Mature Lady Search Xxx Date Swallow Your Black Local Wifes
I'm just seeking to make a close girl friend, I had one before but I was pushed out of her life when she got a boyfriend Dx All of my closest friends are boys Fhck we have a very different way of seeking Fuck friends ct the world and our life situations than women do. I like movies that are a bit Fuck friends ct kilter and different.
|Seeking:||I Am Looking Sex Tonight|
|Relation Type:||Nsa Fuck Hung Blk Male Seeking Mature Bbws|
Yes this is a challange.
I'll only give that out if i know u real, serious, and if your what im waiting for. Serious relationship I'm serious girl in my thirtes waiting for serious relationship leading for marriage with kind, respectable man in his late thirties or forties. I don't need to be taken care of and I'm not seeking to take care of anyone. SORRY I CANT HOST, BUT ILL BE UR NAUGHTY LITTLE GIRL. Naughty lady wants sex tonight Pismo Beach something new. I am real, the 14 democrats are still in hiding.
I especially love women who are moms and have those amazing body characteristics that moms tend to have. Subject word is tender to assure a response. Me:in purple hat you admired.
Morganti further stated that he saw the same person a few minutes later walking north on the west side of Otter Rock Drive just north of Walsh Lane. A police report dated the following day indicates Morganti agreed to appear at the Detective Bureau for the purpose of preparing a composite sketch of the man he saw on October Another police report, dated November 6, , indicates that Special Officer John Duffy, who was on duty at the Field Point police booth, reported seeing Carl Wold, age 23, out walking at about 6 - 6: Duffy stated that he knows Wold to be a daily walker who lives on Walsh Lane.
The two men conversed briefly, with Wold telling Duffy that he was heading home. As a follow up to the reports concerning Morganti and Duffy, the police interviewed Carl Wold and his father. The son reported that he left his house at about 7: He reported that he had a short conversation with the officer on duty at the Field Point police booth. He continued walking and then headed home. He stated that as he did so he was stopped by a special officer on Field Point Road just south of the intersection with Walsh Lane.
The officer asked him where he was going and he told the officer he was going to his home on Walsh Lane. He stated that he walked down Walsh Lane to approximately the Ix's driveway, then turned around and walked to his house.
He stated that he got home about 8 p. Wold described his clothes that evening as "Brown olive field jacket, yellow corduroy shirt, tan slacks, top sider shoes. Wold was described as 6'1", lbs, dark brown, straight hair, medium length with silver rimmed glasses. Wold's father confirmed his son's account of his activities on October A white road stanchion had apparently been knocked over by a passing car, and Bjork saw Officer Morganti replacing it.
A further investigative report indicates that Morganti was reinterviewed on October 8, by both an investigator for the state and one hired by the Skakel family. By , Morganti's recollection of the time he saw the man out walking had changed. Although he originally reported seeing the man at about 10 p.
As in , Morganti stated that he stopped the person as he was walking on Field Point Road, and the man stated that he was heading to his home on Walsh Lane. Morganti now stated, however, that at about 10 p. Both the investigator for the state and the one hired by the Skakel family went with Morganti to the area he claimed he made the second sighting.
The distance from the figure to where Morganti said he was located was about yards. The report states that when Morganti originally reported the matter he assisted in making a composite sketch of the man he saw. The report further states: In his Amended Motion for New Trial, defendant claimed the composite sketch prepared by Morganti is exculpatory because it resembles Ken Littleton in He argued that evidence concerning the man Morganti saw could have been used to impeach Littleton's testimony as to his activities at around In support of his contention that the composite sketch resembles Ken Littleton in , the defendant submitted affidavits from two of his siblings, John and Julie Skakel, and photocopies of pictures.
Also, during the hearing on defendant's numerous post-verdict motions, the defendant marked for identification three boxes of material. Defendant's counsel, Hubert Santos, represented that he had received these materials from Michael Sherman, defendant's original trial counsel, who had received them from the state. Santos asserted that the composite sketch was not among the over documents included in these boxes.
The state responded that it did not know if the submitted boxes contained everything that the state had photocopied for the defense. Further, the state maintained that even if they did, the contents of the boxes would not represent the full extent of discovery. The state indicated that it had also made other items available to the defense for copying or inspection. In response to a question by the court, the state further represented that the composite sketch was most likely not among the materials it photocopied for the defense, but rather was among the objects made available for inspection.
The state argued that by giving the defendant all of the reports concerning Morganti and the person he observed, and by virtue of the fact these reports reference the composite sketch made with Morganti's assistance, the defendant was provided written notice of the sketch's existence. Further, the state represented that it had invited defense counsel to inspect and copy other portions of the state's file which had not been photocopied for him.
The state further represented that the first time defense counsel requested a copy the sketch mentioned in these reports, which was shortly before sentencing, the state provided them with a copy. The trial court found the defendant's Amended Motion for New Trial untimely. It also found that the sketch had not been suppressed. It noted that the defense had access to two reports which refer to the creation of the sketch.
The court found this enough to put the defendant on notice that it existed and was available for inspection. The court further found that the defendant's discovery request and its orders thereon did not require anything more than a right to inspect. In addition, the court found that the sketch was not material.
The court stated that the sketch would not have been admissible at trial without the testimony of Morganti.
Inasmuch as the defendant never called Morganti, the court found this evidence immaterial. The trial court's finding that defendant's Amended Motion for New Trial was untimely precludes review. The state objected as to timeliness. See SA at AA The defense attempted to justify the delay by noting, inter alia , that new counsel had entered an appearance since the verdict.
