It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lisa Irwin - Missing - One Year Later

page: 97
41
<< 94  95  96    98  99  100 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dav1d
Now KCPD certainly had the option to not comment on a possible interview, this week, instead they chose to deny that it would happen. Then when question on how long it lasted, they chose to NOT COMENT, kind of makes an unbiased observer wonder just what is going on?


This is certainly a good question. The police could have not commented on a possible interview this week, but we as an *unbiased* observer see only what is given to us. I remember the press release last week about possible interviews with the kids, but I did not see where the family or the lawyers came out today and said the kids were being interviewed. Most of what I read was released by the police and the FBI.

It can go both ways, how do we know the lawyers did not tell the police the interviews were not going to happen (remember, they are not talking to the media now to concentrate on the search for baby Lisa), and then the FBI chimed in and then the lawyers agreed to it. We don't. As *unbiased* observers, we only know what we are being told. So the police could have thought they were still at an impasse.

*Edited to add for the paragraph above, I guess the FBI did chime in and ask for the interview. So the police may not have known the availability. I left my original comment in so that you can see what I had stated before Michelle updated below.*


Originally posted by Dav1d
The FBI has flown in a child specialist, one of the best they have (one would assume) to trip up a six and eight year old ~ and based on the lack of an arrest, this six and eight year old out smarted the specialist today. So many will continue to give LE the benefit of doubt, continue to accept that many things need to be hidden from us...

At some point, perhaps a few will start to ask, when the search for Lisa was happening in the woods, just what did LE fear we might spot from the air? Why was the airspace really closed, over the likely search areas? What secrets does LE have that they so feared someone looking over their shoulder?


Inquiring minds do want to know. The FBI flew in a specialist, which I could see since the case is national and they would want to make sure they get the interview right. So if the FBI is on board (which we know they are), which would mean it is no longer just the police officers from Kansas, this would indicate that in order for them to keep helping the local police out, they would have had to be presented with *something* to keep them on the case.

The question again goes back to what would the police have heard during the initial interviews to cause searches to be in woods and landfills. If the FBI is still on the case, that would mean that whatever was presented to them was sufficient for them to stay attached. You are correct in the matter of why would they put a no fly zone up when searching the woods, what did they expect to find.

There are still many unknowns about the case, the statistics for this type of case can go either way. People can bring up statistics for or against the police, for or against the parents, the friends. Right here in this thread it has went many ways.

IWOH
edit on 10-11-2011 by IwasOnceHappy because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-11-2011 by IwasOnceHappy because: Edited after seeing Michelle's post below




posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
For those that pointed their fingers at the parents, were SURE they had something to hide because they weren't rescheduling that interview...sometimes waiting for all the information to come out helps you to see all angles....

Authorities Interview Lisa Irwin’s Brothers

(bolding by me)


Picerno would not elaborate on the questioning, except to confirm that it happened at undisclosed location. He says the family agreed to the re-interview of the boys when he took the case on November 1. Picerno says the FBI requested the delay to give it time to schedule the special forensics expert who is interviewing the half-brothers. The female questioner brought in by the FBI has more than 10 years experience and has done more than 1000 interviews, according to Picerno.


FBI requested...apparently the red tape even in the FBI is ridiculous. It took them almost 2 weeks to get a specialist to KC when a baby is missing??? IF this is true, it makes them look worse than the parents in my eyes.

Michelle



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michelle129th

FBI requested...apparently the red tape even in the FBI is ridiculous. It took them almost 2 weeks to get a specialist to KC when a baby is missing??? IF this is true, it makes them look worse than the parents in my eyes.

Michelle


This leads back to what I have been asking the last few posts. What were the FBI told by local police about the initial interviews and searches (this is a question about what they were told, not blame or fault). So what really happened the first morning this was reported and the next day. We don't know *exactly* what was said, we just know what we are being told. If the local police lead the FBI to believe the child was dead and not abducted, then could this have been why it took so long to get someone onsite? I mean, they would not be in a hurry if they thought the child was dead.

