What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Making A Murderer (Netflix) (Spoilers) (3 Viewers)

If Steve wanted the jury to hear that Teresa had left the property after they talked he should have got on the stand and said that.

Even so, as it was, the bone fragments were acknowledged throughout the trial as possibly being human and the defense was free to speculate on the what possibilities that might suggest.  They definitely hit on the possibility that she was killed/burned elsewhere and the bones transported to Steven's pit/burn barrels.   :shrug:
I don't think that is correct. I guess maybe to a minimal degree. But they were not allowed to speculate if it involved implicating anyone other than SA. They lost the right to do so in pre-trial hearing. Perhaps THAT would have been the time to do that. But hindsight is 20/20, it's easy for us to say that now, knowing everything we know. 

 
I get that because of new tests possibilities NOW...they want a new trial.....heck what convicted prisoner wouldn't want to try to have their evidence tested with the new advancements in technology if they thought it could change things...?....

I mean when does that clock stop ticking....let's say the bones are in tact and there is a new round of testing....but they again can't prove they are TH's....can they wait for even more technological advances 10 years from now and do it all over again......
Surely you've seen the little of convicts exonerated by DNA testing after having spent years, decades even in prison for crimes they didn't commit.  Why should the clock ever stop ticking for someone when courts across the country have shown the ability to put innocent people in prison over and over.

 
I don't think that is correct. I guess maybe to a minimal degree. But they were not allowed to speculate if it involved implicating anyone other than SA. They lost the right to do so in pre-trial hearing. Perhaps THAT would have been the time to do that. But hindsight is 20/20, it's easy for us to say that now, knowing everything we know. 
They were allowed to speculate and suggest alternative theories, they just weren't allowed to suggest anyone by name without satisfying the Denny rule.  Zellner will have to satisfy Denny as well if it were ever to go back to court. 

 
Surely you've seen the little of convicts exonerated by DNA testing after having spent years, decades even in prison for crimes they didn't commit.  Why should the clock ever stop ticking for someone when courts across the country have shown the ability to put innocent people in prison over and over.
never said it should stop ticking.....was really just a crazy thought in the back of my mind thinking about the logistics of storing all evidence from all these cases....forever..

 
Surely you've seen the little of convicts exonerated by DNA testing after having spent years, decades even in prison for crimes they didn't commit.  Why should the clock ever stop ticking for someone when courts across the country have shown the ability to put innocent people in prison over and over.
Samples have to be maintained, not every bit of evidence.  People do have a right to bury their loved ones at some point without having to get a murderer's permission.  

 
They were allowed to speculate and suggest alternative theories, they just weren't allowed to suggest anyone by name without satisfying the Denny rule.  Zellner will have to satisfy Denny as well if it were ever to go back to court. 
wow...just looked up the Denny thing...that is kind of huge....and it sounds like it is only a WIS thing...

 
They were allowed to speculate and suggest alternative theories, they just weren't allowed to suggest anyone by name without satisfying the Denny rule.  Zellner will have to satisfy Denny as well if it were ever to go back to court. 
Yes, Denny, thanks, couldn't remember the name and too lazy to look it up. 

I've lost track of what exactly you're arguing here, tbh, with all the back and forth. 

 
I'm pretty sure the violent pron of women being tortured and violated that was found on Bobby Dassey's computer (that was withheld from the trial by the prosecution), as well as the computer being evidence that Bobby lied in his testimony, is enough to satisfy the Denny law, even if it's not enough to prosecute him for the murder. Especially since Bobby was a key witness in their case to against Steve. At the very least, Bobby's testimony should have been stricken from the record and not considered by the jury. The jury ruled against Steve and had considered Bobby's testimony in their ruling.

Bobby claimed in his testimony that he slept in until 2 pm that day, just before Teresa's arrival. His computer shows however that he had been accessing those violent porn files of women being tortured and violate all that morning. So according to the laptop his testimony contains lies. Steve claimed that he met Teresa at her car, they did their business and she drove away. But Bobby testified to the jury that he saw Teresa go to Steve's trailer before he left. Given he lied about being asleep until 2 pm, this testimony should not be any evidence of what happened between Teresa and Steve. 

