Blood on the Wall

beesy · Dec 12, 2005

I think this got lost in the muck on the other thread, so I thought I'd just re-post it.

Originally Posted by Goody

As I recall, there was testimony about the blood on that wall being from the second attack on Damon. I don't recall what the testimony was in detail though or who gave it

Click to expand...

I think I remember that it was low-velocity spatter indicative of someone bleeding and running. So it had to be Darlie's right? Maybe that's the blood found near the door though.
__________________

Desilu · Dec 13, 2005

Hmm I don't believe I've seen pictures of the wall. Is it in MTJD?

SnootyVixen · Dec 13, 2005

Post by Goody:
As I recall, there was testimony about the blood on that wall being from the second attack on Damon. I don't recall what the testimony was in detail though or who gave it

But I thought that the prosecutors did not ever think of two attacks occuring. If that is true how could there be testimony like this? This is confusing to me. I thought that the trial testimony was about only one attack on the child. and that the two attack came from the internet forums only as theory to make timeline fit.

beesy · Dec 13, 2005

SnootyVixen said:
But I thought that the prosecutors did not ever think of two attacks occuring. If that is true how could there be testimony like this? This is confusing to me. I thought that the trial testimony was about only one attack on the child. and that the two attack came from the internet forums only as theory to make timeline fit.

Oh, bullpoopy, what timeline? Explain your timeline to me. Account for all those minutes that Damon remained alive. Doesn't Darlie guess(since she can't remember) that the boys were attacked before she was? The clock starts ticking before she wakes up then. She follows the intruder, calls 911 and Damon still lives for about another 6 minutes. The coroner in the trial testimony estimated that Damon could have lived about 8-10 mins. after his fatal wound. Fit all of that into Darlie's story. Are you saying the coroner was wrong? That Damon lived longer than that after his fatal wound? Those of us who believe in the 2nd attack theory are not the ones making things up. We are using medical evidence plus some good old common sense. Don't weasle out of it Snooty, explain how Damon lived longer than the coroner stated. Or if you believe the coroner, explain how Darlie squeezed all those things into 8-10 mins. Darlie has no idea how long after the boys were attacked that she was attacked or how long it was before Damon woke her up. Right? She claims not to remember the attack so how could she know how long it took? So, let's see, I'll give you some time. Start with Damon waking Darlie up. You still run out of time even with all the minutes I'm giving you...so go... Tick tock tick...

SnootyVixen · Dec 13, 2005

beesy said:
Oh, bullpoopy, what timeline? Explain your timeline to me. Account for all those minutes that Damon remained alive. Doesn't Darlie guess(since she can't remember) that the boys were attacked before she was? The clock starts ticking before she wakes up then. She follows the intruder, calls 911 and Damon still lives for about another 6 minutes. The coroner in the trial testimony estimated that Damon could have lived about 8-10 mins. after his fatal wound. Fit all of that into Darlie's story. Are you saying the coroner was wrong? That Damon lived longer than that after his fatal wound? Those of us who believe in the 2nd attack theory are not the ones making things up. We are using medical evidence plus some good old common sense. Don't weasle out of it Snooty, explain how Damon lived longer than the coroner stated. Or if you believe the coroner, explain how Darlie squeezed all those things into 8-10 mins. Darlie has no idea how long after the boys were attacked that she was attacked or how long it was before Damon woke her up. Right? She claims not to remember the attack so how could she know how long it took? So, let's see, I'll give you some time. Start with Damon waking Darlie up. You still run out of time even with all the minutes I'm giving you...so go... Tick tock tick...

Beesy it was not I who made the timeline. It was posted here from another board and it was done by JonGalt some years ago. That is the timeline I was meaning. She was the first person to suggest 2 attacks I think. I do not recall hearing that before she say it. But that even is not the point I was making with my own post.

Here is my point. Someone say that there was trial testimony about the blood on the wall having come from Damon being stabbed during a second attack. All I say is that the prosecutor never did say or claim there was a second attack. They say only one. So how could there be trial testimony that the blood on the wall come from a second attack?

