The Sun's recent story about Sharon Love suing officials at the University of Virginia for the death of her daughter, Yeardley, at the hands of George Huguely got to the bottom of it all, sans the emotionalism, with the statement by The Sun's legal expert that the case would come down to liability ("Love's mother sues UVa. officials," May 4).
It would seem, having read most of what the paper of record has reported on this sad saga, that Mrs. Love is guilty of what she accuses of others. To wit, at some point in time, after one of her daughter's many brouhahas in Virginia, the two had a long tete-a-tete, then met overnight in Annapolis to discuss the upheavals in Yeardley's life. So, at what point did Mrs. Love have the responsibility to deal with her daughter's aberrant association with Mr. Huguely, for her to speak with the university's athletic director, etc.? Certainly, she was not without knowledge that things were bad or dangerous. Those will be very embarrassing questions for her to answer in discovery in this case.
The fact is, it takes two to tango — or three or more. In this case, Yeardley Love clearly had some culpability in her own demise, and a loving mother would never have let this case go to trial, let alone willingly publicize all that came out about her daughter.
Ms. Love is not a completely innocent victim, does not deserve to have a statue in her honor at Meadowood Park in Baltimore County, nor should young female lacrosse players be idolizing her as some "victim" hero. Her mother's continued actions to publicize this case precisely illustrates the greater familial bad judgment which brought about her original predicament.
William C. Bond, BaltimoreCopyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun