good evening, everyone. i'm erin burnett. "outfront" tonight, big, big, big politics. according to the federal election commission. that would make it the most expensive election season in american history. but here's the dirty truth about american history. money always seeps into politics, and it has been going and going and going for a long time. take president mckinley's campaign at the turn of the century. even know that guy? railroad and steel barron's gave him kingly sums of $6 million for his 1896-1900 win. that would be a lot of money now. president nixon was given $2.5 million by one guy, an insurance executive when he ran for president in '68 and '72. just two examples of what happens every time. over the years laws on campaign financing has tightened. but yet this is the strange thing. maybe it harder, you can't give here, but then it goes here and more money gets spent every single time. even with the mccain bill that was passed in 2002 which required limits in two candidate, guess what, a lot of funds have found their way into campaign war chests and the numbers have gone up. in 2002 george soros gave an enormo enormous $23.7 million for liberal causes. some ended up helping fill john kerry's presidential campaign. on the other side, remember this? bob perry spent to attack on kerry. six years later we have super pacs. they accept unlimited donations from corporations, unions, and individuals to support their favorite candidate. an4í overwhelming majority of their money as we now are painfully aware has been spent on negative ads, and all the candidates claim to hate them. >> millions of americans are struggling to get by, and their voices should. be drowned out by millions of dollars in secret special interest advertising. >> campaign financed law has made a mockery of our -- of our political campaign season. we really ought to let campaigns raise the money they need and just get rid of these super pacs. >> well, the man at the center of it all is jim bopp. he's the one who first brought the now famous supreme court citizens united case which along with other court decisions laid the groundwork for super pacs. he's now romney's supporter, and he's out front tonight. he doesn't like you because he doesn't like super pacs, but let me ask you, sir. the big question. is this just something that you have to kind of innately accept as an american citizen, which is that every election season, more money is going to be spent on campaigns? >> i think so. the government has grown tremendously over the last few years such that they're spend 33 ing $3.5 trillion opz. of course this election is for the president and congress, and those people are going to decide how to spend $3.5 trillion. so i don't think spending a few% billion dollars on an election is really out of bounds in terms of the result. who gets control of that federal government? >> so you don't think that getting an unlimited amount of money to a campaign, whether you are an individual, a union, or a corporation is a bad thing. >> do i think giving an unlimited amount is a bad thing? >> yes. that's the question. >> well, sometimes i do, and sometimes i don't. right now the problem is not giving an unlimited amount to a candidate, but the fact that candidates are severely limited in what they can accept. i mean i agree with governor romney. why not give money to the candidate and the candidate spend the money. the candidate is the one that is accountable to the american people. rather than give it to super pacs or other entities like that. that would be preferable. that as long as we have a first amendment, which i support, groups are going to be able to come together and spend money on anne limited fashion to advocate the election or defeat of their candidate, and there's really nothing that can be done about that. >> what i'm trying to understand, though, is that -- you say, okay, they're going have responsibility over $3.5 trillion in budget, true. but the problem is, and this is the way i guess it's always worked in american history but a lot of people have a real problem with it, why should wealthy people and big companies be able to give those campaign dollars when we all know that they're doing it because they want rules that favor them in exchange? >> well, actually the vast majority of people support candidates that already agree with them on the issues. it's a really stupid strategy to try to buy a candidate. because if a candidate is up for sale, he will go to the highest bidder, and there's no way you can make sure that you're the one that actually gets the vote in the end. so people support people that already agree with them and then hope that they get into office through their support. look. rich people have money. they're going to be able to spend their money. there's nothing that's under the first amendment that will ever allow government to stop that from happening. so then the question is how about the rest of us? are we going to be able to pool our resources in a group to spend money to participate in the election also? and that's what super pacs are for or advocacy groups or 527s. all these different political parties even. >> the problem is -- >> all these different entities. >> the problem is according to the study done on the super pacs so far, the money raised on super pacs, 93% of them came in as donations of $10,000 or more. $30 mi 30 million came in by people. this isn't all of us puooling or resources. this is really rich people pooling their resources. >> it is true