I am not desiring to involve myself in the talk of timelines and how long he could live (beyond what the coroner say about this). It is good that some of you like to do this but it is just not something that I do. I just admit that I don't know these things and do not get involved in discussions about it.

beesy · Dec 13, 2005

SnootyVixen said:
Beesy it was not I who made the timeline. It was posted here from another board and it was done by JonGalt some years ago. That is the timeline I was meaning. She was the first person to suggest 2 attacks I think. I do not recall hearing that before she say it. But that even is not the point I was making with my own post.

Click to expand...

I know you didn't create the timeline. I was talking about the one which the Darlies use. I want you to tell me how the murders occured. Give me a theory. That's what we're here for. I am not talking about the one JonGalt uses. As a matter of fact, I don't even know her. I have never seen her timeline until Desilu posted it the other day. You seem not to understand that I can think on my own. I am asking you nicely, do not tell me that I am getting my theories from someone else without thinking about on my own, do not insinuate it, do not refer to it in any manner. It's becoming rather old.

Here is my point. Someone say that there was trial testimony about the blood on the wall having come from Damon being stabbed during a second attack. All I say is that the prosecutor never did say or claim there was a second attack. They say only one. So how could there be trial testimony that the blood on the wall come from a second attack

Click to expand...

If that was your only point, why say the 2nd attack theory was just found on forums, as if it's some type of urban legend? I do not think a single one of us here believes something just because they heard it. Many people who know Darlie is guilty do not believe in it. You do not need the 2nd attack theory for Darlie to be guilty. As far as there being trial testimony about it, I don't know. Dani and Goody were discussing this on the thread which Jeana closed. If I didn't have questions about the blood on the wall myself, I wouldn't have started this thread. I remembered that it was spatter indicative of someone running and bleeding.

I am not desiring to involve myself in the talk of timelines and how long he could live (beyond what the coroner say about this). It is good that some of you like to do this but it is just not something that I do. I just admit that I don't know these things and do not get involved in discussions about it.

Click to expand...

Good for you. First time I've seen you admit you don't know what you are talking about. Give yourself a pat on the back. I knew you couldn't do it. You know why? Because it can't be done.
As I said before, those of us who believe in the 2 attack theory are using forensics, not black magic, but science. The 2 attack theory is just explaining the mechanics of the murders, it does not turn Darlie into the killer all by itself. You do not seem to understand that. No matter how she did it or how long it took her, in the end, she killed those boys. A theory is not something which needs to be backed up with trial testimony. I am not presenting it as a fact. I think it makes sense and I think it fits the evidence. My opinion, nothing more.

Goody · Dec 14, 2005

SnootyVixen said:
Post by Goody:
As I recall, there was testimony about the blood on that wall being from the second attack on Damon. I don't recall what the testimony was in detail though or who gave it

But I thought that the prosecutors did not ever think of two attacks occuring. If that is true how could there be testimony like this? This is confusing to me. I thought that the trial testimony was about only one attack on the child. and that the two attack came from the internet forums only as theory to make timeline fit.

The second attack on Damon was presented in the closing statements. I don't remember exactly how it came up otherwise, but I do recall the state saying that when Damon tried to get away from her, she chased him down and stabbed him again. You might want to go back to the transcripts because the boy had to get from where he was first attacked to where he ended up somehow. The only thing we can be sure of is that he was not up walking around with his lungs filling up with blood. And there is no evidence he was carried.

Goody · Dec 14, 2005

SnootyVixen said:
Here is my point. Someone say that there was trial testimony about the blood on the wall having come from Damon being stabbed during a second attack. All I say is that the prosecutor never did say or claim there was a second attack. They say only one. So how could there be trial testimony that the blood on the wall come from a second attack?

You will have to go back and check if you want to be absolutely sure but there is testimony about the blood on the wall and the second attack is part of the state's theory at trial. If you recall, the state had many theories at trial rather than one single one. It got confusing but they do not have to show every step taken in the course of the murder. They only have to show that the defendant committed the murder. I don't know how you could have missed it.

beesy · Dec 14, 2005

Goody said:
The second attack on Damon was presented in the closing statements. I don't remember exactly how it came up otherwise, but I do recall the state saying that when Damon tried to get away from her, she chased him down and stabbed him again. You might want to go back to the transcripts because the boy had to get from where he was first attacked to where he ended up somehow. The only thing we can be sure of is that he was not up walking around with his lungs filling up with blood. And there is no evidence he was carried.

