• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Ashton Gray

Why was there a back wound?

105 posts in this topic

Malcolm Perry's news conference, 11/22/63 (well before the formation

of the Warren Commission):

(quote on)

There was an entrance wound in the neck...It appeared to be coming at him...

The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes,

that is correct...The exit wound I don't know. It could have been the head or

there could have been a second wound of the head.

(quote off)

Malcolm Perry is the man who destroyed all evidence of the throat wound.

The seeker of fact weighs the evidence judiciously.

Good: Malcolm Perry is the man who destroyed all evidence of the throat wound.

One autopsy photo has been cited, the Stare of Death with that big ugly trach incision.

The size of that incision is inconsistent with another autopsy photo -- left lateral -- that appears to show a smaller, neater wound.

sideautopsythroat.jpg

In fact, it is a canyon.

The size of the SOD wound is inconsistent with some Parkland witness testimony, most notably Dr. Perry's insistence that the trach incision was sufficient to put in the tube and no bigger.

But actually it was this:

trachbig.jpg

So in addition to destroying critical evidence in the murder of the President of the United States, did Malcolm Perry willfully lie?

Ashton Gray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is a possibility to consider for discussion: The President's back wound could have been caused by the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the 6th floor of the Book Depository.

I guess it's possible, but I don't think the angle of record supports it.

That rifle was never intended as the primary killing weapon, because no serious sniper would have used it.
Amen, Brother Erick! :blink:
It was a throw-down gun, a diversion, but someone fired it nonetheless.

I think that's probably not unlikely, and was necessary to set up the patsy, but I personally haven't gotten there yet. I'm attempting an orderly approach to analysis in the sense of separating the whole into its constituent elements and addressing each. Since this has been brought up here, though, I'll mention a vague idea I've only half formed (and certainly haven't thought through) that the Mannlicher may have been the source of the Tague bullet and the damage to the windshield chrome. (I reserve the right to weasel on all that.) One thing that concerns me still is the number of reports, but I'm certain that has an answer.

Old military surplus ammo can have what is called a "dud round" whereby not all of the powder propellant burns. This results in a low-velocity discharge, with a rapid bullet drop rate. This would explain the shallow back wound.
It could be. I still think the reported angle of the back wounds tends to support a different trajectory than a shot from anywhere in the TSBD. I could be wrong.
It could also explain the so-called pristine bullet found at Parkland Hospital. I realize that bullet was not found on the President's stretcher, but the person who found it could have been mistaken. The bullet could have been forced out during resuscitation efforts.

Yes; I don't think that such a possibility is entirely as outré as some have made it out to be, but you're still way out ahead of what I've been trying to focus on here. Don't know when I might catch up, either.

Ashton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The dart was designed to dissolve without a trace.

We have our hands around yet another twosie: It was veteran FBI agent Sibert (of "orange-sized hole in back center of head" fame) who introduced the idea of a magic dissolving projectile—but in relation to the back wound, not the throat wound (which, by the time Sibert saw the body, had been conveniently hacked out of existence by Malcolm Perry).

This was a crucial moment in history. It was after the autopsy, and Humes, Boswell

and Finck huddled to discuss the implications of the wounds they saw, the FBI guys

with their ears on the conversation.

From the signed affidavit of FBI SA James Sibert:

(quote on)

I recall the doctors looking for a bullet in the body in connection

with the back wound and becoming frustrated during their search.

They probed the wound with a finger and Dr. Finck probed it with a

metal probe. They concluded that the wound went in only so far and

they couldn't find the bullet. It was my impression that both Finck

and Humes agreed that there was no exit wound of the bullet through

the back. The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the

bullet in the body caused by striking bone. Consideration was also

given to a type of bullet which fragments completely....Following

discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I left

the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent

Chuch [sic] Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information

regarding a type of bullet that would almost completely fragmentize...

(quote off)

Did such blood soluble technology exist at that time?