The defense tried during the trial to introduce Bobby as a suspect, but we're denied due to lack of motive, as at the time they did not know that Bobby had been such a collector of violent porn and been watching it all that morning. His violent porn watching behavior is more than enough evidence to establish a motive and be introduced as a possible suspect and how he could have done it. 

 
Not according to the law.
968.205  Preservation of certain evidence.

Quote
(2) Except as provided in sub. (3), if physical evidence that is in the possession of a law enforcement agency includes any biological material that was collected in connection with a criminal investigation that resulted in a criminal conviction, delinquency adjudication, or commitment under s. 971.17 or 980.06 and the biological material is from a victim of the offense that was the subject of the criminal investigation or may reasonably be used to incriminate or exculpate any person for the offense, the law enforcement agency shall preserve the physical evidence until every person in custody as a result of the conviction, adjudication, or commitment has reached his or her discharge date.

968.205(2m) A law enforcement agency shall retain evidence to which sub. (2) applies in an amount and manner sufficient to develop a deoxyribonucleic acid profile, as defined in s. 939.74 (2d) (a), from the biological material contained in or included on the evidence.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/968.205

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Samples have to be maintained, not every bit of evidence.  People do have a right to bury their loved ones at some point without having to get a murderer's permission.  
The prosecution said they weren't her remains.  "We are so sorry about the loss of your daughter.  Here are some random bones that aren't hers to console you"

 
(2) Except as provided in sub. (3), if physical evidence that is in the possession of a law enforcement agency includes any biological material that was collected in connection with a criminal investigation that resulted in a criminal conviction, delinquency adjudication, or commitment under s. 971.17 or 980.06 and the biological material is from a victim of the offense that was the subject of the criminal investigation or may reasonably be used to incriminate or exculpate any person for the offense, the law enforcement agency shall preserve the physical evidence until every person in custody as a result of the conviction, adjudication, or commitment has reached his or her discharge date.

968.205(2m) A law enforcement agency shall retain evidence to which sub. (2) applies in an amount and manner sufficient to develop a deoxyribonucleic acid profile, as defined in s. 939.74 (2d) (a), from the biological material contained in or included on the evidence.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/968.205

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, and subsection 2m describes the "amount and manner"of that evidence to be preserved.   There's no reason to go into "amount" if it all has to be preserved.  

 
Yes, and subsection 2m describes the "amount and manner"of that evidence to be preserved.   There's no reason to go into "amount" if it all has to be preserved.  
So the state still has samples of the bones from the gravel pit that they positively identified as THs?

 
So the state still has samples of the bones from the gravel pit that they positively identified as THs?
Nothing from the gravel pit was ever "positively identified as THs".  I'm not sure what the state has samples of or not.  I would think it's certainly possible that they disposed of material that was never proven to have any connection to the victim, the accused, or the crime scene.  Does that mean you didn't claim the law says something that it doesn't say?  

 
Nothing from the gravel pit was ever "positively identified as THs".  I'm not sure what the state has samples of or not.  I would think it's certainly possible that they disposed of material that was never proven to have any connection to the victim, the accused, or the crime scene.  Does that mean you didn't claim the law says something that it doesn't say?  
They didn't dispose of it. 

 
Nothing from the gravel pit was ever "positively identified as THs".  I'm not sure what the state has samples of or not.  I would think it's certainly possible that they disposed of material that was never proven to have any connection to the victim, the accused, or the crime scene.  Does that mean you didn't claim the law says something that it doesn't say?  
They gave the Hallbach family everything they had in storage with the label "human remains." If they didn't believe it to be human remains, there was no reason to give it to the Hallbachs.  If it was human remains, it (or a sample) needed to be kept.  I find it highly unlikely they gave it to the Hallbachs because they didn't think it was human remains but thought it would give the family comfort.

 
They gave the Hallbach family everything they had in storage with the label "human remains." If they didn't believe it to be human remains, there was no reason to give it to the Hallbachs.  If it was human remains, it (or a sample) needed to be kept.  I find it highly unlikely they gave it to the Hallbachs because they didn't think it was human remains but thought it would give the family comfort.
They gave it to the Halbach family because they knew it was possible that it was Teresa's remains. There's no other reason for them to do it. 

