. I see a lot of longer people drinking shots with red bull. I'm wondering if georgie got jazzed up with a caffeine high and went wild. Also, another article raised the spectre of steroid use. That stuff too turns ordinary men into complete assholes. I've seen it. I always try to stay away from serious weightlifters because you dont know when they are going to snap and at whom.

younger people not longer people

few clarifications:

the "i should have killed you" email was sent a whiles before the night he killed her.
as in weeks. they had contact between the time of that email and the time he came to her room. it's not as if he was coming to finish previously unfinished business.

secondly, she was found by the emergency squad on the bed. they put her on the floor to try and revive her. that is when the police were called and so they are the ones who found her on the floor.

@ Observer:

"Why is it easy for some people (identifying themselves as women - Brangelina and Nancy Drew) to sympathize with the perpetrator of violence, while forgetting the victim. Is it because the victim isn't here any more, but the sad, gaunt, handsome defendant is? If you want to feel sorry for someone, at least care about the victim as much as you care about the defendant."

Ha, so you noticed it too. That's what I was saying in another thread, that it seems Nancy's got a crush.

I foresee somebody getting a new prisoner pen pal in the not too distant future....

Kate George - the interrogation was the morning of May 3rd. They picked George up around 7 or 7:30am and took him to in for questioning. They read him the Miranda rights, and he apparently signed something waiving those rights and agreed to answer their questions. No attorney present.

Obviously, not a smart decision on his part.

The Baltimore Sun piece offers a little more detail about the interrogation video. In particular that she was already "defensive" and backed up against a wall.

I have an ex husband with mental health issues. Shortly after these erupted and he was in and out of hospitals he wasn't living with me because it was too disruptive, especially since I had two infants. He came in the apartment one night and I awoke to find him there naked, full erection, ready for action. As you can imagine, just the aspect that he was an intruder, even though I knew him, was alarming enough having been awoken from sleep. It made me very mad, and also insecure about our safety in that apartment.

My point is that he busted in to her locked room, as we all know, possibly startle-waking her from sleep only to evidence the same "crazy George" that had already given her concern.

There's nothing about the swiftness of his going up the steps, the busting in of the door, the immediate defensiveness she is alleged to have shown, the short timeline, the fish out of water thing, and the dumping her on the bed that sounds to me even remotely like someone who went there to "talk, make up, work things out." That feels utterly like an after the fact lawyerly attempt to raise doubt on intent, but it doesn't square with the facts in the least.

I think she was no longer responding to his emails after the threatening one and she was done with him, even if they had to see each other in passing and try to be civil. I think he went ballistic because he was being ignored and he went to use the only tool he knew how —his body, his brawn—to make her know how pissed he was that she wasn't answering his emails. I think if he felt that if he wasn't going to have her no one was and when he achieved that, when she was beaten lifeless, he tossed her on the bed indifferently. I think she may even have alluded to the e-mail threat as evidence against her and in fact he did intend to get that email, hence her computer. Within seconds of arriving at her place he beat down the door —not the act of someone seeking reconciliation and understanding. He went there to have the final say.

And frankly, his ability to recall in the interrogation her defensiveness, her being up against the wall, the wrestling, etc... Yes, Huguely was a drunk, but his tolerance was high, and he was perfectly able to execute his intent and even recall events, however much he otherwise tried to massage them to his advantage.

The only comment I have made, as to deciding the outcome, is that this is a difficult case, and I do plead ignorance to police procedures so yes, I am dumb in that regard. Thank you for filling me in.

It's worth remembering that all any of us are reading bits and pieces of the testimony and evidence, and that is filtered through the reporters who, while trying to be objective, have their own unconscious biases, that show up by what quotes they chose to publish and those they chose to leave out. That is why it's important that during the trial the jurors not read media reports or blogs such as this.

It's not a perfect system, but the jury after hearing all the evidence will be the arbiters of justice in this case. That much I know.

This is such a tragic and horrible thing for everyone involved. I feel so badly for Mrs. Love and Lexie, and Marta Murphy...she has got to be feeling guilty and sick about what her son has done. This is a sad time for Charlottesville.