CIA SPECIAL WEAPONS AND EQUIPMENT by H. Keith Melton, 1965

(forward by Richard Helms), pg 22:

(quote on)

DART GUN

The dart gun is a single-shot pistol firing a.03-caliber, mass

stabilized projectile...made of iron particles and the tranquilizer

M-99 formed together with a blood/water soluble bonding agent...

If left in the body, the dartdissolves and becomes unidentifiable

on X-ray.

An adjustable shoulder stock is available as an accessory (must

be obtained seperately) for operations requiring ranges up to 100 feet.

(quote off)

From the signed affidavit of FBI SA Francis O'Neill:

(quote on)

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet.

A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was

discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could have been a

"plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic] bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

There was no real sense either way that the wounds were caused by the

same kind of bullet.

(quote off)

Ashton Gray:

It was Sibert who purportedly took a little break from the autopsy vigil to go to a phone and call HQ to inquire about a magic disappearing bullet when the back wound was probed and determined to be shallow, with no bullet having at that time been discovered.

What's interesting here is that the autopsists and the FBI guys -- the professionals

on the scene, before any official story was thrust upon them -- took it as a very

serious possibility that the medical evidence was consistent with a weapon that

would only be known within the intelligence community.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/r..._6_Senseney.pdf

Those 5 guys had the CIA on the spot at that very moment in time right

before Sibert went to call FBI HQ for info on blood soluble rounds.

The answer from FBI HQ -- the Magic Bullet solved the puzzle.

Well, not really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ashton Gray:

Malcolm Perry is the man who destroyed all evidence of the throat wound.

The right side of the trachea was nicked, the right tip of the lung was bruised,

there was a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, right next to

a metallic debris field.

The 5 professionals at Bethesda thought it likely a blood soluble round

that would be known only in the intelligence community.

The Dealey Plaza photo evidence shows JFK acting paralyzed.

Points right to the CIA.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. Malcolm Perry's news conference, 11/22/63 (well before the formation

of the Warren Commission):

(quote on)

There was an entrance wound in the neck...It appeared to be coming at him...

The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes,

that is correct...The exit wound I don't know. It could have been the head or

there could have been a second wound of the head.

(quote off)

Malcolm Perry's testimony under oath:

  • MALCOLM PERRY: In the lower part of the neck below the Adams apple was a small, roughly circular wound of perhaps 5 mm. in diameter from which blood was exuding slowly. ...I asked Dr. Carrico if the wound on the neck was actually a wound or had he begun a tracheotomy and he replied in the negative, that it was a wound...

Under oath, Malcolm Perry says he didn't know whether what he saw in the neck was a wound, or the start of a tracheotomy.

To the press, and to the world, in the most crucial moments, Malcolm Perry proclaimed unequivocally that there was an "entrance wound" in the neck.

So did Malcolm Perry lie to the press, or did Malcolm Perry lie under oath, or both?

Why did nurse Diana Bowron—the person who first got to John F. Kennedy at the limo and accompanied him into Trauma Room One, and was there throughout—lie about the throat wound?

Why did Malcolm Perry—the man who destroyed all evidence of the throat wound—lie about it?

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. Malcolm Perry's news conference, 11/22/63 (well before the formation

of the Warren Commission):

(quote on)

There was an entrance wound in the neck...It appeared to be coming at him...

The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes,

that is correct...The exit wound I don't know. It could have been the head or

there could have been a second wound of the head.

(quote off)

Malcolm Perry's testimony under oath:

  • MALCOLM PERRY: In the lower part of the neck below the Adams apple was a small, roughly circular wound of perhaps 5 mm. in diameter from which blood was exuding slowly. ...I asked Dr. Carrico if the wound on the neck was actually a wound or had he begun a tracheotomy and he replied in the negative, that it was a wound...

Under oath, Malcolm Perry says he didn't know whether what he saw in the neck was a wound, or the start of a tracheotomy.

