Graphic words, photos mark Virginia murder trial - USA TODAY

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. – Mike Burns testified Thursday that he saw George Huguely choking Yeardley Love little more than two months before her death in 2010.

Steve Helber, AP

Lexie Love, left, sister of Yeardley Love, and Sharon Love, the victim's mother, had front-row seats Thursday for graphic testimony and photographic evidence from first responders.

Steve Helber, AP

Lexie Love, left, sister of Yeardley Love, and Sharon Love, the victim's mother, had front-row seats Thursday for graphic testimony and photographic evidence from first responders.

Burns then played lacrosse for a rival team, North Carolina, and prosecutors say he was the romantic rival whose relationship with Yeardley Love fueled a jealous rage in Huguely, her former boyfriend.

Burns testified he was at a party when he heard a woman crying "help me, help me." Burns said he opened a door to find Huguely on his back in bed, with Love on her back on top of him. Burns said Huguely's arm was wound tightly around Love's neck.

Burns demonstrated the hold for the jury in Charlottesville Circuit Court, where Huguely is on trial for first-degree murder. Love died May 3, 2010, only weeks after the late-February party.

Burns said Huguely released his hold and rolled over when Burns came in the room and that Love ran out of the room. "She just said 'Thank you so much,' " Burns said. "She also said she couldn't breathe. She was hysterically crying."

Huguely and Love both played on lacrosse teams at the University of Virginia and Burns said he was in Charlottesville with some teammates to socialize with some UVa players.

Burns said he met Love, a native of Cockeysville, Md., at the Preakness in Baltimore in 2008 and that they also spent time together in 2009 when he worked a summer job in New York but that they were otherwise not frequently in contact. He said he slept at her apartment after the February party.

Defense attorney Francis McQ. Lawrence asked Burns if he "hooked up" with Love, a phrase Lawrence said could mean something short of sex. Burns said he and Love hooked up when they met at the Preakness, after he walked in on the choke hold and when Love and some friends visited UNC in late April.

Prosecutor Warner D. Chapman said in his opening statement Wednesday that Huguely sent Love an email that said "I should have killed you" when he learned she had slept with Burns. Lawrence said that was not a threat, just an expression.

Earlier Thursday, Love's mother, Sharon, and sister, Lexie, sobbed as the jury viewed graphic photos of Love's body. They and other trial spectators couldn't see the pictures from where they sat, but they could hear the testimony of first responders who described Love's swollen right eye and dried blood around her nose and mouth.

Huguely, who could have seen the pictures from his seat at the defense table, dipped his head and appeared to avert his eyes. He has pleaded not guilty to six charges.

K.W. Blackwell, a Charlottesville police officer, said he responded to a call for "alcohol overdose" but said when he saw Love's body he believed she had been attacked.

Michael Hanshew, an EMT that night, said medics tried to revive her for 25 minutes but there was no sign of life.

Charlottesville Police Detective Shawn Bayles testified that he treated the room as a crime scene when he saw a large hole in the door to Love's bedroom. He also said one EMT brought it to his attention that the toilet seat in Love's bathroom was left up.

Danny Mistry, a physician for many UVa teams, testified Love was in peak physical condition. He said he ran EKGs on her three times that he said showed her use of the prescription drug Adderall did not have an adverse effect on her heart.

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

View the original article here

Police don't know if missing Virginia girl went with man willingly - CNN International

12-year-old girl abducted; mom deadBrittany Mae Smith had met the 32-year-old on the InternetThe man moved in with the girl and her mother in OctoberSmith's mother was found dead in their home

(CNN) -- A missing 12-year-old Virginia girl -- whose mother was found dead inside their home -- is believed to be with a 32-year-old man she met on the Internet, authorities said Tuesday, but they don't know whether she went with him willingly.

Police are "still actively searching" for Brittany Mae Smith, and have extended an Amber Alert for another 24 hours, Roanoke County Police Chief Ray Lavinder told reporters.

Authorities launched a search for the seventh-grader Monday after officers found the body of her mother, Tina Smith, 41, inside the family's Salem, Virginia, home. Tina Smith's co-workers contacted police after the woman failed to show up for work Monday morning. Her death is being investigated as a possible homicide, authorities said.

"We are extremely concerned for Brittany's safety," Lavinder said.

Police are "confident" that Brittany Smith is with Jeffrey Scott Easley, Lavinder said. He described Easley as a "friend of the family" who met the girl online over the summer and "developed a relationship" with her. Easley moved in with Smith and her daughter in October, the chief said.

Authorities aren't sure whether Brittany Smith was kidnapped, however. "We believe that she's with him, and we're not exactly sure about the situation," Lavinder said. He said police would like the girl to "at least contact us and let us know that she's OK."

Asked whether police believe Easley is responsible for Tina Smith's death, Lavinder said authorities have no information to indicate that, but that the investigation is ongoing.

"We would like to get Brittany back safely," he said. "We would like to get Mr. Easley back and make sure he's OK, and then we'd like to investigate the murder of Tina."

After finding Tina Smith's body, police soon got information that Brittany Smith's whereabouts were unknown, leading them to issue the statewide alert.

"We found out pretty quickly that (Brittany) had not shown up for school. Nobody seemed to know where she was. We're concerned that her disappearance is going to be, at least a good possibility, it has something to do with the homicide," Roanoke County Police Lt. Chuck Mason said Monday, according to CNN affiliate WSET of Lynchburg, Virginia.

Virginia's Amber Alert website noted early Monday evening that Easley's car, a 2000 red Chevrolet SUV, had been found. But authorities are still looking for Tina Smith's vehicle, a silver 2005 Dodge Neon four-door sedan with Virginia license plates.

Easley, a 265-pound white male, is 5 feet, 11 inches tall, has brown hair and hazel eyes, the Amber Alert says. Brittany Smith is 5 feet tall, weighs 100 pounds, and has straight brown hair and brown eyes.

Hall said authorities don't yet have a specific search area, as they are uncertain which direction Easley might be heading or how far he might have gotten. They have asked anyone with information to call 911 or Roanoke County police at 540-777-8641.

View the original article here

West Virginia Poses Dilemma for Democrats: Must-Win or No-Win? - New York Times

Megan Liberman and I talked about the horse-race aspects of West Virginia in today’s TimesCast: suffice it to say that, from an electoral perspective, it’s as important a state as any in terms of Democrats’ ability to hold the Senate.

But — although it’s easy to forget it this time of year — winning elections is, in theory, just a means to an end, the end being the ability to affect public policy. And this is where the Democrats’ nominee in West Virginia, the incumbent Gov. Joe Manchin III, poses problems for them.

Even when West Virginia voted Democrat for president most years — as it did 14 out of 17 times between 1932 and 1996 — it was never some bastion of liberalism. Instead, Democrats would accept defections from the state’s elected officials on some issues — like social and environmental policy — in exchange for party-line voting on economic affairs, and matters like labor organizing rights.

It’s not surprising, then, that a Democrat like Mr. Manchin opposes abortion choice, or gun control, or gay marriage — or is shooting bullet holes, literally, in the Democrats’ cap-and-trade bill, which might create problems for West Virginia’s coal-based economy. Mr. Manchin knows his state (and he looks a heck of a lot better sporting a gun than, say, Michael Dukakis did in a tank).

What ought to be more disturbing to Democrats, however, is that Mr. Manchin is also abandoning them on bread-and-butter economic issues — the kind of issues on which West Virginia Democrats once showed their blue stripes. Mr. Manchin — who once said he would vote for the President’s health care bill — continues to distance himself from what he now calls “Obamacare,” threatening to support its repeal. In one of the nation’s poorest states, Mr. Manchin has expressed support for extending George W. Bush’s tax cuts to high-income earners. In one of its most heavily unionized, he has declined to support a key provision in the Employee Free Choice Act, which would ease union organizing.

Mr. Manchin’s incentives are transparent: Barack Obama performed badly in West Virginia in 2008, and he certainly has become no more popular there since. A Public Policy Polling survey put Mr. Obama’s approval at 30 percent among likely voters in West Virginia — and just as importantly — found that the substantial number of voters who both like Mr. Manchin and dislike Mr. Obama were inclined to vote for his Republican opponent, John Raese. Thus, the decision rule for Mr. Manchin seems to be to pick a policy that the President supports and oppose it.

Perhaps, some Democrats hope, Mr. Manchin could pivot to the left — or at least the center — after winning the election. West Virginia’s other senator, Jay Rockefeller, as well as the late Robert Byrd, voted with the Democrats on most issues and had little trouble winning re-election.

However, because Mr. Manchin is competing for an abbreviated, two-year Senate term — that vacated by Mr. Byrd when he died — he will essentially be in re-election mode just as soon as he wins office. It is more likely than not that the overall political environment will be better for Democrats in 2012 than it is now — but this may not hold in West Virginia, where Mr. Obama’s presence on the ballot in a Presidential year could motivate conservative and Republican turnout.

Can Democrats count on Mr. Manchin to support any of their major policy initiatives in the next Congress? Other than a few votes on things like extending unemployment insurance, it seems unlikely. Nor is Mr. Manchin likely to be held in check by the threat of a primary challenge, which — in a state where even the Democrats are quite conservative — would be a long-shot to succeed.

All of which raises the question: how much fiscal support should Mr. Manchin expect to get from groups like the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which is scrambling to rally around him in a state that wasn’t even scheduled to have a Senate election until July?

Currently, we show there being nine Senate races in which each party has at least a 10 percent chance of victory. In addition to West Virginia, these are the races in Wisconsin, Washington, California, Nevada, Illinois, Kentucky, New Hampshire and Colorado.

In each of these other states, there is abundant ideological daylight between the Democrat and his opponent. In some of them, like Illinois and California, the Republican is fairly moderate, but the Democrat is very liberal. In others, like Kentucky, the Democrat runs to the center-left,  but the Republican is very conservative.

In an effort to be a bit more rigorous about this, I took the Democratic and Republican candidates in each of these states and assigned them ratings from -2 (liberal) to +2 (conservative) on each of five issues –fiscal policy (i.e. taxes and spending), social policy (abortion and gay rights), energy policy, immigration, and health care — based on their public statements and public votes. A down-the-line liberal, like Alexi Giannoulias of Illinois, would receive a rating of -10; a staunch conservative, like Sharron Angle of Nevada, would get a +10. A score of 0 indicates a centrist.

When I assigned ratings to Mr. Manchin, he came out at a +3.5 — meaning, that I’d expect him to be somewhat to the right of center over all, based on the positions he has articulated recently. Although I rated Mr. Raese as being a +9 — more conservative than Mr. Manchin — the 5.5 point difference between the candidates was only about half as large as in any other state.

Looked at this way, a win by Mr. Manchin might be only half as helpful to Democrats from a policy standpoint as one in a state like New Hampshire might — and the difference is greater still as compared to a state like Wisconsin, where there is a distinctly liberal (albeit unorthodox) Democrat in Russ Feingold running against a fairly conservative Republican in Ron Johnson. And Democrats would only be buying two years of Mr. Manchin’s time rather than six, since he’d be on the ballot again in 2012.

Of course, there are other factors that would argue for putting money into West Virginia: it’s an extremely cheap state to advertise in, so the return on investment may be fairly high. And two of the state’s three House districts, where the Democrats could get a boost from Mr. Manchin’s coattails, are competitive.

Still, Mr. Manchin is increasingly looking like a candidate who might be no easier for Democrats to live with than without.

View the original article here