Jump to content
The Education Forum
Micah Mileto

David Lifton teases Final Charade on the Night Fright Show

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

David:

You didn't answer the question.  That is your right of course.

As per Hoover and the SBT,  all you have to do is read Anthony Summers' book Conspiracy  and you will see that Hoover never bought the SBT.  I used this in Reclaiming Parkland, p. 246.

Transcript of his call to LBJ,  Beschloss' Taking Charge

LBJ: How many shots were fired?

JEH: Three

LBJ: Any of them fired at me?

JEH:  No...The president was hit by the first and third. The second shot hit the governor. (p. 54)

He also didn't buy LHO in Mexico City either.  John Newman proved this for an article he did for Probe Magazine.(RP p. 266)

And the FBI sequencing of shots is different than Arlen Specter's is it not?  Even Bugliosi admitted this. (RP, p. 251)

As the former FBI agent Mr. Adams wrote in his book, "From an Office Building with a High Powered Rifle",  the agents who studied the case knew the LHO story and SBT were BS.  When Adams was transferred to Dallas and saw the Z film with them for the first time, he said: "Its obvious he was hit from two different directions"  They said to him, words to the effect:  You think we don't know that? But that's what Hoover and Tolson want. (ibid, p. 245)

In other words Hoover and the FBI went along with the official cover up.

That's really news to you? 

 

 

FBI Director Hoover may not have agreed with (or "bought", as you put it) the Single Bullet Theory, but he nevertheless supported the proposition of Oswald's sole guilt.

As illogical as that may be, that's what the record shows.

With one exception, I don't know of any statement --either orally or in writing--that Hoover made that he didn't agree with the proposition that Oswald was Kennedy's assassin. And the same goes  for every  Assistant Director of the FBI.  Therefore, your fanciful notion that the FBI Director and all his top assistants "went along with" a coverup is ill-founded and without foundation.   From my reading of the record, they all bought into it--they didn't "go along with" a coverup; they believed the Oswald-did-it story, and you're promulgating a falsehood to say otherwise.

The one piece of evidence that strongly suggests that, months (or perhaps years) later, Hoover became aware of an entirely different reality was that conversation he had with a youngster, who questioned him about the assassination, and (as I recall) Hoover responded that he could not  (and/or would not) tell the truth because it would be bad for the country.   But that occurred many years later.  The same for the anecdotal information that Adams offers in his book. 

If you restrict yourself to the time period from 11/22/63 through the issuance of the Warren Report in late September 1964, I think its an accurate statement to say that Hoover and all of his top people didn't just "go along with a coverup" but actually believed the Warren Report.  And that remains true whether or not Hoover (et al) bought into the Single Bullet THeory.  The point(s) you are making about the sequencing of the shots or the validity of the SBT was--to them--just a quibble.  Their attitude (apparently) was to just shrug and say "So what?"   I go back to my original statement: I don't know of any statement, written or oral, by Hoover or any of his top assistants who ever stated that they did not believe Oswald was Kennedy's assassin.  And you can extend what I've just said to the top people who ran the investigation at the Dallas Field Office. 

For you, Jim DiEugenio, to be glibly spreading the idea that Hoover (et al) didn't believe the lone-assassin conclusion, is pure nonsense.  You are propagating a false and incorrect conspiracy theory.  The real problem in this case is that there was a strategic deception employed in connection with JFK's murder, Oswald "appeared to be" the assassin, and a whole slew of top people fell for it (imperfections and all).

DSL, 10/16/2017 -1:45 a.m. PDT

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was that Hoover went along with the Oswald did it scenario because that's what the establishment wanted.  Not because he believed it.  Thanks for endorsing it in your first sentence.

The date of that Hoover and the  "entirely different reality" story is before the WR was issued. (RP p. 246)

As per the disagreement about the SBT being just a quibble, well, even the WC agreed that if there was no SBT that meant there were two assassins.  

