<p>To me, the video is meaningless. We know they had a relationship. That doesnt give him the right to kill her. As to taking away the premedidation – all it says to me is that some days he wanted to kill her, some he didnt.</p>
<p>To me, the tape shows that this guy is even scarier. How can you murder someone whose hand you held the day before? I will never understand people who have anger management issues that they refuse to work on like this guy. This was something he and his dad could and should have worked on in 2006; if they had, a beautiful young person would still be alive.</p>
<p>Remember, this is the defense presenting the video.</p>
<p>Yes, just as the defense attorney for PSU had his client interviewed on national news. If I were on the jury, that would be something I would have a hard time getting out of my mind, despite whatever spin was presented (see post 1142). Sometimes attorneys don’t see things the same way you or I might. Who is to know what the jurors will think?</p>
<p>It is quite common for the defense of a man who has killed a woman to subtlety suggest that she was somehow complicit in her own death. She was drunk, she took Adderall, she taunted him, she led him on, she was violent, etc. All I can think of is how hard it is for the family to have to listen to this and not be able to say a thing.</p>
<p>I was talking one of my co- workers this week about how I would hate to have my college years reported and published in the paper for the world to see. This trial is awful on so many levels.</p>
<p>This sort of thing can backfire and I hope it does and continues to so that it will stop being used some day. No parent or family should have to endure what the Loves are. How very sad.</p>
<p>I wish the media would be more selective about what they choose to publish about the victims. Why should the world need to know the details of these victims? What purpose does it serve? It would be kinder if the families were allowed to request more privacy that that said requests were routinely respected except if there was some amazingly important greater overriding public need or interest.</p>
<p>Saw something on CNN, or a channel that scrolls information across the bottom. The message was something like: “The defense is hurt by emails sent by lawyers.” Anyone know what that was about?</p>
<p>The attorney that was “out sick” had sent emails to her expert witnesses summarizing the experts from the prosecution side. Apparently it didn’t meet the full definition of witness tampering – but I gathered from what I read that the court spent a lot of time discussing the emails this morning and may have disallowed some of the witnesses. Not sure whether they testified or not. At any rate, closing arguments are over and deliberations begin on Wednesday.</p>
<p>Yes, they had to limit the scope of questioning of their medical expert. I wonder how the prosecution found out about the emails. What a sleazy thing to do. They certainly knew better so it was a gamble they took.</p>
<p>I read that she was suffering from projectile vomiting. If I had been caught doing what she did, I’d be vomiting too. Of course, it’s not the first time she did it. She no doubt has cheated this way on many other cases.</p>
<p>^^^can she make herself, you know, do the projectile vomiting thing, on purpose? Is that considered cheating?</p>
<p>Prosecutors may even have been copied on those emails. I don’t think of it as sleazy. But why was the attorney writing those emails in the first place? It wasn’t because she was out sick, was it? </p>
<p>In fact, maybe her being “out sick” wasn’t cheating, but an actual real inconvenience. Maybe she wanted to speak to the expert witness, but couldn’t, so she emailed the expert instead.</p>
<p>What goes around, comes around. Glad their medical expert was limited and that the cheating was caught and the judge was made aware so that he could do what he could to help keep the trial a fair one. Sounds like the defense is ready to take whatever risks to get the result they want–ICK. Things like these give attorneys and justice a bad name and taste.</p>
<p>If everything was fine about her sending the emails, there would have been no need for the judge to get involved.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with catera. It’s graduation…Your family is there. You want to avoid a scene. Your ex boyfriend is drunk. He takes your hand. You don’t want to hold hands…but…you don’t want a scene. So you do it. </p>
<p>As to protective orders…sometimes they work. Sometimes they don’t. This is the kind of case in which they usually work. Upper middle class white males in denial tend to get the message. That may sound racist, but IME, it’s true. If there was a protective order, the coach would have stepped in and told George in no uncertain terms that if he went near her, he’d be off the team. Plus, if campus police were aware of the situation, they might have been monitoring the entrance to her building.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The sleazy part is not that she was out sick. The sleazy part is that she emailed her experts about what the prosecution experts testified to in court so they could better prepare their testimony. That is not allowed. She had to know the witness rule. Witnesses are not allowed in the courtroom during the testimony of other witnesses and you can’t get around that by summarizing their testimony in an email. If she copied the prosecution on the emails, then she is both sleazy and stupid. I suspect they were handed over by the expert as ongoing discovery. Even her partner called what she did “amazingly thoughtless.”</p>
<p>The partner only called it that because they were caught. If they hadn’t been caught & “won,” he would have called her brilliant & encouraged more of the same. Glad it was caught, however it was. The witness exclusion rule is very common and supposed to be adhered to by all. Attorneys are considered officers of the court and KNOW what appropriate in inappropriate conduct is. ICK!</p>
<p>Emails aside, what’s to prevent an attorney from briefing a witness on other witnesses testimony? I understand that they are not supposed to do it but…</p>
<p>Did her partner mean it was “amazingly thoughtless” becuase she copied too many people, or becuase she sent the email?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The video was shown to undermine the effect of the “I should have killed you” email. </p>
<p>It was a mistake for Hugely not to testify. If he had testified about how much he cared for Love and permitted the prosecutor to beat him up on cross examination, it would have humanized him in the eyes of the jury. Conviction is certain. The question is what level of punishment and the more human he becomes to the jury the more likely he is to get a lower sentence.</p>
<p>What I found a little surprising was that although H. has pleaded not guilty to ALL charges, his attorney told the jury in closing arguments that involuntary manslaughter should be on the table in their minds. I guess they gave up on the preposterous notion that Y. in some way caused her own death that they threw out there repeatedly?</p>
<p>My guess is the defense did not want Huguely to testify, as then, in attacking his credibilty as a witness, the prosecution can then ask virtually any fact about his past, certainly any bad acts. The jury has been told about the prior Love strangling event, becuase that can be shown to be germaine, but there may be many.many other incidents where Huguely was violent which could not be admitted, unless he testifed.</p>