Latest on MJJC

Conrad Murray : Michael Broke the Syringe / Key Witnesses Are Undermining Me!

noirnoar said:
Michael Jackson taking propofol and lidocaine orally is NOT supported by autopsy, since the traces are not found in oral organs: teeth, tongue, lips, mouth, gums, palate, glands, uvula, esophagus...

Murray's team are full of crap, never heard so much non-sense from them. Drinking propofol was the most laughable one. Autopsy does not support their claim/theory, period.

No matter what Murray's defends are claiming, I think their strategy is to put doubt on anything relating to the case, regardless is true or false.
Click to expand...
I agree, I think they try to multiply these foolishly looking strategies in trying desperately to raise doubt. It is desperate, cause the evidence has no mercy for Murray.
Soundmind said:
can you be sure? I serioulsy can't . Fleak already said she did not even size the juice bottles found there, did not even collect them . So what if he was poisoned ? what would they have done ?

You know what we went crazy over Beachlover's assumption that lorazepam was not tested for in the liver and the urine , and we thought they would have never been that incompetent .

At this point I won't be surprised if indeed they believed Murray and did not even bother to check whether he said the truth about the previous nights .
Click to expand...
I would not be that pessimistic to say they did not test for lorazepam in these cases. That is what Murray told them first plus why did they test for midazolam and not lorazepam?

Also, I know that was probably discussed before, but there are these dashes in the final table in the autopsy report, and yet there is "ND" (not detected?) in case of ephedrine. They might have the results, but they were not made public? OR they are inconsistent in presenting data in the table and "---" can mean "not tested" or "not detected??"
 
Soundmind said:
First, MJ's fingerprints are not on the syringe , who the hell said they were found on that syringe ?

second , even if they were and THEY ARE NOT , medically it is impossible for MJ to have injected himself .

Third Murray used that syringe to induce sleep that day , so his fingerprint would be on it .

Last the syringe was not even found under the bed as the media reporters are claiming , it was a needle that Murray gave to the paramedics to use . the syringe was found on the nightstand .


Why do you guys disappear for months and then when anything remotely related to "suicide" or "overdose" is mentioned you surface suddenly to ruin these threads . You are discussing things that have been already discussed and REFUTED medically tens of times
Click to expand...

Thanks for the bolded.

Have you noticed that Murray is charged for negligence, but many of the nonsense strategies the defense is proposing tries to show that Murray did not commit murder, but someone else did or Michael killed himself. Michael drank it, he injected it, someone came in the room and killed him. The defense is not showing strategies that show Murray was NOT NEGLIGENT. Could it be they know he is guilty of murder and decide to go that route?
 
smoothlugar said:
The explanation from Metzger in 2000 about prescriptions for Janet under another name was privacy (it was diuretics to help dieting).

In the "Search Warrant" the prescriptions related to MJ and under other names are mentioned, nothing strange, they were for the other medicines found (antibiotics by Lee and similar, already known), again, same issue of privacy.
Click to expand...


janet was sued by the staff member whos name she was using without his permission. he won the case. i believe and it was drugs such as apetite suppressants and valtrex along w/ opiate beta blockers.

I mean at autsopy they checked Michael for such things like anything in his mouth and such
Click to expand...

like soundmind said do we know that they tested for these things though? would you normally its not like you can physically see it and say yeah its there

re the dashes in the toxicology. im no expert but to me if one part says not detected and the other just has a dash then to me it says the dash means it wasnt tested for.if it was tested for and there was nothing it would say n/d either that or they dont want it made public (can they do that?)
 
Last edited:
I suppose Murray that day would use at least more than one induction dosage so as to explain for the u. bottle.
Click to expand...

not necessary, I also believed that was the case first until I read more on urine production and exertion.

we are assuming the bladder exerted the 400ml at once , that all the urine was the result of the fluids Murray was giving via IV after he induced sleep using propofol. MJ was training ,they found liquid in his stomach , some of the 400ml came from fluids he previously drank. Bottom line the presence of propofol in both the bladder and the jug could have been the result of one shot of propofol.
 
Soundmind said:
not necessary, I also believed that was the case first until I read more on urine production and exertion.

we are assuming the bladder exerted the 400ml at once , that all the urine was the result of the fluids Murray was giving via IV after he induced sleep using propofol. MJ was training ,they found liquid in his stomach , some of the 400ml came from fluids he previously drank. Bottom line the presence of propofol in both the bladder and the jug could have been the result of one shot of propofol.
Click to expand...

