If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Knox Knox.. who's there? Raffaele Sollecito arrested at the Austrian border   (uk.news.yahoo.com) divider line 234
    More: Followup, killer, identity document, Perugia, Virgin Media, borders  
•       •       •

6892 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jan 2014 at 9:46 AM (33 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



234 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-31 01:11:53 PM

Some Bass Playing Guy: BgJonson79:
So even though the article said she was acquitted, she wasn't acquitted?

It's more like when someone in the U.S. gets a conviction turned over on appeal. It's not an acquittal and the case can be retried if the prosecution decides to do so. Double Jeopardy is not attached. Which is why people need to stop talking about double jeopardy being a reason she won't be extradited. It just doesn't apply.


I read some other stuff and stand corrected.  No, trials in absentia, on the other hand...
 
2014-01-31 01:12:50 PM

Por que tan serioso: BgJonson79: Por que tan serioso: BgJonson79: Por que tan serioso: the8re: It's simple: if other countries won't extradite to the US because capital punishment, then we should refuse to export Amanda because FARK YOU THAT'S WHY! double jeopardy.

Except that, as has been stated many many many times, it is not double jeopardy. At all. According to American law. Or Italian.

Source?

In the article posted to the main page yesterday it was discussed near the end.

So I have to go digging for your proof?  Sounds like the Italian legal system.

Ha!! Im on a mobile. Google "alan dershowitz amanda knox".


I did, and stand corrected!
 
2014-01-31 01:16:02 PM

BgJonson79: Some Bass Playing Guy: BgJonson79:
So even though the article said she was acquitted, she wasn't acquitted?

It's more like when someone in the U.S. gets a conviction turned over on appeal. It's not an acquittal and the case can be retried if the prosecution decides to do so. Double Jeopardy is not attached. Which is why people need to stop talking about double jeopardy being a reason she won't be extradited. It just doesn't apply.

I read some other stuff and stand corrected.  No, trials in absentia, on the other hand...


His blanket comments about the "re-triability" of convictions overturned on appeal is incorrect. Convictions overturned on procedural grounds may be retried, those overturned on the grounds of insufficient evidence may not be retried.
 
2014-01-31 01:16:26 PM
Pretty good summary of the facts and Knox and Sollecito's inconsistent statements about their whereabouts on the night of the murder here: http://abcnews.go.com/International/amanda-knox-found-guilty-court-so r t/story?id=22306461

My guess:  Amanda Knox wasn't herself responsible for the murder of Meredith Kercher, but did/knew more than she's letting on, and her clumsy attempts to minimize her (probably after-the-fact) involvement are what got her in trouble with the Italians, who then overreacted and tried to pin the murder itself on her despite a lack of any physical evidence.

i.e., there's plenty of blame for this mess on both sides, and everybody involved is kind of crappy.  (Meredith Kercher excepted, of course.)
 
2014-01-31 01:18:25 PM

durbnpoisn: Some Bass Playing Guy: BgJonson79:
So even though the article said she was acquitted, she wasn't acquitted?

It's more like when someone in the U.S. gets a conviction turned over on appeal. It's not an acquittal and the case can be retried if the prosecution decides to do so. Double Jeopardy is not attached. Which is why people need to stop talking about double jeopardy being a reason she won't be extradited. It just doesn't apply.

I'm one of those people that's been spouting off about that.
What the hell happened then, if she wasn't acquitted?  She was released, and allowed to leave the country.  If there was any chance that they may be re-tried, why was that allowed to happen?

Seriously...  Someone needs to explain this better.


I can explain. In the U.S. an acquittal at trial cannot be appealed and triggers double jeopardy. An appeals court can never hold a trial. The appeals court can overturn convictions which then results in a new trial. The process in Italy is different. The appeals court can and often does actually re-try the whole case and make a finding as to guilt or innocence. The appeals court in Italy did that and actually acquitted Knox and Solecito. It did not order a new trial. That rulinh, however, was always subject to an appeal to the Supreme Court which could have reinstated guilt, let the acquittal stand, or order a new trial. It chose the last option.

This creates a murky situation because what the Italian Appeals court did is impossible under U.S. law. Some experts argue that any acquittal by a fact finder should trigger double jeopardy. Others say that only a final judgement of acquittal would trigger it.

There's another question too. The extradition treaty with Italy doesn't require Italian court to follow all of the U.S. procedural rules. Different countries have differing rules and we still extradite to one another (sometimes). So even if double jeopardy applies, it's a questionable grounds for refusing extradition.

The treaty does, however, require Italy to provide the U.S. with a reasonable basis to believe the fugitive is guilty. The U.S. could refuse on that basis. Even if the state department agrees to extradite, Amanda could fight it in a U.S. court and argue under habeas corpus that her right to a fair trial was denied. A U.S. court might agree.
 
2014-01-31 01:20:16 PM

mudesi: Amanda Knox needs to stop doing interviews. Seriously.

They have no evidence and botched the whole investigation and the prosecutor is a lunatic and the entire justice system over there is a joke.

Yet when Amanda talks, I swear I think she's guilty. Anybody see her this morning on GMA? She was crying, but no tears were coming out of her eyes. There's just something...off...about her.


I have the same impression of her.  I don't like her.  She comes off like a lying biatch.  But at the end of the day there's no physical evidence trying her to the murder.  The most compelling thing anyone can cite about her that is at all damning is "well, look at her, she just seems guilty".  If she had just STFU and let her lawyer do all the talking and never spoke to the press or police or testified, the one thing the press and prosecution had working for them (her personality) would have gone away, and her and Sollecito would be well passed it already.

That's the difference between our two legal systems though,  In our system, you don't have to prove you're innocent, so "I feel like she's guilty" is not good enough without real hard evidence.  In Italy, if people decide you're guilty, and you can't prove it, it doesn't matter that there's no evidence, you're guilty.  It's like the Spanish Inquisition never left.
 
2014-01-31 01:21:03 PM

jonas opines: There is an entire extra thread on this subject, and nothing immediate about my personal assumption that this one is a troll, and it has nothing to do with differences in opinion.


I completely understand your position.  As one who has not been following all the threads, I usually assume that the person's opinions are less informed than others.  It's quite possible that a person thinks they know the whole story but missed some information you or the others may have garnished.

That's the closed-minded part.  If we simply call people trolls because something may be obvious to us, then that detracts from educating someone who is innocently naive.

Not saying that's the case here, but that's why I don't usually call people trolls in situations like this.

Besides his comment was a jab, I believe, because of arelated conversation further up the thread.  I think it was a response to a perceived "white-knighting" of the lady by another poster and shouldn't be taken as the sum of the argument.  That was just a quip.
 
2014-01-31 01:21:16 PM

jaytkay: The UK press has really whipped up a hate fest for Knox.

Is that just the tabloids or do the real new outlets agree?


That's not a big surprise. The victim's father is a tabloid journalist.
 
2014-01-31 01:23:08 PM

spiderpaz: mudesi: Amanda Knox needs to stop doing interviews. Seriously.

They have no evidence and botched the whole investigation and the prosecutor is a lunatic and the entire justice system over there is a joke.

Yet when Amanda talks, I swear I think she's guilty. Anybody see her this morning on GMA? She was crying, but no tears were coming out of her eyes. There's just something...off...about her.

I have the same impression of her.  I don't like her.  She comes off like a lying biatch.  But at the end of the day there's no physical evidence trying her to the murder.  The most compelling thing anyone can cite about her that is at all damning is "well, look at her, she just seems guilty".  If she had just STFU and let her lawyer do all the talking and never spoke to the press or police or testified, the one thing the press and prosecution had working for them (her personality) would have gone away, and her and Sollecito would be well passed it already.

That's the difference between our two legal systems though,  In our system, you don't have to prove you're innocent, so "I feel like she's guilty" is not good enough without real hard evidence.  In Italy, if people decide you're guilty, and you can't prove it, it doesn't matter that there's no evidence, you're guilty.  It's like the Spanish Inquisition never left.


People react to stressful situations very differently. Maybe she did kill her roommate, but her not crying tears is not proof of anything. It just shows a lack of empathy/understanding from the person making the judgment.
 
2014-01-31 01:24:18 PM

Moopy Mac: BgJonson79: Some Bass Playing Guy: BgJonson79:
So even though the article said she was acquitted, she wasn't acquitted?