Oh cool, they presented the 2nd attack theory? As you said, "Ah, vindication", not some crazy alien abduction story after all. :woohoo:
Wasn't there some blood evidence that he crawled(which is what I think he did), a bloody handprint and some bloody marks?

cami · Dec 14, 2005

SnootyVixen said:
Post by Goody:
As I recall, there was testimony about the blood on that wall being from the second attack on Damon. I don't recall what the testimony was in detail though or who gave it

But I thought that the prosecutors did not ever think of two attacks occuring. If that is true how could there be testimony like this? This is confusing to me. I thought that the trial testimony was about only one attack on the child. and that the two attack came from the internet forums only as theory to make timeline fit.

Yes they did, it's in closing arguments. As well you can take indicators from the testimony that leads to a second attack on Damon. The difference in the depth of his wounds, the cast-off blood on the wall, Damon's blood overlaying Darlie's on the back of her nightshirt. The bloody handprint on the carpet indicating he tried to rise.

SnootyVixen · Dec 14, 2005

beesy said:
I know you didn't create the timeline. I was talking about the one which the Darlies use.

I don't know of a timeline which the Darlies use. What are you talking about????[/COLOR]

I want you to tell me how the murders occured. Give me a theory. That's what we're here for.

That may be what you are here for but that does not mean that it applies to everyone who comes here to read or post. I have no interest at all in making up timelines or theories which everyone would know have no basis in reality at all. And I definately do not have a theory of why these murders happened or how. I suspect maybe you don't speak for everyone here. That is my theory.[/COLOR]

I am not talking about the one JonGalt uses. As a matter of fact, I don't even know her. I have never seen her timeline until Desilu posted it the other day.

If you don't know JonGalt then you must not have been around very long.

You seem not to understand that I can think on my own. I am asking you nicely, do not tell me that I am getting my theories from someone else without thinking about on my own, do not insinuate it, do not refer to it in any manner. It's becoming rather old.[/color]

SECTION DELETED BY DP

If that was your only point, why say the 2nd attack theory was just found on forums, as if it's some type of urban legend?

BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT IS. I HAVE TO SHOUT TO MAKE THIS HEARD IT APPEARS. THIS SECOND ATTACK THEORY WAS CREATED ON THE FORUMS AND WAS JUST FOUND ON THE FORUMS AND NO WHERE IN THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT IS IT TO BE FOUND. I DON'T CARE HOW MANY SAY IT IS THERE, I CHALLENGE THEM TO FIND IT AND POST IT HERE. BECAUSE IT IS NOT THERE. IT IS SOMETHING THAT WAS CREATED ON THE FORUMS. BUT I DO NOT THINK IT FITS THE DEFINATION OF A URBAN LEGEND.

I do not think a single one of us here believes something just because they heard it.

EDITED

Many people who know Darlie is guilty do not believe in it.
You do not need the 2nd attack theory for Darlie to be guilty. As far as there being trial testimony about it, I don't know.

Then maybe this is something you should be learning.

Dani and Goody were discussing this on the thread which Jeana closed. If I didn't have questions about the blood on the wall myself, I wouldn't have started this thread. I remembered that it was spatter indicative of someone running and bleeding.

EDITED BY DP
As I said before, those of us who believe in the 2 attack theory are using forensics, not black magic, but science.

This I do not believe. There is no forensics or science that indicates there was two attacks on Damon. Not any. There is a desire and need in people who have already decided their opinion of the case to make the timeing that the coroner gave in the trial fit with Darlie being the murderer and doing all the things they said she did. They said, the prosecutors, not just anyone. To fit what the prosecution said she did within the time that the coroner said the little boy could live. Unless you make up a story like this then it cannot be done. Do you think that perhaps this is why the prosecutor at trial did not come up with this theory? Because there was no forensics or science to support it? That is what I think. But then I am not here for entertainment but to learn if I can what happen.

The 2 attack theory is just explaining the mechanics of the murders, it does not turn Darlie into the killer all by itself. You do not seem to understand that. No matter how she did it or how long it took her, in the end, she killed those boys. A theory is not something which needs to be backed up with trial testimony. I am not presenting it as a fact. I think it makes sense and I think it fits the evidence. My opinion, nothing more.

