Current Disappearance of 3yo William Tyrrell * The foster mother has been recommended for charges of pervert the course of justice & interfere with a corpse

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Criminal charges the former foster parents currently face as at 15 April 2022 include:
  • Apprehended Violence Orders on both (AVOs)
  • Lying to the NSW Crime Commission on former foster mother *Not Guilty
  • Lying to the NSW Crime Commission on former foster father *Not Guilty
  • 2 x charges of assault against a child on former foster mother *Guilty
  • 1 x charge of assault against a child on former foster father
  • Stalking &/or Intimidation on both
  • Dummy bidding real estate fraud *Guilty
TIMELINE

Where's William Tyrrell? - The Ch 10 podcast (under Coroner's subpoena)

Operation Arkstone
 
Last edited:
stormbird said:
I don't really understand what the graphs are saying, Awakening, or what you're saying about them: do you think the information could be useful or do you just find it interesting? Why does the timeline start at 2004, or is that just by default?
Thanks :)
Click to expand...

I don’t know why it starts in 2004.

I find it interesting that Tasmania is where most of the google searches for William come from.
 
stormbird said:
I don't really understand what the graphs are saying, Awakening, or what you're saying about them: do you think the information could be useful or do you just find it interesting? Why does the timeline start at 2004, or is that just by default?
Thanks :)
Click to expand...
It starts in 2004 by default.
It's not that 'most of the searches are coming from Tasmania', but rather a higher proportion (per capita) of searches (appear to) come from Tasmania. It's a relative index, not an absolute.

So how does Google Trends work? While many people think that the data they are seeing is the direct volume of search queries for that word over time, it actually shows the relative popularity in the form of a ratio. Google Trends takes a particular query’s search volume and divides it by the total number of searches completed in the given time period and geographic region. The resulting ratio is then scaled on a range of 0-100, which is used to create the graph you see. Also, Google Trends deletes data from repeat searches from the same person over a short period of time to give a more accurate representation of search popularity.

 
31550 said:
It starts in 2004 by default.
It's not that 'most of the searches are coming from Tasmania', but rather a higher proportion (per capita) of searches (appear to) come from Tasmania. It's a relative index, not an absolute.

So how does Google Trends work? While many people think that the data they are seeing is the direct volume of search queries for that word over time, it actually shows the relative popularity in the form of a ratio. Google Trends takes a particular query’s search volume and divides it by the total number of searches completed in the given time period and geographic region. The resulting ratio is then scaled on a range of 0-100, which is used to create the graph you see. Also, Google Trends deletes data from repeat searches from the same person over a short period of time to give a more accurate representation of search popularity.
Click to expand...

So do you think it’s unusual that Tasmanians have a higher proportion per capita then say, NSW where it actually occurred?

Would there be a way to see if someone was searching for WT, fosters, Benaroon Drive before he was taken?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

stormbird said:
The foster parents had a "Mention (Police)" listed for court today in the "dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception" case. I can't find any news reports, though. Did it go ahead today? What was it for?
Click to expand...
If it did, then reporting on it in any way has most likely been subject to a media suppression order.
 
It has now been a year since the Batar Creek Rd dig and still the Coroner waits. Is it simply a case that there is no evidence of what happened that day and the case is not solvable?

As was pointed out in a recent podcast episode, TFR detectives are working on a theory of an accident. Therefore they wouldn't be looking for tendency evidence of abuse. And if the TFR detectives were applying pressure in the hope the FM would crack under pressure... it hasn't happened. That begs the question then... what is the Coroner waiting for?
 
Ninety Nine said:
It has now been a year since the Batar Creek Rd dig and still the Coroner waits. Is it simply a case that there is no evidence of what happened that day and the case is not solvable?

As was pointed out in a recent podcast episode, TFR detectives are working on a theory of an accident. Therefore they wouldn't be looking for tendency evidence of abuse. And if the TFR detectives were applying pressure in the hope the FM would crack under pressure... it hasn't happened. That begs the question then... what is the Coroner waiting for?
Click to expand...

The focus, framing and the setting in which the proposal that William had died in an accident matters here imo.

At secret Crime Commission hearings investigators are allowed to lie, to no consequence, and where the aim was in finding William by persuading the FM to make an admission to which they would have no hope of getting by presenting an argument he was murdered and disposed of. This was their best shot at it.

The podcast's Leah and Xanthe knows that was the situation but they've grasped at the opportunity to present an argument to the public like a 'gotcha!' moment in an attempt to claw back some credibility after showing what looks like a history of poor judgement.

Then Leah quits Channel 10 on a high. :$
 
The following disturbing article speaks for itself.
It's currently the lead story on SMH online and the front page of the paper edition.

I can imagine that with a likely change of NSW State Government at the March 2023 State Election, a whole lot more will come out of the woodwork about children in care in NSW, since approx. 2011.

(There is much more in the article than what I selected to present below)
www.smh.com.au

Left hungry and too cold to go to school: Urgent review of children in care

The plight of two boys in out-of-home care in NSW has been detailed in a court case that has sparked an urgent government review of the multimillion-dollar sector.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au

Left hungry and too cold to go to school: urgent review of children in care​

'November 28, 2022 — 5.00am'

'The state government has ordered an immediate review of out-of-home care services for children in NSW, following claims two boys were left hungry and too cold to go to school this year while their care provider sought thousands of dollars a day to look after them.

In a devastating assessment of the sector, a children’s court magistrate has detailed the “unconscionable” treatment, “appalling neglect” and “failure” in care by providers, including Lifestyle Solutions, and the NSW Department of Communities and Justice.'

'The Children’s Court was examining whether there was any realistic possibility of returning the children to their mother. As the matter dragged on, Magistrate Sheedy laid bare the trauma and treatment of the children, admitting she was troubled by “disingenuous” evidence presented to the court.

She singled out the department, saying its behaviour was “alarming” given it should be a “model litigant”.'

'“Lifestyle Solutions’ quote sought payment from DCJ of approximately $18,096.45 per week to look after Finn and Lincoln,” Sheedy wrote.'

'“Out of the $1,292.60 daily payment quoted by Lifestyle Solutions to DCJ to look after Finn, Finn was allocated $11.43 daily for food and activities.'

'The magistrate detailed how the not-for-profit Lifestyle Solutions sought payment from the department of $18,096 per week to look after Finn and Lincoln, or $1200 per day for 90 days, before then subcontracting some care of the children to another provider, Connecting Families.
According to the judgment, the subcontractor said that “the allocated and approved budget by Lifestyle Solutions in relation to groceries and activities for the children was $80 per child per week.”'

'Finn told his lawyer “they run out of food at his home, that the carers buy food on a Tuesday which is meant to last a whole week but the food usually runs out by Friday and they have to wait until the following Tuesday to shop for food”.
In June, Lincoln’s school principal advised DCJ and Lifestyle Solutions that Lincoln had reported “often feeling pain in his stomach which was attributed to hunger”.'

'Lincoln also felt too cold to attend school as he did not own a winter uniform.'

'“No specific sum or funds were sought by Lifestyle Solutions for therapy for either Finn and Lincoln and it appears that no funds were spent on therapy.”'

'The magistrate raised “another area of apparent neglect of these boys, namely the seeming lack of recreational activities provided to them.....
There is no evidence of engaging the children in any fun activities or any activities which might bring them some joy.”'

 
Why is the coronial inquest not moving forward?
There have been several interruptions:
1. COVID. No longer applicable.
2. Questions about the photo timestamp. Has been more than ample time to resolve.
3. Assault / intimidation charges against the fosters. We have been told these have nothing to do with William's case. However, they might constitute 'tendency/propensity' evidence, if the police or coroner are pursuing a theory that William came to harm at the hands of the fosters.
4. Lying charges. Not-guilty verdict, so no longer applicable?
5. Fraud / deception charges. Again, not directly related to William's case, but might form some 'tendency/propensity' evidence if police or coroner are pursuing a theory that there has been some cover-up or conspiracy around the circumstances of William's disappearance.

Is this everything?
Can we assume that once the current charges are dealt with then the coronial inquest can continue?
 
BFew said:
The following disturbing article speaks for itself.
It's currently the lead story on SMH online and the front page of the paper edition.

I can imagine that with a likely change of NSW State Government at the March 2023 State Election, a whole lot more will come out of the woodwork about children in care in NSW, since approx. 2011.

(There is much more in the article than what I selected to present below)
www.smh.com.au

Left hungry and too cold to go to school: Urgent review of children in care

The plight of two boys in out-of-home care in NSW has been detailed in a court case that has sparked an urgent government review of the multimillion-dollar sector.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au

Left hungry and too cold to go to school: urgent review of children in care​

'November 28, 2022 — 5.00am'

'The state government has ordered an immediate review of out-of-home care services for children in NSW, following claims two boys were left hungry and too cold to go to school this year while their care provider sought thousands of dollars a day to look after them.

In a devastating assessment of the sector, a children’s court magistrate has detailed the “unconscionable” treatment, “appalling neglect” and “failure” in care by providers, including Lifestyle Solutions, and the NSW Department of Communities and Justice.'

'The Children’s Court was examining whether there was any realistic possibility of returning the children to their mother. As the matter dragged on, Magistrate Sheedy laid bare the trauma and treatment of the children, admitting she was troubled by “disingenuous” evidence presented to the court.

She singled out the department, saying its behaviour was “alarming” given it should be a “model litigant”.'

'“Lifestyle Solutions’ quote sought payment from DCJ of approximately $18,096.45 per week to look after Finn and Lincoln,” Sheedy wrote.'

'“Out of the $1,292.60 daily payment quoted by Lifestyle Solutions to DCJ to look after Finn, Finn was allocated $11.43 daily for food and activities.'

'The magistrate detailed how the not-for-profit Lifestyle Solutions sought payment from the department of $18,096 per week to look after Finn and Lincoln, or $1200 per day for 90 days, before then subcontracting some care of the children to another provider, Connecting Families.
According to the judgment, the subcontractor said that “the allocated and approved budget by Lifestyle Solutions in relation to groceries and activities for the children was $80 per child per week.”'

'Finn told his lawyer “they run out of food at his home, that the carers buy food on a Tuesday which is meant to last a whole week but the food usually runs out by Friday and they have to wait until the following Tuesday to shop for food”.
In June, Lincoln’s school principal advised DCJ and Lifestyle Solutions that Lincoln had reported “often feeling pain in his stomach which was attributed to hunger”.'

'Lincoln also felt too cold to attend school as he did not own a winter uniform.'

'“No specific sum or funds were sought by Lifestyle Solutions for therapy for either Finn and Lincoln and it appears that no funds were spent on therapy.”'

'The magistrate raised “another area of apparent neglect of these boys, namely the seeming lack of recreational activities provided to them.....
There is no evidence of engaging the children in any fun activities or any activities which might bring them some joy.”'
Click to expand...

Wow. Just wow! Read Lifestyle Solutions Annual report (available online) https://www.lifestylesolutions.org.au/media/3613/ls_annualreport_2021.pdf

2,292 people received disability support. 836 received co-ordination services. 243 adults in supported independent living. 714 people received community access. 275 children in residential care. 175 children in foster care. 141 foster carers supported. So that's around 5,000 clients.

They have 2,765 employees. (One for every 2 clients). Yet they seem to subcontract a lot of their 'services'.

Lifestyle Solutions, which operates nationally, declared annual revenue of $187 million in 2021, of which $94 million was federal government funding and $70 million from the NSW government, according to financial statements. It posted $72 million in revenue for out-of-home care and foster care services.

So $187 million (mostly government funds) across ~5000 clients is an average budget of $37,000 per client annually. But that's not enough to feed and clothe kids adequately?
How much of that $187 million goes in Director's fees and executive salaries? How much is paid to subcontractors, and who owns these subcontracted companies?
 
31550 said:
Wow. Just wow! Read Lifestyle Solutions Annual report (available online) https://www.lifestylesolutions.org.au/media/3613/ls_annualreport_2021.pdf

2,292 people received disability support. 836 received co-ordination services. 243 adults in supported independent living. 714 people received community access. 275 children in residential care. 175 children in foster care. 141 foster carers supported. So that's around 5,000 clients.

They have 2,765 employees. (One for every 2 clients). Yet they seem to subcontract a lot of their 'services'.

Lifestyle Solutions, which operates nationally, declared annual revenue of $187 million in 2021, of which $94 million was federal government funding and $70 million from the NSW government, according to financial statements. It posted $72 million in revenue for out-of-home care and foster care services.

So $187 million (mostly government funds) across ~5000 clients is an average budget of $37,000 per client annually. But that's not enough to feed and clothe kids adequately?
How much of that $187 million goes in Director's fees and executive salaries? How much is paid to subcontractors, and who owns these subcontracted companies?
Click to expand...

"So that's around 5,000 clients.
They have 2,765 employees.
How much of that $187 million goes in Director's fees and executive salaries"

So, simple maths, $187M /2765 employees = $67,631. Doesn't leave much for the kids.
 
Lady O said:
"So that's around 5,000 clients.
They have 2,765 employees.
How much of that $187 million goes in Director's fees and executive salaries"

So, simple maths, $187M /2765 employees = $67,631. Doesn't leave much for the kids.
Click to expand...
Not exactly: 187M was revenue. But coincidentally, 187M is also expenses:
1669589467039.png

So $144M in employee expenses. Only $9.752M seems to getting to clients.
 
BFew said:
At least all the activity is employing lots of people, and contributing to State/Federal tax (payroll/personal income tax, and subbies company tax) revenue buckets. (said with a massive dose of sarcasm).
Click to expand...
They (Lifestyle Solutions) don't pay tax!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lady O said:
187M was revenue. But coincidentally, 187M is also expenses:

Yep, if you don't spend it all, you don't get the same (or more) the following year.
Click to expand...
OK so $164M of State and Federal money goes to Lifestyle Solutions. Less than $10M of this actually went to client expenses. $144M went to employees. Of course, some employees pay income tax, GST etc, so let's say about $70M finds its way back into government coffers. It's still costing the governments about $90M Nett per year. That's not very efficient. If they distributed that $90M directly to their 5000 clients, each client would get about $18,000 instead of the current $2000 on average. (Then they might have enough money for food and clothing for foster children?).
That of course is an oversimplification - there are probably some very necessary services provided from the $144M.
But they would only need to cut their salaries/expenses by a few per cent to more than double the amount of funding which actually flows to the people in need. Let's not also forget that Lifestyle Solutions is not the only agency in business, and that there are numerous other service providers who use taxpayer money and public donations to provide services to the same people.
 
You imagine that DoCs and other government bodies are overseeing child placement and monitoring, and they are the first to be blamed if something goes wrong (as it does, frequently), but realistically they have to engage these outside agencies whose primary motive is to make money; the kids and carers come a long way second. Who is monitoring them? Who do they report to? How often?

It's horrifying that the demand for placements is so overwhelming that adequate supervision is pretty much impossible. I'm sure most of them are doing their best but there is room for failures.

It's not only children - remember the case in Adelaide of the disabled woman left for days in her wheelchair, unfed and unwashed, who later died.
7news.com.au

Carer sacked after disabled woman dies in ‘disgusting and degrading’ conditions

The disability care provider has sacked the carer of an Adelaide woman suffering from cerebral palsy who died in horrific circumstances.
7news.com.au 7news.com.au

Being a carer is not for everyone and they are hard to come by, hence agencies are going to sometimes engage unsuitable people and families out of necessity and pressure.

What can be done?
 
31550 said:
OK so $164M of State and Federal money goes to Lifestyle Solutions. Less than $10M of this actually went to client expenses. $144M went to employees. Of course, some employees pay income tax, GST etc, so let's say about $70M finds its way back into government coffers. It's still costing the governments about $90M Nett per year. That's not very efficient. If they distributed that $90M directly to their 5000 clients, each client would get about $18,000 instead of the current $2000 on average. (Then they might have enough money for food and clothing for foster children?).
That of course is an oversimplification - there are probably some very necessary services provided from the $144M.
But they would only need to cut their salaries/expenses by a few per cent to more than double the amount of funding which actually flows to the people in need. Let's not also forget that Lifestyle Solutions is not the only agency in business, and that there are numerous other service providers who use taxpayer money and public donations to provide services to the same people.
Click to expand...
The way I understand it is that the funding goes to the agency to operate their own office (wages/rental/expenses/etc). They do not distribute any of this money to their Clients. This would come from other sources (Centrelink, etc).

I worked for an agency funded jointly by State and Federal Governments. Every client/email/phone call/interview was recorded and we reported monthly on our hours spent with clients/type of assistance and outcomes. We reported quarterly on expenditure. We had to also report annually, income/expenditure, hours/assistance/outcomes and forward an annual report. Every few years, we had to forward an extensive application for continued funding, which was something I would work on for at least a month. I haven't worked in this area for a long time so things may have changed.
 
Lady O said:
The way I understand it is that the funding goes to the agency to operate their own office (wages/rental/expenses/etc). They do not distribute any of this money to their Clients. This would come from other sources (Centrelink, etc).

I worked for an agency funded jointly by State and Federal Governments. Every client/email/phone call/interview was recorded and we reported monthly on our hours spent with clients/type of assistance and outcomes. We reported quarterly on expenditure. We had to also report annually, income/expenditure, hours/assistance/outcomes and forward an annual report. Every few years, we had to forward an extensive application for continued funding, which was something I would work on for at least a month. I haven't worked in this area for a long time so things may have changed.
Click to expand...
I understand the cash is not distributed to the clients directly, but is used to fund services to be supplied to clients. This would presumably include provision of basic care including food and clothing (if not being provided by other agencies or foster carers themselves). According to the article, Lifestyle Solutions sought $18096 per week) to look after two boys. They then subcontracted to another provider (Connecting Families), who claimed the allocated and approved budget from Lifestyle Solutions for 'groceries and activities' was only $80 per child per week ($160). So where was the other $17,936 going to be spent? That is a full-time wage for about 10 people!
 
31550 said:
I understand the cash is not distributed to the clients directly, but is used to fund services to be supplied to clients. This would presumably include provision of basic care including food and clothing (if not being provided by other agencies or foster carers themselves). According to the article, Lifestyle Solutions sought $18096 per week) to look after two boys. They then subcontracted to another provider (Connecting Families), who claimed the allocated and approved budget from Lifestyle Solutions for 'groceries and activities' was only $80 per child per week ($160). So where was the other $17,936 going to be spent? That is a full-time wage for about 10 people!
Click to expand...
I can't answer that question, but just that as far as I know, the state/federal government funding of service providers does not go to the clients (occasionally the service may make some emergency funds available) and is for the actual service providers to do the work. Where the figure of $18k PW for two children came from and if this was correct, who funded it and how it was spent is not anything I have any experience with.
 
BFew said:
www.smh.com.au

Left hungry and too cold to go to school: Urgent review of children in care

The plight of two boys in out-of-home care in NSW has been detailed in a court case that has sparked an urgent government review of the multimillion-dollar sector.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au

Left hungry and too cold to go to school: urgent review of children in care​

'November 28, 2022 — 5.00am'

'The state government has ordered an immediate review of out-of-home care services for children in NSW, following claims two boys were left hungry and too cold to go to school this year while their care provider sought thousands of dollars a day to look after them.

In a devastating assessment of the sector, a children’s court magistrate has detailed the “unconscionable” treatment, “appalling neglect” and “failure” in care by providers, including Lifestyle Solutions, and the NSW Department of Communities and Justice.'
Click to expand...

Interesting that a NSW foster care related industry forum that was originally happening in the month before the NSW 2023 State Election, has been urgently brought forwards (in whole or part?) to next week, as a result of yesterdays Children's Court revelations.

Wouldn't surprise me if the original February 2023 date of the Industry forum was chosen to provide recommendations, and further initiatives for a pre-election announcement related to Foster Care.

The NSW Government has already belatedly locked in extending financial assistance to NSW carers or people in care until the age of 21 (currently it ends at 18yo), bringing the system into line with all other states and territories. The change takes effect in February 2023 under a $100 million investment over the next five years.
www.abc.net.au

Increasing the age for foster care in NSW a 'life-saving' move, advocates say

The state government extends the age from 18 to 21, a decision hoped to help ease the struggle some young people face when leaving care.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

www.smh.com.au

‘Appalling neglect’ of boys in care sparks call for urgent meeting

A children’s court magistrate’s claims of “unconscionable” treatment of children in care by providers and the department have brought forward an industry forum.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au
'‘Appalling neglect’ of boys in care sparks call for urgent meeting'

'November 29, 2022 — 5.00am'

'While the state government ordered an immediate review of out-of-home care services when it learnt of the judgment, Families and Communities Minister Natasha Maclaren-Jones has now requested an industry forum be held months earlier than originally scheduled.

In a statement, the Department of Communities and Justice said the minister has requested a meeting next week with providers, non-government organisations and peak bodies that was due to be held in February.

“[It would] discuss what more can be done to ensure children’s needs are being met and that the best outcome for children is at the forefront of every decision made about their care,” the statement said.

It’s understood Sheedy’s judgment led to the decision and the issues it raised will be among the matters discussed.

“The forum will focus on jointly identifying strategies for enhancing the sector’s capacity to recruit more foster carers for children and young people with high and complex needs,” the statement said.'
 
BFew said:
The NSW Government has already belatedly locked in extending financial assistance to NSW carers or people in care until the age of 21 (currently it ends at 18yo), bringing the system into line with all other states and territories. The change takes effect in February 2023 under a $100 million investment over the next five years.
Click to expand...

Some Foster carers and fostered kids doing it tough with the huge cost of living increases recently.

I wonder that the ongoing William case has had, and will have in the future (depending on how things pan out), on the supply of foster carers.

Might some things related to the current and and future William disappearance case be suppressed, partly because they risk causing material disruption to the supply of foster carers in NSW and elsewhere in Australia?

Increasing financial support to foster carers and foster children, and giving foster children in NSW hope that they can survive past the age of 18 or 21 as they get closer and closer to those ages, are incredibly important to foster children's well-being and ongoing mental health, as well as to the mental health of foster carers who have a long term interest and care in the care of their foster kids.

www.smh.com.au

NSW pushed to extend foster care to age 21 amid cost of living crisis

NSW will be the last jurisdiction in Australia where automatic state support for children in care ends at 18, despite Sydney having the highest cost of living.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au
'September 18, 2022 — 5.00am'

'NSW pushed to extend foster care to age 21 amid cost of living crisis'​

'Advocates for young people in the foster care system say the rising cost of living is driving up youth homelessness, raising the urgency for NSW to follow other states and extend care for state wards until 21.'

'the outcomes were poor for young people leaving care at 18: within a year, 60 per cent were homeless, pregnant, in jail, or admitted to a mental health hospital.

International evidence suggested extending care to 21 halved that risk, meaning about 360 NSW young people a year would avoid that fate.'

Note: the below is from a UK survey.
www.communitycare.co.uk

Half of foster carers considering quitting due to cost of living crisis, finds survey - Community Care

A survey has found that half of foster carers are considering quitting because of the cost of living crisis.
www.communitycare.co.uk www.communitycare.co.uk
'August 2, 2022 '

'Over half (54%) of foster carers are considering resigning because of the cost of living crisis, a survey of over 1,000 has found.

Information and advice service FosterWiki revealed that, of 1036 respondents to its survey, most (89%) had resorted to cutting back on essentials including food, heating, fuel and everyday activities with children.

A majority (88%) had also received no financial aid from local authorities or independent fostering agencies (IFAs) to battle the rising costs, with 2.5% turning to food banks for help.

With fuel prices soaring, just 6% said they had their mileage costs covered, while for 71% rates did not cover their costs and almost a quarter (23%) got no mileage allowance at all.

The findings come amid significant challenges in recruiting and retaining foster carers.'
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

MrsBlueSky
Current Andre Rebelo - charged with murdering his mother
Replies
0
Views
518
MrsBlueSky
MrsBlueSky
Kurve
Arrest of former SA Liberal Leader on Drug Supply Charges
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
Matt Stevic
M
Kurve
Current Disappearance of 19yo Jay Slater - Tenerife
Replies
18
Views
900
A11dAtP0w3R
A11dAtP0w3R
Kurve
Unsolved The Disappearance of Mum Bronwyn Winfield - NSW * Hedley Thomas podcast
2 3 4 5
Replies
116
Views
7K
BFew
BFew
J
Barry Cable: Found guilty of child abuse in civil case, pleading not guilty to criminal charges, honours have been revoked
Replies
4
Views
548
Teagueeee15
T
Kurve
The Disappearance of 12yo Lisa Mott - WA
Replies
10
Views
2K
Eaglette01
E
zedx
Current Shooting Murder of Chloe Mason * Two arrests with claims of self defence
Replies
22
Views
436
Macca180
Macca180

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top