It's more like when someone in the U.S. gets a conviction turned over on appeal. It's not an acquittal and the case can be retried if the prosecution decides to do so. Double Jeopardy is not attached. Which is why people need to stop talking about double jeopardy being a reason she won't be extradited. It just doesn't apply.

I read some other stuff and stand corrected.  No, trials in absentia, on the other hand...

His blanket comments about the "re-triability" of convictions overturned on appeal is incorrect. Convictions overturned on procedural grounds may be retried, those overturned on the grounds of insufficient evidence may not be retried.


I thought the gov't only got one and done, so I was way off anyway.
 
2014-01-31 01:24:34 PM

WhoGAS: jonas opines: There is an entire extra thread on this subject, and nothing immediate about my personal assumption that this one is a troll, and it has nothing to do with differences in opinion.

I completely understand your position.  As one who has not been following all the threads, I usually assume that the person's opinions are less informed than others.  It's quite possible that a person thinks they know the whole story but missed some information you or the others may have garnished.

That's the closed-minded part.  If we simply call people trolls because something may be obvious to us, then that detracts from educating someone who is innocently naive.

Not saying that's the case here, but that's why I don't usually call people trolls in situations like this.

Besides his comment was a jab, I believe, because of arelated conversation further up the thread.  I think it was a response to a perceived "white-knighting" of the lady by another poster and shouldn't be taken as the sum of the argument.  That was just a quip.


But making declarative statements and refusing to provide argument/evidence when challenged is his/her MO the entire thread. That should be mocked.
 
2014-01-31 01:24:54 PM

walktoanarcade: It's a message board, folks, not everything is a troll, most are messages, and I sent the correct message that a "political crisis" out of this is laughable.

I do realize to some of you think hearing a different opinion is a troll or an attack.


It's not that you have a different opinion, it's that you say things like murderous poonany, immediately attempt to hijack the conversation onto some other unrelated  topic, and your assertion that this won't be a political incident is backed by "nuh-uh lol".

The alternative to you being a troll alt is that you are a moron.  People calling you a troll are trying to actually give you the benefit of the doubt.
 
2014-01-31 01:26:41 PM

BgJonson79: Moopy Mac: BgJonson79: Some Bass Playing Guy: BgJonson79:
So even though the article said she was acquitted, she wasn't acquitted?

It's more like when someone in the U.S. gets a conviction turned over on appeal. It's not an acquittal and the case can be retried if the prosecution decides to do so. Double Jeopardy is not attached. Which is why people need to stop talking about double jeopardy being a reason she won't be extradited. It just doesn't apply.

I read some other stuff and stand corrected.  No, trials in absentia, on the other hand...

His blanket comments about the "re-triability" of convictions overturned on appeal is incorrect. Convictions overturned on procedural grounds may be retried, those overturned on the grounds of insufficient evidence may not be retried.

I thought the gov't only got one and done, so I was way off anyway.


Basically if the State messed up in a "technical" (often Constitutionally-protected) aspect of the prosecution, they can get another chance to follow the rules the second time around. If the conviction was made with insufficient evidence (was is the opposite of jury nullification?), then they don't get another chance.
 
2014-01-31 01:28:09 PM

spiderpaz: In Italy....  It's like the Spanish Inquisition never left.


!?!
 
2014-01-31 01:28:26 PM

walktoanarcade: Heh, so much for her defense that she was too stoned to notice anything(which is a lame excuse anyway).


That wasn't her defense.
 
2014-01-31 01:33:35 PM

BSABSVR: walktoanarcade: It's a message board, folks, not everything is a troll, most are messages, and I sent the correct message that a "political crisis" out of this is laughable.

I do realize to some of you think hearing a different opinion is a troll or an attack.

It's not that you have a different opinion, it's that you say things like murderous poonany, immediately attempt to hijack the conversation onto some other unrelated  topic, and your assertion that this won't be a political incident is backed by "nuh-uh lol".

The alternative to you being a troll alt is that you are a moron.  People calling you a troll are trying to actually give you the benefit of the doubt.


There are people who unintentionally troll.  They primarily do this by never admitting fault on any point, having their own facts, and not rebutting an entire argument but attacking a particular statement within that argument.  It's not purposeful trolling, but it works like trolling.
 