And, do you think that Michael gave HIMSELF that "one shot?"

You know, the "only 25 to 50mg of propofol" is conjecture, not PROVEN. Especially because of the rapid rate at which propofol leaves the body, and whatever Murray did to clean up the scene/equipment. I've read the material carefully, and that still does not indicate PROOF. The defense will offer their "proofs," and the prosecution will offer their's. Pretty sure those will be different. I hope the jury can sort it out.
 
if you read the previous pages maybe JUST MAYBE you would not have hurried to point the finger and condemn.

I believe it's time you start reading and comprehending the subjects at hand instead of trusting your 'gut feelings' that obviously let you down almost on everything .

add this subject to Adams, Lee, Metzger , lorazepam ..etc that your 'thorough investigative work' did not even consider and you was very determined to make the rest here dismiss .

This case is about medical facts , there are many here who are very willing to work out what did really happened that day , in the previous days and months , fortunately for us science don't lie . Most of us are not willing to base anything on 'gut feelings'. Gut feelings where there is no boundaries between reality and fiction could be quoted in the conspiracy section only.
 
Last edited:
Soundmind said:
if you read the previous pages maybe JUST MAYBE you would not have hurried to point the finger and condemn.

I believe it's time you start reading and comprehending the subjects at hand instead of trusting your 'gut feelings' that obviously let you down almost on everything .

add this subject to Adams, Lee, Metzger , lorazepam ..etc that your 'thorough investigative work' did not even consider .
Click to expand...

My question is, given your detailed analyses of amounts of various medications, and components of the medical equipment, and amounts of medications found as per the autopsy report -- I want to know what conclusion you would draw from all of that? That Murray wasn't giving a dangerous amount of propofol? Or, that he wasn't giving a dangerous amount of propofol, but WAS giving a dangerous amount of benzos? And then, is it that Michael didn't receive a dangerous amount of propofol, but that someone gave Michael a massive bolus? Murray did? Michael somehow did that himself? Someone else? I mean, what is your conclusion from all of that material?
 
Last edited:
Soundmind said:
if you read the previous pages maybe JUST MAYBE you would not have hurried to point the finger and condemn.

I believe it's time you start reading and comprehending the subjects at hand instead of trusting your 'gut feelings' that obviously let you down almost on everything .

add this subject to Adams, Lee, Metzger , lorazepam ..etc that your 'thorough investigative work' did not even consider and you was very determined to make the rest here dismiss .

This case is about medical facts , there are many here who are very willing to work out what did really happened that day , in the previous days and months , fortunately for us science don't lie . Most of us are not willing to base anything on 'gut feelings'. Gut feelings where there is no boundaries between reality and fiction could be quoted in the conspiracy section only.
Click to expand...

Autumn II said:
My question is, given your detailed analyses of amounts of various medications, and components of the medical equipment, and amounts of medications found as per the autopsy report -- I want to know what conclusion you would draw from all of that? That Murray wasn't giving a dangerous amount of propofol? Or, that he wasn't giving a dangerous amount of propofol, but WAS giving a dangerous amount of benzos? And then, is it that Michael didn't receive a dangerous amount of propofol, but that someone gave Michael a massive bolus? Murray did? Michael somehow did that himself? Someone else? I mean, what is your conclusion from all of that material?
Click to expand...
yes Soundmind..I too am very interested as to how you came to the conclusion that Murray ONLY gave Michael 25mg of propofol...as per the professional...that would not even be enough to keep him asleep...however we all know that Michael had enough in his system to kill an elephant. If we take what it is you previously posted about the 25 mg..then that means that you are taking Murrays word for WHAT he says he gave Michael...and THAT means that you believe that he was using this on Michael the previous days and months..per your post. I thought we already came to the conclusion that if Murray had used this on Michael prior to June 25th..Michael would of pasted away long before he did.?? Also it has never been proven yet that Michael died of a bolus injection....it has been proven and testified to that it was Medically impossible for Michael to have given himself that last final dose ..do you agree?
 
why don't you read what is posted in this thread? why everything she says you have to repeat blindly ?

