Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK's "SHALLOW" BACK WOUND REVISITED (FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME)


Recommended Posts

Hi Tom

I did not see your post before I posted my long reply to Craig. Thanks for the support.

Glad to help out. No offense intended toward Craig who in his obvious enthusiasm to relate info regarding the ammo, may have skipped your explanation of a "short shot" and/or missed the connection to the bad ammo.

Considering how many times you've expended the effort to plot this out in excruciating detail, I'm *once again* surprised that this scenario is all but totally ignored by the membership here. I'm no longer shocked by the denial of new evidence in support of a new theory - but surprise still remains... Considering the fact that anyone here on this site obviously disputes the gov't dogma, it is rather ironic that they accept and defend the dogma from CTs that has been refuted by new info and new ideas.

It amazes me that you see this so clearly while the more obtuse amongst us have such difficulty grasping the concept.

I bask in the praise of the first half of the sentence, and take the 5th on the second half...

T

None taken Tom. I'm quite aware of Bob's very specific "short shot" scenario based primarily on his "best guess"(es), perfunctory charts, silencers, etc.. I on the other hand would like to see actual field test data that would either support or debunk any particular "short shot" scenario. Example: Exactly how low a velocity could the Carcano 6.5 X 52mm projectile achieve before becoming lodged in the barrel of Oswald's weapon? Exactly how would this impact the bullet's energy in ft/lb. Exactly how would it effect accuracy at a distance of 50 yards, (the approximate distance of Oswald's first shot)?

As far as where and when the ammunition was manufactured is irrelevant in this case. The design flaw built into this cartridge in the late 19th century was still there in 1963 even when Western was manufacturing it. Bob's assertion that Western's version of this cartridge was all but devoid of malfunctions is patently absurd. Research any of the "recreations/documentaries" on this topic and you will find more than one instance where Western's 6.5mm cartridges malfunctioned.

There are many other areas of possibility to be explored where this specific topic is concerned. This requires extensive research over many years, (decades), on multiple topics. Yet there are those with tunnel vision who become so stuck on one theory, (usually their own), that they ignore all else, (or label it obtuse). I've seen this more often than I care to admit where the JFK case is concerned. At this stage of my research I consider it merely "the price of admission".

After many decades at this Tom I still come here to learn, not to make anyone believe what I believe.

Regards,

Craig C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 218
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

None taken Tom. I'm quite aware of Bob's very specific "short shot" scenario based primarily on his "best guess"(es), perfunctory charts, silencers, etc..

The *fact* that a low velocity round will fall short of the target is NOT anyone's "best guest" or due to the use of "perfunctory charts." It is simple physics. If the initial velocity of the bullet is 2000 fps as designed and the rifle is properly aimed it will hit the target. Aim the rifle at the target again as you did, but fire a defective round. The lower the initial velocity of the bullet the lower the impact point relative to the aim point. The bullet is traveling at a slower velocity, and thus takes a longer time to reach the target. Therefore it is subjected to the pull of gravity for a longer time. This results in a greater "bullet drop" and the bullet impacts below the aim point. If the velocity drops enough the bullet will miss the target completely.

I on the other hand would like to see actual field test data that would either support or debunk any particular "short shot" scenario. Example: Exactly how low a velocity could the Carcano 6.5 X 52mm projectile achieve before becoming lodged in the barrel of Oswald's weapon? Exactly how would this impact the bullet's energy in ft/lb. Exactly how would it effect accuracy at a distance of 50 yards, (the approximate distance of Oswald's first shot)?

As far as a "particular 'short shot' scenario," in this thread we are referring to the "shallow" back wound. "Exactly" how it would affect the degree of accuracy of a shot at 50 yards is dependent on only a single factor: The initial velocity of the bullet. If you have a specific velocity in mind based upon what you believe the defective ammo would produce, you can easily calculate additional bullet drop relative to the "bulls-eye" that would be achieved with good ammo.

Remember, the rifle was aimed so as to hit the bulls-eye with good ammo. The shooter doesn't now this bullet is defective. Again, if the velocity is lower than normal the bullet will impact lower than the aim point. No field test is required to prove the fact that the lower the velocity, the further below the target the bullet will impact.