2014-01-31 01:33:51 PM

Moopy Mac: BgJonson79: Moopy Mac: BgJonson79: Some Bass Playing Guy: BgJonson79:
So even though the article said she was acquitted, she wasn't acquitted?

It's more like when someone in the U.S. gets a conviction turned over on appeal. It's not an acquittal and the case can be retried if the prosecution decides to do so. Double Jeopardy is not attached. Which is why people need to stop talking about double jeopardy being a reason she won't be extradited. It just doesn't apply.

I read some other stuff and stand corrected.  No, trials in absentia, on the other hand...

His blanket comments about the "re-triability" of convictions overturned on appeal is incorrect. Convictions overturned on procedural grounds may be retried, those overturned on the grounds of insufficient evidence may not be retried.

I thought the gov't only got one and done, so I was way off anyway.

Basically if the State messed up in a "technical" (often Constitutionally-protected) aspect of the prosecution, they can get another chance to follow the rules the second time around. If the conviction was made with insufficient evidence (was is the opposite of jury nullification?), then they don't get another chance.


I think my preference would be the state gets held to a higher standard.  If they mess up, that's it.  You get ONE shot.  I bet I'm in the minority.
 
2014-01-31 01:34:27 PM

BSABSVR: walktoanarcade: Heh, so much for her defense that she was too stoned to notice anything(which is a lame excuse anyway).

That wasn't her defense.


This is an example of "having their own facts."  It might not be intentional trolling, but it works like trolling.
 
2014-01-31 01:35:46 PM

walktoanarcade: SurelyShirley: SlothB77: He had apparently crossed over the border into Austria late last night - but returned to Italy of his own accord, Sky's Nick Pisa said.


dumbass.

I don't know, 28 years in prison vs living in Austria? Tough choice.

Seriously. Austria makes those that wish to divorce wait six months.


So does California
 
2014-01-31 01:41:39 PM
Being rude, socially gauche and behaving inappropriately does not make her a murderer. It makes her a fairly typical university student by UK standards, and I suspect by US standards too.
The prosecutor and the cops who terrorised that confession out of her need to be kicked repeatedly in the bollocks by David Beckham wearing steel toecap boots. With a long run up.

/Kercher's Dad is a tabloid journalist. Food for thought...
 
2014-01-31 02:08:45 PM

WhoGAS: Nothing you have done seems trollish at all. It just seems your opinion is that she's guilty, regardless whether she's hot or not.


Really?  How about these?

walktoanarcade: Someone REALLY wants to bang her. ;)

Anyway, there's no way she didn't know of or participate in the murder, and if the accused were a male or ugly woman, no one would care.

If the killing took place inside an epically huge mansion, then maybe I would believe her bullshiat story.


walktoanarcade: Her story is unbelievable. She either helped or watched, albeit stoney-eyed.


walktoanarcade: You're annoyed because not only do I have the gall to disagree, but I refuse to make myself a clone of you or your cronies.


Having a different opinion is fine, but the whole "if you don't agree with me, it's because you want to bang her" screams troll.  Plus they put up absolutely no reason for their opinion.
 
2014-01-31 02:29:31 PM

Kentucky Fried Children: If Knox was a smart girl, the minute she was released after the first jail stint she would've moved to a country with no extradition treaty with the Italians. But she didn't, and chose to stay in the US where we have a strong bilateral history of extradition with them.

Stupid.


She's not getting extradited and she knows it.
 
2014-01-31 02:42:55 PM

Gothnet: spiderpaz: In Italy....  It's like the Spanish Inquisition never left.

!?!


Wow, you weren't expecting that.
 
2014-01-31 02:52:33 PM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Wow, you weren't expecting that.


Nobody ever does.
 
2014-01-31 02:57:44 PM

MagicianNamedGob: durbnpoisn: Some Bass Playing Guy: BgJonson79:
So even though the article said she was acquitted, she wasn't acquitted?

It's more like when someone in the U.S. gets a conviction turned over on appeal. It's not an acquittal and the case can be retried if the prosecution decides to do so. Double Jeopardy is not attached. Which is why people need to stop talking about double jeopardy being a reason she won't be extradited. It just doesn't apply.