The way that Hoover stuck to his alternative scenario was to (literally) get rid of the Tague hit.  He had to since there was no copper in the trace elements of the curb. (RP, pgs. 250-254)

As for Hoover not buying into "an entirely different reality", you might want to check out how he had his operator rig Jack Ruby's polygraph test, because that was a systematic,  premeditated, first class professional job;  or in your terms, "a strategic deception". (ibid pgs. 267-70)

Concerning the JFK case, I don't do anything glibly.   I spent  about forty pages on this subject--how Hoover and the FBI deliberately covered up a conspiracy-- in Reclaiming Parkland.(See Chapter 9)

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FBI -- under Hoover's direction -- was largely responsible for the cover up. Why would they have covered anything up if they believed that Oswald was solely responsible for JFK's death? That simply makes no sense.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always thought it was so interesting what former agent, the late Bill Turner, told me about this subject.

He was out of the FBI at that time.  But he still had contacts inside.  And he got some of the investigatory files from his old pals.

He said to me there were three steps in any FBI field investigation: 1.) The collection of all relevant leads 2.) The following out of each lead to its ultimate conclusion, and 3.) Compiling all of the relevant information collected into a comprehensive report. 

He told that if you did not do step 2, then obviously step 3 was doomed.  He told me that when he looked at some of the files it was so obvious that step 2 had been abandoned, that the agents must have gotten the message from up high.  Because from his experience, FBI agents simply did not do that kind of shoddy work. (RP, p. 243) 

He also said that to him that very bad job on the JFK case marked the end of Hoover's reputation in public.  Because this was something that would not be forgotten or covered up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joseph McBride wrote on Facebook today:

Now we learn from David Lifton that Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara was the one who gave the order to alter the Zapruder film, which was done by the CIA during the weekend of the JFK assassination in their classified photo laboratory at the Kodak main industrial facility in Rochester, New York. The alteration was done to try to conceal the nature of Kennedy's head wounds, the direction of shots and the involvement of more than one shooter, and the criminally lax behavior... of the Secret Service. McNamara, one of the few cabinet members who remained in DC at that time, gave conflicting accounts of where he was and what he was doing at the time of the shooting and in the immediate aftermath. And there is this from Jim Bishop’s 1968 book THE DAY THE PRESIDENT WAS SHOT:

Officials at the Pentagon were calling the White House switchboard at the Dallas-Sheraton Hotel [in the immediate aftermath of the assassination] asking who was now in command. An officer grabbed the phone and assured the Pentagon that Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and the Joint Chiefs of Staff "are now the President."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Joseph McBride wrote on Facebook today:

Now we learn from David Lifton that Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara was the one who gave the order to alter the Zapruder film, which was done by the CIA during the weekend of the JFK assassination in their classified photo laboratory at the Kodak main industrial facility in Rochester, New York. The alteration was done to try to conceal the nature of Kennedy's head wounds, the direction of shots and the involvement of more than one shooter, and the criminally lax behavior... of the Secret Service. McNamara, one of the few cabinet members who remained in DC at that time, gave conflicting accounts of where he was and what he was doing at the time of the shooting and in the immediate aftermath. And there is this from Jim Bishop’s 1968 book THE DAY THE PRESIDENT WAS SHOT:

Officials at the Pentagon were calling the White House switchboard at the Dallas-Sheraton Hotel [in the immediate aftermath of the assassination] asking who was now in command. An officer grabbed the phone and assured the Pentagon that Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and the Joint Chiefs of Staff "are now the President."

 

Nix and Muchmoore films get no love?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a military command and control perspective that answer was exactly correct, with JFK out of the command loop McNamara represented the sole remaining person to exercise National Command Authority and the Joint Chiefs had the responsibility to communicate emergency orders to the military from him though the National Military Command/Communications Center at the Pentagon.  With JFKs death Johnson would have moved into the NCA position, interestingly there is no indication that he understood that or was told that by his aides. He certainly showed no sign of moving into the role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2017 at 6:39 PM, David Lifton said:

I disagree with this assessment. Completely.  I've read all the detailed memos Hoover wrote on Friday afternoon, 11/22 (and beyond); and listened to most of the available taped conversations he had with Johnson.  Where do you get this idea that Hoover "never subscribed to the LN angle."  That's absurd. 