To the best of my knowledge there is no "field data" for what you propose. If you are planning to conduct these tests that you deem necessary, I am certain everyone would like to see your data.

If your goal is to find a decreased velocity low enough to cause only a shallow wound and you use the center of JFK's head as an aim point you will discover only a minimal reduction in velocity is required to hit the site of JFK's back wound. The impact velocity will far exceed what is required to create a shallow wound in his back. Neither guess work nor a field test is required to do this. There are numerous highly accurate Ballistic Calculators online that will do this for you.

First, find the data that will state what impact velocity will create a shallow back wound through a suit coat and shirt to whatever depth you find acceptable. Calculate the bullet drop at that velocity from 50 yards. Now calculate the bullet drop at that range using the expected initial velocity of your good bullet. The difference between these two numbers is how far below the aim point the reduced velocity bullet will strike.

Having done this myself, you will discover that the bullet will hit the street far short of the target. Remember also that a bullet at this low velocity will be unstable, and this will also affect accuracy.

You cannot aim the rifle at his head (assuming the shooter did this-he may well have been aiming at his back) expecting a good bullet, but getting a much reduced velocity instead, and hit his back. The bullet will hit the street. No guesswork, no perfunctory charts. Just physics.

In order to hit him in the back with a low enough velocity to cause this shallow wound, you would have to aim a considerable distance above his head. I have calculated this, but I only recall that it was a large number.

After many decades at this Tom I still come here to learn, not to make anyone believe what I believe.

Good. LMK if you accept what I said above. If not, I'd like to know what you object to as I am also here to learn.

Tom

Edited by Tom Neal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig Carvalho said:

"As far as where and when the ammunition was manufactured is irrelevant in this case. The design flaw built into this cartridge in the late 19th century was still there in 1963 even when Western was manufacturing it. Bob's assertion that Western's version of this cartridge was all but devoid of malfunctions is patently absurd. Research any of the "recreations/documentaries" on this topic and you will find more than one instance where Western's 6.5mm cartridges malfunctioned."

First off, Craig, no one was manufacturing ammunition for the 6.5mm Carcano in 1963, outside of the Italian government who had kept a handful of Carcanos following the Second World War.

Second, the flaws in the 6.5mm Carcano were completely restricted to Italian military ammo.

There were two main flaws with Italian military ammo, mostly manufactured by the Societa Metallurgica Italiana (SMI) and those flaws were the primers used to begin ignition of the cartridge's gunpowder and the crimps used to seal the brass cartridge neck to the bullet.

The Italian primers contained a mixture of chlorate and mercury fulminate, which proved to be somewhat corrosive and was the primary cause of the hangfires and misfires seen in 6.5mm Carcanos. Contrary to what you may believe, American ammo producers, including the Western Cartridge Co., did not use primers containing chlorate and mercury fulminate and thereby avoided the corrosive primer problem, as well as the hangfire and misfire problems. I challenge you to produce evidence of WCC 6.5mm ammo experiencing the same degree of problems experienced by the SMI 6.5mm Carcano ammo, and I know full well you won't be able to do it.

The second flaw was the bullet crimp SMI employed to crimp the neck of the brass cartridge against the cannelure of the bullet. Rather than crimping all around the neck to provide a good seal, as is typical of American ammo producers, SMI employed a curious three point crimp that did not exactly make the best seal.

DSCN3361.jpg

One of the three point crimps can be seen in the lower cartridge above.

As the WCC employed neither of these features in their 6.5mm Carcano ammo, I fail to see how my assertions can be "patently absurd", Craig. Perhaps you would be so good as to post links to some of these "recreations/documentaries" you speak of that show multiple instances of WCC 6.5mm Carcano ammo failing.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig:

I, like Robert, would very much like to see the "recreations/documentaries" that show multiple malfunctions of 6.5mm ammunition manufactured by the WCC, and specifically malfunctions that you appear to be arguing are the results of "design flaws" incorporated into this same ammunition by technicians at Western. Can you provide us with links, documentation, dates on which these "recreations" occurred, under what conditions, where these "recreations" took place, results, etc.?

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig:

I, like Robert, would very much like to see the "recreations/documentaries" that show multiple malfunctions of 6.5mm ammunition manufactured by the WCC, and specifically malfunctions that you appear to be arguing are the results of "design flaws" incorporated into this same ammunition by technicians at Western. Can you provide us with links, documentation, dates on which these "recreations" occurred, under what conditions, where these "recreations" took place, results, etc.?

Gary

Craig,

I, like Robert and Gary, would like to see these "recreations/documentaries" as well.

Tom

Edited by Tom Neal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The physical evidence in this topic PROVES that these three wounds lined up at the time of the gunshot:

1 -- circular throat wound/puncture

2 -- avulsed top right lung

3 -- elliptical, ragged back wound between spine, T-3 or 4, and scapula, lower than the throat wound, but not much.

And that wound 1 is the entrance and wound 3 is the exit for that one bullet around Z-207, no later than 224 as RP has it.

1 -- Doctors at Parkland judged the throat wound to be 4-7 mm. An average of that range is 5.5 mm, or a hair bigger than 22 caliber, say more like a .223 Remington high velocity job. The missile nicked the trachea on the right front (R Prudhomme #61), and "the trachea deviated to the left towards the undamaged lung (JR Gordon #65, approx.); that is, toward the left lung.

2 -- Starting with post #1, Robert Prudhomme, great illustrations of the chest cavity show how far up the lungs go. A descending shot from Kennedy's left-front "in the lower third of the anterior neck" that exited 5 i/2" down the back, would have to go through the top of the lung.

James Gordon #6 has Humes testifying to the size and shape of that damage to the top right lung -- an upside down pyramid-shaped bruise 5 cm (2 in.) across the top. The pleura MUST have been violated, though Humes not finding it or noting it means nothing.

3 -- We can take THE (main) back wound at 5-6" below the shoulder. TE Robinson, Sibert, Boswell, Berkley all put it there. The coat and shirt put it there as well, most undeniably. It was a ragged, elliptical hole, bigger than the throat wound. Humes never did probe UP, that I've heard of, when he finally used the metal probe. He wasn't running the autopsy. He'd been told repeatedly that THE gunman was behind and WAY up, the 6th floor oh my!, and that's why the dolt made the absurd guess that it was a 45 to 60 degree angle. "What, was he shot from a helicopter?!" Good one Bob Prudhomme, #11.

When Humes did the most probing of the back wound, it was at the end of the autopsy, which didn't end until something like 3 AM, right? This was well over 12 hours since JFK effectively died. Some kind of rigor mortis must have set in. The skin on the back can be moved around immensely, 2 inches either way. And Kennedy's right arm was raised when he was hit while behind the Stemmons sign. All this would change the APPARENT wound placements.

This shot would have had to have come from the South Knoll, off the left, south, end of the railroad bridge. Is this why almost no one sees the throat-back wounds as being from one shot? Some researchers who believe in this early shot from the South Knoll conjecture that the throat shot came through the windshield. But no, the windshield damage was done by the same bullet that put the massive ding in the chrome trim and dented the back of the rearview mirror. All three damages are together, in a line of sorts.

Maybe the biggest problem, for researchers, with a South Knoll shooter making that early throat (and back) shot is they don't think a shot could have cleared the windshield (with visors up too) AND the wide roof-support over the back of the front seat. I have ways to demonstrate that it could be done.

And there may have slight collarbone (clavicle) damage, and serious damage to the back-ribs coming off T3 and T4, but Humes was just about incapable of finding it. Does anyone know of any damage to the collarbone and/or the back ribs?

Edited by Roy Wieselquist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roy Wieslquist Said:-

Maybe the biggest problem, for researchers, with a South Knoll shooter making that early throat (and back) shot is they don't think a shot could have cleared the windshield (with visors up too) AND the wide roof-support over the back of the front seat. I have ways to demonstrate that it could be done.

I do not see how that is possible. Don Roberdeau's map has the North Parking lot at 426 Hasl. The rail line on top of the Triple underpass is 424 Hasl. Elm Street at 2o7 is 423 HASL. The Sixth Floor Museum the North and South Plaza are effectively and that the Post Office parking lot is 426 HASL. The Triple underpass is the sam at both ends: 424HASL.

So from what I can see, because of the geography of the Plaza, the shooter at the South Knoll does not have a heightened elevation to fire down from. Then there is the position of the occupants in the car, A shot from this angle is bound to put Bill Greer and Nellie Connally in some danger. In addition, any shot entering JFK's throat is not going straight forward it is going from centre to right.

I do not see this as a serious theory.

James.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James R. Gordon #98,

Difference in elevation, height above sea level, is not the only factor affecting the angle of a shot from South Knoll area. The tilt of the limo itself OFF the HORIZONTAL is just as important.

1 -- Elm Street has a down grade heading toward the TUP. It's a maximum of more than 3 degrees at the steps, around Z-313, and after. When JFK was behind the Stemmons sign, it was probably about 2 degrees or a hair more.

2 -- The forward tilt of the limo could have been a couple degrees, front wheels lower than the back wheels, just less air in the tires. Since SSA often rode on the back (but not during the shooting), there were probably adjustments made in the suspension to even that out. So the back was riding high, which could account for as much as 4 degrees.

3 --Greer decelerating, even braking, made the vehicle pitch forward some. I would put that at about 4 degrees.

(Sidenote: isn't it curious that Life "BROKE" the film at 207, like they dropped it right there on a sharp edge or something?)

So, the tilt of the limo down from the horizontal at Z-207 could have been 8 degrees, and easily 10 degrees at 313. Pictures from the TUP where Skinny Holland et al were standing -- it looks like you're looking down into a car before that vehicle reaches the bottom of the steps up North Knoll.

We forget how long that limousine was, about 20 feet, right? JFK was a long way from the windshield and the roof support. I would put him at least six feet behind that big flat roof support.

Add this 8 degrees (the downward tilt of the limo) to the 2 or 3 degree rise in elevation from the far end of the Post Office parking lot, and you have your requisite 10 degrees.

There IS a slim possibility that the first shot from SK, the throat-lung-back shot, I guess around 207, was "snoogied" by Greer's left ear, and UNDER the roof support, thus avoiding the windshield completely. Snoogy, I believe, is a technical shooting term meaning something like "thread the needle." Let's ask Prudhomme. Similarly, Kellerman heard/felt a shot pass by HIS left ear from behind, which shot made three damages to the windshield -- chrome trim (there was nothing harder than that old chrome), back of rearview mirror, and crack in the windshield itself. A South Knoll shooter may have been able to sight JFK through this "tunnel" by Greer's left ear at 207, but I think it's doubtful.

It's possible that this hypothetical SK gunman could see JFK's head at 207, between Nellie and John Connally, but that these two factors caused him to hit JFK's throat. One, the limo was slowing so drastically that the head did not drop as much as he was tracking, so that the bullet hit low. Two, he could have barely nicked that roof-support, causing the missile to deflect down. From the gunman's perspective, that shiny roof-support, probably polished aluminum, probably appeared as nearly a line, barely visible.

There's more, but just let me say that when I make a case for a South Knoll gunman, some researchers feel that ascribing the throat and back wounds to one bullet will reduce the bullet count to an unacceptable number. IMO, still, there was an absolute minimum of 8 shots, most likely 9, maybe as many as 10 or 11. Six definitely hit inside the limo. THREE hit JFK: 1. in throat, out back from SK; 2. in left temple, out right occiput from SK; 3. in right temple, out nowhere (frangible) from North Knoll. TWO hit Connally: 1. in back right armpit, out left and under right nipple; 2. in TOP of right wrist, out underside of wrist, into left thigh AND chrome plate around ashtray on back of front seat. (Walt Brown proved the impossibility of the first JBC bullet entering the outside of JBC's wrist from the chest. "He would have had to have been a contortionist." No one can turn his wrist that much.) And ONE hit no one in the car, but hit the windshield trim first. That probably came from a southwest window of TSBD sixth floor, like the two Connally shots. So 3 + 2 + 1 equals 6 shots just inside the presidential vehicle.

At least 2 shots missed the limo entirely. Most likely 3 or more. Most likely all intentional misses, they missed by so much.

Most of the rifles had sound suppressors. At least 7 rifles ringing Dealey Plaza that day. A least 5 of them fired. The South Knoll gunman struck JFK twice. From the front and above, slightly left; WAG -- 15 degrees to the left. The throat-lung-back path and the left temple-right occiput path point right back at him like a laser.

Edited by Roy Wieselquist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I have demonstrated several observations made by Drs. Carrico and Perry, in Trauma Room One of Parkland Memorial Hospital, regarding the state of JFK's respiratory system; in particular, his right lung. These observations point to very obvious clinical signs of a tension pneumothorax in JFK's right lung, a direct result of a bullet entering his upper right lung via the back entrance wound.

1. Dr. Carrico observed, while listening to JFK's chest with a stethoscope (following intubation and assisted breathing with a respirator), that breath sounds in JFK's chest were diminished, especially on the right side. While some WC apologists have argued this was a direct result of Carrico clumsily over-inserting the endotracheal tube into the left bronchus of JFK's left lung, and thus denying air to the right lung, there is simply too much evidence this was not the case.

The mere fact that breath sounds were diminished overall indicates the only mistake Carrico made was to under insert the endotracheal tube, leaving the inflatable cuff of the endotracheal tube above the tear in the trachea, and thus not making an airtight seal inside the trachea. This lack of a seal would allow positive pressure ventilation to escape the trachea, resulting in diminished breath sounds. Why would they be more diminished in the right lung? Quite simple. The right lung was collapsed, and building pressure in the tension pneumothorax (from the respirator) was preventing the lung from inflating.

We also know that Humes reported, in the autopsy report (Appendix IX of the WC Report), that the tear in JFK's trachea was between the 3rd and 4th tracheal ring, just below the larynx. Pictured below is a tracheostomy performed between the 3rd and 4th tracheal rings.

002.png

Note how close this is to the larynx (Adam's apple). Now look at this typical endotracheal tube, inserted into the trachea with its inflatable cuff just below the larynx.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Endotracheal_tube_colored.png

Although difficult to see, in this diagram the inflatable cuff is just above where the tracheal tear would have been between JFK's 3rd and 4th tracheal rings. The tip of the endotracheal tube is even further above the point where the trachea divides into the two bronchi.

What all of this means is that the mere fact the cuff was not sealing JFK's trachea, allowing air to escape through the tracheal wound, makes a l.i.a.r. out of any WC apologist who tries to tell us Carrico over inserted the endotracheal tube. The tip of this device simply isn't long enough to allow this.

2. While surgically performing the tracheotomy on JFK, Dr. Perry observed several things. First, he observed the inflatable cuff of Carrico's endotracheal tube above the tracheal wound between the 3rd and 4th tracheal rings, thus confirming everything I stated in Point 1.

He next observed the trachea was deviated to JFK's left; so much so, it was necessary to sever the strap muscles on the left side of JFK's trachea, in order to gain access to the trachea. I have always found this sentence from Perry's Warren Commission testimony to be odd and somewhat contradictory, and I often wonder if it is not an example of "editing" done to Perry's WC testimony.

"At that point the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea."

The use of the word "slightly" is what puzzles me. I have discussed this matter with several ER doctors, accustomed to dealing with tension pneumothoraces and performing tracheotomies, and they are quite unanimous in stating that a trachea deviated far enough to one side to require the severing of strap muscles to gain access to it can hardly be said to have a "slight" deviation. Was the word "slightly" added to Perry's testimony to downplay the possibility of a pneumothorax?

To be continued....

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We also know that Humes reported, in the autopsy report (Appendix IX of the WC Report), that the tear in JFK's trachea was between the 3rd and 4th tracheal ring, just below the larynx.

According to Perry and Baxter the tracheal tear was at the 2nd tracheal ring and between the 2nd and 3rd. Apparently it wasn't quite parallel to the rings and cut across the trachea at a very slight angle. So what is Humes motive for moving the tear downward 3/8" or so?

The Parkland doctors, who unlike Humes, were qualified to analyze a gunshot wound, had reported this as an entrance wound. Lowering the wound:

  • Assures the wound is comfortably below the top of the shirt collar and therefore not an entry wound.
  • It is now closer to an alignment with the back wound that they raised to create a compatible entry-exit path for a shot from behind.
  • It is now closer (but still too high) to align with the slits in the shirt located below the tie knot that allegedly were caused by an exiting bullet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We also know that Humes reported, in the autopsy report (Appendix IX of the WC Report), that the tear in JFK's trachea was between the 3rd and 4th tracheal ring, just below the larynx.

According to Perry and Baxter the tracheal tear was at the 2nd tracheal ring and between the 2nd and 3rd. Apparently it wasn't quite parallel to the rings and cut across the trachea at a very slight angle. So what is Humes motive for moving the tear downward 3/8" or so?

The Parkland doctors, who unlike Humes, were qualified to analyze a gunshot wound, had reported this as an entrance wound. Lowering the wound:

  • Assures the wound is comfortably below the top of the shirt collar and therefore not an entry wound.
  • It is now closer to an alignment with the back wound that they raised to create a compatible entry-exit path for a shot from behind.
  • It is now closer (but still too high) to align with the slits in the shirt located below the tie knot that allegedly were caused by an exiting bullet.

Good point, Tom. In fact, an excellent point. I was so busy looking at other aspects, I completely forgot Perry and Baxter placed the wound between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings. Just another one of Humes' "minor" disagreements with the doctors in Dallas, I guess? It would be interesting to know how many degrees equals a "very slight" angle, as the angle the Magic Bullet traversed the side of Connally's ribcage was anything but "very slight" at 23°.

If the wound was above the 3rd tracheal ring, and Carrico erroneously placed the endotracheal tube's inflatable cuff above this wound, there is no way Carrico could have placed the tip of the endotracheal tube into one of the two bronchi. Breath sounds, although diminished, should have been equal on both sides.

This proves a bullet went into JFK's right lung and caused a tension pneumothorax and, with this bullet arresting in JFK's right lung, another bullet (or two) had to be responsible for wounding Connally.

Too many bullets for one shooter = conspiracy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post is hitting the edge of OT for a back wound thread, but ties into "why" the back wound was raised, and "why" even with all the disinformation this explanation of the back wound still doesn't work.

[The throat wound] is now closer (but still too high) to align with the slits in the shirt located below the tie knot that allegedly were caused by an exiting bullet.

What created the shirt slits?

These shirt slits were tested for metal and none was found - not a bullet/fragment.

The slit is at least 1/2" and IMO probably 3/4" below the wound - not an exiting bone fragment.

The nurses did not create these shirt slits when they cut off the tie "with scalpels" - scalpels* were not used.

Carrico unbuttoned JFK's shirt himself, to listen to his chest *before* the shirt and tie were removed - he reported that he saw no shirt slits

Despite the fact that it was required, no one was allowed to examine the shirt at the autopsy. What unacceptable evidence would the shirt have revealed?

*The "scalpel" conjecture originated with Harold Weisberg alone, no doctor or nurse stated they used scalpels. [dumb mistake removed!]

IMO, the shirt slits were likely created to support the frontal exit of the back wound. An exiting bullet from the back wound had to create a hole through the tie and the shirt. These holes did not exist so they made a cut through the shirt. IMO the slit is too wide to have been caused by an object leaving such a small wound in the throat, and of course they have completely ignored the fact that there is no hole through the tie and there should be. Were they that dumb, that careless, or just that desperate?

All of the above information is evidence the back wound bullet didn't exit the throat. IMO, it fragmented, just as the head shot bullet did, and punctured the right lung causing all of the symptoms reported by the Parkland doctors as described by Bob in this thread.

Edited by Tom Neal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I recall, the slits in the shirt are vertical, not horizontal. FWIW. But neither do I believe they were made by a scalpel.

You are correct! In my mind I was picturing the button hole not the slits...duh...

I was going through my Carrico folder to confirm one of his statements and spotted the shirt slits photo and realized my error. I came back to the site and found your post.

This will be the 6th change required to fix my mistakes in the above post, and one was even dumber than confusing horizontal and vertical! -- definitely time to call it a night.

Since you are already here, how about some comments on the rest of the post? e.g. Do you believe the slits in the shirt are at the same level as the throat wound? You can answer yes or no if you'd like, and I promise not to ask further questions on this issue...

Edited by Tom Neal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...