I'm one of those people that's been spouting off about that.
What the hell happened then, if she wasn't acquitted?  She was released, and allowed to leave the country.  If there was any chance that they may be re-tried, why was that allowed to happen?

Seriously...  Someone needs to explain this better.

I can explain. In the U.S. an acquittal at trial cannot be appealed and triggers double jeopardy. An appeals court can never hold a trial. The appeals court can overturn convictions which then results in a new trial. The process in Italy is different. The appeals court can and often does actually re-try the whole case and make a finding as to guilt or innocence. The appeals court in Italy did that and actually acquitted Knox and Solecito. It did not order a new trial. That rulinh, however, was always subject to an appeal to the Supreme Court which could have reinstated guilt, let the acquittal stand, or order a new trial. It chose the last option.

This creates a murky situation because what the Italian Appeals court did is impossible under U.S. law. Some experts argue that any acquittal by a fact finder should trigger double jeopardy. Others say that only a final judgement of acquittal would trigger it.

There's another question too. The extradition treaty with Italy doesn't require Italian court to follow all of the U.S. procedural rules. Different countries have differing rules and we still extradite to one another (sometimes). So even if double jeopardy applies, it's a questionable grounds for refusing extradition.

The t ...


And that right there, is what I object to.
If it's a violation of our laws, why would we feel compelled to follow theirs.
To use an extreme example, if someone in Iran were to say we are harboring a woman guilty of adultery (punishable by death), and their laws say it is so...  Well, ours don't.  So there is really no reason to even consider extradition.
 
2014-01-31 03:18:07 PM
Well, throw another shrimp on the barbie then.
 
2014-01-31 03:25:35 PM
She didn't do it. I don't know who bought those Italian juries but if you look at the facts there are more holes in it than a swiss cheese.
Even if you honestly 'think' she did it due to some bias reasons, it's still not anywhere close to what one would considered to be something that is beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
2014-01-31 03:34:56 PM

Rapmaster2000: They're just caught in a moral panic, but within that moral panic is a fear about their own society. Reading the Sky News article the common thread is that all Americans are violent and also the NSA and so on. I suspect there's a concern about being their culture being dominated by a US based monoculture


That's exactly the lens I view these stories through. It reminds me of the Zimmerman case, but with nationalist (rather than entertainment- or racially-oriented) themes being played up. This seems to be an exercise in rallying nationalist sentiment, and deflecting from domestic issues, by the creation of an us-vs-them mentality, by creating an external villain for everyone to focus on.
 
2014-01-31 03:49:19 PM

durbnpoisn: MagicianNamedGob: durbnpoisn: Some Bass Playing Guy: BgJonson79:
So even though the article said she was acquitted, she wasn't acquitted?

It's more like when someone in the U.S. gets a conviction turned over on appeal. It's not an acquittal and the case can be retried if the prosecution decides to do so. Double Jeopardy is not attached. Which is why people need to stop talking about double jeopardy being a reason she won't be extradited. It just doesn't apply.

I'm one of those people that's been spouting off about that.
What the hell happened then, if she wasn't acquitted?  She was released, and allowed to leave the country.  If there was any chance that they may be re-tried, why was that allowed to happen?

Seriously...  Someone needs to explain this better.

I can explain. In the U.S. an acquittal at trial cannot be appealed and triggers double jeopardy. An appeals court can never hold a trial. The appeals court can overturn convictions which then results in a new trial. The process in Italy is different. The appeals court can and often does actually re-try the whole case and make a finding as to guilt or innocence. The appeals court in Italy did that and actually acquitted Knox and Solecito. It did not order a new trial. That rulinh, however, was always subject to an appeal to the Supreme Court which could have reinstated guilt, let the acquittal stand, or order a new trial. It chose the last option.

This creates a murky situation because what the Italian Appeals court did is impossible under U.S. law. Some experts argue that any acquittal by a fact finder should trigger double jeopardy. Others say that only a final judgement of acquittal would trigger it.

There's another question too. The extradition treaty with Italy doesn't require Italian court to follow all of the U.S. procedural rules. Different countries have differing rules and we still extradite to one another (sometimes). So even if double jeopardy applies, it's a questionable grounds for refusing e ...