You want to explain the mechanics of the murders then come up with some testimony that says the blood on the wall was cast off from a knife stabbing Damon a second time. I understand what a throey is and what an opinion is. But to come up with a theory that there was a second stabbing of Damon against the wall and admit that there was no cast off blood there seems strange to me. Theories and opinions should have a teeny bit of fact or evidence. At least that is my opinion and theory.

SnootyVixen · Dec 14, 2005

cami said:
Yes they did, it's in closing arguments.

I can not find it there. Can you give me a hint to the location in the volumes so that I cana read it? If it is there then I am wrong in asserting that it is there not.

As well you can take indicators from the testimony that leads to a second attack on Damon.

In my opinion the most usefullness of the testimony about this matter would be the testimony of the coroner who did his examination and looked at and measured his wounds. She did not ever say that there was evidence of two different stabbings. Only on the forums was that said.

One can read in the book by Barbara somebody that there was evidence of him dragging his body across the carpet. Where? I never did see this evidence?

The difference in the depth of his wounds, the cast-off blood on the wall,

I just finish a post where Beesy say there is no cast off blood on the wall. She say it is spatter from someone running. So how can this fit with a theory of seconc attack on Damon there. Where is this cast off blood?

Damon's blood overlaying Darlie's on the back of her nightshirt. The bloody handprint on the carpet indicating he tried to rise.

A more simple solution to the question of why is the blood of Darlie lying beneath the blood of Damon would be that she was bleeding before he was bleeding or at the same time. Again there is the need to create a second stabbing to make it that Darlie did the murders. If one does not create this second stabbing episode then one is left with the conclusion above.
The handprint on the carpet was present at the location in which Damon was stabbed that we know from evidence. On the floor below the couch Darlie slept upon. This also is the area in which police saw a handprint in luminol which then disappeared. It was said to be evidence of clean up but I do really have to question this. I think that there is much logic in the idea that there would be a second handprint bloody on the couch where there is already existing evidence that he was attempting to rise. The bloody handprint on the carpet. I can not think of a reason that Darlie or anyone would think that wiping away the handprint of Damon on the couch would change anything when viewing the crime scene. I think a more logical idea is that he put it there and then wiped it away with his clothing as he attenpted to rise.

Desilu · Dec 14, 2005

I think a more logical idea is that he put it there and then wiped it away with his clothing as he attenpted to rise.

That has to be the most illogical thing I have ever read. I would imagine it would have been smudged not wiped completely clean off.

SnootyVixen · Dec 14, 2005

Desilu said:
That has to be the most illogical thing I have ever read. I would imagine it would have been smudged not wiped completely clean off.

And how is it that you know it was wiped completely off? Think about it, why would the law be using luminal if they did not have a reason to think more blood would show up? Because of some smudges they see there maybe? They most certainly did not go around the house spraying everything that did not show any blood did they? They did not even spray the rest of the couch or theother couch did they? So they had a reason to think that luminol woudl show up that more blood had been at that spot on the couch. They accuse Darlie of washing away the blood so that make me think that they find no smidged handprint but find the handprint only when they spray the luminol. Fresh blood can be wipe away with cloth and have the first imprint of it remain but be invisable until the luminol used. If there was a handprint and it was wiped away it is not evidence that Darlie is the one that did the wiping away is all I am saying. It is the conclusion of many but there is no evidence that says it is. I think by now people getting pretty tire of my use of the word evidence. I have packages to wrap and things to do but will return later. Maybe not so soon though as it is getting late and I am needing rest.

It is to be remembered that even when criminals wash away the blood so that the area look to be totally without blood luminol will show the blood up and it will not show smudges all the time but it will show handprints, footprints etc.

cami · Dec 14, 2005

SnootyVixen said:
A more simple solution to the question of why is the blood of Darlie lying beneath the blood of Damon would be that she was bleeding before he was bleeding or at the same time. Again there is the need to create a second stabbing to make it that Darlie did the murders. If one does not create this second stabbing episode then one is left with the conclusion above.
The handprint on the carpet was present at the location in which Damon was stabbed that we know from evidence. On the floor below the couch Darlie slept upon. This also is the area in which police saw a handprint in luminol which then disappeared. It was said to be evidence of clean up but I do really have to question this. I think that there is much logic in the idea that there would be a second handprint bloody on the couch where there is already existing evidence that he was attempting to rise. The bloody handprint on the carpet. I can not think of a reason that Darlie or anyone would think that wiping away the handprint of Damon on the couch would change anything when viewing the crime scene. I think a more logical idea is that he put it there and then wiped it away with his clothing as he attenpted to rise.