To the press, and to the world, in the most crucial moments, Malcolm Perry proclaimed unequivocally that there was an "entrance wound" in the neck.

So did Malcolm Perry lie to the press, or did Malcolm Perry lie under oath, or both?

Why did nurse Diana Bowron—the person who first got to John F. Kennedy at the limo and accompanied him into Trauma Room One, and was there throughout—lie about the throat wound?

Why did Malcolm Perry—the man who destroyed all evidence of the throat wound—lie about it?

Ashton Gray

Ashton, you don't seem to appreciate the pressure these people were under.

Bowron said that when she returned to her prior duties after cleaning the

body for the casket, Johnson's entourage was there. As Johnson moved

past Bowron he turned to Lady Bird and said, "Take down everything anyone

says or does," (paraphrasing).

Imagine if you were a 22 year old foreigner in country only recently and

the larger than life now President of the United States says to his wife

right in your face, "Take down everything anyone says or does."

I bet you might give it the Sgt. Schultz, eh?

Or would you be like Sam Holland? He stuck to his guns -- four shots -- no

matter what.

The other day I had to fill out this form and they asked me who my favorite

person from history...I said Sam Holland.

But you and I will never have to face what Holland and Bowron went through,

Ashton. Don't you think you should have something a little more solid than

a hunch before making these kinds of accusations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't you think you should have something a little more solid than a hunch before making these kinds of accusations?

I didn't post a "hunch." I've posted documented evidence of two people in critical positions each telling self-contradictory stories about critical evidence in the murder of the President of the United States. One of those two people destroyed that evidence.

You can spin it and apologize for it and attempt to discredit me all you want. The record stands and the record speaks for itself.

And I speak for myself, and I'll call it as I see it. Since two self-contradictory stories cannot possibly both be true, in each case—that of Bowron and that of Perry—one of the stories they each told is a lie, or both of the stories they each told are lies.

In your next spin cycle, spin this: Malcolm Perry elected to make the tracheotomy incision straight through the throat wound. He didn't have to. He elected to. Not only that, someone there—someone—anticipated the tracheotomy before it was called for by Perry:

  • MALCOLM PERRY: In the lower part of the neck below the Adams apple was a small, roughly circular wound of perhaps 5 mm. in diameter from which blood was exuding slowly. ...I asked Dr. Carrico if the wound on the neck was actually a wound or had he begun a tracheotomy and he replied in the negative, that it was a wound... I asked someone to secure a tracheotomy tray but there was one already there. ...I then began the tracheotomy making a transverse incision right through the wound in the neck.
    SPECTER: Why did you elect to make the tracheotomy incision through the wound in the neck...
    MALCOLM PERRY: The area of the wound, as pointed out to you in the lower third of the neck anteriorly is customarily the spot one would electively perform the tracheotomy. This is one of the safest and easiest spots to reach the trachea. ...Therefore, for expediency's sake I went directly to that level to obtain control of the airway.

Malcolm Perry, alone, elected to destroy the throat wound evidence, and could have made the tracheotomy opening somewhere that would not have destroyed it.

Spin that.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ashton,

You have the wrong idea about what is going on here.

I've worked on this evidence for 15 years and I'm presenting it now.

I don't present at conferences and I don't have a website. I'm underground,

dude, and have been since I brought left-wing hardcore punk rock into

Reno NV back in 1980.

You are a wonderful foil.

Don't take it personally.

I didn't post a "hunch." I've posted documented evidence of two people in critical positions each telling

self-contradictory stories about critical evidence in the murder of the President of the United States.

Aren't you over-looking the statements of another half-dozen people -- two reports

written 11/22/63 -- that corroborate the throat entrance wound?

And how do you explain the x-ray that shows a hairline fracture of the right T1

transverse process and that metallic debris field?

You can have Perry and Bowron. Let's dismiss them. Agreed. I will never cite

either one of them in any discussion with you (not necessarily others) but with

you, Ashton Gray, they are dead to our discussions.