Interesting commentary on how the media is experiencing their own reporting @nbc29

" Daily Progress reporter Brian McKenzie has spent close to three decades in news. He says social media has changed the business profoundly.

"You don't have time to sit and focus a lot on what's going on, a lot of the nuances," he said. "For this particular case there's just a lot of people, so you end up bouncing into each other."

Our NBC29 web team is also working overtime to keep you up to date. It is a fast-paced and highly competitive environment to bring you the best coverage.

"You're running from the front to the back, outside, trying to get a tweet out, but trying not to miss any details at the same time," said NBC29 web producer Amy Vu.

jdubs: A clarification on your February 10th, 2012 | 11:20pm post above:

Yeardley was not found by the emergency personnel on the bed. Her lifeless body was first discovered face-down on the bed by Caity Whiteley (a roommate) and Phillippe Oudshoorn (a UVA tennis player from South Africa). It was Oudshoorn who, based upon directions given to him from a 911 operator, picked Yeardley up from her bed and placed her on the floor next to the bed in order for him to try to begin CPR. This was after Oudshoorn had first attempted unsuccessfully to find a pulse on Yeardley. In court Oudshoorn demonstrated how he lifted Yeardley from the bed and placed her on the floor.

When LE and rescue/EMTs arrived at the scene Yeardley was on the floor next to the bed where she had been placed some minutes before by Oudshoorn.

I know the above is true not based upon reading bits and pieces of testimony filtered through rerporters, articles, or blogs, but because I was there in court when Ourshoorn testified, and for the duration of the first full day of testimony in this case.

Much is being made of Huguely's admission to grabbing Yeardley by the shoulders and shaking her and, more importantly, his taped statement that “she kept hitting her head against the wall.”

From the statement above it might first appear to some readers that Huguely is attempting to have people believe that Yeardley herself, through her own actions, hit her own head against the wall. As much as I loathe this young man, I do not believe he is attempting to do so.

Here is what I believe Huguely was indicating in his sloppy, post-drunken stupor during the interrogation: He shook Yeardley. As he shook her, her head repeatedly hit the wall. No clear-thinking person believes that "she" intentionally and through her own volition "kept hitting her head"--nor was Huguely attempting to imply as much.

What Huguely meant: "I shook her. As I did so, her head kept hitting the wall."

The above is no defense of Huguely, who I personally believe does not deserve to see the light of day for a very, very, very long time. Rather, it is an attempt to clarify that not even Huguely is saying Yeardley tried to do this to herself. As deranged and reprehensible an individual as he is, even he is not foolish enough to try to convince people of such ridiculousness.

All that said...the defense offered in their opening statement a reference to the wall, indicating that their analysis revealed no dimples, etc. on the wall. The defense asserts that the wall played no part whatsoever in Yeardley's death.

I believe it did, and I further believe that when the defense presents their case they will include all manner of testimony regarding that wall, in an effort to refute the theory that part of what contributed to Yeardley's death was the repeated striking of her head against the wall, brought about when Huguely violently shook her.

Stay tuned.

I'm left with a lot of unanswered questions after huguely's testimony... Why was she found wearing only underwear? So far, I haven't seen any explanation for this...did huguely remove her clothing? Did Love remove clothing after huguely left?

And, I don't think I've read that anyone asked if Love was responsive when Huguely left? I understand Huguely was intoxicated the night of Love's death and may or may not remember, but it seems that the question should be asked. I also haven't seen any information about the conversation that transpired that night between the two. Obviously, he broke into her room and wasn't welcome. But, did they "talk" at all or go straight to "wrestling" and then he left?

Did he intend to kill her? It was part of their ongoing 'dance' -- him angrily trying to talk to her, and her defensively resisting, all ending in violence. That's how she described the choking incident, according to the UNC lax player.

"Love was crying hysterically after Huguely released her and she fled, Burns said. Love later told Burns that Huguely wanted to talk but she was resisting, Burns said."

If you haven't listened to Mr. Spencer's audio reenactment of the video tape shown to jurors, don't miss it. I find this far more revealing than the written reports I've read. Linked under the picture above.

Mr. Spencer's reading of his notes from the tape are riveting !

george will not get murder 1 or 2.