IDK about Jim, this is where I get it:

Hoover wrote in a memo on Dec 12th to those named, that he did not think Oswald was the "only man".
WCD #1 is the FBI report from Dec 9th which specifically stated he acted on his own.

Memorandum for Messers. Tolson, Belmont, Mohr, Conrad, Deloach, Evans, Rosen, Sullivan              December 12, 1963

page 2

it up with the White House and the President agreed with me that we should reach no conclusion; nevertheless the report does reach two conclusions in substance.

I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters, not in the report because we were not able to prove it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man.

59efbc18c1f99_Hooveradmitsconspiracythoughts.thumb.jpg.aaf82d0986f1a3471c09aa485b8e3813.jpg

Edited by David Josephs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, David Josephs said:
On 10/15/2017 at 7:39 PM, David Lifton said:

I disagree with this assessment. Completely.  I've read all the detailed memos Hoover wrote on Friday afternoon, 11/22 (and beyond); and listened to most of the available taped conversations he had with Johnson.  Where do you get this idea that Hoover "never subscribed to the LN angle."  That's absurd. 

IDK about Jim, this is where I get it:

Hoover wrote in a memo on Dec 12th to those named, that he did not think Oswald was the "only man".
WCD #1 is the FBI report from Dec 9th which specifically stated he acted on his own.

Memorandum for Messers. Tolson, Belmont, Mohr, Conrad, Deloach, Evans, Rosen, Sullivan              December 12, 1963

page 2

it up with the White House and the President agreed with me that we should reach no conclusion; nevertheless the report does reach two conclusions in substance.

I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters, not in the report because we were not able to prove it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man.

59efbc18c1f99_Hooveradmitsconspiracythoughts.thumb.jpg.aaf82d0986f1a3471c09aa485b8e3813.jpg

 

Well that certainly sets the record straight. (I don't know what Lifton was thinking.)

Excellent find, David.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will have to wait for the publication of Lifton's FINAL CHARADE or further Lifton interviews and lectures to get the evidence on his claim about McNamara. He made it on the Brent Holland podcast. He has been doing interviews with Holland recently hinting at some of the revelations in his book. He also claims Oswald might have survived Ruby's gunshot but was deliberately killed on the operating table at Parkland. And he says he has eyewitnesses to a body transfer at Love Field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was researching for the Mexico City series I put every document I had in digital chronological orders so the file name starts with the date.  WCD#1 and how the WCR parallels it really needs to be read/seen.  Just look at the Table of contents or how "the assailant" subsequently "identified" as Oswald, despite Oswald being the one and only person  for which they looked.

I came upon that Dec 12th memo from Hoover....  IMHO, Hoover, knowing Oswald was a paid informant, wanted to spread the blame especially back to Cuba and Castro...  I see him reluctantly going along and then being leveraged to go along once the CIA placed his asset in a compromising albeit fictitious, position.

--------------------------

The only film in DC that night was - IMHO - 0184 which was flown to Rowley.

They had over 15 hours before Dino sees in Saturday night at NPIC.

Dino did not see a complete film either - again, IMHO.

It always strikes me as very odd, the lack of detailed description of what was seen on ANY film that weekend... sure we get snippets like Rather's head movement and Dino's cloud of blood lasting longer than a frame or two...  but nothing like "wow, the limo stopped"  or "that looked like well more than 3 shots...

And then there's the "OTHER" film a handful saw which includes the turn, the stop, the chaos, etc....

==========

FWIW, one has to wonder about CE884 and the changes to the analysis Shaneyfelt, Frasier and the FBI introduced.  If the film was real, Shaneyfelt would not have to have done what he did with CE884 and complete destruction of anything accurate related to the motorcade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

And then there's the "OTHER" film a handful saw which includes the turn, the stop, the chaos, etc....

 

I wonder when it was last shown.  The white whale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found a place where you can still read the JFK conspiracy newsletter Probable Cause Australia.

 

 

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20010430083142/http://roswell.fortunecity.com:80/angelic/96/pcissu3.htm

 

Quote

 

Slama JAMA - In Reply to the JAMA article
David S. Lifton, Robert Groden, & Dan Baldwin


David S. Lifton - a letter to the MacNeil-Lehrer program.

RE: The JFK/JAMA affair (appearance of Dr. Lundberg, Tuesday, 5/19/92)

 

...
 

Quote

 

In 1979 Dr. Perry saw for the first time a copy of the Bethesda autopsy photograph showing the large wound at the front of the throat. He responded by shaking his head from side to side, expressing great-surprise, and stating that this was not his tracheotomy incision, this was not the way he left the wound. The wound depicted in the picture was "larger, expanded"; his incision was "neater." Then, in a single word, Dr. Perry said a mouthful: Dr. Perry said he had left the wound "inviolate". (Dr. Perry used the word 'inviolate' on at least one previous occasion and in a similar context: in 1963, within days of the assassination. In a conversation with fellow Parkland doctor David Stewart. Perry expressed puzzlement that the tracheotomy he performed should have caused any confusion at the Bethesda end of the line. He told Dr. Stewart: "I left the wound inviolate".)

Now, however, in 1992 in JAMA, Dr. Perry says that the autopsy photographs show the throat wound "very compatible" with the way he left it.

 

I'm confused. What is the earliest best citation for Dr. Perry using the word "inviolate" in 1963 with Dr. Stewart or in 1966 with CBS?

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

I'm confused. What is the earliest best citation for Dr. Perry using the word "inviolate" in 1963 with Dr. Stewart or in 1966 with CBS?

Micah, you're not going to find or get the ultimate truth or straight answers from these people.  They were under pressure to stick to the official story and sweep it under the rug and let time take care of it. For example, here are some highlights from Humes (my emphasis in red):

"Though the evidence is less well defined, Humes emphasizes that his autopsy found that the other bullet that struck Kennedy, the so-called "magic bullet" that was the first to hit Kennedy and that also hit Texas Gov John Connally, was also fired from above and behind. He says, "There was an 'abrasion collar' where this bullet entered at the base of the President's neck, and this scorching and splitting of the skin from the heat and scraping generated by the entering bullet is proof that it entered from behind. Unfortunately, at the time of the autopsy, the tracheostomy performed on the President at Dallas in an attempt to save his life obliterated the exit wound through the front of his neck near the Adam's apple. Soft-tissue wounds are much more iffy than bone wounds, but there is no doubt from whence cometh those bullets - from rear to front from a high-velocity rifle."

Now look at the back autopsy photo.  Can you take anything seriously with what Humes said? Look at the FBI reenactment below - how could a bullet hit where the white patch is, go UP and out the guy's throat - and not be shatteredv hitting ANY bones along the way, then proceed to go into Connally?

The above quote is from Humes from that Australian site link up above - and he said this 29 years after the autopsy. Now ask yourself - how can you believe anything these people have said about this case when the official party line started the day Oswald was murdered himself?

FBI+reenactment+from+rear+photo.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2018 at 10:54 AM, Micah Mileto said:

...
 

I'm confused. What is the earliest best citation for Dr. Perry using the word "inviolate" in 1963 with Dr. Stewart or in 1966 with CBS?

Micah:

I'm restricting this post to the question you have asked, and am deliberately numbering the paragraphs which follow to facilitate study and commentary on what I have to say:

1. At some point during the life of the HSCA (as I recall), Robert Groden, along with a Baltimore reporter (name I don't recall just now) took the autopsy photos and showed them to Dr. Perry, who (at that time)  was  practicing medicine in New York City. Perry looked at the "stare of death" photo, shook his head from side to side, and said words to the effect that that's not the way he left the wound. Specifically, he said to Groden (as related to me and Pat Valentino in a June/July filmed interview at Groden's home in New Jersey): "I left the wound inviolate."

2 Groden went on to say that the quote stood out (for him) because, although he knew what the word ("inviolate") meant, he had never heard it used in conversation before.

3. Everything I have described above was recorded on film, when Pat Valentino and I visited with Groden at his home in (as I recall) Hopelawn, New Jersey, in June (or July) 1989.

NOW COMES "Inviolate" - - Part 2

4A. While at Groden's home, he took out his super-clear copy (obtained from some source, which he would not reveal) of the CBS interview of Dr. Perry (probably in late 1966) excerpts of which were aired in the famous (or "infamous") June 1967 CBS Special (narrated by Walter Cronkite) which defended the Warren Report.

4B: Transcripts of that show (as I recall) were published in a book by Steve White, then affiliated with CBS News, "Should we Now Believe the Warren Report?" --published by Macmillan in 1968.

See, for example, the listing at Amazon, where a used copy can be purchased for $4.50.  Here's the link:

https://www.amazon.com/Should-Now-Believe-Warren-Report/dp/B000FMILUY/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1519703878&sr=1-1&keywords="Should+we+now+believe+the+Warren+Report%3F"

 

4C:  Here's why White's book was (and still is) important: it contained what purported to be very official transcripts from the CBS broadcasts.  The transcript read (from memory) that Perry explained the confusion (about whether the throat wound was entry or exit) by stating that his trach incision through the bullet wound had "rendered it invalid." (These words are the key: "rendered it invalid".)

4D: At Robert Groden's home, he put a video copy into a playback machine, and we watched.  Pat V and I were watching, and expected the video to confirm what I knew (or believed I knew) from the White transcript. But instead, as the video played, and came to that point, Perry didn't say that at all. Instead, he said (and this was on the audio track): that he left the wound inviolate.

4E: Pat and I were both astounded, and rose up off our chairs, loudly exclaiming: "What?!!!".  Groden wanted to know what the heck we were so excited about, and we asked him to back up the tape, and play it again, and again, and again. . . there was no doubt about it: Perry said, on the tape, that he left the wound "inviolate"!  However. .  (see next point)

5. In the Steve White book (again, "as I recall") it read: "I rendered the wound invalid". . whereas in official CBS transcripts I had ordered, years before, from CBS in New York,  those transcripts said something different. They transcript actually used the word "inviolate".,

6. Groden, meanwhile, wanted to know what the heck was going on, and why we were both so excited. We promised to tell him, but first wanted to interview him, on camera, before we "closed the loop" and explained our reaction. We wanted a faithful filmed record of his understanding of the matter, not influenced by any theory or hypothesis that we had.

7. So now, we set up the camera, and the lights, and the audio, etc., and had a multi-hour filmed interview with Robert Groden, in which Groden explained, in detail, his visit to Dr. Perry in New York City, and what had happened when he was shown the face-up ("stare of death") autopsy photo: how Perry shook his head from side to side and said, "I left the wound inviolate."

8. After we had this point thoroughly nailed down, and discussed every which way, we then honored our agreement, and proceeded to tell Groden (on camera) just what it was we were so excited about.

9. As I have described (above), all of this is on film.

10. I think it was within two days of that filmed shoot, that we visited with Dr. Dave Stewart, and had an important multi-hour interview with him. That interview was very important because, although Steward was not in ER-1, he had a good relationship with Perry, and so could comment on what Perry's state of mind was, and (perhaps, because I don't have a transcript in front of me just now) exactly what Perry said. But see point 11.

11A. In 1967 (as I recall), Stewart had told one of the major Tennessee newspapers that Perry had said it was not  necessary to make an incision (at all); he simply pushed the trach tube into the little bullet hole that was already there (i.e., what I, and many others, believe to have been a bullet entry wound).

