Capital punishment concerns raised over Thai backpackers' murder case

[Keesters]

Andrew Drummond has spent a reasonable amount of time in Thai courts - here's how he describes court proceedings in one of his articles:

"The problem about trials in Thailand is that what goes on in the courts is entirely in the hands of the judge or judges, some of whom clearly have a limited legal background, working to laws which have been re-adjusted against defendants.

Judges do have to pass a test of course, but one can be a judge just by getting a law degree and serving a couple of years in a law firm – even the One Stop Services Centre in Pattaya. I have been before judges almost half my age in libel cases. Its not that good judges do not exist - they do. But the law is a lottery and changes made from British law appear to deliberately allow for the system to be abused.

Here’s what judges can and may do – but first one should know that no verbatim record is taken in Thai court proceedings. The evidence in chief and cross examination of witnesses are listened to by the judge, who then speaks into a tape recorder providing his summary of what is said. Many things he simply does not record.

In a recent case where the witnesses was speaking in English my shorthand English note was five times the length of the judges notes and the judge missed out what I considered vital sections of evidence, perhaps because he did not understand.

That is why at the end of each session the witness has to sign the judge’s summary. All are under pressure to do so. They have waited long enough for the court clerk to type it all out. Objections are frowned upon and many defence lawyers do not want to risk the ire of the judge.

In this age everything could easily be electrically recorded. In Singapore it has been for more than twenty years.

Secondly although it appears to be written into the law journalists are NOT free to report court proceedings in Thailand.

I have been frequently asked not to take notes having been identified as a journalist in court. It is not unknown in the south in particular for journalists to be told to leave the court and come back when the judge will hand over his decision – sometimes years ahead in not guilty pleas.

Thirdly journalists are banned, though there appear to be exceptions to this rule, from reporting the case until the case is over, so most of the time they will take the easy option and just wait for the judges’ sentence. Thai journalists are very rarely seen in the courts except at major political and international cases. We read about a lot of arrests - rarely the convictions.

Thai Criminal Law is in the main derived from British Law brought to the country by Prince Rapee something celebrated every year in National Law Day.

But British law insists on the right for journalists to be in court and to be allowed not only to report every cough and spit – but this law dictates that they must provide a contemporaneous report – that means their true account must appear in the next publication or broadcast of their organization, if at all.

British law also dictates there must be a full official record of evidence of all trials.

So how the judges will allow the reporting of this case is vital if justice is to be seen to be done. And of course it is vital in every other case too.

However this allows public scrutiny of which so far Thailand is not a great exponent. To question a judge's decision carries severe penalties.

Finally of course is the question 'Who Cares?' In the age of lifted news which organisations are actually going to send a journalist to cover every day of this case?"

Hope I never end up in one. And no stenographer. Are they really that hard up.

[MaxLee]

Andrew Drummond has spent a reasonable amount of time in Thai courts - here's how he describes court proceedings in one of his articles:

"The problem about trials in Thailand is that what goes on in the courts is entirely in the hands of the judge or judges, some of whom clearly have a limited legal background, working to laws which have been re-adjusted against defendants.

Judges do have to pass a test of course, but one can be a judge just by getting a law degree and serving a couple of years in a law firm – even the One Stop Services Centre in Pattaya. I have been before judges almost half my age in libel cases. Its not that good judges do not exist - they do. But the law is a lottery and changes made from British law appear to deliberately allow for the system to be abused.

Here’s what judges can and may do – but first one should know that no verbatim record is taken in Thai court proceedings. The evidence in chief and cross examination of witnesses are listened to by the judge, who then speaks into a tape recorder providing his summary of what is said. Many things he simply does not record.

In a recent case where the witnesses was speaking in English my shorthand English note was five times the length of the judges notes and the judge missed out what I considered vital sections of evidence, perhaps because he did not understand.

That is why at the end of each session the witness has to sign the judge’s summary. All are under pressure to do so. They have waited long enough for the court clerk to type it all out. Objections are frowned upon and many defence lawyers do not want to risk the ire of the judge.

In this age everything could easily be electrically recorded. In Singapore it has been for more than twenty years.

Secondly although it appears to be written into the law journalists are NOT free to report court proceedings in Thailand.