No that's not a simple solution Snooty. There is only one way cast-off blood got on the back of Darlie's nightshirt. Damon's blood flew off that knife as she raised it, and landed on the back of her nightshirt over her own blood. There's no other explanation. The cops do not need to invent a second stabbing so that Darlie is made to look guilty. They are professionals, trained to find these things no matter how much the perps try to hide them.

I'm sorry I can't follow your post with the handprints. Why would Damon's print be found in blood in the carpet if he didn't try to rise? Darlie did not wipe the handprint from the couch, the luminol took it before it could be photographed. She probably was not aware of a handprint on the couch since it was dark green and the blood would not show up that easily.

I know the doctor doesn't say that there was two attacks on Damon based on the depth of his wounds. The doctor is not qualified to answer that sort of question so it would not be posed to him/her at trial.

cami · Dec 14, 2005

SnootyVixen said:
A more simple solution to the question of why is the blood of Darlie lying beneath the blood of Damon would be that she was bleeding before he was bleeding or at the same time. Again there is the need to create a second stabbing to make it that Darlie did the murders. If one does not create this second stabbing episode then one is left with the conclusion above.
The handprint on the carpet was present at the location in which Damon was stabbed that we know from evidence. On the floor below the couch Darlie slept upon. This also is the area in which police saw a handprint in luminol which then disappeared. It was said to be evidence of clean up but I do really have to question this. I think that there is much logic in the idea that there would be a second handprint bloody on the couch where there is already existing evidence that he was attempting to rise. The bloody handprint on the carpet. I can not think of a reason that Darlie or anyone would think that wiping away the handprint of Damon on the couch would change anything when viewing the crime scene. I think a more logical idea is that he put it there and then wiped it away with his clothing as he attenpted to rise.

Here Snooty, I'll do some of your homework for you

Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
5225

1 is the hand print. You will recall, they cut it out. It
2 was Damon's hand print. It was a small palm print there
3 on the couch. Actually, I think it was right in this
4 area here.
5 They cut it out, the blood came back
6 to Damon, and you could see his little hand there. The
7 trouble is they didn't find that until after they pulled
8 the blanket up. You see that blanket had to be placed
9 there after he had walked through there.
10 We can tell from the DNA that Damon
11 moved some after he was stabbed. He sat down, probably,
12 you can see where the imprint of his pants were, and he
13 moved through here, and then, of course, wound up over
14 here.

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-46.php

deanws · Dec 14, 2005

cami said:
Here Snooty, I'll do some of your homework for you

Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
5225

1 is the hand print. You will recall, they cut it out. It
2 was Damon's hand print. It was a small palm print there
3 on the couch. Actually, I think it was right in this
4 area here.
5 They cut it out, the blood came back
6 to Damon, and you could see his little hand there. The
7 trouble is they didn't find that until after they pulled
8 the blanket up. You see that blanket had to be placed
9 there after he had walked through there.
10 We can tell from the DNA that Damon
11 moved some after he was stabbed. He sat down, probably,
12 you can see where the imprint of his pants were, and he
13 moved through here, and then, of course, wound up over
14 here.

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-46.php

Oh the horrors! That poor child knew his mother was after him with a knife. What a sad, sad moment.

Jeana (DP) · Dec 14, 2005

SnootyVixen said:
And how is it that you know it was wiped completely off? Think about it, why would the law be using luminal if they did not have a reason to think more blood would show up? Because of some smudges they see there maybe? They most certainly did not go around the house spraying everything that did not show any blood did they? They did not even spray the rest of the couch or theother couch did they? So they had a reason to think that luminol woudl show up that more blood had been at that spot on the couch. They accuse Darlie of washing away the blood so that make me think that they find no smidged handprint but find the handprint only when they spray the luminol. Fresh blood can be wipe away with cloth and have the first imprint of it remain but be invisable until the luminol used. If there was a handprint and it was wiped away it is not evidence that Darlie is the one that did the wiping away is all I am saying. It is the conclusion of many but there is no evidence that says it is. I think by now people getting pretty tire of my use of the word evidence. I have packages to wrap and things to do but will return later. Maybe not so soon though as it is getting late and I am needing rest.

