- 3 days ago
Category
🎥
Short filmTranscript
00:00Welcome to Crime Night. I'm Julia Zemiro. We're deep diving into the world of crime
00:26and unearthing the science and psychology behind it all.
00:29Tonight we're taking a good hard look at eyewitness testimony. The who's that, what's happening
00:34and why do they need that shovel, tarp and quicklime? We've got a line up of the country's
00:39brightest criminal minds. Our first expert is a former journalist with qualifications
00:44in psychology and crime science. She's a living, breathing Google for crime with far fewer
00:50pop-ups. Please welcome Professor Danielle Reynolds.
00:58Danielle, has your work changed the way you see the world day to day?
01:02It's changed everything. I can't stop studying people.
01:06Hyper-vigilant all the time.
01:07I notice all kinds of things, things that I really don't want to notice.
01:11Watch out everyone, she's watching you.
01:13Up next, he's a criminologist and an expert in corporate risk management,
01:17which begs the question, why is he sitting on a panel with comedians?
01:20Please welcome Dr. David Bartlett.
01:27David, what's the most common risk people don't realise they're taking?
01:31I'd say it's not taking five minutes to think about what their actual risk profile is
01:36and then figuring out how to prevent it.
01:37Oh, what would my risk profile be?
01:39Well, let's not go there.
01:40Let's really not go there. Our first panellist is a comedian, actor and award-winning ballroom
01:46dancer. Oh yes, tonight she's very grateful this gig comes with a chair.
01:49Please welcome Celia Pacuola.
01:57Celia, what's the pettiest crime you'd happily admit to on television?
02:01Oh, Ringwood East in the late 90s, I was the lip-smacker bandit.
02:05And let me tell you, let me tell you, every target was a target, Celia.
02:08Wow.
02:10And finally, she is a comedy powerhouse and award winner.
02:14She puts the wit in eyewitness. It's Mel Buttle, everyone.
02:21Has criminology ever been on your radar? Is it something you're interested in?
02:25Yes. I was at uni, I was studying teaching at Griffith University,
02:29Danielle, your alma mater, and I walked past a criminology class and it looked so much more
02:34interesting than what we were doing, which was nouns and verb. I didn't really listen. Anyway.
02:39And I went home and I was like, I want to do criminology. And my dad was like,
02:41there are no jobs in that. And wouldn't he have egg on his face? One, two jobs.
02:47Very. And you've got them.
02:49Eyewitness testimony seems pretty reliable. You see something, you say what you saw. It's crucial
02:57to many criminal cases. And in the 90s, Australian audiences used it when they found themselves in
03:02the middle of a murder investigation every week on the TV game show, Cluedo. Now, you've seen the
03:08circumstances leading up to this crime. Who would like to interrogate these people? Mrs White,
03:13that substance, was that poison? You didn't see me place it in the tea?
03:17Well, what was your left hand doing then? Don't be personal.
03:23ABC missed a trick there. Cluedo is the Q&A I could actually get behind.
03:28Whether we like it or not, we're all eyewitnesses. Constantly observing, analysing and judging.
03:34So much judging. Eyewitness testimony has led to the conviction of some of the world's most
03:39heinous criminals, including serial killer Ivan Milat. One survivor, British backpacker Paul Onions,
03:46had a terrifying encounter with Milat near the Belangelo State Forest. He was hitchhiking in January
03:511990 and was picked up by Milat. Onions became suspicious of Milat's attitude and they made an
03:59excuse to stop the car. Paul Onions ran off and was pursued by Milat, who fired a number of shots at him.
04:08Onions escaped his ordeal and years later was involved in identifying Milat from a police line-up.
04:14I went through all the pictures and that was the one that gave me initial reaction.
04:21It just made me uneasy when I looked at him. And then when I looked closer, I said to him,
04:25that's the person who I think I met that day. He pinpointed Ivan Milat from a series of photos.
04:30Milat became suspect number one. His identification of Milat played a significant
04:35role in establishing his guilt. This was an eyewitness testimony success story, bringing
04:40down one of the most monstrous criminals in Australian history. David, what made this
04:44particular evidence so compelling? This particular case is really interesting
04:48and very unusual as well. So, Onions is standing outside a shop. It's daylight, so we know lighting's
04:54good. And Ivan Milat approaches him. And as Milat's walking towards him, he's thinking,
04:59that could be Dennis Lilley. So he's actually thinking. Sorry, really? Yeah, the cricketer.