11B: Update. I recently found an obscure late 1960s record in which Dr. McClelland said the same thing (!).

11C: When this matter was discussed in detail on a special private email thread run by JFK researcher Paul Hoch, the late Gary Mack contributed to the discussion. Mack wrote that he had checked the relevant CBS tapes and that yes, Dr. Perry stated that he had left the wound “inviolate.”  As I recall, JFK researcher Todd Vaughan agreed.

12. Of course, this adds a whole other dimension to the controversy: if Perry didn't have to make an incision, no wonder he was shocked when he saw the  stare-of-death photo, with its wide gash; but, more importantly, Perry twice testified under oath (once in his WC deposition, in Dallas, and then when he went before the Commission in Washington) that he had made a horizontal incision in the throat when he performed the tracheotomy. (And remember: when I called Perry on 10/27, and inquired about the incision length, he initially me it was "2-3 cm" (as I reported in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence.   If Perry didn't have to make an incision, then he perjured himself when he testified otherwise.

13. The Warren Commission (and the Secret Service and/or the FBI) was derelict in not finding this  1966 (or 1967) front page story in the Tennessee newspaper that quoted Stewart as stating that Perry told him he did not have to make an incision. That's something that should have been unearthed in the FBI investigation. (For those who may be unaware: the FBI read all the major newspapers, and stories like that were duly noted, and filed, with a routing slip that often indicated their distribution to FBI Director Hoover and all the other Assistant Directors).

14. I have never checked the original FBI records to see whether it was clipped and filed. (It ought to have been, but I can't say that it was, or wasn't).

FURTHER COMMENT:

To those who wonder why Final Charade has taken so long to complete, the above story--about something that seems "so simple" is a good example.  The issue at first may appear to be nothing but the pursuit of a simple, and perhaps inconsequential "factoid," but in fact its dead serious. At issue is not just whether the throat wound was altered (considerably enlarged, in a brutal fashion, so that, as the Bethesda autopsy states, it had "widely gaping irregular edges"); but, in addition, it has serious implications as to whether Dr. Malcolm Perry committed perjury when he testified that he made an incision in order to perform the tracheotomy. In other words, we "know" a trach tube was inserted into that opening at the front of President Kennedy's neck - -the question is, was it necessary to make an incision (as Perry testified) or was it possible that he simply was able to insert the tube through the pre-existing bullet hole which, fortuitously, was situated at just the right spot to insert a trach tube and reach the windpipe (the trachea)?   Finally, if Perry said "I left the wound inviolate," and if that is what appears in the official CBS transcripts of the June 1967 TV broadcast, then how is one to explain the CBS transcript that was published in Stephen White's book (in an Appendix at the back) and which has Perry saying "I rendered the wound invalid"?  Finally, and this is purely my personal opinion: as Pat Valentino and I watched Groden's excellent copy of the Perry interview (as broadcast in June 1967),. it seemed clear to me (and I think Pat V. would agree) that someone had monkeyed with the audio, in an attempt to clumsily conceal Perry's articulation of the word "inviolate" and (possibly) create enough confusion so that his statement could be heard as "I rendered it invalid."

This post (that I have written here) is much more detailed than anything I expected to write, in answering Micah Mileto's question, and my intention is to save it, for use in drafting a few pages in Final Charade. But this issue offers a good example of why research in the JFK case has often been compared to dealing with a bunch of "rabbit holes."

For those who take the medical evidence seriously, this particular "rabbit hole" is obviously quite important; and if (for any reason) Perry deliberately lied (i.e., was "prevailed upon" not to tell the truth, because I don't think he would do that of his own volition) and if the transcript in White's book represented deliberate misinformation (or "disinformation") then all of this constitutes an important game changer.

Feedback welcome.

DSL

2/26/2018 - 8:35 PST

Orange County, California

 

Edited by David Lifton

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

×
×
  • Create New...