Satisfied?

Now, back to the evidence...

One of those two people destroyed that evidence.

But don't you say this evidence never existed?

How could he destroy something that didn't exist?

And if it did exist, what created it if not a shot?

Other people under just as much stress made mistakes and said they made mistakes. Not these two.

You can spin it and apologize for it and attempt to discredit me all you want.

Whoa whoa! YOU brought this xxxx up!

YOU asked me a question -

Ashton Gray:

Why did Malcolm Perry—the man who destroyed all evidence of the throat wound—lie about it?

I gave you an answer to that question. If you don't like my answers

then don't ask the question.

The record stands and the record speaks for itself.

And I speak for myself, and I'll call it as I see it. Since two self-contradictory stories cannot possibly both be true, in each case—that of Bowron and that of Perry—one of the stories they each told is a lie, or both of the stories they each told are lies.

In your next spin cycle, spin this: Malcolm Perry elected to make the tracheotomy incision straight through the throat wound. He didn't have to. He elected to. Not only that, someone there—someone—anticipated a tracheotomy before one was called for by Perry:

  • MALCOLM PERRY: In the lower part of the neck below the Adams apple was a small, roughly circular wound of perhaps 5 mm. in diameter from which blood was exuding slowly. ...I asked Dr. Carrico if the wound on the neck was actually a wound or had he begun a tracheotomy and he replied in the negative, that it was a wound... I asked someone to secure a tracheotomy tray but there was one already there. ...I then began the tracheotomy making a transverse incision right through the wound in the neck.
    SPECTER: Why did you elect to make the tracheotomy incision through the wound in the neck...
    MALCOLM PERRY: The area of the wound, as pointed out to you in the lower third of the neck anteriorly is customarily the spot one would electively perform the tracheotomy. This is one of the safest and easiest spots to reach the trachea. ...Therefore, for expediency's sake I went directly to that level to obtain control of the airway.

Malcolm Perry, alone, elected to destroy the throat wound evidence, and could have made the tracheotomy opening somewhere that would not have destroyed it.

Spin that.

Ashton Gray

Bowron and Perry are scoundrels and off with their heads.

Now, what about the testimony of Carrico (written that day), Jones (written

that day), Henchliffe, Baxter, Akin and Crenshaw?

They all described a wound of entrance in the throat.

And then the other issue you seem to regard as garlic before Bela is the

x-ray evidence of the metallic debris field at the point of deepest penetration

as well as the minor internal injuries to the trachea and the lung.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the throat wound thread?

Twosies, indeed!! :blink:

Edited by Gary Loughran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess of what went on with Perry:

Perry's first impression when he saw the throat wound was that it probably was an unfinished tracheotomy incision (due to the convenient location). After consulting with others (Carrico?) he realised that JFK arrived in Trauma 1 like that, and judging by the looks of the wound that it most likely was a gun shot (entry) wound. Many others in Parkland arrived at the same conclusion.

As resuscitation was critical he went ahead and performed the trach incision and intubation, never thinking twice about destrying evidence, but making his best attempt at saving a life, the President's.

I'm sure he never intended to confuse us. In his testimony and interviews made his best attempt at trying to explain what he had seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The back wound to John F. Kennedy is a very strange piece of evidence in the case.

The more one considers it, the stranger it gets.

John Connally certainly was shot in the back. So there certainly was at least one shooter behind the motorcade somewhere. But Connally, from all that I can determine, was hit with a high-velocity bullet that inarguably went straight through his torso, creating a sucking chest wound.

Connally, it appears to me, was hit with a high-velocity round only seconds or fractions of a second before JFK was hit with a high-velocity round to the head. The simplest explanation for this, to me, is that Connally's wound resulted from a missed head shot aimed at JFK with a semi-automatic high powered rifle, and the next shot hit its intended mark.

I don't ask anyone to agree with this; it's what adds up from the visual and medical record to me.

