Mary Winkler says killing her minister husband was an accident: "Defense: Woman pointed shotgun at abusive spouse ‘to get his attention.’" Well, I guess she got his attention, but last time I looked, shooting someone to get their attention was still illegal, but maybe not if you have these gems on the jury:
I am always amazed at jury selection in these cases, I guess Winkler really will be tried by a jury of peers. I just wonder if someone who is a Baptist minister or a woman who has been abused herself will be capable of putting his or her feelings aside and being objective? I suppose being a minister could go either way, however, since the murder victim was a preacher. What do you think, will she get off or spend some time behind bars?
The trial could last up to two weeks. The jury — including a Baptist minister and woman who said she had been a victim of domestic abuse — will spend that time sequestered in a small-town motel without television, radio or cell phones.
I am always amazed at jury selection in these cases, I guess Winkler really will be tried by a jury of peers. I just wonder if someone who is a Baptist minister or a woman who has been abused herself will be capable of putting his or her feelings aside and being objective? I suppose being a minister could go either way, however, since the murder victim was a preacher. What do you think, will she get off or spend some time behind bars?
Labels: crime
posted by Helen at 7:55 PM
50 Comments:
Accidentally loaded it.
Accidentally put her finger in the trigger guard.
Accidentally pulled the trigger.
I'm always amazed that any jury would buy these lame stories about firearms accidents.
There have been a small handful of designs that were inherently dangerous and unsafe. If this shotgun wasn't one of them, then I'm pretty skeptical.
I think she'll do time but probably not hard time.
Not sure about the shotgun issue. People do stupid things with firearms all the time.
Every shotgun I have used has had a safety. So the sequence would have been 1) load, 2) take safety off, 3) put finger in trigger guard, 4) pull trigger. All accidentally. (By the way, simply "pointing" a weapon at someone as an attention-getter need not involve any of the steps above.)
But, to answer Dr. Helen's question, I think she will get off. The defense just needs to paint the husband as a jerk.
I think she'll get off. I do not believe it is possible to have a fair trial once woman-abuse has been raised.
I wonder what the odds are that she was abused? Was the abuser? I'd really like to know what the percentage of women who claim abuse as a reason for killing their husband who really are themselves the abuser?
I'm uncertain why anyone would think that all of the steps leading up to pulling the trigger need be an accident. That is simply not the case.
Given a car accident, it need not be an accident the person got in the car, an accident s/he started the car, an accident s/he put the car in gear... only that s/he accidently hit somebody.
One can deliberately load a weapon, chamber a round, release the safety, with absolutely no intention of shooting another human being.
Though I'm not saying what she did was an accident, I am saying that presuming the steps up to that action must be accidental simply isn't reasonable.
Cheers
3 to 5 years is my bet, if not a dismissal.
if you have a gun, and you point it and its loaded, you automatically are prepared to use it. how can it be an accident, she wouldnt have picked up the gun, if she didnt want to do it.
I don't think you can make an analogy between getting in/starting/driving your car and then getting into an accident with loading a gun/chambering a round/taking off the safety of a gun and then having an "accident." Your purpose in getting into the car is to go somewhere. Your purpose in loading a gun is preparing to shoot something.
Obviously, people get shot by accident. However, if you have loaded, chambered, and taken off the safety of a gun to "threaten" someone, it's a lot harder to prove you had no intent to shoot than if you accidentally hit someone with your car.
Amy K.
I would guess a short time in prison.
I can see how it really could have been an accident if they had a gun in the house for protection - yet, the woman really did not know how to use it. If she was genuinely afraid of her husband, she may have been desperate to keep him away. A lot of things can happen if emotions are high. Who knows what went on. I have to agree with Dr. Helen on the selection of the jury though. Hmm, does not seem to make a lot of sense to me.
I have only read a a few articles on the details of the case, but my guess would be that she will be found guilty and face some prison time. However innocent, the photographs from her recent outing to a local bar did not help her public image. Small town + generally conservative residents+ influence of Baptists= a tough jury for the defense to face.
Battered woman have been given some leeway in the past.