 
They gave it to the Halbach family because they knew it was possible that it was Teresa's remains. There's no other reason for them to do it. 
If I'm reading parrot's argument correctly, he is saying that there is no way to know if the remains from the gravel pit were TH's, but the Halbachs should get the bones from the gravel pit because at some point victims' families have the right to bury their loved ones.

These are conflicting arguments.

 
If I'm reading parrot's argument correctly, he is saying that there is no way to know if the remains from the gravel pit were TH's, but the Halbachs should get the bones from the gravel pit because at some point victims' families have the right to bury their loved ones.

These are conflicting arguments.
Yes, they are.

But I don't think he realizes that.

 
I'm pretty sure the violent pron of women being tortured and violated that was found on Bobby Dassey's computer (that was withheld from the trial by the prosecution), as well as the computer being evidence that Bobby lied in his testimony, is enough to satisfy the Denny law, even if it's not enough to prosecute him for the murder. Especially since Bobby was a key witness in their case to against Steve. At the very least, Bobby's testimony should have been stricken from the record and not considered by the jury. The jury ruled against Steve and had considered Bobby's testimony in their ruling.

Bobby claimed in his testimony that he slept in until 2 pm that day, just before Teresa's arrival. His computer shows however that he had been accessing those violent porn files of women being tortured and violate all that morning. So according to the laptop his testimony contains lies. Steve claimed that he met Teresa at her car, they did their business and she drove away. But Bobby testified to the jury that he saw Teresa go to Steve's trailer before he left. Given he lied about being asleep until 2 pm, this testimony should not be any evidence of what happened between Teresa and Steve. 

The defense tried during the trial to introduce Bobby as a suspect, but we're denied due to lack of motive, as at the time they did not know that Bobby had been such a collector of violent porn and been watching it all that morning. His violent porn watching behavior is more than enough evidence to establish a motive and be introduced as a possible suspect and how he could have done it. 
Did I miss something....did Bobby get charged with perjury?

 
They gave the Hallbach family everything they had in storage with the label "human remains." If they didn't believe it to be human remains, there was no reason to give it to the Hallbachs.  If it was human remains, it (or a sample) needed to be kept.  I find it highly unlikely they gave it to the Hallbachs because they didn't think it was human remains but thought it would give the family comfort.
Can you link where  you saw your first sentence....the human remains thing.

 
Did I miss something....did Bobby get charged with perjury?
From: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/making-a-murderer-lawyer-claims-violent-porn-scratches-implicate-dasseys-brother-murder-697336/

According to prosecutors, Bobby, who was home alone, was the last person to see Halbach alive; but he also testified that he was asleep all morning and didn’t wake up until 2pm, shortly before Halbach’s arrival. Zellner claims that the laptop evidence shows that the Internet was accessed repeatedly over the course of the morning, and therefore it could have been used by Avery’s defense to impeach his credibility.

 
The bones were tested....but it could not be confirmed to be TH’s....TH’s family was probably grasping for anything they could for closure....because it couldn’t be confirmed....maybe TH’s family thought there was a chance that it could be....even if it wasnt able to be confirmed....so something was better than nothing....as close to closure as they were going to be able to get....

its really not that hard to see why they would ask for them.....

 
The bones were tested....but it could not be confirmed to be TH’s....TH’s family was probably grasping for anything they could for closure....because it couldn’t be confirmed....maybe TH’s family thought there was a chance that it could be....even if it wasnt able to be confirmed....so something was better than nothing....as close to closure as they were going to be able to get....

its really not that hard to see why they would ask for them.....
It's not the asking that's the issue.

It's that the county found reason to agree to do it that is. 

If they thought it was impossible that they belong to Teresa, then the request would be denied, just like it would if you or I asked for them.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’ll ask again....did he get charged with perjury.....?  If its proven you lied under oath you get charged with perjury, I have not seen that yet. So until that happens there is nothing to see with the Bobby stuff. It’s really not fair to say he lied until it is actually the case.
Let Avery have a retrial so it can be proven. 

 
It's not the asking that's the issue.

It's that the county found reason to agree to do that is. 