But the back shot to John F. Kennedy then makes no sense. It was a shallow wound of a small caliber bullet. It almost certainly was not a fatal wound. But it also, inarguably, was shot from behind the motorcade.

The other odd thing about it is that there apparently, from available evidence, was a different character of sound to the first shot (the back shot), and there was a delay between that shot and the two quick high-velocity shots.

The only reasonable deduction I can arrive at is that a shooter shot JFK in the back with a small caliber low velocity weapon for some reason, then either changed weapons and went for the head shot or a second shooter with a high velocity weapon took it. Missing and hitting Connally, he shot again and hit JFK in the head.

I'm prepared for the firestorm of naysaying, name-calling, and obloquy concerning my sanity, lineage, politics, and hat, but I'm going to carry this through anyway:

I believe the back shot was to provide a "reasonable explanation" for a small throat wound. (And I didn't say bullet wound.)

And that is exactly what it was used for by the Warren Commission.

But they hadn't counted on Connally getting hit. So then that one bullet intended to account for both back and throat had to become very, very magic indeed.

Oh, my...

Ashton Gray

Ashton,

Here is a possibility to consider for discussion: The President's back wound could have been caused by the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the 6th floor of the Book Depository. That rifle was never intended as the primary killing weapon, because no serious sniper would have used it. It was a throw-down gun, a diversion, but someone fired it nonetheless. Old military surplus ammo can have what is called a "dud round" whereby not all of the powder propellant burns. This results in a low-velocity discharge, with a rapid bullet drop rate. This would explain the shallow back wound. It could also explain the so-called pristine bullet found at Parkland Hospital. I realize that bullet was not found on the President's stretcher, but the person who found it could have been mistaken. The bullet could have been forced out during resuscitation efforts.

Erick

Erick:

Admittedly you know all about guns and I know zero. But I seriously doubt that the Mannlicher-Carnaco was fired on 11/22/63. And CE 399 was found, allegedly, on Connolly's stretcher. Most researchere, including myself, are of the belief that it was planted, possibly by Jack Ruby who was seen at Parkland hospital, by journalist Seth Kantor, about an hour after JFK had been shot. (Now just what would Ruby be doing at Parkland?)

Dawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Points right to the CIA.

You won't get an arugment from me on this. :blink:

Dawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had not previously thought about the back wound as being caused by a paralytic projectile, which would then dissolve, hence no through wound and no bullet. It makes a lot of sense, particularly when taken with the front throat wound, which was also no through wound and with no bullet.

If the conspirators wanted to paralyze JFK first (and the Z film suggests it), why depend on one shot to do it? You would want a crossfire of paralytics just like you would want a crossfire of bullets. The paralytics first, of course, then the bullets.

Based on all the evidence, it's almost like Occam's Razor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The back wound to John F. Kennedy is a very strange piece of evidence in the case.

The more one considers it, the stranger it gets.

John Connally certainly was shot in the back. So there certainly was at least one shooter behind the motorcade somewhere. But Connally, from all that I can determine, was hit with a high-velocity bullet that inarguably went straight through his torso, creating a sucking chest wound.

Connally, it appears to me, was hit with a high-velocity round only seconds or fractions of a second before JFK was hit with a high-velocity round to the head. The simplest explanation for this, to me, is that Connally's wound resulted from a missed head shot aimed at JFK with a semi-automatic high powered rifle, and the next shot hit its intended mark.

I don't ask anyone to agree with this; it's what adds up from the visual and medical record to me.

But the back shot to John F. Kennedy then makes no sense. It was a shallow wound of a small caliber bullet. It almost certainly was not a fatal wound. But it also, inarguably, was shot from behind the motorcade.

The other odd thing about it is that there apparently, from available evidence, was a different character of sound to the first shot (the back shot), and there was a delay between that shot and the two quick high-velocity shots.