05:02Yeah, yeah. Because of his moustache? Moustache, yeah. Right. So as Milat's walking towards him,
05:07Onions is really paying close attention to his facial features, thinking, is this or isn't this
05:11Dennis Lilley? So they have a conversation and Milat offers Onions a lift. So he gets in the car with
05:19him. The incident unfolds. And luckily for Onions, he has managed to get away. So he's run away,
05:24he's made it up onto the roadway and flagged down a car. And so this motorist has stopped. He's got
05:29in the vehicle and he's told the driver parts of what's happened. Now, what that telling the story
05:36does is it actually helps to cement that memory into his brain. The driver, thankfully, has done
05:40the right thing. And it's taken him to the closest police station, which wasn't that far away. So within
05:46a really short period of time, he's gone from the incident that happened to being at a police station,
05:51explaining and telling the story. So it's all those different events together that really make
05:56it a really strong eyewitness account. Absolutely. And the Onions case is definitely not typical,
06:02because we know that violent crimes usually tend to happen really, really quickly. Witnesses are
06:07usually in this heightened state of arousal, which affects their perception. And usually what they're
06:13thinking is, how am I going to protect myself, not who is this person that's doing this to me?
06:18I witness testimony is the main form of evidence in over 20% of cases, but that doesn't mean it's
06:24always reliable. In the US, the Innocence Project works to overturn wrongful convictions and they
06:29report that in nearly 70% of cases exonerated by DNA evidence, the original conviction involved
06:36eyewitness testimony. It's the leading contributing cause of wrongful conviction. Take the case of Richard
06:42Phillips, who spent almost 46 years in prison for a murder we now know he did not commit.
06:47Phillips was picked out of a lineup by a witness. With the help of the Innocence Project, Phillips was
06:53exonerated when the man who originally committed the crime told the judge Phillips was innocent.
06:58Danielle, tell me about this case. What implicated him in this case was the eyewitness
07:05misidentification from two eyewitnesses. The owner of the store that was robbed, as well as his son,
07:12both said that Phillips was at the scene of the crime and he was never there. He went into prison when he was
07:1820-something years old, came out when he was in his 70s, and he was given $1.5 million in compensation
07:26from Michigan State for the wrongful conviction. But this guy is, you know, 70-something years old now.
07:32Is there any punishment for the witnesses who got it wrong? No. They genuinely thought that
07:39they were doing the right thing. And this is the fallibility of memory. They were clear in their
07:43evidence. They just made a mistake. They just made a mistake. Yeah, they don't know they got it wrong.
07:47Yeah. I think they get some looks. Like, if I was in that town, I'd be like,
07:51someone should have gone to Specsavers. Danielle, what other factors played into
08:00Phillips' misidentification? There are several people who've researched this case
08:04who point to own race bias. And own race bias is this bias that suggests that people are much better
08:11at identifying others who are the same race as them. The two witnesses in this particular case were
08:17white. And, of course, Phillips was black. So, own race bias might have been one of the factors
08:23that caused the misidentification. One of the other factors in here is what we know as weapon focus.
08:28So, this is the idea that when a gun's present in a scene, people become very focused and hyper
08:33focused on that weapon at the exclusion of other things. So, they actually won't pick up on key
08:38features of the person holding the weapon, other features of the environment, because they're so
08:42focused on the gun itself. Would a gun draw your attention, Mel?
08:46No, I'm from Queensland. Seen it all before. You know what? If it was shiny, it would. Yeah.
08:51Yeah, of course.
08:52Yeah.
08:53Woo!
08:55Did you say weapon focus? I've got toe ring focus.
08:58If I see a toe ring, I'm like, bang! That's all.
09:01None of the girls exist. Why? Yeah.
09:03I don't know who Dennis Lilly is, but if they had a toe ring, I'm like,
09:05let me tell you what toe it was on and how it made me feel.
09:09We see things all the time, but whether we actually remember them,
09:13that's another story. One I probably already forgot.
09:16Here's a graph that properly illustrates that point. This is the forgetting curve.
09:20It shows we forget 50% of the information we learn within an hour and up to 70% within 24 hours.
09:27You'd think the significance of what you're seeing would make your memory more accurate,
09:31but even that's not true. Let's take the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
09:36It was witnessed by hundreds of people at Dealey Plaza. Yet despite the crowd,
09:40their accounts of what happened varied wildly, especially about the gunshots. 66% couldn't
09:46clearly identify where the shots came from. 17% said they came from the fence on that famous grassy knoll.
09:5313% said the book depository. One witness, Orville Nicks, was confident at first. He believed the
09:59shots came from near the fence on the grassy knoll. Did you think at that time that the shots came
10:04from the book depository building? No, I thought it came from a fence. Most everyone thought it came
10:10from the fence. But later, after hearing other accounts and media coverage confirming the shots
10:16did come from the depository, Nick's changed his tune. At the present time, where do you believe the
10:21shots came from? Well, they came from the book depository because there's proof that it did come from there.
10:27So if we can't get the story straight with this many witnesses, how reliable is this form of evidence?
10:32David, maybe we should just kick it to the curb.
10:34Not entirely, no. Okay, all right. So attention's a funny thing. So our brain,
10:40every second, is getting stimuli through what we see, what we hear, what we smell, what we touch and so
10:45on. And it's just too much for it to actually process. So what it does, it starts to filter out
10:50things it thinks we don't need. And what's left is what we're essentially paying attention to.
10:55You'll see this in couples sometimes, where to be describing an event that they were both at,
11:00and their description can be quite variable. And it can be a real source of tension.
11:04Just recently, the other night, I maintained that we had a lovely dinner together and then
11:09I went to bed. He says, I came home drunk, demanded pasta, ate it and threw up. And listen.
11:14What about you, Mel? Do you find that you and your wife disagree sometimes on the same event?
11:22She has no street smarts and pays no attention. Whereas I'm always like, drug dealer on your
11:27six, just be aware.
11:32Danielle, are our ears better than our eyes when it comes to witnessing an event?
11:36Auditory witnesses are just as unreliable as eyewitnesses, especially when we are hearing gunshots.
11:42And we know people are really not good at judging the number of gunshots that they hear,
11:47especially when there are multiple gunshots. People usually don't hear the first shot.
11:52And you can, that makes sense, right? Because you can imagine, it's only after you hear the first shot
11:56that you start noticing, you pay attention and you start counting the number of gunshots that follow.
12:02And then there's also the fact that most people don't actually know what a gunshot sounds like.
12:06Pew!
12:07That's right, is that right? Yeah.
12:11And when bang comes out, it says bang on it.
12:15David, did the amount of witnesses hinder or help in the JFK case?
12:20Part of the problem is, you've got a couple of hundred people that have witnessed it,
12:23but the police can't isolate those witnesses and get their accounts quickly,
12:27just because of the sheer volume of people, but also the chaos that would have ensured in that
12:31particular event. Think about the attempted assassination on President Trump. It's like
12:36that event on steroids, because there were several thousand people, there was live TV,
12:40you've got the 24-hour news cycle. And so there's all these conflicting stories.
12:45And you start to really wonder, where is the truth? It's sort of somewhere in here.
12:48What that means is that everyone sort of starts communicating with each other
12:52around what they think they just saw and heard and so on. And what that serves to do is contaminate
12:57everyone's memory. Danielle, do we really forget facts as much as that forgetting curve suggests?
13:02Oh, absolutely. So your memory is most reliable immediately after an event that you see,
13:09and it genuinely decays over time. Hot tip, record it in some way. Like if something happens that you
13:17want to remember, try and find any method that you can to keep a record of it. Write it down,
13:24take a photo of it, take a video of it, even talk to somebody about it.
13:29Sail up Mel, over your careers you've memorised and performed hours of material,
13:34but how good are you at remembering regular ordinary people? Let's find out in our experiment of the week.
13:39Look, we haven't been completely honest with you today, Mel and Celia. When you arrived at the ABC
13:50this morning, you witnessed a verbal altercation in the foyer between a security guard and an angry
13:55woman on the phone. And we secretly filmed you while this altercation occurred.
14:02For those watching at home, here it is. We'll just sign you in here.
14:06Yes, hello. I was told I was getting transferred to someone who could actually help me. No,
14:13I've already given you that information twice. It should be on your system. No,
14:17I don't want to go through it again. You've already got that information from the two other calls that
14:21I had. Is it really that difficult? No, this is a joke. This is theft. Excuse me.
14:27Just keep it down, please. Yeah. There's other people. Yeah. This is ridiculous. I just need
14:33you to transfer me my money back. I don't know why it's this hard. Clearly, I'm being put through
14:38to someone else who's just as incompetent as everybody else I've spoken to.
14:43Now, it's Celia's turn. No, no, I'm not. I don't care what your system says. I just need you to
14:52transfer the money back. You just need an authoriser, okay? That's it. This is a joke.
14:57Yeah, okay. No, can you? What's your name? Give me your name and then put me through to a supervisor.
15:05Because this is not okay. F*** me.
15:15Your job now is to recall who you saw and to recreate her face using our very own version of this
15:21old school identity kid board game. Right, so let's see how you go. You've got different slides
15:28there. There's ones of mouths and there's ears and there's eyes and there's hairs. I didn't really
15:34look. I don't know if you can tell. I'm not good at a subtle don't look now. Really not. I'm 90% sure
15:41she had eyes. How many though is the question. I didn't think I saw her eyes. Try and put yourself
15:48back in that environment and just see if you almost pause it and think about what you did pay attention
15:55to. Her shoes? I was paying attention to the swearing. You can see Mel is really concentrating
16:04because she thinks there's a prize at the end of this. You've got 10 seconds. Okay, I think I've made Mel.
16:23Let's have a look at Mel's results. I've made the mully grubs woman.
16:26I think it's if her and I had a baby. Let's go to Celia and see your identity kid. Can you see it?
16:41Oh!
16:48Can I have another look at that, mate? I'm a genius. That was hard to do though, wasn't it?
16:52Yeah. I'm exhausted, Julia. Give them a round of applause. Some witnesses are cool under pressure.
17:03Others are unpredictable, easily distracted and can be bribed with snacks. Here's Lew Wall to explain.
17:09Have you ever taken a moment to consider all of the things our pets silently witness?
17:22That's what we're talking about.
17:27But there is one pet that has helped convict more criminals than any other and I am not talking about
17:32Scooby Dooby Doo. No, it is the parrot. Some breeds have freakishly good memories and terrifyingly
17:38accurate impressions. They've even been considered as eyewitnesses in court.
17:42The family of Martin Durham says his pet bird Bud was home at the time he was fatally shot
17:49and the parrot can't stop talking about it. Shut up! Get your f***ing dude in now!
17:58Martin's wife Glenna was eventually convicted of murder. Bet she wishes they'd gotten a fish.
18:03But it turns out these murder solving parrots are surprisingly common.
18:09There's Max, Lorenzo and Ercule. Polly doesn't want a cracker. Polly wants justice.
18:14There's even Echo, an eyewitness parrot who conveniently shares her name with another witness.
18:19The Amazon Echo, proving you don't have to be a human to be an eyewitness. An AI witness, that is.
18:28Hey Alexa, spell the tea girl you ever witnessed a crime. I'm not technically supposed to be
18:32listening but recordings from smart devices like Amazon's Echo have been used in murder cases.
18:38Interesting. So could you help me like say, you know, hide the evidence?
18:47I didn't quite catch that. Sure you didn't.
18:52So if you are thinking of committing a crime at home, it is not just flies on the wall you should
18:57worry about. It's also pets and voice assistants who may be witnessing you hide the body.
19:02Now playing Everybody by the Backstreet Boys.
19:10David, can parrots really be called as witnesses in court?
19:13Not in Australia, no. No.
19:16So the golden rule basically is that a witness needs to be able to take an oath
19:19and be cross-examined and you can't cross-examine a parrot.
19:22Why not? They can help the police but they can't give evidence.
19:25Well, they can't answer questions and their evidence can't be tested. So the defence,
19:29for example, couldn't ask the parrot a question about where it heard that piece of information from.
19:34The only one you can't put on the stand? Liabird.
19:44No regrets.
19:46Eyewitness testimony relies on people remembering what they've seen. The problem is our memories
19:51can let us down. And like a boomer on Facebook, they're also easily influenced.
19:55Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus puts it like this,
20:00memory works like a Wikipedia page. You can go in and change it, but so can other people.
20:05Fun fact, both my memory and my Wikipedia page say I'm 45 and I am happy to leave it that way.
20:12When it comes to recalling what we've seen, our memories aren't just unreliable,
20:15they're also impressionable. Loftus calls this the misinformation effect.
20:19What we do is we show people a simulated crime or an accident and then we might try to deliberately
20:27feed them some misinformation about what they experienced. Sometimes they will adopt it as
20:33their own memory and become convinced of it. Loftus and decades worth of research since shows that
20:39memory isn't fixed. It can be distorted and it's open to suggestions. We were able, through the power
20:46of suggestion, to convince people, for example, that they were lost in a shopping mall when they
20:52were five years old. I think I went over to look at the toy store and we got lost and I was looking
20:59around and I thought, oh, I'm in trouble now, you know, and then I thought I was never going to see
21:04my family again. Except that never happened. That specific memory was implanted by his brother as an
21:10extra credit assignment in Loftus' class, which honestly gives me hope. Maybe some of my bad memories
21:16studies were just someone's homework. Danielle, the research here from Loftus is pretty incredible.
21:22Oh yeah, I love these studies so much. They're so fascinating. There are a series of these studies
21:27and I think the really simple ones are my favourite. For example, there's one where she shows a group
21:34of people car accidents. Okay, it's a video of a car accident. And there are two groups that she splits
21:40them into. One group, they asked them afterwards, how fast do you think the cars were going when they
21:46smashed into each other? The second group they asked, how fast do you think the cars were going
21:51when they hit each other? The group that got that leading word smashed were much more likely to
21:57estimate that the car was going faster than the group that got the word hit. Then it gets even better.
22:03A week later, they bring the two groups back and they ask them, was there any broken glass in the
22:10video that you watched? The group that got the smashed word said that there was broken glass
22:16in the video much more than the group that got the hit word. And there was no broken glass in the video.
22:22And that was a week later. So that means if they changed your memory, they've changed it forever.
22:26What she is showing is how leading questions and suggestive questions, very soon after you've
22:32witnessed something, can impact your memory of it. So they're like, is this murderer the killer?
22:40I think Loftus's research really questioned the reliability of eyewitness testimony. But as
22:45powerful as Loftus's research is, it is still highly contested. And it's really changed policing
22:51practice. Because of all this research, police now know some of the pitfalls around how they interview
22:57witnesses and so on. Police that have been trained in cognitive interview and investigative
23:01interviewing will simply ask, tell me what happened. They won't ask those really leading
23:06questions about, you know, did you see the smash? Police now also don't rely exclusively on eyewitness
23:11evidence. So they realise that they've got to go and keep collecting that other evidence,
23:15the physical evidence and so on, that supports what the eyewitness is saying. It's not just
23:19eyewitness testimony, it's eyewitness testimony and a parrot.
23:22Sometimes it's not other people who change our memories, it's us. The more we retell a story,
23:30the more we can bend the facts until eventually we're not remembering it, we're potentially rewriting
23:36it. Over four decades as a news anchor, Brian Williams was one of the most recognisable journalists
23:41on American TV. In 2003, when reporting from the Iraq war, Williams recounted that the helicopter
23:48ahead of his was hit by enemy fire. But as the years passed, the story changed. By 2008, he claimed
23:56multiple helicopters, including his, had come under fire. By 2013, his own chopper had now taken a
24:03direct hit too. Except it hadn't. Soldiers on the scene revealed that Williams was in a separate aircraft
24:09that arrived later and was not the one under attack. His version of events didn't match reality.
24:15The backlash was swift and was enough to end his run as NBC's top news anchor. Williams later said,
24:22I don't know what screwed up in my mind that caused me to conflate one aircraft from the other. The fact
24:27is, I remember three aircraft going down. I was on one of them. This may have been a memory bending under
24:34pressure or not, but if someone trying to get the facts right can slip like this, it really makes you
24:39wonder about the rest of us. Danielle, is it possible for the facts to become screwed up in your mind,
24:44as Brian has described? Your memory is editable, it's revisable, and it's socially influenced.
24:50But there's also self-editing, where you can go into your Wikipedia memory page anytime you can
24:58eliminate certain facts, you can add certain facts, and sometimes you can do that consciously,
25:04but sometimes you can do it completely subconsciously. So he might not even know he was doing it.
25:08Yeah, that's right. I mean, there's no way for us to know whether he did it deliberately or not,
25:13but it's also possible that he doesn't know either. Celia Mel, have you ever rewritten a memory like
25:19that? Yes. Example, I grew up in a country town. My father was the principal of the primary school
25:25that I went to when I went there. Like one time I came home and I had on my report card he had written,
25:31in regards to her spelling, Celia requires more parental attention.
25:36Bit of fun, because he's my teacher and he's my dad, right? I have told this story for years and years and years.
25:41Turns out it was my sister. It wasn't me at all. She's like, no, and she showed me he wasn't,
25:47he was never my teacher, he was her teacher. And I would have sworn up and down in a court of law that
25:51that absolutely happened to me. So David, how problematic is this in relation to our witness
25:56testimony? Look, there's a few sort of issues here. One is the reporting. So if we think back
26:01to the Paul Onions case, for example, that was like the gold standard. He was reporting almost to
26:07police, almost straight away and making that statement, which is great. Because when we think
26:11about the sort of court process, what normally happens is there's the event, then sometime later
26:17the person gives the statement to police. And it can be years, even decades, before that matter
26:21even gets to court. Sometimes that statement that's taken is the only thing that people remember.
26:26Because of that, we saw before the memory curve and how memory decays, those witnesses sometimes
26:31have to go back to the statement to refresh their memory and they go, oh yeah, actually I do remember
26:34this now. But it's only because that statement was exist and was made at the time. But the other
26:39thing is around confidence, and I think this is where Williams came unstuck, because he told that
26:45story so confidently and then it was found to be not true. And there's this real issue with
26:51confidence and accuracy. So juries tend to see people giving evidence confidently as being more
26:58accurate. And that's just not the case at all. We've had some fun with Celia and Mel's memories today,
27:03but now it's time to test our audience and yours at home with a game we're calling The Line Up.
27:09Remember the altercation from earlier? We want to see if you can recall anything about what you
27:18witnessed only 15 minutes ago. We know that these two remembered a certain amount.
27:23But what did the security guard look like?
27:25This is a great line up. Now this is an old school police line up. Five people, one of which is the
27:39actual security guard from the altercation and four others who thought that they were here to be on
27:44hard quiz. Studio audience, it's time to vote on who you think is the real security guard.
27:51David, they all look really, really similar. Is that actually what a line up looks like?
27:55This is almost like the perfect line up.
27:57Wow, well done. Because they're similar.
28:00Like there's no random one with hair or anything like that. And they're all dressed the same way.
28:05So this is actually really neat as a line up. Celia and Mel, you were there. Any ideas?
28:10This is so stressful. I don't want to put someone in jail.
28:13I think they all look like dads at a wedding.
28:16So I need to see number four do the chicken dance.
28:22I don't remember seeing them at all. I do. And I also think this person's behavior currently
28:28is slightly different to the others. Oh, they act standing guiltily. Yes.
28:33Are you going to write it down? Okay. Should I take a stab then? You've written yours, Del?
28:36I've written mine down. For $50,000. I'm going to say four. I'm going to say four.
28:42Well, isn't that interesting? Members of our audience picked out four of these guys.
28:4752% of them, and Mel, got it right. The correct security guard was actually number two.
28:52You are correct, Mel.
29:00We've learned tonight our reliance on eyewitness testimony really should come with terms and
29:05conditions. And while it's an important part of our justice system, it probably shouldn't be the
29:09star of the show. At most, it's a backup dancer that can do a kind of flip. Please thank our panel,
29:15Professor Daniel Raynall, Dr. David Bartlett, Celia Pacuola, and Mel Buttle.
29:24I'm Julia Zemiro, and to implant a little memory for you to take home,
29:27tonight's episode was brilliant television. Good night.
29:39I'm Julia Zemiro.
29:41I'm Julia Zemiro.
29:43I'm Julia Zemiro.
29:45I'm Julia Zemiro.
29:47I'm Julia Zemiro.
29:49I'm Julia Zemiro.
29:51I'm Julia Zemiro.
29:53I'm Julia Zemiro.
29:55I'm Julia Zemiro.
29:57I'm Julia Zemiro.
29:59I'm Julia Zemiro.
30:01I'm Julia Zemiro.
30:03I'm Julia Zemiro.
30:05I'm Julia Zemiro.
Recommended
0:44
|
Up next
1:33
2:44:58
1:21:34
1:44:38
49:04
47:34
44:03
58:53
48:45
53:48
51:13
58:53
45:59
42:35
1:12:07
57:30
48:45
49:04
53:48
Be the first to comment