Here is a thought - no news outlet has done this - a Timeline - not of the case itself from her death on but a Timeline of events prior to her death - their relationship and the witness testimony. One thing that hasn't really been accounted is how he apparently hit another lax player while he was sleeping because he kissed YL. That incident was months prior to all of this.

Many are not realizing that the email sent stating "I should have killed you" was while she was away at a game in IL. That the choking incident happened weeks prior to this as did her hitting him with the purse. She replied to that email and then he apparently kept emailing her to "talk" and she ignored it.

Some sort of Timeline of this all may show more clearly how things led up to her death.

Good idea, Cville Native. Here's what I've put together so far. Perhaps others could add to it.

GH -- DIP, resisting arrest, cursing at female cop, getting tasered -- Nov. 14, 2008

Domestic disturbance on Huguely family yacht (GH4 vs. GH5, who jumped into the ocean threatening to swim ashore) -- Dec. 29,2008

A source close to UVA athletics says Huguely blackened the eye of a teammate in an incident over a girl. Huguely attacked a teammate who he heard had kissed Love. -- Feb 2009

Neck choking incident Burns witnessed -- Feb 2010

YL hits GH with purse for talking with high school girls --late April (sometimes called a week before her death)

"I should have killed you" email -- week before death

Love found dead -- May 3, 2010

DIP, resisting arrest, cursing at female cop, getting tasered -- Nov. 14, 2008

Domestic disturbance on Huguely family yacht (father against son, who jumped into the ocean threatening to swim ashore) -- Dec. 29,2008

A source close to UVA athletics says Huguely blackened the eye of a teammate in an incident over a girl. Huguely attacked a teammate who he heard had kissed Love. -- Feb 2009

Neck choking incident Burns witnessed -- Feb 2010

YL hits GH with purse for talking with high school girls --late April (sometimes called a week before her death) -- late April 2010

"I should have killed you" email -- week before death -- lateApril 2010

Love found dead -- May 3, 2010

Should we include that -- on that fateful night -- GH was seen breaking bottles at a party and telling people he was going to her apartment to get her back (I assume win her back as opposed to pay her back), and that he "was really messed up and punched the window of a car" on the way to her apt. that night?

It just appears to me that he is the typical "obsessive possessive" in this all, granted they both "hooked up" with others but it was more about he was allowed where she was not. That is the history. Her only incident of violence was hitting him with her purse - which how many men have been on the receiving end of that before? (In jest or in shut your mouth incidents.) And was the incident reported Feb 2009 of him blackening the eye of another player brought into court? Appears to me if it had to do with their relationship the Commonwealth should call that player as a witness.

As for manslaugher, I doubt it. I've been wrong - we all have been wrong before - it could happen if his defense team has something they haven't revealed yet. I hope for 1st Degree but more than likely, given the testimony and the simple fact is we do not have any evidence that truly states what his state of mind was that night in her room. The only witness to that is unfortunately dead. (May she rest in peace.)

But also do not be suprised if the Love family does not persue a Wrongful Death claim after this all is said and done.

From the evidence as presented via media so far ;Not gulity of murder 1 or 2 . Guilty as sin of being from a wealthy family and playing lacrosse .

I don't think he should be found guilty of first degree murder if he didn't intend to kill her. He didn't seem to be headed there to kill her (told folks he was going there to get her back), and he didn't seem to realize even the next day that she was dead; after all,she was alive when he left and for 2 hours past that. This tragic incident was probably more clumsily executed than most of their "I'll demand to talk, you get defensive, I'll physically assault you" drunken encounters, and ended really badly.

The computer part is odd.He says it was an irrational act. Dunno what to make of it. I think it's probably a stupider reason than trying to hide a damning email. It might well have been an irrational act, as he said, since he was pretty much out of his mind.

I think it completely plausible that he could get murder 2.

The phrase "get her back" obviously has two connotations. Said lovingly, gently, with humility and earnest desire for reconciliation, it means to "win her back." Belted out in anger, while punching, bashing and breaking things, the connotation is darker, as in, to get revenge, to humiliate you like I feel you humiliated me, for the infidelity, for moving on, for not following up on the requests to talk. So the fact that he is known to have said he was headed there to "get her back" while behaving violently for me has the darker association.