in the case so far in the case of super pacs. it is major gifts fund-raising that is driving those contributions, but the problem has been is that the reformers want to attack groups. they want to limit super pacs, they want to limit political parties, they want to limit advocacy groups, they want to limit unions, and of course the groups are groups that people must join in order to pool their resources to be affected. look. it's great to be rich. you can't stop rich people from spending money. but what you can do is have a system that, number one, people with average means can contribute and be effective, and that requires groups. >> why sth they could give $250 to a campaign. a regular person isn't going to give any more. >> well, some will and some won't. i mean it depends on both their resources and their commitment. and if this money could go to the candidate, well, then we can decide whether we want to vote for candidate "x" or candidate "y." the problem with the system is distorted. candidates aren't able to raise the money so that they can compete, and people are giving money to these unaccountable groups and there's nothing you can do about it. so why don't we let the candidates raise the money. >> all right. jim bopp, thank you very much. we appreciate it. let's bring in john avlon and jim. there's one thing he said they think most reasonable people would agree with. maybe i'm wrong. if you're going to give money to daenlt and you like their cause, you should be able to give it to the candidate, not the roundabout groups. the reason they give it to the roundabout groups is because they can't give it all the to candidate. >> and he seemed to be sort of complaining about the system in part he's helped create. look. the image of the super pac sort of functioning as george bailey's building & loan where people are binding together to leverage their influence doesn't bear out with how the system is working right now. we've got 200 individuals who have paid half the money given to super pacs today. we know the last cycle there was around $5 billion. fcc is estimated $10 billion. it's going to fuel a lot of negative ads. >> ken, what's amazing to me is that when you look at this, all this is every time we try to do campaign finance reform, the money finds another way. 527s is what it was called when george soros was giving back in 2004. now here we are and it's called super pacs. same thing, different name. >> yeah, that's right, erin. first of all, interesting comparison to 2004. you cited george soros's $20 billion contribution and the insurance guy. those two guys are being relied on by democrats who come off the sidelines and give a lot to the super pacs. president obama, the house candidates, and they're not. . part of the reason is they were so disappointed by their investment in 2004, not bearing fruit. the donors gave over $200 million and john kerry still lost. so that's both evidence that maybe money does not always buy an election because that was a lot more spending, but it also democrats face as they try to reengage in the game. >> money may not always buy you what you want and jim had an interesting point there. but, you know, when you look at rich people, rich ceos, okay, look at a bank ceo, they tend to split their money between democrats and republicans because they don't want to p.o. anybody office. >> that's right. >> they want to get what they want. if you didn't give, they could hit you. >> right. and that indicates how much covering your bases like that becomes a form of collusion. >> exactly. >> our elections are not supposed to work this way. >> no, they are not. >> it's supposed to be one man, one vote. corporations are not supposed to be able to vote. even though they're being given muscle to act that way. some are voting with wallets. some are much more influential in elections than other individuals and that creates -- >> very quick final word to you, ken. why are we not seeing corporations giving to the super pacs since they're now people? >> i see a lot of llcs linked to rich individuals. i'm not seeing time western sneer that's right. it kind of goes back to bank ceos. those are people invested in the union. they that's smart money. they're trying to get access. allowing the money to come to super pacs is more ideological money. these are people that while they may think republicans or democrats might be better for them for the long term if they're elected into office, they're investing because they happen to agree with jim bopp said, because they already agree with these folks. it's not like they're trying to win something from them. >> thanks very much. as always, everyone let us know what you think. money, it will always find a leak, a hole, a way where it wants to find to get. syria under siege. in the past year, 6,000 have died. in the graphic testimony in the case of the uva lacrosse play jeer and man who compares killing people to crack cocaine. . ♪ that right now, you want to know where you are, and where you'd like to be. we know you'd like to see the same information your advisor does so you can get a deeper understanding of what's going on with your portfolio. we know all this because we asked you, and what we heard helped us create pnc wealth insight, a smarter way to work with your pnc advisor, so you can make better decisions and live achievement. the world needs more energy. where's it going to come from? ♪ that's why right here, in australia, chevron is building one of the biggest natural gas projects in the world. enough power for a city the size of singapore for 50 years. what's it going to do to the planet? natural gas is the cleanest conventional fuel there is. we've got to be smart about this. it's a smart way to go. ♪ in what passes for common sense. used to be we socked money away and expected it to grow. then the world changed... and the common sense of retirement planning became anything but common. fortunately, td ameritrade's investment consultants can help you build a plan that fits your life. take control by opening a new account or rolling over an old 401(k) today, and we'll throw in up to $600. how's that for common sense? yoyou u wawalklk i intna coconvnvenentitiononalal ms ststorore,e, i it't's s ry nonot t ababouout t yoy. ththeyey s sayay, , "w"weleu wawantnt a a f firirm m bebn lilie e onon o onene o of ff yoyou u wawantnt a a s sofou cacan n lilie e onon o onene o " wewe p prorovividede t thet inindidivividudualalizizatat yoyourur b bodody y neneede. wewelclcomome e toto t thehe slsleeeep p nunumbmberer . nonot t jujustst o ordrdininaran sasalele, , bubut t ththe e bn chchanangege y youour r lilifef. ththe e slsleeeep p nunumb. ththisis i is s yoyourur b bodo. yoyou u cacan n sesee e a a lile prpresessusurere i in n ththe es anand d inin t thehe h hipi. nonow w yoyou u cacan n fet hahappppenens s asas w we e rarr slsleeeep p nunumbmberer s seted alallolow w ththe e bebed d totr toto y youour r inindidivividud. wowow!w! ththatat f feeeelsls r reae. itit's's h huguggigingng m. itit's's n notot a abobt sosoftft o or r fifirm. itit's's a aboboutut s supuppope yoyou u fifindnd i it t momost. ririghght t nonow,w, q queun mamattttreresssseses s statartr. anand d sasaveve a an n asag 5050% % onon t thehe f fininalat ofof o ourur i innnnovovatae lilimimiteted d ededititio. yoyou u cacan n adadjujustst i r yoyou u wawantnt s so o yoyoue toto w wororryry a aboboutg ththe e wrwronong g mamat. huhurrrry y ththisis w weeee ulultitimamatete s sleleepep n. ononlyly a at t onone e ofo0 slsleeeep p nunumbmberer s. [oinking] [hissing] [ding] announcer: cook foods to the right temperature using a food thermometer. 3,000 americans will die from food poisoning this year. check your steps at foodsafety.gov. "outfront" tonight, slaughter in syria. today alone at least 137 have died, including 11 children, with 110 of those killed in homs, the city under siege. this, of course, comes from reports from human rights groups in the region. homs is surrounded by tanks and troops. the uprising began last march but now in less than a year, more than 6,000 lives have been lost, according to those human rights groups. it's a stunning number. president bashir assad has the right to stop it. there are those fighter jets as we reported last night. at least 555 russian migs. aft the 4,000-plus surface-to-air missiles, syria is the largest in the region and would have the ability to fight back. what happens if assad is forced out? power volume, instability, civil war, coming "outfront" david ignatius. david, great to see you. >> great to be here, erin. thank you. >> there is obviously a lot of fear about the void that might be created if president bashir assad is forced out. what would happen in that scenario? >> well, if he was eased out with a transition that specified that there was some interim government, one thing that's been proposed is that the vice president of this syrian government would act as an interim, then you'd have elections and a peaceful transfer. if he's forced out with nothing, with no clear process of transition, you're going have a free-for-all. syria is one of the most divided an volatile countries i know in the middle east, and people shouldn't underestimate the degree of bloodshed you could see there. >> what about a disorderly transition, a replacement? obviously what we've seen even in places like egypt, getting a replacement has been difficult, replacements that the rest of the world finds palatable, impossible, violence rises, unemployment rises, it's worse than it was before, it seems. >> well, the arab world is having a difficult time managing this revolution. we're seeing the toppling of an old order that was characterized by an order order of government in syria and across the region. it's not surprising that after a year what you see mostly is chaos. i don't think that's a reason to give up on the process. what's scary about syria, erin, is that there are so many people dying every day. if you look at the -- at the videos that are being shot by people on the ground -- >> horrific. >> -- it is horrific. and so i think there's a fear that as this escalates and bashir assad and his regime try to hold onto power, the number getting killed could grow, the reprisal killings by resistance fighters against assad's minority sect could grow. you could have a real ekts nick slaughter back and forth. people have been afraid of this for as long as i've been covering the middle east. that's 30 years. people have been worried about this kind of wholesale civil war in syria. now we seem to be slipping toward it and it scares people. >> and it's important that you're using that word slaughter. file like sometimes in these situations we tend to engage in hyperbole, the media sometimes not always knowing and you covering it for 30 years, it's significant for everybody watching. >> i want to get your reaction on what john mccain sachltd here he is. >> i thinking we should have a contact group, a joint coalition and also we should consider all options including arming the