You are correct, it does not make them look good as I would think the FBI would maintain their own case of what is going on and would want to get someone on site much sooner.

IWOH



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Michelle129th
 


For those that pointed their fingers at the parents, were SURE they had something to hide because they weren't rescheduling that interview...sometimes waiting for all the information to come out helps you to see all angles....


This negates nothing. Tacopina cancelled he first (second) interview - that blame falls directly on his, and ultimately the parents heads.


(Oct.31) Friday's announcement that lead attorney for Baby Lisa's family, Joe Tacopina, called police and canceled interviews of Lisa's half-brothers.
source

Those parents should have taken Lisa's brothers to the station to be interviewed until the cows came home - or Lisa did - if that's what it took.

Regardless, it sounds like it's done. Now the waiting begins again.

I'd hoped my theory was wrong - for everyone's sake... I'll keep hoping.

peace

edit on 10-11-2011 by silo13 because: source



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by IwasOnceHappy
 




Non-Family Child Abductions

It’s a fearsome thought: a child snatched by a stranger. Who investigates these crimes? We do. It’s our job to handle cases of child abductions, often working closely with state and local law enforcement.

In 1932, Congress gave the FBI jurisdiction under the “Lindbergh Law” to immediately investigate any reported mysterious disappearance or kidnapping involving a child of “tender age”—usually 12 or younger. And just to be clear, before we get involved there does NOT have to be a ransom demand and the child does NOT have to cross state lines or be missing for 24 hours.

www.fbi.gov...

So Lisa is under 12
It is alledged that she was abducted by a non family member.
It's pretty clear that the FBI has jurisdiction here. Google on FBI and CARD for more.


Picerno would not elaborate on the questioning, except to confirm that it happened at undisclosed location. He says the family agreed to the re-interview of the boys when he took the case on November 1.
Picerno says the FBI requested the delay to give it time to schedule the special forensics expert who is interviewing the half-brothers. The female questioner brought in by the FBI has more than 10 years experience and has done more than 1000 interviews, according to Picerno.
Police confirmed that their detectives were in a separate room and could communicate questions to the expert who interviewed the boys. The boys were interviewed separately.

fox4kc.com...



Then look at what the media was reporting as of November 8, 2011 less than 48 hours before the interview. 



Police: No re-interviews scheduled for brothers of missing Baby Lisa Irwin

Kansas City, Mo. - Although media reports indicated Monday that a re-interview of missing 11-month-old Lisa Irwin's brothers was slated to take place this week, the Kansas City Police Dept. informed media, no such interview is scheduled to take place.

Police Capt. Steve Young relayed the new information in an email to the Missing Persons Examiner.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Police: No re-interviews scheduled for brothers of missing Baby Lisa Irwin - National Crime | Examiner.com www.examiner.com...


So Picerno states that the boys will be interview this week. Then Capt. Steve Young states that there is no interview schelude this week, in direct response to the statement that there is an interview scheluded for this week. Only one of these statements can be true, and less than 48 hours later we know who spoke the truth, and who didn't.
It is pretty clear what Capt. Steve Young is. One has to wonder, at just why the KCPD wants to sully the families reputation.

We have a special forensics expert going up against a six and an eight year old, and judging by the lack of an arrest unable to break a six or an eight year old.... One would assume that the special forensics expert with more than ten years of experience, would be one of the FBI better experts... Actions often speak louder than words, and we are at five weeks, with no arrest....
We are at five weeks of giving LE the benefit of doubt...
Just whom is suppose to be held to a higher standard here?
Just whom is suppose to be innocent until PROVEN guilty here?
Is it really LE that is suppose to be given the benefit of doubt, time and time again?

Let's look at history for a minute,


This gives us some interesting history....
I don't know how much of this is true,
Yet if it is true, what better location to control than CARD?
If there is truth in this, then just perhaps it can explain why there is such an intense effort to SPIN this story...
There are many links in this thread suggesting why the parents did it.
Now here is one suggesting why LE might want to spin this story...
Food for thought?