I think "to get her back" meant to win her back. Part of the ebb and flow of their on again, off again relationship. None of the articles implied it was said with spooky foreshadowing -- and you know they would play that up big time if it had been.

First degree murder: not guilty based upon absence of evidence *beyond a reasonable doubt* of intent or premeditation [The email comment "I should have killed you" will not suffice, as it does not say "I am going to kill you" or "I want to kill you." That coupled with Huguely's extreme intoxication makes a first degree murder conviction an uphill climb.]

Felony murder: not guilty based upon the fact that robbery (of the computer) was not the primary goal. [For a conviction of felony murder, the murder had to have occurred *in the commission of a felony, e.g., robbery*. The prosecution will be unable to prove that Huguely entered the apartment with the express intent of stealing the computer--as opposed to stealing the computer as an afterthought.]

(lesser charge) Involuntary Manslaughter: guilty

The above is not what I hope for, but what I believe the jury will find.

I hope I am wrong.

was Boy George extremely intoxicated? Who did the test?

The bottom line Miss Information, is that "the relationship" isn't what is being judged. What is being judge are GHVs actions the night of the alleged murder. So all actions become subject to intepretation, and "get her back" when it leads to the young woman's death is extremely compelling when seen as an act of revenge (he did take collateral afterall) as opposed to "get her back" meaning woo her, of which there is no evidence that he did that night.

Murder 2 remains an entirely viable ruling based on his patterns of behavior, his actions, his high tolerance to alcohol, his statements, his threats, and his patent behavior busting through a door after being told to leave?

Not The Observer Above, keep in mind that a felony murder conviction could still arise from the burglary charges as well as the robbery. The burglary happened when the door got kicked down.

While I agree with you that it is not beyond a reasonable doubt that the primary intent was to steal the computer, there could be a felony murder conviction based on the nighttime burglary charge.

Your point, Jason, re: felony muder in the commission of the burglary, is well-taken. That said, I continue to have more than lingering doubt that this jury will come back with a finding of guilt in that instance.

As an aside, I harbor some serious concerns for the prosecution as it relates to the demographics of this jury. My concerns are considerably more age-specific than gender-specific and are based not on the law but on the emotion(s) of the jurors.

Once again, I hope that I am wrong.

Also add to the timeline the "ear" witness hearing the bang and footsteps after midnight. Then the neighbor guys either not home nor ignoring him knocking on their doors...and the roommates thinking he was acting funny. Or I guess that is yet to come.

And the purse incident always bugs me. Does the fact a young woman threw her purse at a burly guy show she was violent too? Really? I don't care how big her bag was! Have you seen her lax pics? She looked so thin.

One interesting fact that was mentioned on this blog was YL's mother saying "she wanted to see his face" meaning George. I wondered if she had seen him lie before too and would be able to tell by looking at him.

Oh, and on the beer can and the lid up in the bathroom. I'm speculating it was either the guy who was there with her roommate, because either she or he said on the stand they tried cpr before the police arrived. Plus there was mention of blood on the towel behind the door that looked different that the ME would explain. I'm betting it was from that failed cpr attempt and the guy either used the bathroom or threw up.

I found myself following the tweets yesterday and in tears. Not for George. But for for Yeardley and the whole tragedy of it all.

Listening to Hawes account on WINA he seems to indicate that George all over the place in the interrogation, saying something and then admitting something else...repeating himself over and over...like someone lying would do...he didn't touch her...he shook her...he didn't strangle her...he may have touched her neck. We were wrestling...gah. I'm trying hard to have faith in the prosecution. (and sorry for so many posts!)

So without a sobriety test- or a blood or urine test, is Boy George calling himself extremely drunk?......but he recalls every one of "his" details................

I am not real sharp, but there seems to be no way that the defense can use this to any extent without confirmation of a solid B/A test

What does anyone else think?

I think that is exactly how they use it. Plenty to say he drank to excess all day long and was a slobbering fool at dinner and nothing to counter he was any different at midnight.