However, as the trial court noted, original trial counsel, Michael Sherman, remained in the case. The trial court found no justification for the untimely attempt to amend. Defendant's trial default should preclude consideration of his late-day claims. See Practice Book Section As noted previously, defendant's claim that the composite sketch resembles Ken Littleton in rests on affidavits from two obviously interested persons, a younger brother and his sister, and a couple of poor-quality reproductions of photographs.
Because this court cannot find facts and because the trial court made no determination as to resemblance, the record does not establish that this sketch is, in fact, favorable to the defense. Anderson , Conn. The trial court correctly found that the sketch was not suppressed and was not material. If this Court assumes the sketch resembles Ken Littleton, the trial court's findings with regard to both the supposed suppression of the sketch and its materiality are amply supported by the record.
As the court concluded, the state's disclosure provided the defendant written notice of the existence of the sketch. Moreover, an investigator hired by defendant's family interviewed Morganti in Therefore, it is clear defendant knew of the existence of the sketch prior to trial.
Further, the defendant never contested the state's representations that it had made items such as this sketch available for inspection. Therefore, although the record does not reveal whether the defendant actually saw the sketch when going through the state's file prior to trial, it was certainly available for him to inspect and copy.
This is all that Brady and our rules of practice require. See Practice Book Zackson , 6 F. LeRoy , F. Payne , 63 F. The Government is not required, in other words, to facilitate the compilation of exculpatory material that, with some industry, defense counsel could marshal on their own. Runyon , F. Further, the government is not required to "point the defense to specific documents within a larger mass of material that it has already turned over.
Mulderig , F. Even if, however, the state's disclosure is considered somehow deficient, the trial court's finding of materiality must be affirmed.
The fact that the defendant never requested a copy of the sketch until after the verdict is a reflection of its insignificance. As the police reports appended to defendant's motion make clear, Special Officer Morganti and Carl Wold are reporting the same meeting, although one is apparently mistaken as to time.
By comparing Morganti's description of the encounter and of the person he spoke with that night, with Wold's account of the meeting and his description of what he wore that night, it is apparent the person Morganti saw was Carl Wold.
The two accounts dovetail as to location, words spoken, and description of the walker, i. Moreover, for the two possible time periods during which Morganti relates this encounter occurred, Littleton has a reliable alibi. If the encounter occurred around 10 p. Julie Skakel also reports seeing Littleton around this time.
If the encounter occurred around 8 p. In , Morganti explains that he sees the same person again between 9: Finally, if Morganti's testimony regarding the man he saw that night was of any value to the defense despite these considerations, defendant could have offered it at trial.
The fact that the defendant chose not to present any evidence regarding Morganti's encounter speaks volumes as to its lack of significance. In his Amended Motion for New Trial, newly-hired defense counsel requested copies of the summary profile reports prepared in about by inspectors within the State's Attorney's Office regarding Thomas Skakel and Kenneth Littleton.
Solomon described the reports as a 'summary of. Solomon had the report concerning Ken Littleton with him while he testified. When defense counsel asked for a copy of it, the court replied: Defendant never renewed his request for the report during trial. During the post verdict hearing on defendant's request for the reports, the state argued that the reports were not subject to discovery because they were work product.
The state explained that they were a summary of all the investigatory efforts the state had made up to or so concerning Tommy Skakel and Littleton.
The state represented that "the raw data from which they were compiled. The state submitted the reports to the court in camera. Attached to the letter was an index and a listing of all the audio and video tapes in the state's possession. In its ruling on this aspect of defendant's Amended Motion for New Trial, the court noted that defendant never renewed his request for a copy of Littleton's report during trial.
The court found that reason enough to deny defendant's post-verdict motion for an evidentiary hearing on this matter. Id; DA at A The court noted, however, that it had reviewed the Tommy Skakel and Littleton reports in camera and concluded that they were protected from disclosure under the work product doctrine.
The trial court correctly concluded that the reports were not subject to discovery by the defense. State , Conn. Practice Book Section extends the protection of the work product doctrine to the state by exempting from disclosure "[r]eports, memoranda or other internal documents made by a prosecuting authority or by law enforcement officers in connection with the investigation or prosecution of the case.
The trial court correctly held that these reports, which are summaries of the state's investigatory efforts with regard to Tommy Skakel and Littleton, fall within this doctrine. As represented, all of the data contained in the reports was disclosed to the defendant pre-trial.
As indicated above, defendant submitted three boxes of material during the post verdict hearing on his Amended Motion for New Trial. At the time of the hearing, the state had not had an opportunity to examine the contents of the boxes. A recent examination by a member of the state's attorney's office has, however, confirmed the state's representation at that hearing. The Tommy Skakel report was compiled from the reports and other documents contained in footnote 15 below.
Footnote 15 All of these documents are in the boxes of material submitted by the defendant at the post-verdict hearing. The numbers refer to the state's numbers, handwritten at the top right corner of the document, and not to the labels apparently attached by the defendant. The Littleton report was compiled from the reports and other documents listed in footnote 16, below.
Footnote 16 All of these documents are contained in the boxes of material submitted by the defendant at the post-verdict hearing. See SA at A The defendant claims that the order of the Juvenile Court Dennis, J. Second, he claims the court erred in relying on Department of Children and Family regulations which prohibit the placement of anyone over 18 in a State juvenile facility.
There is no merit to either contention. First of all, because the juvenile division of Superior Court provides a forum for adjudicating the needs of children, the juvenile court was not the proper venue for deciding defendant's guilt or innocence. Further, defendant's specific claims regarding the Section report and the Department's regulations were never raised in the trial court and should not now be reviewed.
If reviewed, they are without merit. The juvenile court came to the only reasonable conclusion in transferring this case to the adult division. Because respondent was fifteen at the time of the homicide, he was initially presented in juvenile court. After hearing evidence and arguments, the juvenile court Dennis, J.