Several governors, most notably Governor Richard Celeste of Ohio, have issued pardons to battered women who were serving long prison sentences for killing their abusers in self–defense. See Linda L. Ammons, Discretionary Justice: A Legal and Policy Analysis of a Governor's Use of the Clemency Power in the Cases of Incarcerated Battered Women, 3 J.L. & Pol'y 1, 2–3 (1994) (noting Governor Celeste's grant of leniency to 28 women incarcerated for crimes committed in connection with domestic violence). Professor Ammons served as Executive Assistant to Governor Celeste from 1988–1991 and was primarily responsible for implementing the Ohio clemency project. See id. at 3 n.3; see also Christine Noelle Becker, Comment, Clemency For Killers? Pardoning Battered Women Who Strike Back, 29 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 297, 306–07 (1995) (stating that Governor Celeste granted clemency to 27 women in December 1990 and that Governor William Donald Schaefer of Maryland pardoned eight women in February 1991).
I remembered that Gov. Schaefer had pardoned women - not all of whom were in immediate danger - for killing an abusive spouse. So if she makes the case that she was abused, she could get off.
Had she claimed that she shot him because she was in fear for her life, it might have been considered self-defense. But she screwed herself with her lame explanation, because the DA can claim she wasn't in fear for her life if she was just trying to "scare" him. A classic example of what NOT to do when using deadly force to defend yourself. And besides, there are a lot of fishy circumstances in this case.
She shot him in the back. To get someone's attention with a visible prop, they have to be looking at you.
According to this Nancy Grace transcript the telephone cord was ripped out of the wall making it impossible for Mr. Winkler to call for help. Read the transcript, it's quite enlightening.
Winkler had claimed mental abuse. Is she still claiming that. Google "Mary Winkle kill husband" and you'll easily see how many feminsits think it's just fine to kill your husband and claim abuse.
Warning to all guys, be really, really nice to your significant other or she can kill you and walk.
I can claim abuse, that is easy. Demonstrating abuse requires witnesses instead of a claim by the defendant or hearsay. This is small town Tennessee, I think that she does 12 to 20. And I think she deserves every minute.
While the "accidental" shooting in the back strains credulity, her ripping out the phone cord and leving the state with her children breaks credulity. The prosecution has brought up that she was depositing bad checks and there was somethign going on with the family finances that has her signatures all over it.
12 to 20.
Trey
Warning to all guys, be really, really nice to your significant other or she can kill you and walk.
I warn my husband about this all the time. It is foremost in my mind anytime he won't let me buy some shoes.
But seriously... if he was about to beat the sh** out of her, shoot away, Mary. Otherwise, she should rot in prison like anyone else.
She'll get off scot free. I served on a jury recently and it was a terrible lesson in the degree to which moral relativism has infected our mentality. Juries say they'll disregard their biases, but they never do. Juries don't like to decide the "guilt" of a person, because they don't believe in "truth" at all. The only time a jury will convict is if the person believes in such things as objective right and wrong.
It is objectively wrong to kill your husband, even if you're abused. Murder is not the same as self-defense or accidental discharge of a gun. This looks like a clear case of murder. Will she get off? Of course.
Hollywood teaches us that the proper way to get somebody's attention with a pump shotgun is to work the action once, making that scary 'rack-rack' sound. This method works even when the subject's back is turned. Of course, if you do that with your finger on the trigger and the safety off, your results may vary.
Next lesson: How to shoot down helicopters at two hundred yards using a snub-nosed .38.
IF you posed to the people -- obscuring genders -- that someone was forcing the other to "talk" at the point of a shotgun and then asked, "which one's the abusive one?"
What would the answer be?
It amazes me how killing someone isn't necessarily de facto evidence of violent or controlling tendencies.
But to answer the question...
I think she'll probably end up doing time.
If you look at the Clara Harris case and similar cases, basically what they do is drag the dead man's name and reputation through the mud, garner the worst kind of sympathy from the general public, confirm once again that most think women are like children and men are morally inferior beings...
....and then go off to jail like they would have anyway. Hopefully, justice will prevail and she'll get locked up.
And if I may be so prejudiced, I watched some of the footage from yesterday, and many of her mannerisms and facial expressions portrayed, to me anyway, someone who likely has some kind of personality disorder.
My personal hypothesis is that most abusive relationship behavior, male or female, begins with a personality disorder.
As far as the jury goes, stating that a particular group is a bad jury is hard to do without knowing the composition of the panel to begin with.
Prosecution and defense have unlimited challenges for cause and each side has peremptory challenges, which can be made for any reason, except for race.
It might be that the stricken panel members were even more unacceptable to one side or the other than the ones who eventually made it on to the jury.
First, the trial is there to determine guilt or innocence, the penalty phase is to determine punishment. Unfortunately, our court system has gotten all screwed up in popular opinion, thus actual practice, in this distinction.
Second, I have not seen a full set of facts to determine guilt or innocence. IF her life or those of her children were in imminent danger or he was sexually abusing the children, I'd vote not-guilty.
Otherwise, I'd have to wrestle with the facts of the case. If the article is correct, this was one messed up relationship. Using a gun to threaten the other appeared to be commonplace. My tentative conclusion is that she's guilty of voluntary manslaughter and should serve some jail time, the real question being how much.
Children being sexually abused is not reason to kill the perpetrator. I would want to kill the perp, but it is not justification for taking a life. Self-defence or defense of the child from emminent harm would be necessary to invoke self-defense.
Trey
Children being sexually abused is not reason to kill the perpetrator. I would want to kill the perp, but it is not justification for taking a life.
Wow, I strongly disagree. I believe the sexual abuse of children should be one of the most harshly punished crimes.
I'm no psychiatrist, but it's my understanding that a large percentage of pedophiles were themselves sexually abused as kids, who then grow up to abuse other children. Therefore, these people aren't just hurting their direct victims; they are potentially creating an exponential number of victims stretching out into the future.
It's pretty a pretty unique and abominable crime in that sense, and our justice system just lets them out again and again.
I'd say that our collective urge to "want to kill the perp" is deeply rooted and instinctive for good reason.
(*Not saying that this particular guy was a pedophile, I'm only addressing the hypothetical.)
Who is going to spend more time in jail, Mrs. Winkler or that jury?
My husband has been to Selmer on business since the shooting and thinks she's going to do time. Of course, that's only based on what he overheard around town while eating outand that kind of thing, but presumably he was overhearing the potential jury pool.
Personally, I think if she hadn't run with the kids, it would have been easier to claim abuse. She made it look deliberate. I would do either/or to get out of an abusive situation. I'd either shoot or run away, but not both.
Having lived with an abusive dad, I can believe that the whole town would not have known abuse was happening in the home, but I don't think it justifies murder.
Accident...riiiiiigggght. Thats why instead of calling an ambulance she ripped the phonecord out of the wall and fled with her children.
She panicked!
Who can predict juries these days? There was a time when I could confidently predict punishment for certain crimes but I don't feel that way now. Juries are more willing to accept excuses than they once were.
She bragged about her "ugly comming out"
Around here, using a gun to scare someone--which I suspect she meant by "get his attention"--is aggravated assault, itself a felony punishable by 10-1/2+ years. Has she been charged with that, or just murder?
I haven't been following the case, so I'm asking: Do we know for sure which one of them messed with the phone?
I doubt she'll do much time, if any, for some of the reasons others have given.
Hey Knoxwhirled, I am not opposed to child abusers getting the death penalty, but I am opposed to them being killed by citizens. I do not think that child abuse justifies vigilante justice. I don't think anything does.
I understand, and have felt the urge for revenge, but I think that legal punishment is the best avenue. I am currently looking for a sponsor for legislation that would give life imprisonment to people who sexually abuse more than one victim, or repeat offend against the same victim after "treatment" or previous incarceration.
Killing an intruder in your home is not vigilante justice. Using a weapon to subdue someone who is perping your family in your home is not either. But I don't think it would be morally or legally justified to hunt down and kill a child abuser.
What do you think?
Trey
problem is, what if they are innocent, and you execute them. you cant bring them back to life.
not that i am condoning it, just saying you have to have absolute proof. theres been cases of false child abuse, the people arrested, and their lives ruined,
the mcmartin preschool, the rochdale satanic abuse cases, the fall acres day care centre, kern county, the wee care nursery school, clevland (uk)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcmartin/mcmartin.html
without absolute proof of wrong doing, you may kill an innocent person, it could be your brother or father or son, look at the evans and christie case an innocent man was executed by the state. or is it a case of its better one innocent man is executed than 2 guilty people set free.
you have to be careful about false allegations, and guilt.
once again i say, i am not saying pedophiles are good people, hell if i had proof, absolute proof, i would be willing to kill them myself. allegations without evidence, are not worth the paper they are written on.
DEATH if final, there is no way to bring a person back to life. so you have to be extremely careful
Wasn't there a case just recently where a father thought his neighbor had molested his little girl and shot him, only to discover it was a misunderstanding? I Googled, but couldn't find it. (Unfortunately, Googling stuff like 'molested daughter neighbor killed revenge' yields too many results to be useful.)
unless there is genetic proof, semen smears, photographs, witnesses etc, the evidence has to be much higher in cases of suspected abuse, which is how it should be, if all these proofs, show difinitive guilt, then i say let them fry.
but with slight doubts, should come prison time, if it just relies on one persons testimony then you have to question, it deeper. how would you feel if your brother or son, or father or husband was accused, and put in prison for a crime YOU KNEW he didnt do but had no proof, would you want to see him executed. or killed by mob justice, on dubious say so.
bugs was this the article
http://tinyurl.com/yprv4s (redone as a tiny url)
FAIRFIELD, Conn. Aug. 30 — A patent lawyer in this suburb was released on $1 million bond Wednesday, two days after, the police say, he broke into the home of a next-door neighbor and fatally stabbed him after a relative told him that his 2-year-old daughter had been molested by the neighbor.
That's the one. Thanks.
What do you think?
First of all, I agree that mandatory life without parole would be great--"two strikes and you're out," so to speak. There is certainly an awareness that recidivism is a big problem with child molesters, or the authorities wouldn't force them to register when they're released. It's as if the system *knows* these people are still a danger---but let them out anyway.
In theory, I too am against what you call "vigilantism" (and I'm certainly against running out and killing someone without being certain of their guilt.) But I almost feel like, in the context of child molestation, the justice system has forfeited its moral authority. You can almost be certain the crime will be dealt with lightly.
As a result, I simply can't bring myself to disapprove if someone were to "take action" against the molester if their kids were victimized.
Dr. Helen:
By any chance do you know if the recidivism rates for these crimes really are as high as we laypeople are led to believe in popular culture?
thanks
I fervently wish my Mother had had the courage to do what Mary Winkler did. Five children would have a mother now if she had.
Knoxwhirled,
I assume you are talking about the recidivism rates of sex offenders. You are right that the general public believes that sex offenders re-offend almost 100% of the time.
Reviews of the literature, however, show base rates to be anywhere from 0% to 50%. Conservative estimates, based on reconvictions over a five-year period, indicate an overall recidivism rate for sex offender of 13.4%, with an 18.9% rate for rapists and 12.7% for child molesters (Hanson & Bussiere, Journal of Clinical and Clinical Psychology, 1998). Keep in mind though, that these rates are for those who are convicted, many sex offenses are not reported. There are also other methodological problems with the way the base rates are established, so it is very hard to determine the exact number or percentage of those who re-offend.
Anon 12:09:
I guess then perhaps we ought to evolve into a society where a woman, once pregnant, kills the father of the child as a matter of protecting herself and her offspring.
You know, stupid comments like this ignore the very possibility that Winkler could just as well have drowned her children a la Andrea Yates.
While you have my sympathy for your loss, your comment leads me to believe that you believe that men are the problem. I'm afraid you're concentrating on your own case and ignoring the very real propensity for women to be as abusive as men to their spouses.
I don't think "my ugly came out" was "bragging." To me it sounds infantile. I visualize a young woman brought up to be "nice" at all costs, who got into a marriage where appearance was all and where g-d/male/husband were intertwined, and who was still thinking like a little girl who had to be "pretty" in all ways.
both my husband's and my parents were preachers and theri wives. My husband's father caused the death of his mother. Where the couple moves from church to church every few years, the preacher has the respect of being the one hired and a man of God, so he is important. Locals see themselves as important. If the couple is relatively new to the area, the preacher's wife has no support system locally and work she does for the church is unpaid and unnoticed, so she is not important.
In the case of my in-laws, my husband's father and "the other woman" were suspected of murdering my husband's mother, but the tiny town didn't want the bad publicity, the denomination didn't want the bad publicity and police were told she had no relatives. We were told she died of a heart attack and went to her funeral where her body was sent in a different state from the one where she died. Years later, when the heart-attack thing just seemed wrong, we phoned the Police station of the little town where she died and asked how to get a death certificate. When we said who we were they put us right through to the Police Chief.
He sent us the police report and is convinced as are we that my husband's father murdered my husband's mother. Everything fits. Nothing else fits. Believe me, a preacher's wife could be murdered and if the preacher did it, he would get away with it. Since it is obvious that it could happen, it probably has.
No two cases are alike -- it is always possible that in the Winkler case she killed him for no reason, but in general preachers have too much moral authority and their wives have too little.
At a time in society where we have witnessed some of the most outrageous cases of spousal abuse against women(OJ, regardless of what you believe about his guilt or innocence, Scott Peterson, and even the individual that recently killed his ex-girlfriend and via his own confession, cooked her on the barbeque grill.) it is extremely plausible to believe that she will be acquitted, or convicted on a lesser charge than 1st or second degree murder. Many view her as a woman that was not willing to wait to become a fatal statistic, others will consider her to be a staunch protector of her children. Regardless of that however, it seems that there were a number of options available to her other than murdering her husband (i.e divorce, calling the police, etc.)to shoot him in the back with a shotgun and then claim that she accidentally shot him becuase she was distressed forces the boundaries of "reasonable doubt" into the land of "infinite possibility," if our society is not careful, the precedents that we are setting will make it virtually impossible to convict anyone shy of a videotape of the crime.
Let's think reasonably, our society requires it. Mary Winkler should be convicted and committed to an institution for psychological and social help. Maybe not for 51 years, but for a considerable period of time.
Individuals who are members of fundamentalist churches are often prone to treat their wives and children as women and children are treated in the middle east; as women were treated during "Bible times in the New Test. Wives & children must be submissive at all times. The churches preach women should "Keep silent in the churches." If the wife has a comment, question, or opinion, she should go home & discuss it with her husband; he,in turn will bring it before the elders and deacons of the church if the issue is of a nature that the father may need guidence or need to inform the congregation of the situation at hand. It is easy to see that such conduct breeds over-control on the male partner's part which can lead to abusive treatment of the family and resentment of the wife and children.
In my opinion, any man who is physically, mentally, or sexually abusive to his wife, girlfriend, or child DESERVES TO BE SHOT!!!
徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社
希望大家都會非常非常幸福~
「朵朵小語‧優美的眷戀在這個世界上，最重要的一件事，就是好好愛自己。好好愛自己，你的眼睛才能看見天空的美麗，耳朵才能聽見山水的清音。好好愛自己，你才能體會所有美好的東西，所有的文字與音符才能像清泉一樣注入你的心靈。好好愛自己，你才有愛人的能力，也才有讓別人愛上你的魅力。而愛自己的第一步，就是切斷讓自己覺得黏膩的過去，以無沾無滯的輕快心情，大步走向前去。愛自己的第二步，則是隨時保持孩子般的好奇，願意接受未知的指引；也隨時可以拋卻不再需要的行囊，一路雲淡風輕。親愛的，你是天地之間獨一無二的旅人，在陽光與月光的交替之中瀟灑獨行.........................................................................................................................................................................................
本土成人貼圖站大台灣情色網台灣男人幫論壇A圖網嘟嘟成人電影網火辣春夢貼圖網情色貼圖俱樂部台灣成人電影絲襪美腿樂園18美女貼圖區柔情聊天網707網愛聊天室聯盟台北69色情貼圖區38女孩情色網台灣映像館波波成人情色網站美女成人貼圖區無碼貼圖力量色妹妹性愛貼圖區日本女優貼圖網日本美少女貼圖區亞洲風暴情色貼圖網哈啦聊天室美少女自拍貼圖辣妹成人情色網台北女孩情色網辣手貼圖情色網AV無碼女優影片男女情色寫真貼圖a片天使俱樂部萍水相逢遊戲區平水相逢遊戲區免費視訊交友90739免費視訊聊天辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網080視訊聊天室日本美女肛交美女工廠貼圖區百分百貼圖區亞洲成人電影情色網台灣本土自拍貼圖網麻辣貼圖情色網好色客成人圖片貼圖區711成人AV貼圖區台灣美女貼圖區筱萱成人論壇咪咪情色貼圖區momokoko同學會視訊kk272視訊情色文學小站成人情色貼圖區嘟嘟成人網嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區免費色情a片下載台灣情色論壇成人影片分享免費視訊聊天區微風 成人 論壇kiss文學區taiwankiss文學區
2008真情寫真aa片免費看捷克論壇微風論壇大眾論壇plus論壇080視訊聊天室情色視訊交友90739美女交友-成人聊天室色情小說做愛成人圖片區豆豆色情聊天室080豆豆聊天室 小辣妹影音交友網台中情人聊天室桃園星願聊天室高雄網友聊天室新中台灣聊天室中部網友聊天室嘉義之光聊天室基隆海岸聊天室中壢網友聊天室南台灣聊天室南部聊坊聊天室台南不夜城聊天室南部網友聊天室屏東網友聊天室台南網友聊天室屏東聊坊聊天室雲林網友聊天室大學生BBS聊天室網路學院聊天室屏東夜語聊天室孤男寡女聊天室一網情深聊天室心靈饗宴聊天室流星花園聊天室食色男女色情聊天室真愛宣言交友聊天室情人皇朝聊天室上班族成人聊天室上班族f1影音視訊聊天室哈雷視訊聊天室080影音視訊聊天室38不夜城聊天室援交聊天室080080哈啦聊天室台北已婚聊天室已婚廣場聊天室 夢幻家族聊天室摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室520情色聊天室QQ成人交友聊天室免費視訊網愛聊天室愛情公寓免費聊天室拉子性愛聊天室柔情網友聊天室哈啦影音交友網哈啦影音視訊聊天室櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集123上班族聊天室尋夢園上班族聊天室成人聊天室上班族080上班族聊天室6k聊天室粉紅豆豆聊天室080豆豆聊天網新豆豆聊天室080聊天室免費音樂試聽流行音樂試聽免費aa片試看免費a長片線上看色情貼影片免費a長片
广州托盘复合托盘食品托盘天津木托盘胶合板托盘蜂窝纸托盘塑木托盘熏蒸木托盘木制托盘广东塑料托盘钢托盘钢制托盘栈板塑料栈板木栈板垫仓板托盘包装求购托盘天津托盘温州托盘山东托盘北京托盘上海木托盘塑胶托盘卡板纸卡板塑料卡板手推车推车机场手推车好孩子手推车液压手推车超市手推车医用手推车康贝手推车不锈钢手推车平板车电动平板车老虎车静音手推车平板手推车小推车模具架置物架堆垛架巧固架整理架物料整理架挂板架整理柜零件柜零件整理柜文件整理柜仓储笼仓库笼料箱塑料箱钢制料箱货箱整理箱塑料整理箱周转箱塑料周转箱防静电周转箱求购周转箱物流箱物料盒零件盒塑料零件盒卡板箱周转筐塑料周转筐周转箩登高车物流台车台车密集架档案密集架文件柜办公文件柜北京文件柜广州文件柜上海文件柜南京文件柜深圳文件柜钢制文件柜铁皮文件柜档案柜文件柜厂底图柜档案柜鞋柜储物柜更衣柜防火防磁柜防磁柜防火防磁文件柜图书架资料柜工具柜
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home