opposition. it's got stop. >> if the united states got involved -- we were just going through the syrian military. it's a serious military, a well armed military. would we have to accept that we would have to have troops on the ground and american lives at stake? >> this risks being a big war. this is not the ragtag libyan army of moammar gadhafi. as you say, this is big. in addition, they have chemical weapons, it has big-time missiles. this is an army that's prepared to fight israel, so it could certainly fight a nato-type coalition. i understand john mccain saying the bloodshed has got to stop, and this issue of arming the opposition is out there and senator mccain is expressing a view that you hear more and more. >> yep. >> my own feeling, for what it's worth, is this is a situation which calls for arming the opposition, for taking the next step down this slope, this very dangerous slope, need to come from the region. that the saudi government, king abdullah in saudi arabia says it is essential that we support the syrian opposition and begin arming them. that's powerful. if turkey, syria's northern neighbor, says this situation on our border is intolerable, turkey cannot live with it and we're going to take steps, those are the people that are going to act first. then the united states naturally and properly follows along. i don't think there's anything to be embarrassed about when you say following along. this is a time when the region has to make decisions and take the lead. >> david ignatius, thanks to come. still to come, the attorney general jim hood. he's out front. and boats and beaut ka. [ woman ] my boyfriend and i were going on vacation, so i used my citi thank you card to pick up some accessories. a new belt. some nylons. and what girl wouldn't need new shoes? we talked about getting a diamond. but with all the thank you points i've been earning... ♪ ...i flew us to the rock i really had in mind. ♪ [ male announcer ] the citi thank you card. earn points you can use for travel on any airline, with no blackout dates. e e e e e what it's like e for travel on any airline, when my tempurpedic moves? [ male announcer ] why not talk to someone who owns an adjustable version of the most highly recommended bed in america? ask me about my tempur advanced ergo. goes up. ask me what it's like to get a massage anytime you want. goes down. [ male announcer ] tempurpedic brand owners are more satisfied than owners of any traditional mattress brand. ergonomics. [ male announcer ] tempurpedic. the most highly recommended bed in america. it's the perfect time to save up to $200 on your own ergo. find out more at tempurpedic.com. it's easing restrictions on women serving in combat, which will open 14,000 new jobs to women. the changes list a ban on women serving as medics, tank mechanics and radar operators in combat areas. they will still not be able to fight in battle. now, congress can review the decision and critics still question whether women have the necessary strength and whether this could hurt unit cohesion. they clearly have never heard of "boudicca." she brings us to tonight's number. $4.7 million. that's the number britain is spending. they say, hey, female navy is going to be allowed to serve. another cause, submariners will have to take pregnancy tests for fierce fumes could damage an unborn child. that's something "boudicca" would definitely not have tolerated. the u.s. navy also cleared the way for women on submarines but we're told our subs were big enough, no modifications is needed. in case you think this is new, here's one more number we came across today. 135, that's how many women served in civil war dressed as men. even in today's new rules that's the only way for women to actually fight on the front lines. still "outfront," the "outfront" 5. murder or accident. >> the pattern of that blood indicates it was positional asphyxiation. >> the ultimate drug. part of war is extremely exciting. you can't find anything higher than that like crack cocaine. all this "outfront" in our second half. today is gonna be an important day for us. you ready? we wanna be our brother's keeper. what's number two we wanna do? bring it up to 90 decatherms. how bout ya, joe? let's go ahead and bring it online. attention on site, attention on site. now starting unit nine. some of the world's cleanest gas turbines are now powering some of america's biggest cities. siemens. answers. home protector plus, from liberty mutual insurance, where the costs to both repair your home and replace your possessions are covered. and we don't just cut a check for the depreciated value -- we can actually replace your stuff with an exact or near match. plus, if your home is unfit to live in after an incident, we pay for you to stay somewhere else while it's being repaired. home protector plus, from liberty mutual insurance. because you never know what lies around the corner. to get a free quote, call... visit a local office, or go to libertymutual.com today. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy? we start the second half of our show with stories we care about. we focus on our own reportings. first tonight, the man behind zints united. the controversial supreme court case that along with other court rulings that laid the groundwork for super pacs. jim bopp, the divider, may say he's the grandfather of the super pac. he came "outfront" tonight. he told me he believes individuals should be able to give to campaigns directly. >> right now the problem is not giving an unlimited amount to a candidate but the fact that candidates are severely limited in what they can accept. i mean i agree with governor romney. why not give money to the candidate, and the candidate spend the money. >> jim bopp is a romney supporter. number two, a los angeles area school at the center of two child abuse cases reopened today with an entirely new staff. the school officials told "outfront" that just 68% of the students at miramonte elementary returned after a two-day break that followed the arrest of two teachers. we're told the attendance rate is typically 98%. mark bernlt is charged and mike. number 50i6sh. banks reached a deal to come penn state people who lost their homes because of improper foreclosure practices. $26 million will be used to cut the principle for borrowers who owe more than their home is worth or who are behind on payments. russell goldman is the chairman and ceo of national bank mem or the strike team and he said the settlement should accelerate the recovery of america's housing market by keeping many homes out of foreclosure and not increasing the nation's excessive inventory. you can learn more by going to our facebook page. number four, initial jobless claims fell to 358,000 last week. the four-week average, near a four-year low. dan greenhouse said it's a positive sign telling outfront with broad credit creation expanding, particularly consumer credit, many indicators are lining up to suggest that the recent pace of ploemt growth is set to continue. jobs will help. a big part of the deficit will go away when tax revenues go up. in greece they finally agreed to austerity measures to require the country to get money from the eu and imf. greek parliament is expected to vote this weekend. in the mississippi supreme court, uproar over former governor haley barbour's last-minute pardons of convicted felons. attorney general jim hood says most of barbour's pardons should be overturned. it requires this, that a felon's pardon request be published in a newspaper 30 days before the felon is released. here's what hood told the paper today. >> we agree that the wisdom of granting pardon is not just an issue that twe're bringing a discourse. it's whether or not those pardons met the constitutional requirements. >> all but ten of the 203 people pardoned were already out of prison. of those ten, five worked in the governor's mansion. four of them were convicted of murder. attorney general jim hood is "outfront." good to see you, governor. good to see you. >> thank you. >> where do you stand on the fundamental issue before we get to the technicals. for that i just want to play briefly what governor haley barbour told john king about forgiveness. >> the power of pardon in the state is to give people a second chance who have repented, been rehabilitated themselves. i'm comfortable that every one of them have repented, redeemed themselves and deserve a second chance. >> do you believe in that concept, that someone who commits a horrific crime may be rehabilitated and may deserve a second chance? >> you know, i'm not contesting the wisdom of grantding to whomever. our issue is whether north the constitution was followed. you know, in our two previous constitutions since mississippi became a state, the government had full authority to grand pardons. apparently they abused that authority. so the people took it back. they put in a reservation that required that no governor shall issue a pardon until it has been published in the local newspaper where the crime occurred for a period of 30 days. and apparently all but 22 of the 203par dons that governor barbour granted did not properly publish. in fact, 56 of them didn't publish anything. so we're saying in the constitution prohibits the governor from granting or attempting to grant a pardon when he has not made sure that the constitution has been complied with. >> it does feel like a technicality though. you're looking at the four murderers who had worked as trustees in the governor's mansion. they were put in the paper, to my understanding of 28 days instead of 30. that's enough to have it taken away? >> well, the constitution is not a technicality. i mean the people reserve the right to have that notice so that the media -- the fourth estate would have an opportunity to discuss it. people realized in 1890, you know, that it was necessary, it was a constitutional right for citizens to have notice and an opportunity to comment on it. you know, the very foundation of our country is due process. and so we are in a -- in a position now that it appears that the governor has not complied with that constitution provision, so we believe that the pardons have been valid. >> i hear you though. it makes sense, but it does feel on some level that -- it's not personal between you and the governor. at least political. >> my job as attorney general is to enforce the constitution. and athe victims are concerned s well as the people. the people deserve the right to have a 30 days 'notice. i was in the mississippi supreme court for an hour and half, just me arguing. there are some concerns about it, but, you know, the constitution is not just some technicality. it is the constitution of the state of mississippi and it must be strictly construed and followed. >> in these cases of these four individuals did you spend time looking into the four murter ers that served as trustees in the governor's mansion? did you take the time to look at the individual cases and did what you found and what you felt play into your decision to