If they thought it was impossible that they belong to Teresa, then the request would be denied, just like it would if you or I asked for them.  
I have agreed they messed up giving it away without asking.....and I realize thats the issue...I am simply trying to explain why they may have asked and why it may have been given to them.....even though it shouldn’t have.....your comments above were things like “it was given to them because they (the prosecution/state) knew they could possibly be TH’s....there is no other reason for it”

I’m simply saying there is a very reasonable reason for it......even though they shouldn’t have done it...

 
I have agreed they messed up giving it away without asking.....and I realize thats the issue...I am simply trying to explain why they may have asked and why it may have been given to them.....even though it shouldn’t have.....your comments above were things like “it was given to them because they (the prosecution/state) knew they could possibly be TH’s....there is no other reason for it”

I’m simply saying there is a very reasonable reason for it......even though they shouldn’t have done it...
The possibility that they might be Teresa is a reasonable reason, I agree. That's the entire point. 

 
The possibility that they might be Teresa is a reasonable reason, I agree. That's the entire point. 
Lets not beat around the bush...you are implying the family was given (whatever the bones were) on purpose to try and get rid of evidence you think the state thinks could be tested sometime in the future by new technology and assist in leading to the release of Avery....correct?

 
Lets not beat around the bush...you are implying the family was given (whatever the bones were) on purpose to try and get rid of evidence you think the state thinks could be tested sometime in the future by new technology and assist in leading to the release of Avery....correct?
Not at all.

I'm saying if i asked for them, I would be denied, because in the eyes of the county I have no reasonable claim to them.

Likewise, if you asked for them, you would be denied, because in the eyes of the county you have no reasonable claim to them.

But the Halbach family request for them was approved, because in the eyes of the county, the Halbach family has a reasonable claim to them because it's possible they are Teresa. If it was impossible that they are Teresa, the request would be denied as they have no reasonable claim to them. 

 
Not at all.

I'm saying if i asked for them, I would be denied, because in the eyes of the county I have no reasonable claim to them.

Likewise, if you asked for them, you would be denied, because in the eyes of the county you have no reasonable claim to them.

But the Halbach family request for them was approved, because in the eyes of the county, the Halbach family has a reasonable claim to them because it's possible they are Teresa. If it was impossible that they are Teresa, the request would be denied as they have no reasonable claim to them. 
They were tested and it was impossible to determine if they were TH’s, mine, yours, my dead grand parents, a skunk, a deer, etc....in fact it wasn’t even possible to determine that any of them were for sure even human....

I could reasonably see TH’s family asking even though they knew they would never know.....they were told “it can not be determined” they were not told “its not”.....so thats how desperate they may have been to grasp to something and any sense of closure....

I can also reasonably see their request granted under those circumstances for the family and the fact that the bones had been tested and the conclusion was that they were not going to be able to provide any further benefit.....

agreed they should have asked....I guess....if thats the law/protocol....but I can reasonably see why the request was made and why it was granted without it being some conspiracy....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
They were tested and it was impossible to determine if they were TH’s, mine, yours, my dead grand parents, etc....in fact it wasn’t even possible to determine that any of them were for sure even human....

I could reasonably see TH’s family asking even though they knew they would never know.....they were told “it can not be determined” they were not told “its not”.....so thats how desperate they may have been to grasp to something and any sense of closure....

I can also reasonably see their request granted under those circumstances for the family and the fact that the bones had been tested and the conclusion was that they were not going to be able to provide any further benefit.....

agreed they should have asked....I guess....if thats the law/protocol....but I can reasonably see why the request was made and why it was granted without it being some conspiracy....
Who's claiming a conspiracy? Link?

 
Can you link where  you saw your first sentence....the human remains thing.
Could be misreading the section (the exhibits weren't included in the link Jessep posted) but it is all in the "THe State's Illegal Transmittal of the Bones to the Hallbach Family" section, 13th page of the pdf, page 9.

It doesn't specifically say they gave all human bones to the family, that detail I guess is in the exhibit.  But they did remove all human bones from evidence and gave at least some of those t the family, and at least some of those bones came from the gravel pit (look for references to Exhibit 15).

 
Could be misreading the section (the exhibits weren't included in the link Jessep posted) but it is all in the "THe State's Illegal Transmittal of the Bones to the Hallbach Family" section, 13th page of the pdf, page 9.

It doesn't specifically say they gave all human bones to the family, that detail I guess is in the exhibit.  But they did remove all human bones from evidence and gave at least some of those t the family, and at least some of those bones came from the gravel pit (look for references to Exhibit 15).
yeah didn't think so.....when speaking of the "gravel pit" bones....the use of the words "human remains" is way off base here.....as is even using the words "human bones".....they were not able to determine if any of the bones were even in fact....human....

 
yeah didn't think so.....when speaking of the "gravel pit" bones....the use of the words "human remains" is way off base here.....as is even using the words "human bones".....they were not able to determine if any of the bones were even in fact....human....
:shrug: You're arguing in circles, and I can't tell if it is purposefully or unintentionally, but either way I'm out.

 
If I'm reading parrot's argument correctly, he is saying that there is no way to know if the remains from the gravel pit were TH's, but the Halbachs should get the bones from the gravel pit because at some point victims' families have the right to bury their loved ones.

These are conflicting arguments.
Nope.  I never said they "should" go to the Halbachs.  I said it's understandable that they did go to the Halbachs since there was always the possibility that they did belong to Teresa.  I also think it would have been understandable if they had not gone to the Halbachs since it was never established as fact that they did belong to Teresa.  Those are different concepts, "possibility" and "established as fact".  And acting on a possibility doesn't mean it is established as fact.

My comments about burying loved ones weren't even really about the specifics of this case as much as a response to the absurd assertion that in general at no point do loved ones have any right to any of the the biological remains without a murderer signing off on it.  That's not how the law works and I quoted an applicable law to demonstrate that point. 

To be crystal clear: I think the Halbachs had a right to the remains identified as Teresa's provided any relevant samples were retained.  I don't feel they had a right to the quarry bones since they were never proven to be remains, but I don't think it's a huge transgression that they were presented with them in an 'err on the side of caution' move either. 

Those are my ACTUAL arguments.  I've ELI5'ed them as hard as I can.  Feel free to comment on them. 

Otherwise please see that the remains of the poor strawmen get back to their families when you guys are done with them.   And hey, have a great weekend.  :thumbup:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
They gave the Hallbach family everything they had in storage with the label "human remains." If they didn't believe it to be human remains, there was no reason to give it to the Hallbachs.  If it was human remains, it (or a sample) needed to be kept.  I find it highly unlikely they gave it to the Hallbachs because they didn't think it was human remains but thought it would give the family comfort.
you made this post above.....

call it circles all you want ....but had to question your choice of words....the gravel pit bones should not be referred to as human remains....using those words makes it sound like it was a done deal for sure thing about what was given to the Halbach's and why....you can't just misrepresent things like that in a back and forth discussion and not expect to be called out...

 
https://www.wbay.com/content/news/Wisconsin-AG-responds-to-Steven-Averys-request-for-a-new-trial-507961461.html

MANITOWOC COUNTY, Wis. (WBAY) - Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul says Steven Avery's motion for a new trial "must be denied."

Avery is appealing his 2007 conviction for 1st Degree Intentional Homicide in the murder of Teresa Halbach. The case is the subject of Netflix series "Making A Murderer."

http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/states+response+to+avery+motion.pdf

On March 29, the state's top prosecutor filed his response to Avery's motion for a new trial based on alleged violations of Arizona v. Youngblood. Avery's attorney, Kathleen Zellner, says violations occurred when bone fragments found in a Manitowoc County quarry were handed over to the Halbach family without informing Avery.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55203379e4b08b1328203a7d/t/5c87c4778165f5f51a473885/1552401531135/Dkt.+1000+-+Supp+§+974.06+motion.pdf

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rjrcss9f9nknrke/AADhQgmBlC7jRfO_Uy8bcnhMa?dl=0

"Any claim for a new trial premised upon the failure to previously test the bone fragments or the alleged improper disposition of certain bone fragment evidence is barred because the claims could have been raised previously on several occasions," reads Kaul's response.