I have been frequently asked not to take notes having been identified as a journalist in court. It is not unknown in the south in particular for journalists to be told to leave the court and come back when the judge will hand over his decision – sometimes years ahead in not guilty pleas.

Thirdly journalists are banned, though there appear to be exceptions to this rule, from reporting the case until the case is over, so most of the time they will take the easy option and just wait for the judges’ sentence. Thai journalists are very rarely seen in the courts except at major political and international cases. We read about a lot of arrests - rarely the convictions.

Thai Criminal Law is in the main derived from British Law brought to the country by Prince Rapee something celebrated every year in National Law Day.

But British law insists on the right for journalists to be in court and to be allowed not only to report every cough and spit – but this law dictates that they must provide a contemporaneous report – that means their true account must appear in the next publication or broadcast of their organization, if at all.

British law also dictates there must be a full official record of evidence of all trials.

So how the judges will allow the reporting of this case is vital if justice is to be seen to be done. And of course it is vital in every other case too.

However this allows public scrutiny of which so far Thailand is not a great exponent. To question a judge's decision carries severe penalties.

Finally of course is the question 'Who Cares?' In the age of lifted news which organisations are actually going to send a journalist to cover every day of this case?"

Hope I never end up in one. And no stenographer. Are they really that hard up.

If you have entire influential elite against you, you're always F**********d Screwed

[Keesters]

Andrew Drummond has spent a reasonable amount of time in Thai courts - here's how he describes court proceedings in one of his articles:

"The problem about trials in Thailand is that what goes on in the courts is entirely in the hands of the judge or judges, some of whom clearly have a limited legal background, working to laws which have been re-adjusted against defendants.

Judges do have to pass a test of course, but one can be a judge just by getting a law degree and serving a couple of years in a law firm – even the One Stop Services Centre in Pattaya. I have been before judges almost half my age in libel cases. Its not that good judges do not exist - they do. But the law is a lottery and changes made from British law appear to deliberately allow for the system to be abused.

Here’s what judges can and may do – but first one should know that no verbatim record is taken in Thai court proceedings. The evidence in chief and cross examination of witnesses are listened to by the judge, who then speaks into a tape recorder providing his summary of what is said. Many things he simply does not record.

In a recent case where the witnesses was speaking in English my shorthand English note was five times the length of the judges notes and the judge missed out what I considered vital sections of evidence, perhaps because he did not understand.

That is why at the end of each session the witness has to sign the judge’s summary. All are under pressure to do so. They have waited long enough for the court clerk to type it all out. Objections are frowned upon and many defence lawyers do not want to risk the ire of the judge.

In this age everything could easily be electrically recorded. In Singapore it has been for more than twenty years.

Secondly although it appears to be written into the law journalists are NOT free to report court proceedings in Thailand.

I have been frequently asked not to take notes having been identified as a journalist in court. It is not unknown in the south in particular for journalists to be told to leave the court and come back when the judge will hand over his decision – sometimes years ahead in not guilty pleas.

Thirdly journalists are banned, though there appear to be exceptions to this rule, from reporting the case until the case is over, so most of the time they will take the easy option and just wait for the judges’ sentence. Thai journalists are very rarely seen in the courts except at major political and international cases. We read about a lot of arrests - rarely the convictions.

Thai Criminal Law is in the main derived from British Law brought to the country by Prince Rapee something celebrated every year in National Law Day.

But British law insists on the right for journalists to be in court and to be allowed not only to report every cough and spit – but this law dictates that they must provide a contemporaneous report – that means their true account must appear in the next publication or broadcast of their organization, if at all.

British law also dictates there must be a full official record of evidence of all trials.

So how the judges will allow the reporting of this case is vital if justice is to be seen to be done. And of course it is vital in every other case too.

However this allows public scrutiny of which so far Thailand is not a great exponent. To question a judge's decision carries severe penalties.

Finally of course is the question 'Who Cares?' In the age of lifted news which organisations are actually going to send a journalist to cover every day of this case?"

Hope I never end up in one. And no stenographer. Are they really that hard up.

If you have entire influential elite against you, you're always F**********d Screwed

I'll wait and reserve judgement on that. Things are changing. You can't make an educated guess about what will happen based on the past. New regime seems different. More influential elite police put behind bars or moved to inactive posts in a year than I've seen in the past 10.

[stephenterry]

The best we can hope for is that there is insufficient evidence to find the B2 guilty of murder. The rape charge might stick, unless the DNA evidence is merely the cigarette butt matching that on Hannah. Whether they can pin that on the B2, if true, is doubtful. I'll still stick with my assertion that had the RTP found a perfect match they would have permitted the DNA to have been subsequently tested independently, to remove all doubt.

If, as has been mentioned a while back, a deal has been brokered, the staged trial will merely appease the masses - Thai population and the worldwide media...

[jdinasia]

There are a couple of non-LM cases held behind closed doors a few months back mentioned here:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Concerns-over-trying-civilians-in-military-court-30246569.html

We are not discussing courts martial. This is about a criminal case held in a criminal court.

[jdinasia]

The best we can hope for is that there is insufficient evidence to find the B2 guilty of murder. The rape charge might stick, unless the DNA evidence is merely the cigarette butt matching that on Hannah. Whether they can pin that on the B2, if true, is doubtful. I'll still stick with my assertion that had the RTP found a perfect match they would have permitted the DNA to have been subsequently tested independently, to remove all doubt.

If, as has been mentioned a while back, a deal has been brokered, the staged trial will merely appease the masses - Thai population and the worldwide media...

The best we can hope for is justice for the victims.

Very likely to be served up, even if it goes against your opinion.

I "think" the 2 Burmese defendants are guilty. The trial will let us know.

[Keesters]

The best we can hope for is that there is insufficient evidence to find the B2 guilty of murder. The rape charge might stick, unless the DNA evidence is merely the cigarette butt matching that on Hannah. Whether they can pin that on the B2, if true, is doubtful. I'll still stick with my assertion that had the RTP found a perfect match they would have permitted the DNA to have been subsequently tested independently, to remove all doubt.

If, as has been mentioned a while back, a deal has been brokered, the staged trial will merely appease the masses - Thai population and the worldwide media...

The best we can hope for is justice for the victims.

Very likely to be served up, even if it goes against your opinion.

I "think" the 2 Burmese defendants are guilty. The trial will let us know.

Just guilty or really guilty. Reading up on how a Thai court works I doubt they could decide much more than where to go for lunch.

[berybert]

The best we can hope for is that there is insufficient evidence to find the B2 guilty of murder. The rape charge might stick, unless the DNA evidence is merely the cigarette butt matching that on Hannah. Whether they can pin that on the B2, if true, is doubtful. I'll still stick with my assertion that had the RTP found a perfect match they would have permitted the DNA to have been subsequently tested independently, to remove all doubt.

If, as has been mentioned a while back, a deal has been brokered, the staged trial will merely appease the masses - Thai population and the worldwide media...

The best we can hope for is justice for the victims.

Very likely to be served up, even if it goes against your opinion.

I "think" the 2 Burmese defendants are guilty. The trial will let us know.

The best we can hope for is justice for the accused.

[jdinasia]

The best we can hope for is that there is insufficient evidence to find the B2 guilty of murder. The rape charge might stick, unless the DNA evidence is merely the cigarette butt matching that on Hannah. Whether they can pin that on the B2, if true, is doubtful. I'll still stick with my assertion that had the RTP found a perfect match they would have permitted the DNA to have been subsequently tested independently, to remove all doubt.

If, as has been mentioned a while back, a deal has been brokered, the staged trial will merely appease the masses - Thai population and the worldwide media...

The best we can hope for is justice for the victims.

Very likely to be served up, even if it goes against your opinion.

I "think" the 2 Burmese defendants are guilty. The trial will let us know.

The best we can hope for is justice for the accused.

Agree, and justice will likely be a needle for both.

[berybert]

The best we can hope for is that there is insufficient evidence to find the B2 guilty of murder. The rape charge might stick, unless the DNA evidence is merely the cigarette butt matching that on Hannah. Whether they can pin that on the B2, if true, is doubtful. I'll still stick with my assertion that had the RTP found a perfect match they would have permitted the DNA to have been subsequently tested independently, to remove all doubt.

If, as has been mentioned a while back, a deal has been brokered, the staged trial will merely appease the masses - Thai population and the worldwide media...

The best we can hope for is justice for the victims.

Very likely to be served up, even if it goes against your opinion.

I "think" the 2 Burmese defendants are guilty. The trial will let us know.

The best we can hope for is justice for the accused.

Agree, and justice will likely be a needle for both.

And if it is proven they are not guilty. I do hope you will spend as much time trying to find out who did do it, as you have on these two.

[stephenterry]

The best we can hope for is that there is insufficient evidence to find the B2 guilty of murder. The rape charge might stick, unless the DNA evidence is merely the cigarette butt matching that on Hannah. Whether they can pin that on the B2, if true, is doubtful. I'll still stick with my assertion that had the RTP found a perfect match they would have permitted the DNA to have been subsequently tested independently, to remove all doubt.

If, as has been mentioned a while back, a deal has been brokered, the staged trial will merely appease the masses - Thai population and the worldwide media...

The best we can hope for is justice for the victims.

Very likely to be served up, even if it goes against your opinion.

I "think" the 2 Burmese defendants are guilty. The trial will let us know.

That's your opinion. No point in arguing about 'justice very likely to be served up' when it's not a matter of justice for the victims, but never mind, if it goes against the B2,we can all sleep easier in our beds, knowing that the trial judge(s) found them guilty.

BTW, they can't convict them of David's murder in the absence of a murder weapon and no DNA evidence (no direct link, therefore no case to answer), so it would be interesting to hear of your rationale as to why you 'think' they are guilty of his?

[boomerangutang]

Agree, and justice will likely be a needle for both.

And if it is proven they are not guilty. I do hope you will spend as much time trying to find out who did do it, as you have on these two.

You can hope until the cows come home, but it won't happen. More likely the Pope gets a sex change and become a pole dancer in Pattaya.

[jdinasia]

The best we can hope for is that there is insufficient evidence to find the B2 guilty of murder. The rape charge might stick, unless the DNA evidence is merely the cigarette butt matching that on Hannah. Whether they can pin that on the B2, if true, is doubtful. I'll still stick with my assertion that had the RTP found a perfect match they would have permitted the DNA to have been subsequently tested independently, to remove all doubt.

If, as has been mentioned a while back, a deal has been brokered, the staged trial will merely appease the masses - Thai population and the worldwide media...

The best we can hope for is justice for the victims.

Very likely to be served up, even if it goes against your opinion.

I "think" the 2 Burmese defendants are guilty. The trial will let us know.

The best we can hope for is justice for the accused.

Agree, and justice will likely be a needle for both.

And if it is proven they are not guilty. I do hope you will spend as much time trying to find out who did do it, as you have on these two.

That's nonsense,


If they are found guilty they are likely to get the needle. If they are acquitted it means that the prosecution didn't prove the case to the satisfaction of the judges. "Not guilty" doesn't imply innocence.

BTW if they are found guilty, it won't be a summary execution at dawn. There will be years of appeals in all probability. The court of first instance is very frequently overturned in Thailand by the appeals court, only to often have the appeals court overturned by the Supreme Court.


(There's a reason I am not replying to the AD quotes offered above...defamation is serious in Thailand and the truth is not a defense. Do a bit of research on Drummond and his legal problems) Edited March 11, 2015 by draftvader
Cleaning up quotes

[jdinasia]

The best we can hope for is that there is insufficient evidence to find the B2 guilty of murder. The rape charge might stick, unless the DNA evidence is merely the cigarette butt matching that on Hannah. Whether they can pin that on the B2, if true, is doubtful. I'll still stick with my assertion that had the RTP found a perfect match they would have permitted the DNA to have been subsequently tested independently, to remove all doubt.

If, as has been mentioned a while back, a deal has been brokered, the staged trial will merely appease the masses - Thai population and the worldwide media...

The best we can hope for is justice for the victims.

Very likely to be served up, even if it goes against your opinion.

I "think" the 2 Burmese defendants are guilty. The trial will let us know.

That's your opinion. No point in arguing about 'justice very likely to be served up' when it's not a matter of justice for the victims, but never mind, if it goes against the B2,we can all sleep easier in our beds, knowing that the trial judge(s) found them guilty.

BTW, they can't convict them of David's murder in the absence of a murder weapon and no DNA evidence (no direct link, therefore no case to answer), so it would be interesting to hear of your rationale as to why you 'think' they are guilty of his?

The evidence hasn't been produced in court. People have been convicted of murder in many places with neither a corpse or murder weapon.

[berybert]

jdinasia said "That's nonsense".

So jd, are you saying if the Burmese are innocent you don't care who did it ?

[jdinasia]

jdinasia said "That's nonsense".

So jd, are you saying if the Burmese are innocent you don't care who did it ?

Reread my post.

[berybert]

jdinasia said "That's nonsense".

So jd, are you saying if the Burmese are innocent you don't care who did it ?

Reread my post.

So by your reasoning if they are found not guilty it doesn't mean they didn't do it. And if they are found guilty that doesn't mean they did it.

[JLCrab]

According to persons on here, on many occasions, anyone who is of any consequence knows who the 'real killers' are and that the 2 Burmese accused are innocent. That means the prosecution team and presumably their witnesses know as well that the 2 are in not way complicit yet they will need to show and proclaim otherwise during the course of a lengthy trial.

That may make for a difficult case of smoke-and-mirrors with the scrutiny, in whatever manner, that this trial will receive here in Thailand and internationally.

[jdinasia]

jdinasia said "That's nonsense".

So jd, are you saying if the Burmese are innocent you don't care who did it ?

Reread my post.

So by your reasoning if they are found not guilty it doesn't mean they didn't do it. And if they are found guilty that doesn't mean they did it.

No.

Guilty is a finding of fact. An acquittal isn't. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. If they fail to meet that burden it doesn't mean that they are innocent.

That's how the law works.

If they are acquitted due to the failure of the prosecution they cannot be tried again for the same crime. (double jeopardy)

[berybert]

Well I guess if there are CCTV footage of people that are not the Burmese just after the time of the murders. Most people will have doubt as to their guilt.

[jdinasia]

According to persons on here, on many occasions, anyone who is of any consequence knows who the 'real killers' are and that the 2 Burmese accused are innocent. That means the prosecution team and presumably their witnesses know as well that the 2 are in not way complicit yet they will need to show and proclaim otherwise during the course of a lengthy trial.

That may make for a difficult case of smoke-and-mirrors with the scrutiny, in whatever manner, that this trial will receive here in Thailand and internationally.

People are assuming that the confessions will not be admissible. I think the judges may let them in. The defense will argue that the confessions were coerced and may get the confessions to the police excluded, only to have the confessions to the HRC commissioner and the lawyer who made the public statement found admissible.

That and DNA would be a slam dunk for the prosecution.

Regarding Terry's questions earlier, to clarify. We don't know the theory of the crime submitted to the court. There was mention in the past of either a bottle or a metal pipe?

Speculation serves very little purpose.

[greenchair]

As jimmybkk says very little of the evidence is actually scrutinised in the court.

There is no discussion or debate on whether it is fact or not.

From experience, it goes something like this.

Prosecutor will call witness, the judge will ask a couple of quietly spoken questions.

Evidence will get a 2 second flash to the court and put on judges desk.whether evidence is true or fake is not up for debate.

Defense does same thing.

95 % of cases are lost in the first court.

Everybody appeals. You do not go to court for the appeal. It is all done in writing.

This is the first time the defense will have a true chance to know everything against them and put in counter arguments. The defense can scrutinise and comment on every piece of evidence and every witness statement. Sorry to say the b2 will most probably lose in the first court.but may win on appeal. Unless the defense have a glaring piece of evidence,such as an independent dna test from England that does not match the b2. In fact, that may well happen.

[greenchair]

[berybert]

jdinasia said...."Regarding Terry's questions earlier, to clarify. We don't know the theory of the crime submitted to the court. There was mention in the past of either a bottle or a metal pipe?
Speculation serves very little purpose".

Irony ?

Edited March 11, 2015 by berybert

[jdinasia]

jdinasia said...."Regarding Terry's questions earlier, to clarify. We don't know the theory of the crime submitted to the court. There was mention in the past of either a bottle or a metal pipe?

Speculation serves very little purpose".

Irony ?

None.

[stephenterry]

jdinasia said...."Regarding Terry's questions earlier, to clarify. We don't know the theory of the crime submitted to the court. There was mention in the past of either a bottle or a metal pipe?

Speculation serves very little purpose".

Irony ?

Ha, ha. And I suppose the RTP will change the re-enactment scenario as being incorrect. Smack wrist. The hoe that killed Hannah - hang on a minute here's a metal pipe or a bottle, instead. Much more effective. Only neither were found at the scene. The hoe was. In the absence of a murder weapon and DNA and no fingerprints, no civilised court could justify a conviction of David's murder.

And if we don't know the new theory, I'm pretty sure that we couldn't come to the opinion that the B2 committed the crime.

[jdinasia]

jdinasia said...."Regarding Terry's questions earlier, to clarify. We don't know the theory of the crime submitted to the court. There was mention in the past of either a bottle or a metal pipe?

Speculation serves very little purpose".

Irony ?

Ha, ha. And I suppose the RTP will change the re-enactment scenario as being incorrect. Smack wrist. The hoe that killed Hannah - hang on a minute here's a metal pipe or a bottle, instead. Much more effective. Only neither were found at the scene. The hoe was. In the absence of a murder weapon and DNA and no fingerprints, no civilised court could justify a conviction of David's murder.

And if we don't know the new theory, I'm pretty sure that we couldn't come to the opinion that the B2 committed the crime.

Strangely civilised countries have convicted without either a body or a murder weapon.

But with the multiple confessions and the DNA a reasonable person may indeed convict the 2 Burmese defendants

[stephenterry]

jdinasia said...."Regarding Terry's questions earlier, to clarify. We don't know the theory of the crime submitted to the court. There was mention in the past of either a bottle or a metal pipe?

Speculation serves very little purpose".

Irony ?

Ha, ha. And I suppose the RTP will change the re-enactment scenario as being incorrect. Smack wrist. The hoe that killed Hannah - hang on a minute here's a metal pipe or a bottle, instead. Much more effective. Only neither were found at the scene. The hoe was. In the absence of a murder weapon and DNA and no fingerprints, no civilised court could justify a conviction of David's murder.

And if we don't know the new theory, I'm pretty sure that we couldn't come to the opinion that the B2 committed the crime.

Strangely civilised countries have convicted without either a body or a murder weapon.

But with the multiple confessions and the DNA a reasonable person may indeed convict the 2 Burmese defendants

Without a body or murder weapon the prosecution has to rely on circumstantial evidence instead - e.g. a witness to the murder, which would be a very interesting development.

I repeat, David's DNA is not on the hoe, so a reasonable person could conclude the B2 didn't murder David with it. No DNA. No DNA. Multiple confessions that have since been retracted, is unreliable either way.

[JLCrab]

jdinasia said...."Regarding Terry's questions earlier, to clarify. We don't know the theory of the crime submitted to the court. There was mention in the past of either a bottle or a metal pipe?

Speculation serves very little purpose".

Irony ?

Ha, ha. And I suppose the RTP will change the re-enactment scenario as being incorrect. Smack wrist. The hoe that killed Hannah - hang on a minute here's a metal pipe or a bottle, instead. Much more effective. Only neither were found at the scene. The hoe was. In the absence of a murder weapon and DNA and no fingerprints, no civilised court could justify a conviction of David's murder.

And if we don't know the new theory, I'm pretty sure that we couldn't come to the opinion that the B2 committed the crime.

Strangely civilised countries have convicted without either a body or a murder weapon.

But with the multiple confessions and the DNA a reasonable person may indeed convict the 2 Burmese defendants

Without a body or murder weapon the prosecution has to rely on circumstantial evidence instead - e.g. a witness to the murder, which would be a very interesting development.

I repeat, David's DNA is not on the hoe, so a reasonable person could conclude the B2 didn't murder David with it. No DNA. No DNA. Multiple confessions that have since been retracted, is unreliable either way.

Gee -- maybe the prosecution has never thought about that.

[stephenterry]

Strangely civilised countries have convicted without either a body or a murder weapon.

But with the multiple confessions and the DNA a reasonable person may indeed convict the 2 Burmese defendants

Without a body or murder weapon the prosecution has to rely on circumstantial evidence instead - e.g. a witness to the murder, which would be a very interesting development.

I repeat, David's DNA is not on the hoe, so a reasonable person could conclude the B2 didn't murder David with it. No DNA. No DNA. Multiple confessions that have since been retracted, is unreliable either way.

Gee -- maybe the prosecution has never thought about that.

It wouldn't surprise me. Or, more likely, they couldn't care less, because they'll get a conviction which will be challenged in the appeals court, and eventually end up in the supreme court. By then, years have passed, and the world goes on...

Edited March 11, 2015 by stephenterry