For the record, I  do think the U.S. will refuse extradition, and I think that would be the right decision. They  may invoke double jeopardy in so doing, but I rather doubt it. They'll find another reason, like insufficiency of evidence.

We would never have an extradition treaty that required us to deport people to be executed for adultery. In fact, we frequently grant asylum to non-citizens to save them from such injustice. We've decided that the Italian judicial system is generally trustworthy enough to cooperate with, partially because we want to nab a lot of heroin dealers who move through Sicily. But in this case, I fully expect the State Department response to be  vaffanculo.
 
2014-01-31 04:30:22 PM

forgotmydamnusername: HotWingConspiracy: WinoRhino: HotWingConspiracy: WinoRhino: HotWingConspiracy: Extraditing her will cause a political crisis.

How do you figure?

Do you really think people here are going to be ok with shipping her off to an Italian prison after their bizarre 3rd world justice system decided they were going to convict on a do over?

Do you actually think she's going anywhere? They will request extradition. The USA, due to our standards of justice (protection from double jeopardy) will simply deny the request. It's actually a perfectly acceptable thing to do according to the existing treaties that are in place. The end.

A rather experienced lawyer disagrees with your take.

Dershowitz is good, I'd probably want to hire him if I had the money and got in serious legal trouble. However, like anyone else, he's been known to be wrong. There's also the reality that the US simply flouts laws it finds inconvenient. Hence neither Henry Kissinger nor Dick Cheney will ever be arraigned at the Hague.


I have a quick note for the non-lawyers. There's almost certainly not a clear answer to the extradition question. Italian and American law are sufficiently different to leave this open to interpretation. That means that the administration will pick its answer with respect to extradition (based on double jeopardy, or some other argument a clever lawyer can come up with that we haven't yet heard about yet). If Italy really wants her back and has something of sufficient value to offer, the administration will decide that extradition applies. If Italy doesn't care enough, or can't come up with something valuable enough to give us, or if the domestic outcry about extraditing her is too great, the administration will decide not to extradite her and come up with a legal argument to suit that decision. Whether she gets extradited or not will have nothing to do with her guilt or innocence, or any certain answer with respect to the applicability of the extradition treaty.

Dershowitz stays relevant and in the paper by making clear statements which a layman can understand (the paper wouldn't publish "eh, it could go either way"). Based on reputation, he's a fine lawyer. If you paid him to craft an argument against extradition, he would likely come up with one that sounds just as certain as his argument for it.
 
2014-01-31 06:44:48 PM

BSABSVR: walktoanarcade: It's a message board, folks, not everything is a troll, most are messages, and I sent the correct message that a "political crisis" out of this is laughable.

I do realize to some of you think hearing a different opinion is a troll or an attack.

It's not that you have a different opinion, it's that you say things like murderous poonany, immediately attempt to hijack the conversation onto some other unrelated  topic, and your assertion that this won't be a political incident is backed by "nuh-uh lol".

The alternative to you being a troll alt is that you are a moron.  People calling you a troll are trying to actually give you the benefit of the doubt.


Some of you have a serious problem with the reality that others have differing opinions and styles, huh? Life must be rougher for you than I by far, and for that I am so sorry for you.

Get better soon.
 
2014-01-31 06:49:28 PM

walktoanarcade: Some of you have a serious problem with the reality that others have differing opinions and styles, huh? Life must be rougher for you than I by far, and for that I am so sorry for you.


You dismissed people with a differing opinion.

//Goose, gander and all that.
 
2014-01-31 06:55:07 PM

mjbok: walktoanarcade: Some of you have a serious problem with the reality that others have differing opinions and styles, huh? Life must be rougher for you than I by far, and for that I am so sorry for you.

You dismissed people with a differing opinion.

//Goose, gander and all that.


lol OK, OK, I'll consider rehiring them, but they have to go through human resources again.
 
2014-01-31 09:20:12 PM

BigNumber12: This seems to be an exercise in rallying nationalist sentiment, and deflecting from domestic issues, by the creation of an us-vs-them mentality, by creating an external villain for everyone to focus on.


Yup.

The sad thing, for me, is Americans make such good (and often willing) villains.
 
Displayed 34 of 234 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report