Not Observer Above, why do you hope he is found guilty of charges that you think do not apply? Aren't our laws are designed to mete out appropriate punishments for a given crime? It sounds like you are saying we should give him more than may be deserved.

Shay- so, how do they use that to say that it was the alcohol that did this? Couldn't it have been an "act", or a least an excuse.

Was he drunk to excess at the station the next morning? Did they do a B/A test then? I would think that someone would have smelled his breath and made him blow in a ballon.

I think without a real test, against a registered scale, that it is all speculation and hearsay and that just doesn't hold up in court.

I think that if they put him on the stand, which the defense will not allow, he will break down and admit it all............

I think you're right about the confession. And I can't say how they would do anything as I have not one bit of legal experience. But all it takes is one juror and I think the defense is planting that seed.

SkipD, it's possible that his years of drinking to the point of blackout, where he became violent and out of control, was all part of a devious plot so that he could murder someone and claim he was just drunk. Or that he could have noodled it through and realized that his real blackouts would serve as good cover. But it's seems more likely that this was part of their on-again, off-again relationship pattern, which has in past encounters contained an element of violence.. It just went really, really badly that night.

I see people rooting for the stronger charges sticking, and it reminds me that's why we use a legal system with impartial jurors. People get too emotional and aren't able to think clearly about what's just and fair. As others have pointed out ad nauseum, if you had two less attractive or monied people cast in this case, you might feel differently (or not care at all). I'd feel differently had she ever sought a protective order or flatly sworn off ever seeing him again. Then he would be more of a scary stalker who couldn't take no for an answer and who intended to murder her. Instead, we have this stupid and senseless situation where they both (drunkenly, probably) engaged in this dumb pattern. Heartbreaking, but it doesn't mean we need to throw the book at him if it's not truly warranted.

But that juror still needs to convince others. There's a strong message sent if he's given manslaughter: beat your women to a bloody pulp and as long as you were boozing it up, you're only slightly culpable.

But on the first degree murder charge, which many on here think is unprovable, let's remember, two days before he wrote an e-mail saying he should have killed her when he had the chance. There is every reason to believe, since he had committed this to print, that he was contemplating her death in both sober and drunken states. He was angry. He was full of rage at being rejected, at being taunted, for being ignored, for Love having ceased all contact. Her unwillingness to let him in that night was further evidence of her having firmly ended the relationship (even if they might run into each other in social situations) and George unwilling to take no for an answer, so unwilling that he kicked in a door to show her who was boss.

He knew he had made a comment about killing her, he knew she had shown it to friends. With fantasies of her death on his mind had every reason to break in with the intent to steal the evidence implicating him, kill her, split, and toss the evidence.

If he was a serial drunk, as I've already said, his tolerance was higher than your first time drinker or occasional binge drinker. Drink didn't tamper his ability to "intend" something; it fueled it.

Let's face it, he intended to go to her house, and did. Why are we to believe that a volatile, angry, obsessed guy who had already wished death on his ex was any less able to "intend" to give her the beating of her life, and make good on those wishes at long last.

How the jury got to first degree murder in he Abshire case is also interesting, especially since Justine may also have been a battered woman: http://www.readthehook.com/101654/jury-he-did-it-abshire-murder-trial

Good points, Kate. How the jurors will ultimately interpret the evidence will be very interesting.

Yes and remember in 2010, there was no avenue for a protective order for this type of situation. Yeardley's death changed that. And she wasn't responding to his recent emails, I'd say that was an indication of her moving away from him...which in just pissed him off more. Plus, in two or so weeks, she would have been far, far away from him. Gah, if only.

Miss Information --

One of the reasons we have prisons (and I wish it were the only reason) is to protect innocent people from dangerous people. George Huguely is a very dangerous person: he gets drunk, becomes violent when drunk, and repeatedly failed to clean up his act despite having been arrested for his drunken behavior in the past. I have little doubt that he will continue to get drunk and become violent if he is released from prison.

Huguely was not trying to defend himself from a rival gang, he did not kill someone during a drug deal that went bad, he did not kill someone through recklessness. He killed someone over sex -- someone who could not have possibly defended herself, who had been violently attacked by Huguely in the past. How do you think such a person should be treated, if not a lengthy prison sentence to keep the rest of the population safe?

-- B

B, where did you get that he killed someone over sex?

kate says: Let's face it, he intended to go to her house, and did. Why are we to believe that a volatile, angry, obsessed guy who had already wished death on his ex was any less able to "intend" to give her the beating of her life, and make good on those wishes at long last.

Not saying he was unable to intend to do that -- just that it would also make plenty of sense that this was just part of their nonsensical relationship pattern. This is what they did. For good or ill, on some level, they liked the relationship like this.

Shay, restraining orders have been around for years, so can you say a little more about why she couldn't have sought one.

Miss Information --

How would you describe what he did? She had taunted him about his skill as a sex partner, she had had sex with someone else (which apparently prompted him to send the threatening email), and then he killed her. I might be drawing the wrong conclusion here by saying that he killed her over sex; maybe he just felt like killing her, and sex had nothing to do with it. How would that make it any better? Again, he was not trying to defend himself from someone that he had any reason to think would try to harm him, and he was not in a situation where he might have panicked; he simply got drunk, decided to head to her place, and then kicked in her door and beat her until she was at least unconscious (I will give the jury a chance to decide whether or not the defense' story about him not quite killing her is plausible).

Nothing has been presented so far that even suggests that he might have had a good reason for attacking her. He is a dangerous, violent person who repeatedly failed to learn from his mistakes. The general public is not safe when someone like that is walking the streets -- I cannot speak for you, but I certainly would not want to be in or even near a bar where someone like Huguely is drinking.

-- B

A few of you commenters enthused about the idea of a timeline, and I thought that was a good idea, so I assembled one: http://www.readthehook.com/102806/countdown-death-action-timeline-george... -- hawes spencer, hook editor

The taped interview Monday morning of GHV by police will be very helpful for the jury as it was fresh after the incident . If the jury feels he was lying during the interview then they will propably have more difficulty in giving him benefit of doubt in their deliberations . One point in particular is that he had bruises ,scratches,and injuries on him .He was asked how he got them and replied he got all of them from playing lacrosse . Lacrosse players wear protective gear such as shoulderpads,helmets,padded clothing,gloves etc . The gloves in particular are padded and would prevent skin injury . If his injuries were more consistant with hitting someone bare handed then his claims of shock and surprise about YL's trauma should be viewed as hollow and self serving . At first glance the statements he made seem to be helpful to his case in avoiding murder as opposed to manslaughter .If they are shown to be decietful on various points and levels the jury may rightfully not be as forthcoming in granting benefit of doubt with regards to intent .

B, don't get me wrong, he sounds like a total jerk when he's drunk. I'm not sure I'd like him that much when he's sober, but he would be somebody to avoid at all costs when drinking. I was just wondering how you came up with that motive. You're assuming he murdered her with deliberation, based on her taunting him.

Hawes' reading of his notes from the police interrogation, makes this case very clear in my mind. Murder 1. He had intent, brutalized this girl, expressed sadness (for himself, never for the girl), and continually repeats himself as if he is trying to convince himself that he was not involved. He was a bad kid from day one. An earlier commentator, "Brangelina", likely another Kappa Alpha Theta or slutty "lacrosstitute", tried to blame this on his alcoholism. That's BS, we all know he was a narcissistic sociopath, groomed and shaped by the dysfunctional world of Landon and UVa lax and celebrity/hero worship. His social climbing and pretentious Republican family projected an invincibility to everyone around them. "You don't mess with the Huguely's". Georgie Boy was the hell spawned offspring of an evil, wicked family. Georgie IV is now bankrupt and faces DUI charges himself. The apple didn't fall far from the tree.

What gets me is that Dom Starsia get's to arrogantly parade his charges as if nothing has happened and there is not a trouble in his world. JoePa got fired and sent to his grave early for being a pedophile enabler. Dom was given no rebuke from Casteen for being a homicide enabler (I have a feeling the new president Sullivan would have handled things differently). His team had so many alcohol related charges, I believe 18 in all, that one wonders how on earth he could not have been aware with what was going on. These people eat, drink and sleep together, coaches and players know exactly what is going on in each others world.