It is to be remembered that even when criminals wash away the blood so that the area look to be totally without blood luminol will show the blood up and it will not show smudges all the time but it will show handprints, footprints etc.

I think there were some blood droplets visible to the eye and that's why the luminol was used. No matter how anyone tries to sugar coat it or come up with reasons for this or that, there is simply NO getting over the fact that blood was cleaned up and Darlie's the ONLY person with a reason to do so. Intruders don't usually clean up after themselves when someone is chasing them out the door.

beesy · Dec 14, 2005

Is it not possible for you to call Snooty out on all her rude remarks to me? I can take up for myself, as you well know, but as much as you call me out on it, do the same for her

beesy · Dec 14, 2005

SnootyVixen said:
I don't know of a timeline which the Darlies use. What are you talking about

Click to expand...

The one they use where they say Darlie did not have enough time to do all of what she did. Watch the Leeza show.

That may be what you are here for but that does not mean that it applies to everyone who comes here to read or post. I have no interest at all in making up timelines or theories which everyone would know have no basis in reality at all. And I definately do not have a theory of why these murders happened or how. I suspect maybe you don't speak for everyone here. That is my theory

Click to expand...

yackity yackity yackity yack

from the other posts written within a few minutes of yours, others agree with me.

If you don't know JonGalt then you must not have been around very long.

Click to expand...

Nope, only since this past June. I've never claimed anything else. I have heard the name mentioned, that's all

And for me your constant state of paranoia about this is becoming more than old. Maybe you just protesting too much

Click to expand...

blah, blah, blah...the correct quote is:
<LI>William Shakespeare (1564-1616)
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Hamlet. Act iii. Sc. 2.

BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT IS. I HAVE TO SHOUT TO MAKE THIS HEARD IT APPEARS. THIS SECOND ATTACK THEORY WAS CREATED ON THE FORUMS AND WAS JUST FOUND ON THE FORUMS AND NO WHERE IN THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT IS IT TO BE FOUND. I DON'T CARE HOW MANY SAY IT IS THERE, I CHALLENGE THEM TO FIND IT AND POST IT HERE. BECAUSE IT IS NOT THERE. IT IS SOMETHING THAT WAS CREATED ON THE FORUMS. BUT I DO NOT THINK IT FITS THE DEFINATION OF A URBAN LEGEND.

Click to expand...

Ha! Maybe you should read the other posts before saying this. Face it honey, you just got a 3rd degree burn....

Then maybe this is something you should be learning.

Click to expand...

As I said before, that is why I posted this question. Thus, I am learning right now. Are you?

This I do not believe. There is no forensics or science that indicates there was two attacks on Damon. Not any. There is a desire and need in people who have already decided their opinion of the case to make the timeing that the coroner gave in the trial fit with Darlie being the murderer and doing all the things they said she did. They said, the prosecutors, not just anyone. To fit what the prosecution said she did within the time that the coroner said the little boy could live. Unless you make up a story like this then it cannot be done. Do you think that perhaps this is why the prosecutor at trial did not come up with this theory? Because there was no forensics or science to support it? That is what I think. But then I am not here for entertainment but to learn if I can what happen

Click to expand...

Again, do some research before so vehemently denying something. This is when you dismiss all the evidence by saying Darlie was framed, right?

You want to explain the mechanics of the murders then come up with some testimony that says the blood on the wall was cast off from a knife stabbing Damon a second time. I understand what a throey is and what an opinion is. But to come up with a theory that there was a second stabbing of Damon against the wall and admit that there was no cast off blood there seems strange to me. Theories and opinions should have a teeny bit of fact or evidence. At least that is my opinion and theory.

Click to expand...

I never said he was stabbed against the wall. Life is funny, isn't it? My little theory IS based on forensics and trial testimony, yours is NOT!
Also it would be very helpful if you learn how to properly quote so I won't have to do so much editing.

Blood on the Wall

myspace.com/beesy_boo

New Member

Former Member

myspace.com/beesy_boo

Former Member

myspace.com/beesy_boo

New Member

New Member

myspace.com/beesy_boo

Keep your fork......

Former Member

Former Member

New Member

Former Member

Keep your fork......

Keep your fork......

Former Member

Former Member

myspace.com/beesy_boo

myspace.com/beesy_boo

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics