Cherelle Baldwin found not guilty
March 31, 2016 3:16 PM Subscribe
Woman Accused Of Murdering Her Abusive Ex Goes Free After Almost 3 Years Behind Bars. This is an update to the post last March about Cherelle Baldwin, who had been in prison for 21 months at the time for killing her abuser. Today, after nearly three years behind bars, she was set free. [Via Democracy Now]
Hard to understand why they retried her after the first mistrial -- when just 1 juror was willing to convict. And frankly I don't understand the initial decision to bring charges. This was a miscarriage of justice up until today and the acquittal.
posted by bearwife at 3:46 PM on March 31, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by bearwife at 3:46 PM on March 31, 2016 [10 favorites]
Why the hell wasn't she out on bail? 3 years in jail will mostly ruin your life, regardless of what happens at the end.
posted by Mitrovarr at 3:50 PM on March 31, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Mitrovarr at 3:50 PM on March 31, 2016 [9 favorites]
And frankly I don't understand the initial decision to bring charges.
Because black women are seen as more threatening.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:10 PM on March 31, 2016 [31 favorites]
Because black women are seen as more threatening.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:10 PM on March 31, 2016 [31 favorites]
The conviction led to a court order barring him from committing violence, threats or harassment against her.
Aren't these things illegal anyhow?
Ridiculous that she was held for that much and for that long.
posted by dazed_one at 4:11 PM on March 31, 2016 [3 favorites]
Aren't these things illegal anyhow?
Ridiculous that she was held for that much and for that long.
posted by dazed_one at 4:11 PM on March 31, 2016 [3 favorites]
Thank god she's free now though.
posted by corb at 4:29 PM on March 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by corb at 4:29 PM on March 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
Let's see: There was a restraining order barring him from visiting the place where he was killed. He had sent her texts explicitly threatening immediate violence a few hours before. He was killed with a weapon in his hand. She was found badly beaten and barely conscious when firefighters arrived on the scene. Why would the prosecutor ever choose to bring charges?
posted by [expletive deleted] at 4:33 PM on March 31, 2016 [65 favorites]
posted by [expletive deleted] at 4:33 PM on March 31, 2016 [65 favorites]
Connecticut isn't a stand your ground state. If she was in a car, presumably she could've fled safely.
posted by jpe at 4:43 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by jpe at 4:43 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
She was already beaten half to death. I'm sure part of the reason only one juror of 24 in both of her trials voted to convict was because there is just no way to presume that ability, given there was evidence of a continued struggle for control of the car she was attempting to flee in. Also, her child was still in the house, so "presumably could've fled safely", even if we are to accept this as true, would presumably mean abandoning her infant to the man who is actively trying to murder her.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 4:50 PM on March 31, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by [expletive deleted] at 4:50 PM on March 31, 2016 [19 favorites]
I really hate how the duty to flee is like "well of course you could have left your child/sister/friend/mother to die! I mean YOU could have got away!" I mean, maybe someone without a soul could have, but otherwise, yeah, no.
posted by corb at 5:04 PM on March 31, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by corb at 5:04 PM on March 31, 2016 [15 favorites]
I really hate how the duty to flee is like "well of course you could have left your child/sister/friend/mother to die! I mean YOU could have got away!" I mean, maybe someone without a soul could have, but otherwise, yeah, no.
Which is even more fucked up because CT has a castle doctrine law.
posted by Talez at 5:09 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
Which is even more fucked up because CT has a castle doctrine law.
posted by Talez at 5:09 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
This thread is an interesting addition to the previous one about how to help domestic violence victims.
Not prosecuting them when they defend themselves against what was obviously a violent and life-threatening attack wasn't on that list. It shouldn't have to be. It might need to be.
Add strategies to combat police and judicial racism to that list, too.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 5:11 PM on March 31, 2016 [14 favorites]
Not prosecuting them when they defend themselves against what was obviously a violent and life-threatening attack wasn't on that list. It shouldn't have to be. It might need to be.
Add strategies to combat police and judicial racism to that list, too.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 5:11 PM on March 31, 2016 [14 favorites]
How long would she have received if she had been found guilty?
25 to 60 years in prison, according to the Democracy Now piece:
The Price of Fighting Back: How Woman Faces 60 Years in Prison for the Death of Her Abusive Ex
A related piece from a couple of weeks ago:
Facing Years in Prison for Fleeing Abuse: Cherelle Baldwin’s Story Is Far From Unique
25 to 60 years in prison, according to the Democracy Now piece:
The Price of Fighting Back: How Woman Faces 60 Years in Prison for the Death of Her Abusive Ex
A related piece from a couple of weeks ago:
Facing Years in Prison for Fleeing Abuse: Cherelle Baldwin’s Story Is Far From Unique
Baldwin’s experience illustrates how the justice system frequently criminalizes and prosecutes abuse survivors, often after this same system failed to stop the domestic violence. Because self-defense laws frequently don’t explicitly take domestic violence into account, the onus is on survivors like Baldwin to convince a dozen strangers that they were truly in fear for their lives when they took the actions that landed them in court.posted by homunculus at 5:17 PM on March 31, 2016 [5 favorites]
Who was the prosecutor in her trial? I don't see it mentioned anywhere. That's someone that needs to be run out of office.
posted by shoesietart at 5:51 PM on March 31, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by shoesietart at 5:51 PM on March 31, 2016 [8 favorites]
Who was the prosecutor in her trial?
The Bridgeport State's Attorney is John Smriga. The prosecutor who asked a judge to hold Ms. Baldwin without bail pending trial was Supervisory Assistant State's Attorney Joseph Marcello. The trial prosecutor in both trials was Senior Assistant State's Attorney Pamela Esposito.
posted by decathecting at 11:19 PM on March 31, 2016 [8 favorites]
The Bridgeport State's Attorney is John Smriga. The prosecutor who asked a judge to hold Ms. Baldwin without bail pending trial was Supervisory Assistant State's Attorney Joseph Marcello. The trial prosecutor in both trials was Senior Assistant State's Attorney Pamela Esposito.
posted by decathecting at 11:19 PM on March 31, 2016 [8 favorites]
You want to put the blame on Srmiga. In a high-profile case like this, the prosecutors--and especially the guy at an arraignment or bail hearing (not sure what it's called in CT) will be carrying out the policy decision from the top.
posted by praemunire at 9:27 AM on April 1, 2016
posted by praemunire at 9:27 AM on April 1, 2016
Baldwin was interviewed on Democracy Now this morning: Cherelle Baldwin on Being Found Not Guilty for Defending Herself Against Abusive Ex
posted by homunculus at 10:24 AM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 10:24 AM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
praemunire, that is true in terms of the facts of how these things actually play out. But in Connecticut, as in every other state that I'm aware of, one of the Bar ethics rules imposes a special duty on prosecutors not to prosecute cases that they believe are not supported by the law or the facts. In Connecticut, it's Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8. And that's a duty of each individual line prosecutor, not just a duty of the chief prosecutor of the jurisdiction. "I was just following orders" is not a defense. In theory, a prosecutor who, believing that the case is bogus, prosecutes it anyway, should be disciplined by the state bar, even if they did so at the direction of a supervisor. (In practice, of course, that never happens.)
posted by decathecting at 1:08 PM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by decathecting at 1:08 PM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Where I'd differ with corb is that I don't think the problem is a lack of stand your ground laws. Connecticut doesn't have one, but it does have a castle doctrine law that does much the same thing.
But the most important thing is that such laws don't apply to women defending themselves from abusers, especially not women of color.
It isn't written into the laws that they don't apply to women and women of color, but in practice they simply do not apply. Marissa Alexander proves that. She was in Florida, which is very much a stand your ground state, and any reasonable person examining the case would think that her use of force was completely, entirely, justified and the deployment of the absolute minimum possible force. It didn't even result in injury to her attacker, much less death. But the same prosecutors who originally wanted to let Zimmerman walk without even trying to bring charges against him for hunting down and murdering Trayvon Martin were wholly devoted to sending Alexander to prison for as long as possible.