The only reasonable deduction I can arrive at is that a shooter shot JFK in the back with a small caliber low velocity weapon for some reason, then either changed weapons and went for the head shot or a second shooter with a high velocity weapon took it. Missing and hitting Connally, he shot again and hit JFK in the head.

I'm prepared for the firestorm of naysaying, name-calling, and obloquy concerning my sanity, lineage, politics, and hat, but I'm going to carry this through anyway:

I believe the back shot was to provide a "reasonable explanation" for a small throat wound. (And I didn't say bullet wound.)

And that is exactly what it was used for by the Warren Commission.

But they hadn't counted on Connally getting hit. So then that one bullet intended to account for both back and throat had to become very, very magic indeed.

Oh, my...

Ashton Gray

Ashton,

Here is a possibility to consider for discussion: The President's back wound could have been caused by the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the 6th floor of the Book Depository. That rifle was never intended as the primary killing weapon, because no serious sniper would have used it. It was a throw-down gun, a diversion, but someone fired it nonetheless. Old military surplus ammo can have what is called a "dud round" whereby not all of the powder propellant burns. This results in a low-velocity discharge, with a rapid bullet drop rate. This would explain the shallow back wound. It could also explain the so-called pristine bullet found at Parkland Hospital. I realize that bullet was not found on the President's stretcher, but the person who found it could have been mistaken. The bullet could have been forced out during resuscitation efforts.

Erick

Erick:

Admittedly you know all about guns and I know zero. But I seriously doubt that the Mannlicher-Carnaco was fired on 11/22/63. And CE 399 was found, allegedly, on Connolly's stretcher. Most researchere, including myself, are of the belief that it was planted, possibly by Jack Ruby who was seen at Parkland hospital, by journalist Seth Kantor, about an hour after JFK had been shot. (Now just what would Ruby be doing at Parkland?)

Dawn

Dawn,

Below is an excellent link to photos of the “magic bullet,” courtesy of the Mary Ferrell oganization. The bullet has clearly been fired, as you can see from the rifling. Also note from the bottom view of the projectile, that is ovalized. The ovalizing would most likely occur as a result of the bullet tumbling in flight, and striking its target in a somewhat sideways profile. The entrance wound in the back was also ovalized, which corresponds to the deformation of the bullet. A low-velocity dud round would be more likely to tumble in flight.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php?..._-_Magic_Bullet

Even a team of professional snipers cannot know in advance the precise location of their shots, and they cannot know in advance the precise damage their shots will cause. Thus, the assassins could not have known in advance that it would be necessary to “plant” a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet on a stretcher at Parkland to support a “magic bullet” theory.

The simplest explanation is usually truest. The CE 399 bullet came from the rifle in the Book Depository.

This brings us to what Jack Ruby was doing at Parkland Hospital. Again, the simplest explanation is usually truest. We know Ruby was a hit man because we all saw him kill Oswald. There may be a few naive folks who still believe Ruby’s explanation that he wanted to spare Mrs. Kennedy the trauma of testifying at Oswald’s trial, but I doubt any of them visit this forum. I suggest that Ruby was at Parkland Hospital that day with a Colt Cobra .38 special in his pocket with instructions to finish off the president if the other gunmen hadn’t done their jobs properly.

I further suggest that Ruby knew a lot more than he ever attempted to tell Earl Warren and Jerry Ford. He hinted at it when he warned them, "a whole new form of government is going to take over this country, and I know I won't live to see you another time." Jack Ruby knew this because he was in the thick of it.

Erick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suggest that Ruby was at Parkland Hospital that day with a Colt Cobra .38 special in his pocket with instructions to finish off the president if the other gunmen hadn’t done their jobs properly.

Interesting idea, but if true Ruby would logically have been at the hospital waiting for JFK to arrive. (Where else would they take the wounded president?) He would have needed to be in position to get to the limo and shoot, just as he was in position two days later in the DPD basement to get Oswald. But wasn't Ruby (at least said to be) in a newspaper office up to the time of the shooting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now