During the reasonable cause hearing, the state offered the testimony of Judith Kallen. Kallen testified that there was no facility within the Connecticut juvenile system that provides for treatment, on a custodial or noncustodial basis, for persons over She explained that the licensing regulations of the department prohibit the placement of any person over On October 20, , the juvenile court heard further evidence regarding disposition.
The defendant presented the testimony of Joseph Paquin, a supervisor in the juvenile probation department. Paquin testified that he had conducted the required investigation under General Statutes Section Rev. Paquin stated that the Department of Children and Families is unable to meet the programmatic treatment or residential needs of delinquent persons committed to their care beyond the age of Paquin concluded that there are no dispositional alternatives available for the defendant in the State of Connecticut.
Following this testimony, the juvenile court issued a Memorandum of Decision dated January 31, The court held that "there is no available suitable state institution designed for the care and treatment of children to which the Juvenile Court could commit the now forty- year-old[. The court further found that the "facilities of the adult criminal division of the Superior Court afford and provide a more effective setting for the disposition of this case, and the institutions to which the adult criminal division of the Superior Court may sentence a defendant are more suitable for the care and treatment of this respondent should he be found guilty of the murder of Martha Moxley.
Accordingly, the court ordered this case transferred to the adult criminal division of the Superior Court. The Juvenile Division of Superior Court was not the proper forum for adjudicating defendant's guilt.
Before turning to the specifics of defendant's claim, the mandate of the juvenile division of Superior Court must be considered. The jurisdiction of the juvenile court in was limited to "proceedings concerning uncared-for, neglected, dependent and delinquent children within this state.
Under Section of the General Statutes, a "child" is defined as "any person under sixteen years of age. General Statutes Sections 46b 1 , 46b a Rev. It is apparent, therefore, that because at the time of the transfer hearing the defendant was over 40, the juvenile division of Superior Court was not the proper venue for adjudicating the defendant's guilt.
Defendant's age precluded the juvenile court from doing other than it did. In this respect, defendant's status is analogous to that of a present day year-old charged with murder, arson murder, capital felony or a class A or B felony. See General Statutes Section 46b Rev. The mandatory transfer provisions for such persons means that, although the juvenile court may be the appropriate forum in which to initiate prosecution, the juvenile court's contact with the case is essentially temporary and for a limited, procedural purpose.
The defendant, like a fourteen-year-old charged with an enumerated offense, "has no right to avail himself of juvenile court jurisdiction because the statute expressly precludes the exercise of jurisdiction by the juvenile court. Neither defendant's claim that the juvenile court failed to undertake the investigation provided in General Statute Section , nor his contention that the trial court erroneously relied on regulations promulgated by the Department of Children and Families DCF , was raised below.
Moreover, defendant has failed to brief these claims under either State v. Golding , Conn. Therefore, no further consideration is warranted. Christiano , Conn. Harvey , 77 Conn. Nevertheless, if considered, defendant's claims are patently without merit. The investigation undertaken by the juvenile probation officer was appropriately tailored to the situation before the court.
In view of the fact the defendant was an adult, any investigation into his "parentage and surroundings,. In fact, the distance between the defendant's situation and the needs of a child for whom the juvenile system is designed is evident in any attempt to apply this statute to the defendant.
Further, defendant's claim that the juvenile court erred in relying on DCF regulations which prohibit the placement of anyone over 18 in a juvenile facility, is unfounded. These regulations do not "trump" the statute, as defendant claims. Rather, they appropriately accommodate the mandate of the juvenile court to adjudicate the needs and misdeeds of children, that is, those under sixteen.
Finally, in transferring this case to the adult division, the juvenile court took the only reasonable route. Under the transfer statute, the juvenile court's decision whether to transfer a child accused of murder to the adult court was dependent on three findings.
Specifically, after a hearing, the court was required to find whether there was reasonable cause to believe that " 1 the child [had] committed the act for which he [was] charged, and 2 there [was] no state institution designed for the care and treatment of children to which said court may commit such child which [was] suitable for his care or treatment, or 3 the safety of the community require[d] that the child [continue] under restraint for a period extending beyond his majority, and 4 the facilities of the superior court [provided] a more effective setting for disposition of the case and the institutions to which said court may sentence a defendant [were] more suitable for the care or treatment of such child.
Defendant's claims strike at the court's determinations under the second and fourth factors. As to the second, the juvenile court focused on its dispositional authority under General Statutes Section Within this statute, the court noted only two possibilities which would qualify as a commitment to a "state institution designed for the care and treatment of children.
The two possibilities noted by the court are contained in Section b and c. Subsection b provides for a commitment to the Department of Children and Youth Services, the predecessor to the current Department of Children and Families. Subsection c allows for a commitment to a mental health facility if the court finds the child to be either mentally ill or mentally deficient. The court also found the facilities of the adult division of Superior Court and its sentencing options more suitable for the care and treatment of the respondent should he be found guilty.
The standard of review for the findings made by the court in support of its transfer order is contained in General Statutes Section b Rev. Under this provision, this Court must "determine whether the juvenile court found facts without evidence or reached conclusions which cannot be reasonably derived from the facts found or the law applicable thereto or both, or has acted illegally or arbitrarily. The defendant raises six challenges to the state's closing argument.
Despite the absence of objection below, and despite the lack of intervention by the trial court to curb this allegedly outrageous argument, he claims misconduct so egregious as to compel a new trial. If the state's argument is considered as a whole, and in light of the evidence produced, it is apparent that it was proper and effective. Jarrett , 82 Conn. The issue is whether the prosecutor's conduct so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.