Yet this lacrosse crowd gets the best jobs at the best investment banking firms this country offers. Their club memberships ensure that. They have a parade of trashy sorority girls who throw themselves at them. What a charmed easy life.

For those of us townies and 1 per centers, I say "Burn in hell Georgie Boy, burn in hell!"

It's true, bart. Life isn't fair.

Haha how true miss information. In any event, I'll take some solace in knowing that at least this time, Georgie Boy's pretty boy looks and Angelina Jolie lips won't be finding their way to any more hottie lacrosstitutes. I'm sure at least one inmate on his ward will find that attractive, though....

Whatever derangements the two shared in their "on again off again" relationship, Love clearly said "no" in several ways.

One, he wanted to get back together and her condition to consider it was that he stop drinking or stop drinking so much. Clearly that had come up as an issue. In other words, it was over based on current conditions.

Two, she did not respond to his many e-mails requesting to talk.

Three, she told him he couldn't come in and the door was locked. She told him to "Go!" on the night of the alleged murder. He burst through the door and according to H. Spencer's reading of his copious notes, GHV said that Love was "already, like, on the defensive edge..." "she started screaming at me...and she's freaking out just seeing me there." That tells me she did not at all expect him to be there as part of some psycho game they played. She was in bed, she wasn't responding to his calls, she expected a quiet night's sleep and maybe even felt definitively that he was behind her for good.

It's then that Huguely says she immediately starts "banging her head against the wall." This gives new meaning to blaming the victim.

In his interview with the police he says, "at one point she goes over to her desk and says, 'you need to leave now, you need to leave now, you need to leave now.'" But GHV stays. He says he was persistent and "somehow we ended up on the floor."

What about that is an "accident?" What about any of this is unintentional? She was a battered woman and he had every intention of having his way.

But did he intend to kill her?

Yes he absolutely did intend to kill.

His recorded statement will either get this whittled down to man. or used to buttress a finding of murph 2 . Everything is there in the hour + raving . Is he being very cunning in trying to outsmart the police ? Is he playing a jive lying game with them ? There appear to be several instances of mistruth put forward by him . If the jury make a list of his attempts to obfuscate the truth it might lead them to the conclusion that his motives were more slanted toward physically punishing YL than merely talking with her .

MI - at the time of Yeardley's death, there was no provision to allow a restraining order when the parties were dating (nor simply co-workers).

One might conclude that Ms. Love knew that Boy George was there to carry out his earlier threat and could not do anything to defend herself..........

Now this "out therre", but I am also curious as to how he appeared in his classes everyday...........did any professors take any notice, or is that not their responsibily.

How about Ms. Love's professors? Did they notice anything?

Did the highly trained and compensated professors ever notice these two, or anyone in their charge while they are in class...or do they just talk and give tests?

I just can't believe that nobody around her apartment heard what was going on and intervened. Apparently she was screaming at him, and he was probably screaming at her, and he kicked in the door, and there was probably a lot of banging going on. When our upstairs neighbors from a few years ago were having a fight this one time I kept my ears trained on what was happening. They had come home from being out somewhere, and as soon as the front door closed, BAM, he laid into her, just started screaming at her. Then she started screaming back, then objects started getting thrown around, then their newborn infant she was carrying started screaming, then he yelled and threw more stuff, then we heard her run off upstairs, crying, to go be alone, and that's where it tapered off and he let her be. But I kept my ears peeled on the situation, just in case. And if I'd heard anything that even sounded like she was being hit, or wanted him to get away from her and leave and he wasn't, then I would have been up there in a flash, dialing 911 as I went. So I don't get it...where were the neighbors on the night of Yeardley's murder? Was nobody around? Nobody home? Did nobody here? Did nobody care??

*hear, not here

@Bart. As a graduate of a lacrosse factory prep school in Baltimore, I couldn't agree with you with more. Whether he walks or not though, his life is over.

@SkipD - Excellent questions! Didn't they do the same with that Cho kid at VT a few years back?

Boooo! --

Have you never heard of the Kitty Genovese murder? She screamed for help over and over again but her neighbors did nothing; this is known as a the Bystander Effect.

-- B

Has anyone from UVA been put on the stand? Has UVA done anything to curtail its underage drinking problem?

Has anyone from UVA been identified as a witness? Has a cogent argument been made that it is UVA's responsibility to police off-campus underage drinking? What does underage drinking have to do with a case that involved two people of legal drinking age?

I have an apartment above me...and I hear everything. I found it weird her neighbor only heard a "thump". She may have had earplugs in her ears. Did she hear the first responders in the apt?
I don't know how George is going to get out of this. He's first admission of guilt is when he kicked in the bedroom door that night. After that it was downhill for him. I'm curious what his defense team has up there sleeves.

Totally agree with "saywha?". It's pretty obvious that George was an experienced drinker - and I highly doubt he had his first drink when he got to UVA. And Huguely and Love are both over 21.

Show me a college that doesn't have a "underage drinking problem" and I'll show you a bridge I'm selling in New York. And as a UVA alum, I can say that UVA was always doing different programs to raise awareness of binge drinking....but I'm doubtful that any of it works....which I don't think is UVA's fault at all.

Bart - George's Republican family? This has absolutely nothing to do with politics. Kappa Alpha Theta, Dom Starsia, and much to many people's chagrin, UVA, are not on trial here.

As everyone is aware, the defense team has nothing but "resasonable doubt" to play with. It would be their job to present the alternative to the prosecution evidence.

This is a tragedy pure and simple. Both families have lost. This is not the kind of situation where we can say "Something good has to come of this". There are no winners.

Let's remember that everyone is entitled to the best defense they can afford. That's a right under our Due Process clause. We cannot condemn the defense team for trying to save Mr. Huguely.

Tempers can flare out of control at any time. Despite his email "I should have killed" you, I do not believe he went into Yeardly's room with an intent to murder her. What we have here, unfortunately, is jealous passion spiraled.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not condoning what has happened. I am only suggesting that there are different types of Murders under our legal system.

But for the Grace of God, go I. It is lucky for Yeardly that when she hit GH in the head with her purse, that she did not hit him in the wrong spot. There are spots where hit correctly can kill someone too .

So there are lessons here, kids. If you are in a relationship where jealousy has raised it's ugly head, get out; don't walk, run. Jealousy is not an indicator of love and affection. It is destructive.

I lift prayers every day for both families. There are no winners. Only heartbreak and sorrow.

@Prayers - "It is lucky for Yeardly that when she hit GH in the head with her purse, that she did not hit him in the wrong spot. There are spots where hit correctly can kill someone too." Rather than rant, I will leave everyone to figure this on their own.

Darnit- I knew Boy George would become the victim in some mini-minds

deleted by moderator

He reminds me of Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction..."I will not be ignored"....sounds like a borderline personality to me.

It sure sounds like GHV is an alcoholic; at the very least,
a "problem drinker" whose consumption of alcohol was
the spark that lit the fire that ultimately killed YL. While
in prison, GHV will have plenty of time to maximize his
sobriety.

Following everything closely as possible online and reading the comments here carefully; looked up this:
"2006 Code of Virginia § 18.2-32 - First and second degree murder defined; punishment
18.2-32. First and second degree murder defined; punishment. Murder, other than capital murder, by poison, lying in wait, imprisonment,starving, or by any willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or in the commission of, or attempt to commit, arson, rape, forcible sodomy, inanimate or animate object sexual penetration, robbery, burglary or abduction, except as provided in 18.2-31, is murder of the first degree, punishable as a Class 2 felony.
All murder other than capital murder and murder in the first degree is murder of the second degree and is punishable by confinement in a state correctional facility for not less than five nor more than forty years."

In my estimation, reading everything said so far from all sources, the jury will likely give Huguely Murder 2, 40 years maximum sentence with no chance of early parole. The inmates, as everyone knows, will do the rest.

He tries to choke her in bed
writes letter statign when i drink i get violent with you
He jumps on top of her at party and has to be pulled off her by 3 lacross players
he drinks goes to her house and kills her
doesnt the fact that he knows when he drinks he gets violent with her show intent
what does this do to every case of murder
go have a drink kill your girlfriends then you wont get death penalty
charlie manson must be thinkin ..if i only had a drink before we strangled sharon tate