It would appear to be true enough to bring down at long last a few people at PENN state...
Remember the FBI is tasked in solving these types of crimes, and the FBI budget request for 2011 was 8.3 billion, think of that 8.3 billion... And did the FBI break the PENN state scandal? Was it even LE, nope! You stick your nose in too far and you disappear... Like Lisa? Oh that's right, it's suppose to be her family, that can make her disappear so good that five weeks into, and with all the billions the FBI has, we are told, there are no criminal masterminds, but it will likely take years to solve this case....

Hmm want to buy a bridge?






 



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by IwasOnceHappy

Originally posted by Michelle129th

FBI requested...apparently the red tape even in the FBI is ridiculous.  It took them almost 2 weeks to get a specialist to KC when a baby is missing???  IF this is true, it makes them look worse than the parents in my eyes.

Michelle


This leads back to what I have been asking the last few posts.  What were the FBI told by local police about the initial interviews and searches (this is a question about what they were told, not blame or fault).  So what really happened the first morning this was reported and the next day.  We don't know *exactly* what was said, we just know what we are being told.  If the local police lead the FBI to believe the child was dead and not abducted, then could this have been why it took so long to get someone onsite?  I mean, they would not be in a hurry if they thought the child was dead.

You are correct, it does not make them look good as I would think the FBI would maintain their own case of what is going on and would want to get someone on site much sooner.

IWOH


The FBI were there from the very beginning they have NEVER left...
Got to ask yourself why, if there was evidence that Lisa was killed by her family, this would NOT fall under CARD.. Nor would it fall under CARD if Lisa was taken by a family member... So we have a condition where the FBI believes she was taken by a non family member, and KCPD believes Lisa was killed by her mother. And for those who would suggest we don't know what KCPD thinks, remember how quick KCPD was to correct the parents, about the boys NOT being schedule for an interview this week... 
Another point, is the Amber Alert for Lisa was NOT activated until 7:15 am on the forth, but the FBI was there the morning of the fourth waking people up... Before the Amber Alert was activated, which would have alerted CARD and set the FBI in motion, there would have been a period where the fBI decided if their involment was justified, or not. That takes time, and more time to fly a team in, yet the FBI was there, knocking on doors and waking people up that morning.. 


Other neighbors described an out of the ordinary morning with FBI agents knocking on their front doors.

Terry Asby-Shelton said, “My husband said they are FBI and I thought he was kidding and I thought it was some kind of inspection or something. And I said, ‘What's going on here?’ and they said it was a baby. I just about fainted

Read more: www.nbcactionnews.com...

edit on 11-11-2011 by Dav1d because: Spelling



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Some information on the Amber alert system...

...the U.S. Department of Justice issues the following "guidance", which most states are said to "adhere closely to" (in the U.S.)
Law enforcement must confirm that an abduction has taken place.
The child must be at risk of serious injury or death.
There must be sufficient descriptive information of child, captor, or captor's vehicle to issue an alert.
The child must be 17 years old or younger.

en.wikipedia.org...


The Amber Alert was not issued till 7:15 am on October the 4th for Lisa, so hours after the police responded they believed Lisa was abducted... 


KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Twelve hours - that’s how long Capt. Steve Young with the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department said an AMBER Alert can last

Read more: www.nbcactionnews.com...


Interesting that Capt. Steve Young claims an Amber Alert can only last 12 hours, and Lisa didn't even get the full twelve hours...
Perhaps Lisa's parents are guilty of not registering Lisa as a "pet" I found this service that will keep a pet amber alert up for 360 days or until it is found...


How long will my Featured Pet Listing stay up?
PetAmberAlert.com will leave Featured Pet listings on our website for over 360 days or until they are found.  Many other services purge records after only 120 days.  Because we know the survival instincts of your pet and the bond you have with them, we don’t give up so easily. However, please remember it is important to notify us if your pet is found so valuable space and time is not wasted which could be used for pets who are still missing.

www.petamberalert.com...


A little searching on the Internet turns up this answer, 


An initial Amber Alert can go out for three to five days, depending on the circumstances. It can also be renewed by law enforcement agencies if they think it is necessary. ChaCha
www.chacha.com...


So which do we Americans value more, our children or our pets? Could the fact that you haven't found the child, and you don't have a suspect be reason for extending the alert?



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 


We have a special forensics expert going up against a six and an eight year old, and judging by the lack of an arrest unable to break a six or an eight year old..


Huh? 'Unable to 'break' a six/eight year old?

What are you going on about now?

'Judging by the lack of an arrest?' They haven't even interviewed them yet?

*Walks out shaking my head*... And you think I'm the one who's biased? Wow...

peace



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Dav1d
 


We have a special forensics expert going up against a six and an eight year old, and judging by the lack of an arrest unable to break a six or an eight year old..


Huh? 'Unable to 'break' a six/eight year old?

What are you going on about now?

'Judging by the lack of an arrest?' They haven't even interviewed them yet?

*Walks out shaking my head*... And you think I'm the one who's biased? Wow...

peace


They have interviewed the boys...at 4:30 pm yesterday. I don't know what happened or what was said in that interview but I think David's point was that if it were anything of consequence the parents would be in custody right now.

I am still firmly on the parents innocent side of the fence but I have not yet taken down the ladder. This case is so ridiculously mucked up that I don't know whether i'm coming or going...who to believe...what's truth or spin...

Anyone good at researching things on the internet? I found an interesting link between two of the families from the "players' list" that I can't find anything much on. It's probably nothing but I can't let it go until I know for sure....

Happy Birthday Baby Lisa. I hope with all my heart you are safe, warm, fed and clothed. I hope someone has baked you a cake, and wrapped a present for you.

Michelle



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Michelle129th
 


They have interviewed the boys...at 4:30 pm yesterday. I don't know what happened or what was said in that interview but I think David's point was that if it were anything of consequence the parents would be in custody right now.

'Interview' was the wrong word - when not preceded by 'processed' - meaning, I can't imagine those boys being interviewed late in the evening and an arrest taking place before nightfall. For many reasons that should be blatantly obvious.

My point? 'Breaking' a 6/8 year old is out of line. The police have repeatedly stated they'll take great care interviewing those children.

To use a sensationalistic phrase such as 'break them' in conjunction with two children - also implying the police are unable to adequately interview children? That's absurd.

My gawd, if someone used the phrase 'break children' applying it to the parents? You people'd be birthing kittens.

peace
edit on 11-11-2011 by silo13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   
I said I was TRYING to give the KCPD the benefit of doubt. I have been trying. If it were easy it would not take effort like trying. It's getting harder and harder every day to give them the benefit of the doubt. I would say today that I don't know if I am giving them the benefit of the doubt. I was trying 2 and 3 weeks ago because I want to believe they know what they're doing and are using good judgment in what they're doing. Perhaps the FBI entered very early because they know the KCPD is unreliable , untrustworthy or incapable of doing it. It would be interesting to see in similar cases how quickly the FBI enters into it. Do they come in all missing children cases pretty quickly ? Or only after it appears the locals cannot handle it on their own. Once the fbi has entered, can we really say that KCPD is screwing it up now? Or would that blame go to FBI ? Or both? I mean in this country the FBI has the reputation of taking care of this sort of thing so once they enter and are still unable to find the baby what does that really mean? That she'll never be found? Or that the FBI's reputation is built on smoke and mirrors? I don't know the answers to these questions. If Lisa is never found then what does it mean the odds of finding another missing baby are? Again is it genius on the abductor's part or idiocy on the law enforcement part?

DAVID, as for what did mean by 'they were sure parents were involved' . What if 4 am on that morning when law enforcement arrived one of these things happened: A) one of the brothers said Lisa fell and didnt move again B) one f the brothers said Mom threw Lisa down C) one of the brothers said Lisa was in bed with us D) one of the neighbors said Deb came to our house saying OMG OMG Lisa's not moving/ breathing etc. E) Jeremy said Deb told me when she first woke up that Lisa was gone, she had given her to X person .. I mean on and on it goes. I kept wondering if initially something was said that made cops think parents are involved and they no longer felt abductor theory was valid. It could have been anything. I'm not saying that is what happened, but I guess I would like to think something like THIS is why cops have 'moved on' from intruder theories as opposed to them just finding no evidence of intruder.


To anyone who knows this answer.. I've heard much talk of this nearby river and wonder how far down stream does it empty into a larger river and does that river then empty into a larger river which empties into the Gulf of Mexico? Wondering how many miles of river that is and how many DAYS it would take for a body to travel it and go into ocean, in essence disappearing forever.........



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Michelle129th
 


They have interviewed the boys...at 4:30 pm yesterday. I don't know what happened or what was said in that interview but I think David's point was that if it were anything of consequence the parents would be in custody right now.

'Interview' was the wrong word - when not preceded by 'processed' - meaning, I can't imagine those boys being interviewed late in the evening and an arrest taking place before nightfall. For many reasons that should be blatantly obvious.

My point? 'Breaking' a 6/8 year old is out of line. The police have repeatedly stated they'll take great care interviewing those children.

To use a sensationalistic phrase such as 'break them' in conjunction with two children - also implying the police are unable to adequately interview children? That's absurd.

My gawd, if someone used the phrase 'break children' applying it to the parents? You people'd be birthing kittens.

peace
edit on 11-11-2011 by silo13 because: (no reason given)


I was not referring to the "breaking the kids" comment. I was replying to the fact that you stated the children hadn't been interviewed yet...that's all. How did I get lumped into the "you people" category? And who are "us people"....way to generalize. I didn't use that phrase, nor do I agree with it.

The reports state that the children were interviewed from 4:30 - 7:30 and then the children were taken to a family member's home and the Irwins and their lawyer returned to the home they are staying at. Whether or not the children said anything implying guilt to someone in particular, noone can say...nor do I even understand how a child's statement affects the case or ability to arrest someone ie: if kids did say "I saw mom do it..." I don't know if that could constitute immediate arrest of the mom or if t would still require more evidence.

Michelle



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   
OK woops, just read that post stating FBI was there the very first day? Now why would that be? It seems FBI comes in when there is a serial element to a crime ? Or is that just in the movies? If immediately there was evidence of some serial abudctor, then FBI would know and come in ASAP. Hmm, you bring up some good points.
However I do think if FBI thinks abductor and KCPD thinks intruder, FBI would shut them right down and continue on intruder investigation. Would they really care what KCPD thinks? I don't think it would alter the way FBI looks at the case.



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


Well right let's remember they've been attempting to re interview these boys for 3 or more weeks at this point. SO the lack of arrest and the boy's itnerviews are not related because they've wanted to talk to boys all this time. ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by silo13
 


Well right let's remember they've been attempting to re interview these boys for 3 or more weeks at this point. SO the lack of arrest and the boy's itnerviews are not related because they've wanted to talk to boys all this time. ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!


But do remember (and of course we've all realized that we need to take msm and the family's lawyers with a grain of salt) that the family had consented to an interview as far back as nov 1 but the FBI asked for it to be delayed. Of course the family should've allowed the boys to be interviewed long ago...but everyone was going crazy saying the parents were hiding something when some of that blame lays at the feet of the FBI. If they really thought those boys had something important to say, I'd think they'd have thrown that woman on a plane STAT and got her down to KC. The boys were interviewed in the very beginning and perhaps LE got absolutely nothing from that interview and knew it was a dead end....but had hoped they remembered something with a bit of time passing and then the whole thing just fell apart.

Michelle



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Or maybe they are hoping that the boys have heard something SINCE then in the home that might give them some idea. Poor boys. I feel so bad for them. I hope they are as content and still in this tornado as possible. I hope they get to play with their friends and just climb a tree and be boys !



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
Or maybe they are hoping that the boys have heard something SINCE then in the home that might give them some idea. Poor boys. I feel so bad for them. I hope they are as content and still in this tornado as possible. I hope they get to play with their friends and just climb a tree and be boys !


AHA, that's a good thought too...maybe overheard the parents talking about it or whatever. And I agree that those poor boys are as much victim as anyone in this case. I wonder what they go through at school...

Michelle



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dav1d


Non-Family Child Abductions

It’s a fearsome thought: a child snatched by a stranger. Who investigates these crimes? We do. It’s our job to handle cases of child abductions, often working closely with state and local law enforcement.

In 1932, Congress gave the FBI jurisdiction under the “Lindbergh Law” to immediately investigate any reported mysterious disappearance or kidnapping involving a child of “tender age”—usually 12 or younger. And just to be clear, before we get involved there does NOT have to be a ransom demand and the child does NOT have to cross state lines or be missing for 24 hours.

www.fbi.gov...

So Lisa is under 12
It is alledged that she was abducted by a non family member.
It's pretty clear that the FBI has jurisdiction here. Google on FBI and CARD for more.


I see, no need to google anything, you listed a nice link with your quote. I guess it does lean toward what I was hinting at, maybe the local police are not "running the show" and are taking their direction from the FBI. Would explain so what why the police seem to not be going all out on it.


So Picerno states that the boys will be interview this week. Then Capt. Steve Young states that there is no interview schelude this week, in direct response to the statement that there is an interview scheluded for this week. Only one of these statements can be true, and less than 48 hours later we know who spoke the truth, and who didn't.
It is pretty clear what Capt. Steve Young is. One has to wonder, at just why the KCPD wants to sully the families reputation.


If you go back to my edit in my quote, you will see that I stated Michelle listed the link to the Lawyers media release, so basically the local police could have NOT known about the interview and could have been told at the last minute. So the *bridge* at sullying the family must not connect well, maybe it is like a bridge in Alaska we hear about.




We have a special forensics expert going up against a six and an eight year old, and judging by the lack of an arrest unable to break a six or an eight year old.... One would assume that the special forensics expert with more than ten years of experience, would be one of the FBI better experts... Actions often speak louder than words, and we are at five weeks, with no arrest....
We are at five weeks of giving LE the benefit of doubt...
Just whom is suppose to be held to a higher standard here?
Just whom is suppose to be innocent until PROVEN guilty here?
Is it really LE that is suppose to be given the benefit of doubt, time and time again?


Interesting, I wouldn't call it giving the benefit of the doubt, but with so little evidence either way, the *unbiased observer has to look at all aspects, not just hone in on the police. It is just as bad to hone in on the parents or on the neighbors and stick with it.

Breaking a six year old? So I gather there are links to this that the FBI flew in a specialist to "break the brothers". Google for me please as I can't find this statement out there. I guess there must not be any way that the FBI brought in the specialist because the specialist may be the best at interviewing children, to leave little doubt, and to not have to interview the children again. I would imagine that even if the FBI did find something out within this interview, they would be cautious to react.

You are correct, actions often do speak louder than words. To find the truth, you need to look at both

IWOH



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Michelle129th
 


But would that be illegal? A husband cannot be forced to testify against his wife. She is not his wife, so does the same apply? I would agree they are common l aw married EXCEPT she is legally married to someone else, so I wonder how that rule of law would apply. It seems like it might be illegal or unethical to askt he boys what mom and dad have been saying to each other that they might have overheard.

Today's baby Lisa's birthday ! I hope she is at peace and not in pain and smiling and cooing wherever she is.



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by IwasOnceHappy
 


I agree the term ' breaking the kids ' I don't agree with. That would imply that the kids themselves have something to hide and are somehow withholdign evidence. What kind of knowledge might they have? David
you inadvertently just threw the folks under the bus ! LOL the only things the boys could know that might need to be 'broken' out of them would be covering for their parents !



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 94  95  96    98  99  100 >>

log in

join