I dare you to find a post in which I said Murray gave MJ 25 mg of propofol

Again AGAIN how many times I have to remind you to stop misquoting , start comprehending the topic addressed.

where did I even say I believe Murray gave MJ 25mg of propofol

you are very interested in knowing that ? tell me where did you read it in the first place to become interested ?
 
Soundmind said:
I also believed that was the case first until I read more on urine production and exertion.
(...) the presence of propofol in both the bladder and the jug could have been the result of one shot of propofol.
Click to expand...
But there were two samples of u. tested that's why I said at least two induction boluses dosages were needed (for each sample). (Similar as what Rogers suggested).


PS: An average induction bolus dosage is 2 - 2,5 mg/Kg, not the dose Murray alleged. Nobody was discussing that.;D
 
your post soundmind.....in the statues hearing thread

He says I gave him 25mg over three minutes , no expert can say that was negligent on his part , the UCLA doctor daid she did not understand why he would even use such a small amount because it would have done absolutely nothing. So if the jurors heard that , and the prosecutors did not prove that was a lie, it will be a point for the defence not the prosecutors.

he says I remained there watching him for almost an hour , and the effect would have worn off within minutes of injection , what expert would say that was negligent ?


here are your posts..and here you are defending saying what expert would say that was negligent?? Of course it was negligent for him to leave Michael alone...and this is only one post I can find others.


this is what I am talking about......

Originally Posted by Soundmind
They made it about forensics , the defence made it about forensics . Again two witnesses from the prosecution side confirmed 25mg would have done nothing, did not even need monitoring , would have worn off within minutes , so if the jurors were told that , and if MJ was blamed for the rest ,and if the prosecutors said yea so what he is still quality ,can you guarantee the jurors will find Murray negligent ?
 
"But there were two samples of u. tested that's why I said at least two induction boluses dosages were needed (for each sample). (Similar as what Rogers suggested).PS: An average induction bolus dosage is 2 - 2,5 mg/Kg, not the dose Murray alleged. Nobody was discussing that. "
Click to expand...

yes, they tested for propofol in the bladder and the jug , but that does not mean the propofol in both did not come from one injection I'm talking about the syringe with propofol and lidocaine that was found on the nightstand that I believe was used to induce sleep, not the one which killed MJ and was inserted into the injection port.

You are assuming in order for propofol to be found in both , he must have received at least two injections, something I intially believed.

But when you read further on the subject urine production and exertion, medically it's very possible the concentration in both was the result of the induction dose.

when urine was produced?
when urine was exerted?
400 ml exerted at once? there were intervals? if so both the urine in bladder and in the jug would have traces of propofol in them .
 
Last edited:
xthunderx2 said:
your post soundmind.....in the statues hearing thread

He says I gave him 25mg over three minutes , no expert can say that was negligent on his part , the UCLA doctor daid she did not understand why he would even use such a small amount because it would have done absolutely nothing. So if the jurors heard that , and the prosecutors did not prove that was a lie, it will be a point for the defence not the prosecutors.

he says I remained there watching him for almost an hour , and the effect would have worn off within minutes of injection , what expert would say that was negligent ?
Click to expand...

Here are some requested examples of posts, and there are others. This is what Murray SAID, and forensics will determine the likelihood of that being what actually happened. Evidence in any court case is used by the defense to construct a narrative, and by the prosecution, to construct a different narrative.You clearly have detailed medical knowledge, and therefore, what narrative do you think the various amounts of propofol found per the autopsy report, and traces in medical apparatus, actually portray? I.e., how much propofol Murray gave? And further, if he gave only 25mg, then, do you think that what killed Michael was a bolus of a much higher amount? I.e., a fatal dose?

The cause of death was acute propofol intoxication with benzo effect. So, do you think it was the propofol that killed Michael, or was the coroner wrong, and it was actually benzos that stopped Michael's breathing and killed him?

These are QUESTIONS, not assumptions about what you might or might not think. I'd really like to hear the narrative you think all the analyses is portraying.

If Murray actually was giving a low amount of propofol, i.e. 25mg, then it was a bolus that killed Michael? Which leads to the defense theory (one of many!), that Michael, himself, injected the fatal dose. Which refers to the topic of this thread, about the broken syringe (and what fingerprints might be on it, or on any other medical apparatus). So, it's a QUESTION, about what YOU think actually happened, given your analyses.
 