Kaul also questions the "usefulness" of the evidence found in the quarry.

http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/states+exhibits+in+Avery+case.pdf

"The potential usefulness of the evidence found in the quarry is debatable. While trial counsel made use of the State’s inability to discern whether the fragments recovered from the quarry were human. Avery fails to show how a definitive determination the fragments were human is material to his most recent theory that Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych are the real perpetrators. Avery fails to establish how a definitive determination would establish a reasonable probability of a different outcome," reads the response.

Kaul also says Rapid DNA Identification is not "authorized or approved for forensic use and therefore cannot be used to test the forensic samples at issue in this claim."

Zellner has requested to use Rapid DNA technology to test the quarry bones. She believes new tests would prove those are Halbach's bones -- undermining the prosecution's case that Avery killed Teresa Halbach and destroyed her remains in a burn pit on his property, and proof, she says, that Halbach's bones in Avery's burn pit were planted.

Zellner says the State of Wisconsin "spent an enormous amount of time and effort perpetrating a fraud upon Steven Avery's jury" during his 2007 trial for 1st Degree Intentional Homicide. Zellner claims that the state "created a narrative that Teresa Halbach was murdered in Mr. Avery's garage and burned in his burn pit."

The state handed the gravel pit remains over to the Halbach family in 2011

"The State, by its actions in returning Manitowoc Gravel Pit bones to the Halbach family in 2011, has implicitly admitted that the bones were not only human but that they belonged to Ms. Halbach," reads Zellner's motion.

The motion claims the State of Wisconsin violated Youngblood v. Arizona when it returned the bones to the Halbach family but failed to inform Steven Avery about it.

Zellner also states that Special Prosecutor Ken Kratz concealed that there were gravel pit bone fragments.

 
Catching up and this just came up in another podcast I'm listening to. It was a case in California, in which the accused wanted to claim that his (deceased) brother actually committed the crime while wearing his jacket. He was forbidden by the judge from making this argument because he did not meet the burden of proof required in California to raise a "Third Party Culpability" defense. 

Basically in a trial in CA you're only allowed to dispute the proof against you, and can't raise the subject of another person having done the crime as a reasonable doubt, unless you have sufficient proof that the other person actually did it.

It appears that the threshold is in different places in different states.
As I understand it, the Denny requirements are motive, opportunity, and some demonstrable connection to the crime. 

That's the problem with Zellner trying to point the finger at Bobby Dassey.  She can show all the porn on his computer she wants, but until there is something tangible connecting him to the actual crime his name can't be raised in court.  

 
As I understand it, the Denny requirements are motive, opportunity, and some demonstrable connection to the crime. 

That's the problem with Zellner trying to point the finger at Bobby Dassey.  She can show all the porn on his computer she wants, but until there is something tangible connecting him to the actual crime his name can't be raised in court.  
The motive they used for Steve is that he was obsessed with her. The motive they now have for Bobby (which they did not have evidence of during the trial) is that he is obsessed with violent porn. The motive for Bobby is actually stronger than Steve's in regards to what happened to her. 

Bobby and Steve were the last two people to see Teresa alive. So they both meet the "opportunity". 

The demonstrable connection for Steve is that the evidence is she was burned on his property and her car was also found there. But if her car left the property and her body was burned off the property, then Bobby has a demonstrable connection given he was known to have left the Avery property at the same time she was last seen by anyone. 

So yes, the Denny requirements are met. Just need a new trial to introduce them. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As I understand it, the Denny requirements are motive, opportunity, and some demonstrable connection to the crime. 

That's the problem with Zellner trying to point the finger at Bobby Dassey.  She can show all the porn on his computer she wants, but until there is something tangible connecting him to the actual crime his name can't be raised in court.  
He testified as to his connection to the crime.  He was there when she was.  This is a quote directly from State v. Denny.

Thus, as long as motive and opportunity have been shown and as long as there is also some evidence to directly connect a third person to the crime charged which is not remote in time, place or circumstances, the evidence should be admissible. By illustration, where it is shown that a third person not only had the motive and opportunity to commit the crime but also was placed in such proximity to the crime as to show he may have been the guilty party, the evidence would be admissible.
And, of course, remains of the victim were found on Dassey's family property in a burn barrel owned by the family.  I don't think it should be hard to satisfy the general tendency test if the evidence is allowed.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top