In determining whether the defendant was denied a fair trial. We must view the prosecutor's comments in the context of the entire trial. Rizzo , Conn. Stevenson , Conn. Lexis , June 15, Thompson , Conn. Four of the six claims of misconduct leveled by the defendant allege that the state argued inferences not reasonably supported by the evidence. See Def's claims IV B. A review of the state's summation in light of the evidence adduced at trial, however, reveals that each of these arguments finds ample support in the record.
The defendant's claim that the state argued a "false and misleading story about a forensic cover up" and made a "false allegation that the defendant masturbated on the victim's body" is based on a serious distortion by defense counsel on appeal but none from the state below. The state appropriately argued reasonable inferences from the evidence. First, defendant misrepresents the state's argument. The state did not argue a "forensic cover up" -- neither that phrase nor that concept appears in the state's argument.
What the state argued is that the defendant created a tale of masturbating in a tree on the Moxley property, and told this tale to Michael Meredith, Andy Pugh, Geranne Ridge, and Richard Hoffman, in order to provide an explanation should his semen ever be found on items connected to this crime.
This argument simply asked the jury to draw a reasonable inference from the evidence. Second, the state did not mislead the jury, as defendant claims, by arguing that defendant first told his masturbation story in or The defense brief states: Henry Lee became involved in the case in the early 's.
This statement is demonstrably false. The state argued in its initial summation:. In sic , he told Michael Meredith that he had climbed a tree and spied on Martha as he had on a number of prior occasions and masturbated, and conveniently pointed his finger at his brother Thomas coursing through the yard towards Martha's house. In , he told somewhat the same story to Andy Pugh, this time though saying it was the tree under which both he and Pugh were fully aware that Martha's body had been hidden.
And he asked Pugh to please return Sutton Associates, their persistent telephone calls. This, of course, to get out the appropriate explanation should there by semen at the scene one day connected to the crime. It is clear, therefore, that the state did not obscure the Meredith testimony. What the state did, legitimately, was emphasize the defendant's statement to Pugh. This emphasis was appropriate to draw the jury's attention to the significance of the defendant wanting Pugh to return Sutton's phone calls.
Footnote 18 The public announcement that this case had been reopened and Dr. Lee would be reinvestigating the crime scene, the advent of DNA technology, the Skakel family's employment of Sutton Associates, and the defendant's entreaties to Pugh all occurred at roughly the same time period. The jury was free to infer, and the state was free to argue, that the story he had floated by Michael Meredith years earlier to explain the presence of his semen now took on a certain urgency.
The defendant's claim that there was no evidence to support the state's argument that he had masturbated on the victim's body is also demonstrably false. As previously recounted, the defendant bragged to Coleman that he drove a girl's head in with a golf club, and came back two days later and masturbated on the body.
Admittedly, because the victim was found the next day, the defendant either exaggerated the time period between the murder and the masturbation to heighten the drama, or Coleman's memory on this point was faulty.
Nevertheless, the jury was free to find, and the state was free to argue, that the defendant did in fact masturbate on the victim's body. This is especially so because defendant's claim to Coleman is consistent with the forensic evidence. When found, the victim's pants and panties were down below her knees. Although the medical examiner did not find any evidence of semen on the body, his report indicates that he tested for semen in her vaginal and anal cavities and in her pubic area.
That testing, therefore, would not have revealed semen on her buttocks or back. In addition, the victim had two bloody smudges, one on her left inner thigh and one on her right. Lee testified these stains appeared to be contact smears and were consistent with bloody hands trying to push the victim's legs apart.
Further, the fact that defendant told Michael Meredith, Andy Pugh, Geranne Ridge, and Richard Hoffman that he masturbated in a tree on the Moxley property the night the victim was killed provides further reason to find he actually masturbated on or near the victim's body.
If the defendant had truly masturbated in a tree as he claimed, it is hard to conceive of any reason to tell anyone. This is especially so because to do so undermines his police statement claiming he went to Terrien's and then home to bed. The state's argument asked the jury to infer that the defendant told others he had masturbated in the area where the victim was found because he had in fact masturbated on the body as he told Coleman and as the blood smears on the victim's inner thighs suggest.
Knowing he had done so, he tried to provide an explanation should his semen ever be discovered. The state's argument that the defendant invented the masturbation-in-a-tree story to hide the truth about his masturbation that night was reasonably based on the evidence. The state's arguments regarding defendant's alibi and Elan's awareness of his culpability for this murder def's issues IV B. The defendant contends the state's argument regarding his alibi and the family members who participated in its creation had no support in the evidence.
A fair overview of the evidence reveals that if the jury disbelieved the alibi, as they were free to do, they could reasonably conclude that the defendant's family members knowingly propagated a false alibi to protect the defendant. The state's argument inviting the jury to draw this inference was entirely appropriate. As to the issue of who decided to take the trip to Windham the day after the murder was discovered, the state argued merely that 'somebody' decided to take the defendant, Tommy, John, and Jim Terrien out of town.
Nevertheless, the jury could reasonably infer the father was behind the decision. On direct, Littleton stated that he was told by someone at the Skakel house the night the body was discovered to take the boys to Windham the following morning.
He could not remember whether the defendant's father had arrived home at the time he was so directed. On cross, Littleton did allow that going to Windham was probably a group decision in which he participated. On redirect, Littleton clarified that he would not at that time have known the Skakel's owned a house in Windham, so he must have heard about Windham from one of the "suits" and volunteered to take the children up.
When Rushton Skakel, Sr. In addition, the state appropriately pointed out to the jury that those who took the Windham trip, the defendant, Tommy, John and Jimmy Terrien were key proponents of the alibi. The jury was free to infer, and the state was free to argue, that the trip provided an opportunity for the alibi to solidify.
As to the defendant's claim that the state inappropriately commented on the role of defendant's father in the creation of the alibi, see DB at p. The fact that the father did not volunteer to take his children to the police station to be interviewed, but rather responded to a police request, does not diminish the force of the argument that the father brought the children as a group and remained in the room with the defendant while his statement was given. Although defendant was free to argue this showed only parental concern, the state could ask the jury to draw an inference of parental control.
The defendant's contention that evidence of cooperation by the Skakel family immediately after the murder belies any wrongful concealment on their part, is a defense argument that the jury apparently rejected. In any event, the jury was free to find, in light of all the evidence, that the Skakels' supposed cooperation was limited and short-lived.
The state's argument that Elan's awareness of defendant's involvement in the murder demonstrates the family's awareness, finds ample support in the evidence. The state was not arguing, as the defendant suggests, that the family had an opinion of the defendant's guilt, but rather that they knew he was guilty. If the jury found the alibi false, this alone provided a reasonable basis on which to conclude family members knew he was guilty.
In addition, the defendant told fellow Elan resident, Dorothy Rogers, that his family "was afraid" he may have killed Moxley and sent him to Elan to avoid the investigation. The defendant made a similar statement to Greg Coleman. The evidence also established that Elan residents were generally confronted about whatever issues precipitated their enrollment at Elan. The defendant was confronted on two issues: Dunn testified that Elan received its information concerning the issues a resident needed to confront from the family and whatever records accompanied the resident's admission.
According to Dunn, when Ricci confronted the defendant at the infamous General Meeting, he was reading from a "good sized file. All of this is particularly significant because during this time period, , the police did not consider the defendant a suspect. Therefore, if persons in a position to know he was guilty were communicating that to the administration of Elan in , that is significant evidence that he was in fact guilty. The state appropriately made this argument to the jury. The defendant attacks the state's use of exhibits during its summation by alleging the state showed the jury a "movie".
The defendant contends the state "literally produced an audio -visual confession by flashing huge six- foot high gruesome images of the victim's body at the murder scene while simultaneously playing an edited audiotape of defendant's admission of guilt - about a different event. Defendant's argument is replete with accusations of "splicing", "deceptive editing", "subliminal messages", and the "manipulative use of prejudicially edited evidence.
Defendant even goes so far as to refer to the prosecution team as a "movie crew. In so arguing, the defendant gives this court a false impression of the state's summation.
Both appellate counsels' unsupported description of what occurred and the affidavit of trial attorney Michael Sherman are inaccurate. Footnote 19 See DB at n. Viewing the presentation disc while reading the transcript makes these inaccuracies apparent. The state engaged in appropriate and effective advocacy by using trial exhibits to highlight certain evidence and inferences. Closing arguments should use. Counsel is generally free to use any exhibit that has been admitted in evidence and also to create visual displays solely for the purpose of final argument.
For example, in the initial phase of summation, the state published twelve exhibits by displaying them on a screen in the courtroom. Each photograph displayed corresponded with the particular point the state's attorney was making at the time.
During its final summation, the state played about two minutes of the 32 minute Hoffman interview of the defendant. The entire 32 minute recording had been played to the jury, while a simultaneous transcript appeared on the screen, during trial. During summation, the state chose to highlight three segments of that interview. If State's Exhibit CD Rom of Hoffman interview is compared with the segments played during the state's summation, it is apparent that the state did not distort or deceptively splice the tape in any manner.
The first segment displayed contained the defendant's unwitting contradiction of his alibi. The evidence established that by the time Andrea Shakespeare and Julie came out of the Skakel house to take Andrea home, the car going to Terrien's had left. Yet, in his interview with Hoffman, the defendant undermines his alibi in the following passage:. For purposes of argument, the state chose to highlight the last phrase, above, by enlarging and displaying in red the words "and I remember that Andrea had gone home.
Trial Techniques , p. Immediately after playing this passage, the state argued:. On supposedly getting home from Terriens, he goes to his sister's room and remembers that Andrea had gone home. If you recall the credible testimony in this trial, the Monte Python tour, it had already departed when Julie and Andrea had stepped out of the house to take Andrea home.
Somebody who had actually left already would have had no idea of Julie's trip to take Andrea home. On the other hand, the ["] Michael come back here, ["] as he ran past Julie as she exited the house, would have been fully aware of this fact. Although the jury had already heard the Hoffman tape in its entirety, the powerful import of this passage may not have been apparent until highlighted and explained by the state in argument.
The state would have failed in its obligation as an advocate had it not emphasized this momentous evidence. See Haydock and Sonstag, Opening and Closing: How to Prepare a Case West p. The second segment of the Hoffman interview the state displayed during argument was the defendant contradicting his assertion that he did not leave the house after returning from Terrien's. In the Hoffman tape he is heard not only undermining this claim, but placing himself at the crime scene looking for Martha:.
I'll be bold tonight. Finally, the state argued that the defendant created the masturbation tale he told to Meredith, Pugh, Ridge, and Hoffman as a cover to his crime. Hoffman, what if somebody saw me last night and then The state argued what the juxtaposition of defendant's words with certain exhibits had suggested: The state's display of Martha alive, and then of her body at the crime scene while playing this passage was not a blatant appeal to "passion" as defendant suggests.
The state appropriately displayed the crime scene pictures to define the defendant's panic. The changing frame from the picture of Martha alive to the crime scene photos underscored what he knew at that point, and Mrs. Just as the state should not be deprived of its most valuable evidence unless there is a compelling reason to do so, the state should not be prohibited from making its best arguments.
The state's use of audio and photographic exhibits during argument was a matter of effective advocacy. The state did not, as defendant claims, distort the evidence in any respect. By placing certain exhibits next to defendant's words, or by displaying two related exhibits simultaneously, the state was making explicit the inferences it was asking the jury to draw. This is the job of an advocate.
Explicit arguments explain to a factfinder what inferences you want them to draw an sic why, and are thus often more persuasive than implicit arguments" ; Smith, L. The use of both of these levels of communication form an integral part of the art of advocacy and the techniques of effective summation.
As for defendant's contention that his panic on awakening was due to his fear someone saw him masturbating in a tree the night before, defendant was free to make that argument to the jury, but that does not mean the state was prohibited from urging a different interpretation.
I was so excited I didn't know if I could handle more of this. Listen I said, "Im' not stupid and you are on holiday, so I really won't be mad if you and Jerry had fun.
She then began to tell me she was really drunk and had had sex with him on the beach. My heart was racing, and slowly she began to stop crying, understanding I wasn't mad at her. She said she regreted it, but when I asked But did you enjoy it at the time she replied.
She had loved the attention, the loving looks, the feeling of being wanted by another man. It was so amazing to see, once shed admitted to herself shed enjoyed it how turned on she had been. I asked, "Were you two good in bed? So,it took 2 days for her to get her head around what had happened, a few drinks on the beach one day with her friends, they wanted to know ALL the details and it really seemed to relax her about the whole thing.
The girls knew I knew about what she'd done and thought it was really cool I was Ok with it too. And I found it really exciting. Cuckolding me without any of them even knowing the word! So he talked to us all, met her parents and he really made her laugh, smile, they'd play in the sea giggling etc. He also said my modem might be bad. He could send out a tech to check, but I would probably have to pay for the visit. I said no, I would get a new modem instead.
What he did not do, which I later found out to be the solution, was the fairly basic procedure of power-cycling the modem while it's connected directly to my computer, then connect it back to the router. That's what Comcast's agents used to recommend. I don't know why this long-winded, useless boob didn't mention it. I'm sorry I didn't think of it myself before I called! It's bad enough when their agents can't help you with basic stuff. Making you listen to ads for their products while on hold is insane.
If I'm already angry, what makes them think I'll want to spend even more money with them?? We went away on a 6 month RV trip over the winter of Call comcrap and put out account on suspension.
We kept our equipment, our account was live and kept the e-mail address. A live account is important on the road because it allows you to watch network shows online. When we came home, we called and they turned everything back on. This is how we expected vacation suspension to work. Fast forward to August this year and a 10 week RV adventure. Called comcrap again and said I needed to put the service on suspension.
Account canceled, equipment turned in and I need to have the techs come out when I get home. Cannot get programs online because the account is closed, Norton canceled the free virus checker.
The graciously allowed me to keep my comcast. Suspension is only available over the winter. Anyone have the e-mail address of a VP that I can complain to? If there was a no star rating that's what you would get!
Everyone is overseas and can't speak the English language- they have two accounts in their fucked up system for me yes paying them HUGE amounts of money on one account for shitty service is not enough- I have two!!!!! I am taking the equipment to the local office and throwing it inside. They don't give a rats ass about customers just whats in your wallet.
Selling internet services to elderly people who don't have or never had a computer- I know becuase I worked for BOTH companies! No values, no respect nothing. They don't even pay unemployment to those who are lucky enough to get the hell out of there!!! I cancelled my services over a year ago. They contacted me recently and informed me my services were never cancelled.
We have had countless problems with our tv service since we got Comcast in April, but we decided it was too much of a hassle to switch back to DirecTv. The only thing we really, really want to watch are Seahawk games. We started watching it when we got home. The screen assured us, with the orange line, that the entire four-plus hours was recorded. YET, about halfway through the second quarter, the recording simply ended that has happened a few times before, during lesser shows.
We tried every way we knew to retrieve it. THEN, the same thing happened a few hours later, watching the Packers game! I really have cable for ONE reason I lost 6 pivotal moments of a great game to some kind of Xfuckupity tech failure. Finally after 30 years im getting that comcast monkey off my back.
They raise the rates whenever they get the chance. Thank God they now have some competition here in Philly.
Ive called these bastards every month for 30yrs. Get ready comcast your losing another customer, whom you have bilked out of dollars for a long time. Absolute worst customer service ever! I am shocked that this company can stay in business. I've wasted a good portion of my life on the phone with these dumb as rocks customer service reps that barely speak English. They have a monopoly in my area and I have no choice but to use them As soon as I get another choice I am outta of Comcast Crappyville!
I hate who ever in there god damn mind decided that contracting an area so that no one can switch to Fios! Your internet slowly died my TV isn't coming in right. It took me 25 minutes to open this god damn page and I have been paying you your max package. Everyone on my street fucking hates you snobby son of a bitch wiping you dicks with our cash. Someone has to use the law or something to stop their shit from going on. I would be in support of the government taking over their shit business just so they could kick out the current shit.
Ever since Comcast introduced their X1 platform, their internet service has been unstable and seems to get worse each year. I have it both home and office and the problems are similar across many different devices: At my office, where we actually use Comcast's phone service, we've had several outages this year, one lasting for the better part of a day.
Comcast's direction hasn't been all bad. Their voice remote works amazingly well, and the X1 DVR interface is good. And when internet is working, speeds have improved over time and are generally plenty fast. But persistent glitches and general unreliability ruins the service.
Planning on attempting to switch to FIOS soon at both home and office. There, I feel better. Now to sue Comcast in small claims because it is the only way to get anything done with Comcast.
Everyone knows they suck, its no secret yet you folks thought you would be the exception and many after reading these reviews will still contact this disaster. I use a good and reliable server NOT Comcast. All my neighbors have by now wisened up and left Comcast. Xfinity Comcast has the worst service by any cable provider. Service is constantly going out. They charge top dollar, however their on line air time is below par. They can rob people so I will humiliate them. I've tried different routers, my own and one from them.
I don't use WIFI, it's corded ethernet, so no excuse. Their website is the slowest loading piece of shit jumbled with ads and garbage. They sell constantly even when you're trying to log in to pay. I'd sell my soul for a better provided. In Europe all this is much quicker and cheaper. The USA just sucks apparently and Comcast is only example.
I just spent hours with three different people on their help line to fix my tv signal. My cable and internet has been frequently in and out all summer in NJ. Comcast is by far the worst cable company out there!
They are like wal-mart, they own everything and constantly screw the people who made them rich beyond belief! If everybody would return the comcast equipment and cancel, comcast would go down the toilet, where they belong! Stop letting them try to fix it just cancel. When we dont pay our bill on time, they dont let us fix it they just shut us off! We the people should return the favor! They charge outrages rates and I have shit service. Kiss my ass corporate mofo monopolies who steal from good, hard working people!
Hope you sleep at night with my money. Installer came tonight and said wires must be run from the outside to the inside to get internet. He said he was not allowed to do that so he'd call and get me rescheduled with that type of tech. He called and next available is two weeks out. I called myself after he left and was told one week for next available.
I demanded someone come tonight. Lady said she'd try, but 60 additonal bucks. I told her if someone had asked my questions first about the lines here the correct tech would have been sent in the first place. Then she said they would waive extra installation fee, but she could not find anyone to see me in the next two hours before closing. She voluntarily transfered me and said to ask next rep if someone could come today. I told the whole story again to that rep and she said absolutely not could anyone disconnect me tonight.
I told her I needed an install, not a disconnect. I said I wanted my installation fee refunded and did not want their service installed at all. Told whole story again and verified myself yet again with last four digits of debit card. That guy said he would have to transfer me to billing to get installation deposit refunded.
Told billing guy whole story and went through verification again. The billing guy told me I was scheduled to have a tech come out a week from now. I told him to please cancel that! I had no idea. They told me that date and I told them all no. He cancelled this unrequested date. We shall see how much I am refunded, if anything. All they had to do was ask me about the cable wiring here before sending someone out. Now I am stranded with no internet.
They lost a customer before they even had one. Every year Comcast jacks up my price and then tries to give me a better deal after 2hours of telling them I will leave, only to get slower internet each time. I wish there was a better service with fast internet speeds out there Sucks that our Government is corrupt and basically allows monopoly to happen. I had a legit breakdown where I couldn't stop laughing and crying from how absurd this company is.
Their customer service is a disgrace. Waited over a week and made many reschedulings just for a tech to come install a cable outlet. Rudest man I've ever met walks into my apartment and tells me he isn't going to do the work I had called for. Been without both cable and internet for over a week. Time for comcast to be shut down for good. This is something in a long history between Comcast and I.
I have been living at my house for three years with no problems with with my fiber. A Comcast crew comes to bury a cable line that they had hung in the trees over two driveways for the last year. Of course as soon as I get home from work the CenturyLink is down and the Comcast guys lied to my face when they said they didn't cut the line. Liars and assholes, fuck you Comcast. Internet completely stopped working yesterday.
They wants to send someone a week from yesterday, and I said fuck that and demanded someone come and fix it sooner, so they said they would send someone out today at 1. They never showed up. Called again, they said they never made and appointment and they would send someone at 6.
Never showed up again, so I called again and the same this happened. All they said was that they never made an appointment for me. Twice in one day they lied to my face. What the actual fuck Comcast.
Ever since I install my own cable modem, I periodically experience a time-out where my internet connection seems to pause for seconds. Nonetheless, Seven times today was enough. I start at After 75 mins on hold with Advanced Support what a joke , and another 30 mins after that, I went to a local retail store.
They said there was nothing they could do. They called the support number and got someone right away. This guy said there was no way for me to speak with engineering to find out why their equipment was sending resets to my modem. Lets see what ATT can help. Their internet speed test displays performance that is 4x faster than it actually is. Also, my household is paying for much faster speeds than we're getting.
Also, they are monopoliztic knobheads who can suck my left nut. They're the ONLY service provider in my area. Not even CenturyLink is available. Yet 3 other providers area literally available across the street.
Because Concast somehow tricked my HOA into signing and renewing an agreement to be the sole provider for internet services for the neighborhood. Now they twice nearly 3 times the cost for service compared to literally any other area in Colorado.
I have zero loyalty to you. They are what happens when there is a lack of competition. Quality sucks, customer service sucks and frankly everything thing about them sucks. To them the customer is a hostage they can treat anyway the please. The only entity that I can compare them to is government Also, all in leadership position should seek mental eval you bunch of crazy fucks.
Go back to school to educate yourselves even more because your brains are all under developed. Twice in the last week I have called Comcast to explain that my contract had expired and that i wanted to have internet only and no more cable. The first time took about 15 minutes, and the employee said that my new contract would be coming as a text message to my phone.
I looked at my account, and nothing changed except the rate went up for cable and internet. Today I called again, went through the same rigamarole, and the employee said he would send my new "package" information by way of email. I asked what he had there for my email, and he gave an email address I never heard of. I then gave him my correct email address, he said OK, and said to check my email inbox, I did, nothing came through, and then the phone disconnected.
My Dad got me started working hard to lobby governments to allow us to have a local monopoly on cable TV. That let Dad start jerking off the much poorer and bribable government leaders. Over time, a pile of bribes puts a small army of decision-makers in your pocket. We lock in whole communities, counties and states and they have no choice except to try dish.
We spend tons on anti-dish propaganda to make sure most people are a little reluctant to even try dish. So, we plug into your veins and suck out your hard earned money. It's pretty damn gross, but that's what I do.