Last edited:
give me one example , one post where I said I believe Murray gave mj only 25mg ? one post where I said MJ could have been able to self-inject?

you will not find it, you will never find it, and that's what you exactly said in your post .

Please stop addressing my posts, if you just notice, I don't address yours nor xthunderx , do the same please , this thread is not about us .
You always miss what I mean and always condemn and xthunderx always agree with you , I'm really sick of this attitude.

I put you on ignore , but when some quote you I'm forced to read what you write so what's the point of ignore?

At this point I recognize those who are able to add to this discussion and help me and others understands things better, I don't consider you one of them due to all the things you got wrong .

I skip your posts please do the same and skip my posts.
 
Last edited:
Soundmind said:
You are assuming in order for propofol to be found in both , he must have received at least two injections, something I intially believed.
Click to expand...
I see what you mean. But let me explain my point. It doesn't have to do with levels detected in toxicology in both samples but with the "use" of the jug. I'm assuming that for the jug to be used, the victim must have been awake. So the 0.10mg of profofol detected in those 450ml must reflect previous use to that moment (of being using the bottle). (I know there are also other possibilities to explain the jug content...).

But when you read further on the subject urine production and exertion, medically it's very possible the concentration in both was the result of the induction dose.

when urine was produced?
when urine was exerted?
400 ml exerted at once? there were intervals? if so both the urine in bladder and in the jug would have traces of propofol in them .
Click to expand...

What I have searched is "that the flood flow is the driving force behind urine formation, that urine is only a reflection of exposure to a drug, not at what level they are and that the concentration of drug(s) and metabolite(s) in urine depend on the time of urine formation relative to sampling and drug administration".http://www.franklincountyohiocoroner.com/pdf/toxicology-department-at-fcco.pdf

What I mean is that that "exposure" to propofol, previous to the last lethal dose (no time for more urine to be produced) cannot determine with certainty the amounts of miligrams administered by Murray. (I know the levels are not consistent with large amounts kept trough continuous infusion for long hours- that's clear, according to comparisons in blogs and that you also explained, but the exact amount has not been advanced by prosecutors yet, so it's almost impossible to determine whether it was 150mg- as defence suggested in their hypothesis- or a bit more and that DOES NOT include the last fatal dose given by Murray, because it didn't reflect in urine).

PS: My aim is not to go on arguing, but just bear in mind that we cannot be so conclusive so as to specify amounts or doses given by Murray, when prosecutors have not done it yet.
Click to expand...
 
ForeverBeInPeaceMichael said:
i just can't understand one thing


how come he has no idea what he's done to the world? does he not realize that because of him, many hearts r brocken, many eyes r still crying, many lives r forever changed, so many things r destroyed forever... and nothign can be the same.


just how?
Click to expand...


Sorry to say, basically he doesn't give a flying f*** and that's why he's so reviled and should be by the MJ Community! He's an arrogant sociopathic pig who has shown no, and I'm sure, feels NO remorse either! All that publicity/PR stuff including his visit to Forest Lawn - makes me SICK!!! and I'm sure everyone else here too!
 
I'm assuming that for the jug to be used, the victim must have been awake
Click to expand...

not necessarily. if mj had developed enuresis (e.g. as a result of high lorazepam doses combined with the effect of iv fluids, juice and bhp) he would have lost control of his bladder while under sedation.

an external condom catheter is attached to a bag, once the bag is filled its contents need to be emptied.

in the bottle was found 450ml of urine. let's assume the catheter bag was able to hold 0.5l. possibly murray realized the bag was almost full and emptied it into the bottle. mj could have been sedated while murray was emptying the bag.
 
smoothlugar said:
What I have searched is "that the flood flow is the driving force behind urine formation, that urine is only a reflection of exposure to a drug, not at what level they are and that the concentration of drug(s) and metabolite(s) in urine depend on the time of urine formation relative to sampling and drug administration".http://www.franklincountyohiocoroner.com/pdf/toxicology-department-at-fcco.pdf

What I mean is that that "exposure" to propofol, previous to the last lethal dose (no time for more urine to be produced) cannot determine with certainty the amounts of miligrams administered by Murray. (I know the levels are not consistent with large amounts kept trough continuous infusion for long hours- that's clear, according to comparisons in blogs and that you also explained, but the exact amount has not been advanced by prosecutors yet, so it's almost impossible to determine whether it was 150mg- as defence suggested in their hypothesis- or a bit more and that DOES NOT include the last fatal dose given by Murray, because it didn't reflect in urine).

PS: My aim is not to go on arguing, but just bear in mind that we cannot be so conclusive so as to specify amounts or doses given by Murray, when prosecutors have not done it yet.
Click to expand...

Thanks. This is very clear. That is my understanding, too, that no exact amount has been given by the prosecution, and that it's "almost impossible to determine" if the figure given by the defense is accurate, for the days prior to the lethal dose. The "last lethal dose" would be more precise, because, as said above, urine production would cease.

It's also clear that Murray was doing something he should not have been doing, although we can't know with certainly the level of risk he exposed Michael to in the days/nights preceding the lethal dose. Also, given Murray's past history of lying, we can't rely on his statements to be accurate.

Another question that occurs to me is, "why was there NO nurse?" Given the resources (i.e. amount to be paid to Murray), surely the reason there was no nurse wasn't financial! The usual tasks of a doctor, and a nurse, are different. Murray was doing many "nursing tasks." A nurse, not a doctor, places an I.V., deals with emptying the urine bags, and other tasks that deal with immediate, hands-on patient-care. Murray was dong everything! Was it that what he was doing was so irregular and risky, that he didn't want to have a nurse or nurses to witness all that? I've never heard this addressed, by prosecution or defense. . . . other than Murray's not having a specialist (anesthesiologist) present to administer the propofol. (which should not be given outside of a hospital or clinic, anyway.)
 
Last edited:
I always wondered about the nurse too. He supposedly wanted a nurse in London but he was drugging MJ up at home and didn't need one? it is very confusing. Why the need for one in London but not at the house?
 
smoothlugar said:
What I have searched is "that the flood flow is the driving force behind urine formation, that urine is only a reflection of exposure to a drug, not at what level they are and that the concentration of drug(s) and metabolite(s) in urine depend on the time of urine formation relative to sampling and drug administration".http://www.franklincountyohiocoroner.com/pdf/toxicology-department-at-fcco.pdf

What I mean is that that "exposure" to propofol, previous to the last lethal dose (no time for more urine to be produced) cannot determine with certainty the amounts of miligrams administered by Murray. (I know the levels are not consistent with large amounts kept trough continuous infusion for long hours- that's clear, according to comparisons in blogs and that you also explained, but the exact amount has not been advanced by prosecutors yet, so it's almost impossible to determine whether it was 150mg- as defence suggested in their hypothesis- or a bit more and that DOES NOT include the last fatal dose given by Murray, because it didn't reflect in urine).

PS: My aim is not to go on arguing, but just bear in mind that we cannot be so conclusive so as to specify amounts or doses given by Murray, when prosecutors have not done it yet.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
So in other words, it is likely that more than one injection was used and we can say there was no continuous drip, however, we cannot specify the amounts of drug in each of these two(?) injections? (sorry if I misunderstood something).

But is it possible to specify within which range the amounts could be placed?
Another question:
- would the effect of two injections be cumulative in the urine from bladder
- or propofol is quickly metabolised and it is impossible or
- we can't say?

EDIT: ok, I see this is dependent on urine production that stopped at some point that is why it is not possible to rely on tox results to the extend it would be possible with regards to the case when the person is alive.
 
Last edited:
sophie said:
not necessarily.

an external condom catheter is attached to a bag, once the bag is filled its contents need to be emptied.
mj could have been sedated while murray was emptying the bag.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's a possibility too and probably more likely. That means MJ was sedated for a longer time and that Murray lied when saying on that day he only gave one dose of propofol at 10:40. (propofol was present in the urine produced hours before: jug sample).
..........

Autumn II said:
Thanks. This is very clear. That is my understanding, too, that no exact amount has been given by the prosecution, and that it's "almost impossible to determine" if the figure given by the defense is accurate (...). The "last lethal dose" would be more precise, because, as said above, urine production would cease.

It's also clear that Murray was doing something he should not have been doing, although we can't know with certainly the level of risk he exposed Michael to in the days/nights preceding the lethal dose. Also, given Murray's past history of lying, we can't rely on his statements to be accurate.
Click to expand...
Wellcome. As you say we cannot rely on Murrays statements because he lies all the time. The coroner stated MJ died from "acute propofol intoxication" and that the benzodiacepine effect was a contributory factor so they will have the elements to stipulate the dosage was "toxic" and not "therapeutic" (i remember the defence asking Ruffalo about whether a 150mg bolus would be within the range of a therapeutic dosage).
(In the link on toxicology in my previous post, the distinction between these definitions for doses is explained.)
 
smoothlugar said:
Wellcome. As you say we cannot rely on Murrays statements because he lies all the time. The coroner stated MJ died from "acute propofol intoxication" and that the benzodiacepine effect was a contributory factor so they will have the elements to stipulate the dosage was "toxic" and not "therapeutic" (i remember the defence asking Ruffalo about whether a 150mg bolus would be within the range of a therapeutic dosage).
(In the link on toxicology in my previous post, the distinction between these definitions for doses is explained.)
Click to expand...

The reasoning behind Murray's giving flumazenil AND propofol remains extremely troubling. The first is a RESCUE drug if too much lorazepam has been given. From which we can assume Murray thought he had given TOO MUCH, i.e., "toxic," and probably Michael's breathing was depressed? So why then, in the same syringe, ALSO give the propofol? Which also can impair breathing? I mean, why "rescue" from one medication, while simultaneously giving another that can have the same effects? Depressing or stopping breathing?

I do think it's fair to assume that Michael did NOT give himself the fatal dose. He didn't/couldn't have loaded the syringe with those medications, i.e. both a rescue drug AND the propofol. And if he didn't know what was in it, I highly doubt that he self-injected.

Or, does the flumazenil clear the system of the lorazepam? Maybe not as a "rescue," but to as to avoid detection? The end result was the same. Michael died.
 
daisy said:
smoothlugar said:
Thank you.

But is it possible to specify within which range the amounts could be placed?
Another question:
- would the effect of two injections be cumulative in the urine from bladder
Click to expand...

Wellcome Daisy. In the preliminary Ruffalo admitted to the defence that the concentration level of propofol in blood was within the range of an induction bolus for anesthesia (around 150mg). But that means the last fatal dose, not the total amount given by Murray on that day. (BTW, Ruffalo made so many mistakes, already commented on this forum that he's not too reliable imo).

As the link I posted earlier on tox says the urine test would "reflect exposure" during the previous hours (while the formation of urine takes place) but not the actual propofol level at the time of death.
Click to expand...
 
Autumn II said:
So why then, in the same syringe, ALSO give the propofol? Which also can impair breathing? I mean, why "rescue" from one medication, while simultaneously giving another that can have the same effects? Depressing or stopping breathing?
Click to expand...
It seems Murray first gave the propofol and then when he realised Michael was not breathing he gave flumazenil (the benzodiacepine reversal) to reduce the effect of the "non breathing" caused by the benzos he had previously given as well, a great dose too. (There's no reversal for propofol). That's my understanding.
 
Yes, that's a possibility too and probably more likely. That means MJ was sedated for a longer time and that Murray lied when saying on that day he only gave one dose of propofol at 10:40. (propofol was present in the urine produced hours before: jug sample).
Click to expand...
for someone who claims he did nothing wrong he sure as hell lies alot
 
Maybe this isn't the right place for this but why do we believe that murray gave the benzos when he says he did? He has lied about so many things, why do we believe this? Or do we. What I mean is, he wasn't wearing a watch at the hospital, as I recall reading. And that he said he didn't have any sense of time, or words to that effect.. I don't remember reading if there was clock in Michael's room. So how does he recall so well when he gave the drugs. He doesn't seem to have kept any records.. Although he did have 2 days to recreate a plausible storyline...

As for the flumazenil in the same syringe as the propofol, if he was bolusing the propofol , that syringe would probably have been the most readily accessible for him so panicking, he grabbed it, figured it didn't matter that it wasn't empty, drew up the antagonist and injected.
I can't come up with any other reason.

I also can't understand why he would use Flumazenil when his last dose of any benzo given was almost, I think, 3 hours before for the versed at 0730 and 0500 for the ativan. He had to know that it wouldn't reverse the propofol. Unless he gave Michael a more recent dose of ativan that he's not telling us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top