- 23 hours ago
Category
🎥
Short filmTranscript
00:00I'm Julia Zemiro and this is Crime Night, the show that goes beneath the surface to uncover
00:22the ideas, science and psychology behind crime.
00:26Tonight we're putting forensics under the microscope.
00:29How it became central to justice, how we use it and what happens when science becomes junk
00:34science.
00:35But before we dive into the evidence, let's meet our panel.
00:38She's an academic, Dean of Griffith University and an expert in offender psychology.
00:43Lie down on the couch and open your mind.
00:45It's Professor Danielle Raynald.
00:48Danielle, what first drew you into the world of criminology and was it a TV show?
00:54Well, it actually was.
00:56So I'm originally from Trinidad and Tobago in the Caribbean, so it would have to be a Caribbean
01:02soap opera, a classic Trinidadian soap opera called No Boundaries.
01:08And it was full of drama, crime, police investigations and I always dreamed that that would be me.
01:14Good to you, fulfilling every single fantasy, how marvellous.
01:18He spent his career studying crime prevention and risk management, so if anything goes wrong
01:23we're blaming him.
01:24Please welcome Dr David Bartlett.
01:26Now David, what intrigues you most about crime?
01:33So like Danielle, I've got a psychology background, so it's the why.
01:37So why is it that some people do certain things, why do they do it in those places, when and
01:41those sorts of things.
01:42Because if we understand that, we can actually start to think about crime prevention and the
01:45best way to address offending.
01:46And how long did it take you to complete your PhD?
01:48Just over 11 years.
01:49Eleven years.
01:50I mean anyone can do it.
01:55And we're joined by a writer and an actor who recently was diagnosed with ADHD.
02:02At least we know they aren't involved in organised crime, it's Rhys Nicholson.
02:06Now Rhys, I wonder what crime would you have the attention span to commit?
02:13Illegally downloading Caribbean TV shows.
02:18And finally, a comedian who grew up working in her parents' plant nursery.
02:22She's perfect for this show because she's spent a lifetime around blood and bone.
02:26It's Claire Hooper.
02:27And I can dig a deep hole too.
02:34Now Claire, have you ever been in trouble with a law?
02:38Um, just for the obvious, looking this good.
02:45From blood spatter to browser histories, forensics blend science with logic.
02:50In a world of lies, it promised evidence you could test, measure and analyse.
02:54And if nothing else, it's inspired a lot of television that always seems to start exactly
02:58the same way.
02:59A featured extra rolls into a car park, spots a dead body and boom, they're in a crime scene.
03:06With acting like that, they won't be back.
03:08Then in comes the detective.
03:10Emotionally unavailable, complex backstory, holding a takeaway coffee they'll never drink.
03:15They're soon joined by painfully cool lab tech who has tattoos, glasses and tweezers.
03:20So you know they're legit.
03:21We found a single fibre from a crocheted card he sold exclusively at stall 67A at the Queen
03:27Victoria Markets.
03:28Exactly 42 and a half minutes later, who did it?
03:32Of course, we saw them in the opening frame.
03:35It's the guest star trying to prove they're more than just a quiz show host.
03:41Case closed.
03:42I know, I can't unsee that crochet card again.
03:51Moby looks great.
03:54Today, forensics is everywhere.
03:56In our courtrooms, our headlines, even our family ancestry kits.
04:00It feels objective, conclusive and public faith is high.
04:04Danielle, what makes forensic evidence so important?
04:07Forensics has provided one of the biggest breakthroughs in criminal justice and in policing in the last century.
04:13If you think about what police had to rely on in terms of evidence before forensics,
04:18it was things like eyewitness testimony, which we know is flawed.
04:21Offender confessions, which we know could be coerced.
04:24It also provided this scientific standard of proof.
04:27So it is subject to evidence-driven approaches, testing, analysis that's usually pretty rigorous.
04:34Most importantly, forensics has allowed us to identify offenders.
04:39So we can now link suspects to crime scenes, to victims, to weapons with greater precision.
04:45And the cool thing these days is there's so many different types of forensics.
04:48So you think about it, you've got fingerprints, you've got DNA, you've got ballistics, you've got forensic toxicology.
04:54And what it means is that at a particular crime scene, there can just be so many different types of forensics.
04:59In 2017 in South America, there was this case, it was a heist and there were lots of offenders involved.
05:05They went in and processed that scene and they found 457 different types of forensic evidence.
05:12Oh my God.
05:13Which is crazy.
05:14They actually used that evidence to go back and solve crimes from almost a decade earlier.
05:18457? Are there that many bodily fluids?
05:22I only know three.
05:25Yeah.
05:26And four?
05:28Rhys, have you ever used forensics to uncover any crimes?
05:32When I'm away, when I'm on tour, because the rule in our house is our dog doesn't sleep on our beds.
05:38But when I come home, on my side of the bed, there's always a perfect egg shape.
05:43That is exactly the same circumference as my dog curled up in a tight little egg, or my husband's having an affair with a tiny woman.
05:56On screen, forensics is flawless.
05:59Clues are crystal clear and lab results are back in minutes, ensuring cases are tied up neatly before the credits roll.
06:05It's great drama, but it's also warped how we think about real life evidence, especially in the jury box.
06:11That phenomenon even has a name.
06:13It's called the CSI effect, the highly seductive notion that forensic science, at least on television, never fails.
06:22But in the real world, say the experts, forensic evidence is complex and maddeningly inconclusive.
06:29The CSI effect attracts unreasonable jury expectations and the belief that a single fingerprint can solve everything.
06:36Thanks to TV, we imagine DNA smeared everywhere, perfectly preserved crime scenes and dimly lit labs that solve murders in under an hour.
06:45I mean, please, I couldn't read a restaurant menu in that light.
06:48But in reality, forensic evidence analysis is slow, costly and not as conclusive as TV suggests.
06:55Danielle, how real a problem is the CSI effect?
06:58We know the jurors expect forensic evidence on cases.
07:02And when there's no forensic evidence on cases, they tend to view those cases as weaker.
07:07The public has this expectation that if there is DNA evidence, the crimes are going to get solved much more quickly.
07:13That is not the case in real life.
07:15We know that testing takes weeks, sometimes months.
07:19And there are even cases we know of here in some jurisdictions in Australia where sometimes there are backlogs in terms of testing.
07:26There was a report that came out of New South Wales that showed that 74 out of the 80 police commands reported that they have to manage incorrect public expectations and assumptions about forensics and about testing times.
07:41We love these TV shows. I mean, we've all got our favourites. But how do they misrepresent forensics?
07:46They misrepresented in so many ways. So we think about fingerprints, for example, because that's the one that people are most familiar with.
07:52So you watch these shows, you would think that you can take a fingerprint off any surface.
07:56And that's just not the case. You can't take a fingerprint off a wet surface, for example, a drink bottle that's got condensation on the outside.
08:03The other issue about fingerprints is that they can't be dated. So you can leave a fingerprint somewhere. It could have been there for years.
08:11So just think about this. So think about the last time that you slept away somewhere from home.
08:16So it might be a hotel room or a friend's house or a beach house.
08:20I spend half of my life in hotel rooms. What are you about to tell me?
08:24So there's a pretty good chance that you've left fingerprints in that room, right?
08:29Now, those fingerprints could still be there. Now, think about if a murder happened in that particular room tonight.
08:35If the crime scene investigators go in, they're liable to find your fingerprints at that murder scene.
08:40But that fingerprint could have been days, months, weeks.
08:43In some cases, defence lawyers have argued that their client's fingerprint was left there two years before the actual crime happened.
08:50Claire, what new kind of CSI show would you love to watch or indeed be in?
08:54CSI Home Makeover, where after they've solved the crime, they clean up the blood, they replace the carpet and the curtains,
09:01give it a lick of paint and some new curtains, and the grieving family gets the entertaining space they always drink.
09:14Every time we move through space, we leave a little forensic trail behind.
09:18Fingerprints, fibres, and if you're enthusiastic enough, maybe even a little DNA.
09:23No judgement.
09:25Just how much evidence are we dropping without even realising?
09:28We find out in our experiment of the week.
09:36Like most of us, Claire Hooper and Ree Sinkelson are no stranger to forensic crime shows.
09:41But the real question is, did it sink in, or will it sink them?
09:45This is the ABC green room where Reece and Claire are joining us for what they think is a script read-through with a producer.
09:52Oh my God.
09:53But what they don't know is that they're on camera.
09:55Oh, that's cute.
09:57And that the crime night team have rigged the room with bits and bobs to try and encourage them to be a little more messy than usual.
10:05Do we like pizza?
10:06Yes.
10:07They look like they've travelled a long way.
10:10They're from Italy, actually.
10:13Beautiful.
10:14Thanks.
10:15Reece instantly makes themselves at home.
10:22Nope.
10:26Enter producer Dave.
10:28Okay.
10:29Since this is the forensics episode, we're going to do a little experiment with you.
10:36And that experiment starts right now.
10:38Okay.
10:40Good.
10:43Good news.
10:44So, you've been in here for a while.
10:45We're going to give you two minutes to clear this room of any forensic material you might have left in here.
10:51We shouldn't have had that spitting on each other competition.
10:54After that, the forensics team is going to come in.
10:56They're going to sweep the room.
10:57Your two minutes starts now.
11:00Oh, God!
11:03Okay.
11:05Yeah, get there.
11:06I touch that.
11:07We touch that.
11:08This is all going in.
11:14Alright, so I touch that.
11:16We need a cloth.
11:17Get a makeup wipe.
11:18I think we just have to eat the whole pizza.
11:21How do I?
11:24Do I lint roll?
11:25You were brushing your hair!
11:27They did not have any shovels or lime.
11:31Get it!
11:35Time's up.
11:36The scene is sealed off and samples are taken from Rhys and Claire.
11:40Oh, there's going to be an internal.
11:42One cheek first.
11:45You've got beautiful fingerprints.
11:48Let's go to jail!
11:49It's now over to the forensics to see what they can find.
11:54Firstly, they photograph the potential pieces of evidence.
11:58Then they swab possible sources for saliva.
12:01They use a technique called oblique lighting to look for evidence on the floor.
12:06Fluorescent dust is used to locate and lift fingerprints.
12:09And UV light to detect fibres.
12:16Time to take this to the lab.
12:24How did Rhys and Claire go in the forensic face-off?
12:27Were they successful in removing traces of themselves from the scene?
12:30We'll find out later, because that was our experiment of the week.
12:33Oh!
12:38Forensics is often seen as flawless, the courtroom's most reliable witness.
12:42But in reality, you're not just trusting the science, you're trusting the expert interpreting it.
12:46And sometimes that science is really what the field politely calls junk science.
12:52David, when we say junk science, what are we actually talking about?
12:55Junk science is a set of techniques that are very subjective.
12:58So they rely more upon the subjectivity of the scientist rather than the actual scientific result.
13:03And we think here things like, for example, bite marks, tyre impressions, blood splatter.
13:09Bite marks are open to interpretation.
13:10I thought everyone would have a very individual set of teeth.
13:13You can't really tell the difference?
13:14No, no.
13:15I mean, English teeth, surely.
13:18Few cases have exposed the flaws in forensic science more clearly than one of Australia's most infamous miscarriages of justice.
13:25The Chamberlain case.
13:26Well, I just yelled out, has anyone got a torch?
13:28The dingo's got my baby.
13:29Michael and Lindy Chamberlain were on a family camping trip at Uluru in 1980 when their nine-week-old daughter, Azaria, disappeared from their tent.
13:39Lindy said a dingo had taken her baby, who was wearing a crocheted matinee jacket at the time, but police didn't believe her and instead charged her with murder.
13:48The prosecution leaned heavily on forensic evidence that sounded convincing until you looked at the details.
13:53The British forensic expert who testified about the dingo bite marks had never seen a dingo.
14:00Remarkable considering dingoes were central to the case.
14:03That dramatic blood stain under the Chamberlain's car dashboard, the supposed murder scene, turned out to be old milkshake and factory applied sound deadening spray.
14:12And the biologist who swore it was blood later admitted her testing was wrong and she couldn't recall how she came to make the error.
14:19The Chamberlain case was a masterclass in forensics gone wrong, a mix of poorly collected data and mistaken analysis.
14:27Three years later, Azaria's missing jacket was found, blood stained and buried near a dingo's lair and the verdict was overturned.
14:35Lindy Chamberlain has been released from Darwin jail and she won't be going back.
14:39At the same time, the Northern Territory Government has announced there will be a new inquiry into the Chamberlain case.
14:46It took until 32 years and four inquiries later to officially state what Lindy had claimed since day one, a dingo did take her baby.
14:55David, how did these flawed forensics end up delivering a guilty verdict?
15:00This case really is a masterclass in forensic disasters and it's a forensic disgrace quite frankly.
15:05So what essentially happened is the police relatively early on formed the view that Lindy was guilty and they built a circumstantial case around that.
15:14And that case was pretty weak to be honest until they had that forensic evidence.
15:19So the forensic evidence was the tears in the baby's clothes and the scientists testified that they were in fact caused by scissors as opposed to dingo bite marks.
15:27But also there was the blood splatter. And what we now know is that the kit used by the scientist to actually test that blood gave a false positive.
15:37So when she tested it, it actually tested positive for baby's blood, fetal blood.
15:42What we now know is that particular test kit gives false positives in relation to copper.
15:47So there was copper inside the car. There were sort of 22 individual sort of blood splatters in that car.
15:51But it was testing positive each time to copper.
15:55I can't wrap my head around how this went so wrong.
15:58I think a big part of this is that this case became this sensational media spectacle.
16:04There was so much intense national and international media scrutiny.
16:07And I think when you see that in cases, it puts an incredible amount of pressure on investigators to come up with a conclusive outcome and to do it quickly.
16:18And I think that is what led to some of the flawed investigative processes here.
16:23There were also significant mistakes that were made by the investigators in their decision making throughout the process.
16:28So the fact that they dismissed all of the alternative early explanations.
16:34So the dingo explanation was dismissed really early on because there was no precedent for the dingo taking a baby before.
16:42This case was the perfect storm. It was just littered with significant investigative errors.
16:48The media went crazy at that time. And a big part of it was the fact that this was a woman who didn't look like she was a grieving mother.
16:54She was a Seventh-day Adventist. You know, she was different. There was a real agenda.
16:59Absolutely. I mean, there were people talked about the fact that she didn't seem like she was emotional enough.
17:05Looking back on it with 20-20 vision, it's like rampant sexism, right?
17:09Like it's a whole country looking at someone going, oh, you're not the type of woman I think you should be being about this.
17:15You're not crying. You're not grieving in the same way.
17:18I reckon there would still be people walking around thinking about Lindy Chamberlain going, hmm, I don't know.
17:21Like, it's such a strange thing.
17:24It's such a wild fluke that the matinee jacket was found because it was only, you know, like years later and it was someone else's accident that led them to find it.
17:34Do you think there's any chance that we would have gone back and assessed the forensic evidence again with fresh eyes if that jacket hadn't been found?
17:43She would still be in jail?
17:44I reckon she'd absolutely still be in jail. So there was a backpacker who decided to climb Uluru. He ended up falling and ultimately died.
17:52But the rescue team were out looking for his body. And in that process, one of the searchers stumbled upon the matinee jacket.
17:58Now, he knew straight away what he'd found because he had been in the original search party looking for Azaria.
18:03What?
18:04Yeah. I've got shivers just talking about it. And as soon as he saw it, he said he knew straight away that that was Azaria's matinee jacket. He knew exactly what he'd found.
18:12I think the other piece to this case that's also mind blowing is that there were legit experts that worked on this case who got it wrong.
18:19There was Dr James Cameron, who was an experienced forensic scientist from the UK. There was Joy Kuehl, an experienced forensic biologist from New South Wales. These guys worked on a lot of cases and both of them got it wrong.
18:36What this case has really shown us is that forensics is like any other form of evidence. It needs to be questioned. It needs to be tested in court to essentially establish that it's reliable.
18:47In the mid-80s, everything changed when a chance discovery transformed the way crimes could be solved.
18:54British geneticist Sir Alec Jeffries stumbled upon the idea that each of us carries a unique molecular fingerprint, a kind of genetic barcode.
19:03Don't you just love it when that happens? The only thing I've stumbled on lately is the fact that I now make a noise every time I get up from the couch.
19:09Jeffries had uncovered the foundation of DNA profiling.
19:13Since then, it hasn't just transformed how we solve crime. It's redefined the very concept of evidence.
19:20DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, when she's feeling fancy, changed the game.
19:26David, how did DNA testing change forensics forever?
19:29So DNA is both unique and accurate. The chances of people, other than identical twins, sharing the same DNA profile is about one in a billion.
19:36And some people even say it's as high as one in a trillion. But the actual scientific testing of it as well is really accurate.
19:43So it's about 99.5% accurate. And in really well-controlled labs, it's as high as 100%.
19:49So unlike junk science like bite marks and things like that, where there's a lot of subjectivity on the basis of the scientist,
19:54it's actually the science itself that's proving whether or not this is a match.
20:00I think it's been a game changer. It's given us the ability to solve cold cases once DNA testing has become available.
20:07And that's enabled us to prosecute people who've evaded conviction.
20:11It's also given us the power to overturn wrongful convictions.
20:13And one of the best things about the effect that DNA evidence has given us is what we see in the US Innocence Project,
20:21where they've used DNA evidence to free over 375 people, 21 of whom are on death row.
20:29So I think DNA evidence genuinely saves people's lives.
20:34These days DNA doesn't just stay at the crime scene. It can turn up in the past, in places you'd never expect,
20:39with some very surprising results. Lou Wall takes a closer look.
20:44So you've sorted your super, prepaid your funeral, and now you're ready to tackle life's biggest question.
20:51What percentage Viking am I?
20:54Truthfully, I just got one of these genealogy testing kits to see if I could get an AU passport.
20:59And to confirm some deeply held suspicions about Grandad's secret second family.
21:03Genealogy websites used to be harmless retirement projects, a fun way to figure out which side of the family gave you webbed feet.
21:12It was mum's.
21:14But now, thanks to a growing DNA database of people willing to go out their genetic material,
21:19you might also help uncover something unexpected.
21:22Instead of red streams, it's now DNA strands connecting the dots of blood to the suspects.
21:27Forensic genealogy can match DNA from those public databases to crime scene DNA in order to solve cold cases.
21:35One minute, it's your 8% Icelandic. Knew it.
21:39The next, it's your cousin's a serial killer. Did not knew it.
21:43In Australia, police can only access data from public opt-in genealogy websites.
21:47But in the US, they can get data from companies like Ancestry and 23andMe with a warrant.
21:53It's how they nailed the infamous Golden State Killer in 2018.
21:58Joseph James D'Angelo was finally unmasked thanks to a distant relative's DNA being uploaded to a public genealogy website.
22:05Investigators built out a family tree, narrowed it down and then followed him until he left behind a used napkin.
22:11He literally wiped away his freedom.
22:14Police in Australia have their own databases which hold 1.7 million profiles, but commercial databases hold millions more.
22:23And whilst your data is private, once you've handed over that cheek swab, technically it can be searched, sold or quietly shared in future.
22:33Even if you haven't taken a test, chances are a curious relative has.
22:37And sometimes, that's all it takes.
22:39One sample can generate hundreds, even thousands of connections.
22:45And this DNA family tree is growing faster than you can say, Bob's your uncle.
22:50And possibly a drug lord.
22:54Bitter.
22:56Too much Aunt Joan.
22:57DNA might feel like the end game to us, but it's actually just a step.
23:06Danielle, what can we expect next in the world of forensics?
23:09Microbiome.
23:11What? Isn't that in my gut?
23:13Yeah.
23:14It's actually in your gut.
23:15So human microbiomes, they're microorganisms like bacteria, fungi, viruses.
23:22They live in and on your body.
23:24Right.
23:25In your gut, on your skin, in your mouth, in your respiratory tract, in your urogenital tract.
23:32We're talking farts, right?
23:34Like, we mean farts?
23:36Is it farts?
23:37Yes.
23:38Danielle, is it farts?
23:39You do expel them all the time through your breath, your urine, your feces and your farts.
23:47So with microbiomes, we can finally figure out who dealt it.
23:54Microbiomes, it's really in the experimental phase, okay?
23:57So there's a lot of work to be done to see whether we can actually use this or not.
24:01But there's some really cool features.
24:02So think about before when I was talking about the fingerprint and leaving the fingerprint in the last place you stayed.
24:06And you can't date that, so you don't know when it was left.
24:10The cool thing about microbiomes is there's the potential to figure out when they were left there.
24:15By the way they multiply and mutate and things like that.
24:18But there are risks to it because, as David said, it's still in the experimental phase.
24:22We know much more about DNA than we know about microbiomes.
24:26And one of the risks is its variability, right?
24:29Microbiomes can change over time with diets, travel, illness, even if you take antibiotics.
24:36But it's really cool when you think about combining what we know from DNA with microbiomes.
24:42That's the next new thing.
24:44Earlier, Rhys and Claire tried to wipe their prints, fibres and DNA from our green room.
24:50Forensics bagged and tagged, sent it to the lab and the results are in.
24:54But who disappeared best?
24:55It's time for this week's Endgame, wipe right.
24:58Now Rhys, do you think you were able to remove all traces of you from the green room?
25:10No, I reckon there's every chance I've absolutely scattered that place with my DNA.
25:15And do you remember the things you touched where you might have left your DNA?
25:18Hey, that's a private question.
25:20I touched the pizza and then I touched everything.
25:24Definitely touched a bottle of water at one point.
25:27I'm a touchy guy but not in like a HR kind of way.
25:31Yeah, I touched everything.
25:33So fingerprints would be everywhere.
25:35What about you, Claire? How do you think you went?
25:36Honestly, I don't know. We met the two forensic scientists and they did seem smarter than half.
25:44Oh, yeah.
25:46I'd be pretty surprised if we outwitted them.
25:49Let's take a look.
25:51So forensics have gathered quite a few fingerprints from the scene.
25:54We've got a green powdered fingerprint taken from a glass lolly jar.
25:59The unknown fingerprint perfectly overlays with the reference fingerprint from Rhys.
26:06The best result that we obtained was from the penlib.
26:09We can see that we have a full DNA profile that suggests it's from a single source.
26:15What we would do now is compare this to the reference samples that we obtained from our suspects.
26:21And we've got a match.
26:23The donor of the DNA profile on the penlib is most likely Rhys.
26:28Based on my comparisons, Claire has not contributed to any of the crime scene sample DNA.
26:33So this is the reference sample of Rhys.
26:38It's a really exciting one actually because what you can see here is it's coloured.
26:42Very distinctly coloured. It's got this beautiful red colour.
26:45In fact, this person loves their hair and it must be a very expensive colour job too.
26:50You can see the consistency of it, how even it is.
26:53Excellent. Hair colour job.
26:54Claire's reference sample is here. You can see it's got that lightish colour to it.
26:59The end of the hair, we actually have damage.
27:02And this is heat-based damage.
27:04And as you go along, it gets this kind of stringy appearance.
27:08Then it almost looks like it's melting.
27:10So in this particular case, we have three evidence samples.
27:14All of the three evidence samples are actually really nice.
27:16We have the whole length of the hair from at least the root.
27:20So looking at Rhys's hair here at the moment, because it has dyed, we can exclude it immediately.
27:26However, from the analysis, there's some unique damage within Claire's hair, which is consistent with hair too.
27:33Some would say it's a match.
27:34What a thrill that I'm going to get caught for the crime, but I'm going to have the best hair in jail.
27:49I mean, he was so excited.
27:52They toned him down.
27:54Claire, how did you feel watching that?
27:56I mean, I feel a bit triggered by that myself.
27:59I just feel outraged because Rhys was the one brushing their hair for about 20 minutes.
28:07I'm like, how did I shed?
28:10Yeah, and that's why it's such good quality hair.
28:12I look after it.
28:13I'm brushing it for 20 minutes a day because I'm childless.
28:19So Rhys, the full analysis showed that your fingerprints showed up in four different places around the room,
28:25and of course your DNA was all over that pen lid.
28:27On the other hand, Claire, you left behind no prints at all.
28:32The only thing that could tie you to the room was a single, extremely damaged hair.
28:36Wow.
28:38I'll tell you why it was damaged.
28:39Because someone had been carrying it in their pocket and they planted it all.
28:44Please give a huge thank you to our guests Rhys Nicholson and Claire Hooper.
28:47And of course our resident experts, Professor Danielle Reynold and Dr David Bartlett.
29:00This week on Crime Night we learned that forensic science isn't always fast, flawless or foolproof.
29:05But when it works, it can solve cold cases, free the innocent and rewrite the story entirely.
29:12Just maybe don't build your entire scientific knowledge from NCIS Sydney.
29:16I'm Julia Zemiro. Good night.
29:17I'll see you there.
29:18I'll see you there.
29:19Have a good night.
29:21Good night.
29:22Looking back to our guests and good night.
29:23Thank you so much.
29:25You alright, thanks.
29:26Good night.
29:27guer Buyers.
29:29good night.
29:30楽
Be the first to comment