The presence or absence of a stand your ground law or castle doctrine simply does not, in practice, help women who use deadly force against abusers; doubly so for women of color. Prosecutors display an unhealthy glee and zeal when they find a woman who has refused to let herself be beaten or murdered. Often the exact same prosecutors who will tie themselves in knots to avoid prosecuting a man who is clearly guilty of murder (Zimmerman for example) will lunge with unseemly speed to prosecute a woman who is clearly guilty of nothing but self defense.
I don't know what the fix is, perhaps a law that singles out self defense in cases of domestic violence for special protections? But I do know that general laws, SYG or castle doctrine, have been proven to have an unwritten portion that says "this law doesn't apply to uppity women, especially not uppity brown women."
The fact that it took two trials before the prosecution finally gave up on its malicious and vile quest to send Baldwin to prison, and worse the fact that in each trial there was apparently at least one juror willing to go along with the prosecution, shows how far we have to go.
I also feel confident that the prosecutors in this case will not be voted out due to their horrible behavior here. Most Americans seem to be perfectly content with the aggressive prosecution of women who will not meekly submit to a beating or their own death.
posted by sotonohito at 7:17 AM on April 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
But the most important thing is that such laws don't apply to women defending themselves from abusers, especially not women of color.
It isn't written into the laws that they don't apply to women and women of color, but in practice they simply do not apply. Marissa Alexander proves that. She was in Florida, which is very much a stand your ground state, and any reasonable person examining the case would think that her use of force was completely, entirely, justified and the deployment of the absolute minimum possible force. It didn't even result in injury to her attacker, much less death. But the same prosecutors who originally wanted to let Zimmerman walk without even trying to bring charges against him for hunting down and murdering Trayvon Martin were wholly devoted to sending Alexander to prison for as long as possible.
The presence or absence of a stand your ground law or castle doctrine simply does not, in practice, help women who use deadly force against abusers; doubly so for women of color. Prosecutors display an unhealthy glee and zeal when they find a woman who has refused to let herself be beaten or murdered. Often the exact same prosecutors who will tie themselves in knots to avoid prosecuting a man who is clearly guilty of murder (Zimmerman for example) will lunge with unseemly speed to prosecute a woman who is clearly guilty of nothing but self defense.
I don't know what the fix is, perhaps a law that singles out self defense in cases of domestic violence for special protections? But I do know that general laws, SYG or castle doctrine, have been proven to have an unwritten portion that says "this law doesn't apply to uppity women, especially not uppity brown women."
The fact that it took two trials before the prosecution finally gave up on its malicious and vile quest to send Baldwin to prison, and worse the fact that in each trial there was apparently at least one juror willing to go along with the prosecution, shows how far we have to go.
I also feel confident that the prosecutors in this case will not be voted out due to their horrible behavior here. Most Americans seem to be perfectly content with the aggressive prosecution of women who will not meekly submit to a beating or their own death.
posted by sotonohito at 7:17 AM on April 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
any reasonable person examining the case would think that her use of force was completely, entirely, justified and the deployment of the absolute minimum possible force.
This article argues that what Marissa Alexander did was very clearly not self-defense.
After Alexander exited the bathroom and re-entered the master bedroom, Gray left the bedroom and headed to the living room where his sons were located. At that point, Alexander left the master bedroom, passing Gray, his two children, and the unobstructed front and back doors of the house on her way to the garage. Once in the garage, she retrieved a handgun from her vehicle’s glove box and then went back into the kitchen, where she “pointed it in the direction of all three [v]ictims.”
posted by dragoon at 12:57 PM on April 3, 2016
This article argues that what Marissa Alexander did was very clearly not self-defense.
After Alexander exited the bathroom and re-entered the master bedroom, Gray left the bedroom and headed to the living room where his sons were located. At that point, Alexander left the master bedroom, passing Gray, his two children, and the unobstructed front and back doors of the house on her way to the garage. Once in the garage, she retrieved a handgun from her vehicle’s glove box and then went back into the kitchen, where she “pointed it in the direction of all three [v]ictims.”
posted by dragoon at 12:57 PM on April 3, 2016
dragoon, I think the expectation that she should leave her two children where her abusive ex who had, as he himself admitted, just threatened to kill her, could get to them is as wrong headed as it can possibly get. If she'd been a white man people would be falling all over themselves to declare her a hero for saving the kids from a monster. But since she's a black woman clearly she must be imprisoned.
posted by sotonohito at 1:42 PM on April 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sotonohito at 1:42 PM on April 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
As I recall the original case, yes, that was the prosecution's theory: she walked past him and she could have kept on walking. It's hard to make an argument that she needed to kill him to protect her kids. But yes, I'm pretty sure a sympathetic prosecution would have framed it in such a way that she'd have been exonerated.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:50 PM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:50 PM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
The idea that Marissa was acting in defense of her children doesn't really square with the way her children ran away with their father after she opened fire.
Her self-defense claim also has the problem that she got arrested again while on bail for the initial shooting, this time for showing at her husband's house and punching him after an argument.
The fact that she was originally sentenced to 20 years in jail is ridiculous, I'll agree. Florida does have a 10-20-Life minimum sentence law with regards to crimes committed with guns, which a number of articles have blamed for her sentence. The fact that she ended up pleading out for timed served makes me think the prosecutors had the option to charge with a crime with an appropriate sentence to begin with and were just punishing her for having the temerity to demand a trial.
To avoid derailing this, comparing Marissa Alexander to Cherelle Baldwin:
Baldwin was in her own home, while Alexander was in her husband's home.
Baldwin had a court order against Brown, which he violated when he attacked her. Alexander had a court order against her to have no contact with Gray, which she violated both to plan how he would testify in court and to attack him again.
Both were in jail for around three years. Baldwin's bail was set at $1m, which seems punitively high. Alexander was initially granted bail before it was revoked for the second arrest.
So I think I understand why Marissa Alexander was charged. Cherelle Baldwin, not so much. And the prosecutors were shitty in both cases.
posted by dragoon at 10:54 PM on April 3, 2016
Her self-defense claim also has the problem that she got arrested again while on bail for the initial shooting, this time for showing at her husband's house and punching him after an argument.
The fact that she was originally sentenced to 20 years in jail is ridiculous, I'll agree. Florida does have a 10-20-Life minimum sentence law with regards to crimes committed with guns, which a number of articles have blamed for her sentence. The fact that she ended up pleading out for timed served makes me think the prosecutors had the option to charge with a crime with an appropriate sentence to begin with and were just punishing her for having the temerity to demand a trial.
To avoid derailing this, comparing Marissa Alexander to Cherelle Baldwin:
Baldwin was in her own home, while Alexander was in her husband's home.
Baldwin had a court order against Brown, which he violated when he attacked her. Alexander had a court order against her to have no contact with Gray, which she violated both to plan how he would testify in court and to attack him again.
Both were in jail for around three years. Baldwin's bail was set at $1m, which seems punitively high. Alexander was initially granted bail before it was revoked for the second arrest.
So I think I understand why Marissa Alexander was charged. Cherelle Baldwin, not so much. And the prosecutors were shitty in both cases.
posted by dragoon at 10:54 PM on April 3, 2016
I'm not arguing that Alexander was an angel, but that she shouldn't have needed to be. When we compare the treatment of her to the treatment of Zimmerman it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Florida's prosecutors just have it in for black women.
Zimmerman went out hunting for black people to harass, he found Trayvon Martin, stalked him, called 911, did the exact opposite of what 911 told him to do, got out of his car to chase Martin down on foot, and several minutes later murdered Martin. Zimmerman shouldn't have been out there, he shouldn't have been stalking Martin, and he damn sure shouldn't have gotten out of his car to chase Martin down on foot.
Florida's prosecutors initially didn't want to charge him with anything at all.
Alexander, like Zimmerman, did a lot of things wrong. She shouldn't have been in her ex's house, she shouldn't have been talking to him or getting near him, no argument. But, for all her mistakes, she fired a single warning shot, which didn't even injure anyone much less kill anyone, and for that Florida's prosecutors wanted to throw her in the slam for a very, very, long time.
I agree completely with you that trying to blame it on mandatory sentencing is wrongheaded. Yes, Florida's mandatory minimums suck massively and should be changed. But a prosecutor has broad leeway in charging. They didn't have to bring charges at all (like they didn't initially for Zimmerman), and if they'd wanted they could have brought charges that had no mandatory minimum.
I'd also agree with you that largely what we saw was revenge against Alexander for daring to ask for a trial, prosecutors hate trials and those who want them, but note that again, unlike Zimmerman, the prosecutors wanted to nail her for something anyway.
Where I disagree is the idea that the fact that Alexander wasn't a perfect defendant really had much to do with the malicious prosecution. It wasn't the things she did wrong that got her charged and the prosecutors and judges waving aside her claims of self defense, it was the color of her skin.
Zimmerman, after doing everything wrong and being somewhere he shouldn't be, murdered a black boy in cold blood, and the prosecutors wanted to give him a hearty handshake for a job well done. They brought charges only due to massive public outcry, and then they threw the trial and made no effort at all to actually convict Zimmerman of anything.
Alexander, after doing everything wrong and being somewhere she shouldn't be, fired a warning shot that caused no injury or death and they wanted her ass in jail forever and worked very hard and zealously to make that happen.
That, I argue, is the proper background to keep in mind, the proper lens through which to view, the malicious prosecution of Baldwin and so many other women who are prosecuted for defending themselves.
Baldwin wasn't given a preposterously high bail because Connecticut doesn't have a SYG law, she was given an impossibly high bail because the court and prosecutors wanted to hurt her. The prosecutors didn't seek to throw her in jail forever because of the legal duty to retreat, they wanted to throw her in jail because they wanted to hurt her.
They did it because women of color don't get to defend themselves in America, because women of color have no value in American society, because women of color who defend themselves frighten and enrage them and they want to make such women suffer for being uppity and thinking that their lives have value.
The prosecutors in the Baldwin case had no obligation to charge her with anything. That they did so, and that they did so in an environment where people like Zimmerman walk without being charged at all, shows their motives. Alexander is merely a second point of data that illustrates the general trend, I perhaps should have chosen others but she was the first who came to mind. Here are a few other, similar, examples of women of color being maliciously prosecuted for defending themselves, and their attackers getting no penalty at all.
Patreese Johnson was a black lesbian in New York City. She and her friend were stalked and verbally harassed, then assaulted and beaten by Wayne Buckle, a white man. They fought back, others joined in, and somewhere along the line Buckle was stabbed by someone. No forensic evidence linked Johnson to Buckle's injury, she had a knife but police testified that there was no blood on it and no forensic analysis of it was ever conducted, but the prosecution wanted her for attempted murder and worked hard to convict her and while they failed at getting her for murder they did get her for other charges.
Johnson is still in prison. Buckle was never charged with any crime despite all evidence showing him as the initiator of the attack and that he'd beaten Buckle and her friend before they fought back, including video evidence showing him on top of one of the women and strangling her.
Women of color fight back, the prosecution tries to punish them for being uppity.
Women of color fight back, women of color are prosecuted maliciously.
And that's why it was so amazing that Baldwin was, eventually, set free. Mostly the prosecution succeeds in it's goal of punishing uppity women of color who try to defend themselves. Stand your ground laws, castle doctrine, whatever, they don't apply to women of color in general or really any domestic violence victims.
posted by sotonohito at 8:29 AM on April 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
Zimmerman went out hunting for black people to harass, he found Trayvon Martin, stalked him, called 911, did the exact opposite of what 911 told him to do, got out of his car to chase Martin down on foot, and several minutes later murdered Martin. Zimmerman shouldn't have been out there, he shouldn't have been stalking Martin, and he damn sure shouldn't have gotten out of his car to chase Martin down on foot.
Florida's prosecutors initially didn't want to charge him with anything at all.
Alexander, like Zimmerman, did a lot of things wrong. She shouldn't have been in her ex's house, she shouldn't have been talking to him or getting near him, no argument. But, for all her mistakes, she fired a single warning shot, which didn't even injure anyone much less kill anyone, and for that Florida's prosecutors wanted to throw her in the slam for a very, very, long time.
I agree completely with you that trying to blame it on mandatory sentencing is wrongheaded. Yes, Florida's mandatory minimums suck massively and should be changed. But a prosecutor has broad leeway in charging. They didn't have to bring charges at all (like they didn't initially for Zimmerman), and if they'd wanted they could have brought charges that had no mandatory minimum.
I'd also agree with you that largely what we saw was revenge against Alexander for daring to ask for a trial, prosecutors hate trials and those who want them, but note that again, unlike Zimmerman, the prosecutors wanted to nail her for something anyway.
Where I disagree is the idea that the fact that Alexander wasn't a perfect defendant really had much to do with the malicious prosecution. It wasn't the things she did wrong that got her charged and the prosecutors and judges waving aside her claims of self defense, it was the color of her skin.
Zimmerman, after doing everything wrong and being somewhere he shouldn't be, murdered a black boy in cold blood, and the prosecutors wanted to give him a hearty handshake for a job well done. They brought charges only due to massive public outcry, and then they threw the trial and made no effort at all to actually convict Zimmerman of anything.
Alexander, after doing everything wrong and being somewhere she shouldn't be, fired a warning shot that caused no injury or death and they wanted her ass in jail forever and worked very hard and zealously to make that happen.
That, I argue, is the proper background to keep in mind, the proper lens through which to view, the malicious prosecution of Baldwin and so many other women who are prosecuted for defending themselves.
Baldwin wasn't given a preposterously high bail because Connecticut doesn't have a SYG law, she was given an impossibly high bail because the court and prosecutors wanted to hurt her. The prosecutors didn't seek to throw her in jail forever because of the legal duty to retreat, they wanted to throw her in jail because they wanted to hurt her.
They did it because women of color don't get to defend themselves in America, because women of color have no value in American society, because women of color who defend themselves frighten and enrage them and they want to make such women suffer for being uppity and thinking that their lives have value.
The prosecutors in the Baldwin case had no obligation to charge her with anything. That they did so, and that they did so in an environment where people like Zimmerman walk without being charged at all, shows their motives. Alexander is merely a second point of data that illustrates the general trend, I perhaps should have chosen others but she was the first who came to mind. Here are a few other, similar, examples of women of color being maliciously prosecuted for defending themselves, and their attackers getting no penalty at all.
Patreese Johnson was a black lesbian in New York City. She and her friend were stalked and verbally harassed, then assaulted and beaten by Wayne Buckle, a white man. They fought back, others joined in, and somewhere along the line Buckle was stabbed by someone. No forensic evidence linked Johnson to Buckle's injury, she had a knife but police testified that there was no blood on it and no forensic analysis of it was ever conducted, but the prosecution wanted her for attempted murder and worked hard to convict her and while they failed at getting her for murder they did get her for other charges.
Johnson is still in prison. Buckle was never charged with any crime despite all evidence showing him as the initiator of the attack and that he'd beaten Buckle and her friend before they fought back, including video evidence showing him on top of one of the women and strangling her.
Women of color fight back, the prosecution tries to punish them for being uppity.
As reported last year in Truthout, 23-year-old CeCe McDonald, a young black transgender woman, and her friends were walking to the grocery store in Minneapolis when she was first verbally harassed, then physically attacked by the white patrons standing outside a bar. During the attack, a bar patron smashed a glass into McDonald's face, slicing her cheek. As more people joined in the attack, Dean Schmitz, who had instigated the verbal harassment, was stabbed and later died in the hospital. McDonald was arrested and charged with second-degree murder. The woman who smashed glass into McDonald's face was never arrested or charged.link
During pre-trial motions, the judge ruled against McDonald's ability to introduce evidence showing that the attack against her was motivated by her race and gender identity: Both Schmitz's swastika and his three previous convictions for violent assault were ruled inadmissible.
Women of color fight back, women of color are prosecuted maliciously.
And that's why it was so amazing that Baldwin was, eventually, set free. Mostly the prosecution succeeds in it's goal of punishing uppity women of color who try to defend themselves. Stand your ground laws, castle doctrine, whatever, they don't apply to women of color in general or really any domestic violence victims.
posted by sotonohito at 8:29 AM on April 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
« Older la chouette d'or: 8377 days and still hidden | I want to fly like an eagle, to...a telemark... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:46 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]