look for a technicality? >> no. i mean there again, we don't look into the wisdom or what they did. that was -- that's strictly up to the governor. the only question for the state is whether or not the constitution was followed, whether the people's right to notice was violated, and whether north it's an invasion of the judiciary's right to have its laws carried out. >> so when do you expect a ruling? >> hopefully in, you know -- hopefully -- it could come as early as tomorrow afternoon. friday afternoons are good times oftentimes for opinions to come down, but, you know, it could very well be sometime next week. >> and what would the ideal outcome be, that they go back and serve the rest of their sentence? >> well, what would happen, that's correct. there are five that are presently being held pursuant to a lower court's temporary restraining order, and then there are five that have been released. if the court finds that those ten are void, then certainly we would have to go track them down and -- to reincarcerate them. more than likely i think the court will decide whether it's something reviewable. it's a rather tawdry affair. it's not something that mississippi is going to be proud of. had governor barbour followed the law, we wouldn't be in this position. the lower court aside, there are factual issues that are raised. >> all right. thank you very much. appreciate you taking the time, sir. let us know what you think about that. 28 days versus 30 and what you think about rehabilitation. go ahead on twitte twitter @erinburnett. >> let's check in with anderson. he's got more on "360." >> the lawyer for ex-governor haley barbour argued in court that the pardoning of these four men, the killers, caused no harm, no suffering from a legal standpoint. but try telling that to families who have lost their loved ones. going to speak to two of thome people tonight. >> and president obama's campaign. the president has been talking tough about reform for years but now his cam bane is making promisings and asking for money from fie nan sears. is election cash changing presidential priorities? those stories and more at the top of the hour. >> anderson, thanks and see you in a few minutes. the graphic shows the brutal battering. and a former marine. have you heard of matter horn? if you have, you're going to want to watch this. and would cutting off and collecting enemy ears. cutting o collecting enemy ears. the first technology of its kind... mom and dad, i have great news. is now providing answers families need. siemens. answers. weight loss programs can be expensive. so to save some money, i just got the popular girls from the local middle school to follow me around. ew. seriously? so gross. ew. seriously? that is so gross. ew. seriously? dude that is so totally gross. so gross...i know. there's an easier way to save. geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. since ameriprise financial was founded back in 1894, they've been committed to putting clients first. helping generations through tough times. good times. never taking a bailout. there when you need them. helping millions of americans over the centuries. the strength of a global financial leader. the heart of a one-to-one relationship. together for your future. ♪ it was an emotional day in court in the first-degree murder trial of the university of virginia lacrosse player george huguely as prosecutors showed the jury photos of his battered and bruised ex-girlfriend yeardley love, a beautiful girl. there's a gag order in the case, so none of those photos were released today. her family openly wept as first responders recounted finding the 22 uva lacrosse star on may 3rd 2010 on the floor of her room. her right eye was swollen shut. the prosecutors say huguely was furious that his ex-girlfriend was, quote, hooking up with another lacrosse player from the university of north carolina who testified he saw huguely put love in a violent choke hold three months before she was killed. huguely denies killing love. mark is a criminal defense attorney who's defended hundreds of suspects and linda. linda, let me start with you. we heard for the first time from yeardley love's university of north carolina acquaintance is the word we're using, perhaps someone she had been dating. why is this story so crucial? >> it's crucial because it shows that george -- i don't fondly call him that, but huguely had a motive. he wanted to kill her in the past. i mean he had his arms and his hands, and they must have been large and around her neck, and it was witnessed by people. he couldn't control himself. he expressed himself. it gives a motive and a past opportunity that was interrupted that he fulfilled when he finally killed her. >> mark, does it? >> well, motive is not something that's required for a jury to find somebody guilty. i think ultimately this case is going to come down to what does the pathologist say and what does the defense pa thothologis say. and you're going to have a question as to whether or not -- what was the cause of death and what were the injuries and what caused those injuries. you can have all of the motive and all of the violence in the past, and that makes for great emotion, but ultimately at the end of the day, i think it's going to come down to the science. >> and let me ask you about that science. is it possible, mark, in your view that he could possibly make a case that a jury would listen to that he did not cause all the bruises, the swollen eye that we're hearing about, the horrific pictures that frankly i'm glad we're not able to show people? >> well, yes, it is possible. i mean there are -- depending on what the medical examiner testifies to, depending on whether it's credible, and i certainly don't know because i haven't examined the evidence, but there are instances where when people are in some kind of under the influence, they can fall, they can trip. i don't know if the injuries are consistent with that. but it sounds like that's where the defense is going, that this was alcohol-induced and that the injuries themselves were not something that he caused, and that's why i say it really comes down to the science of this case. they're trying -- the prosecution is trying to set the table, so to speak, for this idea that he must have done it and that he had the inclination, but ultimately at the end of the day, if they can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt that these injuries were caused by another as opposed to some other cause, then they've got a problem. >> do they have to, though -- even if they could be successful, is there any burden -- as a layperson, any burden to say, well, who else did or provide some other scenario? >> look, look. we know from the prosecution's opening she had brain stem damage. her brain was injured. now how did that get injured? he admitted he threw her against the wall, banged her against the wall, she's got her carotid artery damaged. he choked her. he admitted to choking her. clearly that's what killed her. i think whole idea that she somehow got into bed afterward and she suffocated herself is so ridiculous that the jury is giepg -- going to hold it against george huguely. >> can i ask you? i'm curious about this. anybody with a kid in college is curious. can alcohol appropriately be used as a defense? it seemed like yesterday he may be trying to say, okay, did it, i was drunk and she was drunk and so therefore that's not first degree? >> well, yes. the quick answer to that is, yes, it can be. and a lot of these things that you're hearing, the things that sound like bad facts actually may be ultimately at the end of this case in closing argument be embraced by the defense to argue if they're going to admit some kind of guilt, that they're going to argue that it's a manslaughter, that it negates the mental state for a murder case. and if that is the case and i go back having kids in college as well, i understand what the genesis of that question, but it doesn't excuse it, but it does mitigate it. >> mitigating it, linda, to the point -- and this is what e with were talking about last night -- first degree is life in prison, and if they're able to use alcohol as a defense, it could be ten years. >> well, clearly the case is it intentional murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter. they have to show that he wanted to kill her. mark's right. you don't have to prove motive, but, boy, if you really want to find somebody guilty of first-degree murder, you'd better have motive. >> lit's for the hypothetical say that appears to be something that happened here and eventually the person kills her. how does that play in? if he wasn't planning to kill but had a history of incredible violence? well, oftentimes -- and i've had this in the recent past in the trial i've done where the prosecution will put on an expert and they will talk about just generically at least how domestic violence escalates, and then there's a trigger point and experts will testify to that. and that fits in with the theme that the prosecution is trying to lay out here. the defense obviously is going to say, well, that's great in a generic sense, but that doesn't fit this particular case. and basically if there was no intent, no matter what the facts say, you still have to take a look at what was a look at what was going on in his brain. >> all right. well, thanks very much to both of you. we appreciate it. former marine compares killing people to crack cocaine. he's out front with a big idea to help soldiers deal with the horror of murder. -- from accounting. peter. i can see that you're busy... but you were gonna help us crunch the numbers for accounts receivable today. i mean i know that this is important. well, both are important. let's be clear. they are but this is important too. [ man ] the receivables. [ male announcer ] michelin knows it's better for xerox to help manage their finance processing. so they can focus on keeping the world moving. with xerox, you're ready for real business. yoyou u wawalklk i intna coconvnvenentitiononalal ms ststorore,e, i it't's s ry nonot t ababouout t yoy. ththeyey s sayay, , "w"weleu wawantnt a a f firirm m bebn lilie e onon o onene o of ff yoyou u wawantnt a a s sofou cacan n lilie e onon o onene o " wewe p prorovividede t thet inindidivividudualalizizatat yoyourur b bodody y neneede. wewelclcomome e toto t thehe slsleeeep p nunumbmberer . nonot t jujustst o ordrdininaran sasalele, , bubut t ththe e bn chchanangege y youour r lilifef. ththe e slsleeeep p nunumb. ththisis i is s yoyourur b bodo. yoyou u cacan n sesee e a a lile prpresessusurere i in n ththe es anand d inin t thehe h hipi. nonow w yoyou u cacan n fet hahappppenens s asas w we e rarr slsleeeep p nunumbmberer s seted alallolow w ththe e bebed d totr toto y youour r inindidivividud. wowow!w! ththatat f feeeelsls r reae. itit's's h huguggigingng m. itit's's n notot a abobt sosoftft o or r fifirm. itit's's a aboboutut s supuppope yoyou u fifindnd i it t momost. ririghght t nonow,w, q queun mamattttreresssseses s statartr. anand d sasaveve a an n asag 5050% % onon t thehe f fininalat ofof o ourur i innnnovovatae lilimimiteted d ededititio. yoyou u cacan n adadjujustst i r yoyou u wawantnt s so o yoyoue toto w wororryry a aboboutg ththe e wrwronong g mamat. huhurrrry y ththisis w weeee ulultitimamatete s sleleepep n. ononlyly a at t onone e ofo0 slsleeeep p nunumbmberer s. man on tv: ...rbis and 36 homers. swings at the first pitch and fouls it deep back into the stands. [ding] [fans whirring] announcer: chill raw and prepared foods promptly. one in 6 americans will get sick from food poisoning this year. check your steps at foodsafety.gov. america lost more than 60,000 men and women in the vietnam and iraq wars. and of those who came home, 150,000 lost their lives after the wars ended by their own hands. active duty soldiers are committing suicide right now at the highest rate in american history. tonight's e.d.e.a. guest served in vietnam, he was awarded the navy cross, the bronze star, two navy commendation medals for valor, ten purple hearts and he's an author of "matterhorn." he came out front to talk about "what it's like to go to war" and given to every member of congress and his idea to help soldiers overcome what he calls the crack cocaine of all excitement highs, and the crack cocaine lows that come later. >> everybody knows that war is hell and so that's what we talk about that. that's okay. no one wants to cop to the fact there's a part of it that's terribly exciting. look at movies we look at. nothing but filled with violence. it appeals to us. and in some ways, it is like why are we the top animal on the planet? not because we're nice. there's a fierce part of it. one of the things i wanted to do in the book is say recognize this. you can't control it unless you see it. war, part of war is extremely exciting. i mean, it's life and death. it's on the edge. you can't find anything higher than that. but like crack cocaine, the costs are enormous. and i would never want to pay the costs again. if i don't have to. but to deny, tell a kid drugs aren't fun, he knows you're lying. what goes on here is that you have decent people, we have been trained and we have been brought up to not kill anybody. it's thou shalt not kill. it's a culture. suddenly you take a 19-year-old and say, kill. well, how does a kid handle that? there's a v.a. study of 2010 quoted in "the army times" 18 veterans a day are committing suicide. now, that's a horrible number. i mean, there's 24 million veterans, put in context, still, though, it's a very high number. we are not doing something right. we are getting it wrong. and we're getting it wrong on the civilian side because these symptoms come out after they're discharged, long after. >> you have an idea to go a long way to helping these people. you think one way to make a difference and the tragedies that happen when soldiers come home, people that fought that come home is mandatory counseling. >> yeah. >> how would that work and what difference do you think it would make? >> well, the first thing is in the current military, you don't want to tell somebody that you're not all there mentally. you want to hide it. why? because your promotion's at stake. you might be a bit unstable, that won't help. >> opting for count elliseling hurt you. >> yeah. there's people that say it's okay or not okay. we haven't gotten to a point in our culture that counseling is part of healing like going to the doctor is so that by making it mandatory takes that away. people bitch and complain and at least those people that need the help and get the help go there and don't have to have a stigma of i'm the weak one. i had to go get counseling. just a little bit of training so that when the battle's over you can gather the people together and maybe the navy corpsman says, okay, remember joe. and let's remember, you know, that these people that we just killed were probably drafted and let's try and say thanks we're still alive. but just doing that, i think, would start to, again, bring you out of this thing that, well, they're animals which is where you have to be. that's the only way we get the kids to kill them. that's what they do. but it would pull them out of it quicker. i think atrocities would be less likely to happen. they happen because the people are still in the frame of mind they're not humans. >> you write about how in vietnam some of the men that were under you were collecting the ears of dead vietnamese and stringing them. >> put them in a rubber band on the helmet. it was like a trophy. >> you made them go bury some of the people to force that connection. >> yeah. >> and they cried, right? >> they did. it was interesting to me. i mean, they had -- we had been fighting for days. and a lot of their friends had died and the dead bodies were all around, just below the fighting holes. and so, you know, when they went down and cut off some ears, said, these are 18-year-olds. all right? and i just -- by the time, it was like i didn't get angry with them. i felt like you can't do this. this is childish. this is wrong. you know? i mean, yeah, bodies are dead. rotting right there in front of you. as far as they were concerned, when's the big deal? i said, you can't do this. these are people and they -- you killed their friends just like they killed your friends. and the kids sort of look at me. i said bury the ears with the bodies. they had to dig a grave for the body and no small thing. we were getting shot at. so they risked their lives. we weren't right in the