It sucks to be hated, but it sucks less when you make a billion dollars a year on what your Dad built. I'm actually not so bright. I went to Penn, sure, but only because of Dad's money. So screw you all. Never works past 1 am and forget about your conference calls fuck this shitty ass organization. All they do is credit your account 5 dollars..
I called to cancel comcast when my bill was paid up until and the next day comcast screwed up my home wifi so that I couldn't sign on, I'm still paid up for another week. I try to give the benefit of the doubt to just about everyone, but this company straight up CREATES policies and systems in order to screw over, instead of help customers. All the media companies have gotten to be such greedy whores - sick of all of them!!! All you really need to see is the website, which is the slowest loading on the internet, and greatly resembles the first fledgling attempts of teens to make web pages around Custom service is not provided in any manner.
You can chat with a bot that will recite a few programmed in messages if you like but you won't find answers to your questions. For over a year, we were charged for renting a modem and router, despite the fact we'd never received nor used any of their devices, since we owned our own.
It took a year of calling, writing and crying to get the fees removed. During long outages, service was unavailable but the bill was never adjusted. I was charged for a full month of service once despite only 17 working days. We ended up paying it rather than wasting hours trying to find someone to fix it. We also ended up paying for several months of television service that had incorrectly been added to our order even though we do not own a television, by choice, so couldn't have used it if we'd wanted.
If you can actually find your way to a human being, they will speak the most garbled pidgin English imaginable, won't have any clue what you're talking about and will find it impossible to help with all but the most basic of tasks.
Now, before anyone cries racism or nationalism, I'm an immigrant, I wasn't born in the USA, and English is my 3rd language. I'm very tolerant and appreciative of people trying their best to learn English and I appreciate how hard it is.
Companies serving English speaking clients however must have articulate service people with well developed communication skills, and Comcast fails at that. Service goes in and out, with constant "grey outs" on both wired and wireless service.
Shoddy workmanship on installation. Wires left all over, huge holes in the wall, no attempt to patch plaster which had been broken to drag out old wires during an "upgrade". They did demand we take down a satellite dish which the previous owners had installed we don't use television , so we allowed them to, but then they just dumped it in our lawn to be disposed of by us at our expense. All in all, poor quality, poor service, poor business model and most of all, poor, sad unhappy customers.
Comcast decides to snap in half like the fucking retards they are during every competitive cs;go match I play, the retards there who were born out of the anus instead need to fucking hand themselves. Fuck comcast and it's data caps. Comcast knows damn well that 1tb doesn't cost less or more than tb. They have these ridiculous data caps that only cell phone companies have. I have no other option and am stuck with this shitty monopolistic company that has been ripping me off for years.
It's a fucking disservice to Americans that want to stay on the forefront of technology and start businesses and companies online. They know damn well everyone will leave them in a instant if they get a chance.
No one has loyalty to these piece of shit scumbags. Internet goes off every mins then comes back on after mins. So definitely getting rid of this shithole company but not sure about which provider I should look into. Probably any would be better then ComASS.
We have called about this several times in the past and only one technician did anything about it. No note saying we will come clean this up or anything. The bitch at the call center kept telling me "sir you need to calm down. To which I responded " Don't know sir, came home from a family outing two days ago and found this on my lawn after my neighbor decided she didnt like the altitude at which the wire was positioned.
However here they have a literal monopoly on internet and cable. Thank you to the pole technician who was polite and professional. The service was out for half a week I have online classes then they proceeded to block my driveway with their fire truck sized response bullshit to fix their cable they had fixed a few days ago.
Also my tv alway freezes when where watching tv. They only care about the money Fucking worst shit corporate assholes on the planet. Just go out of business already piece of shit assholes. They charged my 91 year old father ww2 veteran to fix the box they installed that was changing to Spanish. I call them and they wanted to pimp him dollar by taking 25 dollars off. Comcast is such a money-grabbing cockroach outfit that it won't even allow you to download videos off your own emails and send post them any other platform that isn't comcast.
If Comcast was a human the sumabich would be an 18th century elixir salesman or a greedy conniving landlord. Been dealing with Comcast or Xfinity or whatever they call them selves this week off and on for over 35 years. I have no idea how much money i have paid them for unavailable service. In and out, in and out. Rebate for when they were out? After asking why their service is no service SHIT service all the way around. Sitting here without service Again for over 2 weeks.
Comcast "Duh, We are working on it, Duh". My business and home 2 separate accounts. Both constantly slow disconnecting, reconnecting Sometimes they tell me I can't connect. BS for the amount paid. Looking into other providers. I am a Customer Representative and I hate Comcast with all my guts, I don't hate Customers, believe me I do not when most of the time they are frustrated and they are very rude.
It is just shitty Comcast they don't invest in infrastructure, to provide you the best service and also they didn't give us a good training. The only thing that the system does is to reboot your equipment. Some times we don't even open your account when suddenly your service go back. I always provide credit, as much as I can, keep asking for credit because that shifty company is stealing your money. There used to be a service center on Eaton Road in Chico , here in Butte County California ,where you could go to re-negogiate your ever-increasing cable bill every two years They opened up an Xfinity store in the Chico Mall peppered with snotty little brats who are so bad at customer service and only interested in selling you more crap that you don't need So when I went in to sign the 2 year customer loyalty pledge to get a lower rate like I have been doing for years and they told me they don't reward customer loyalty anymore!
After 15 years with these clowns we have had it Poor customer service in person, idiots who cannot speak English on the phone, and rates going through the roof We are now shopping for a telephone and internet provider and are going to dump the cable for good.
One day, my internet goes out due to wires catching on fire, so a technician comes out and rewired the cabled to have it hanging from the pole to my mango tree feet away causing a wire to be hanging almost on the ground. This is extremely unacceptable!
Comcast has its own complaint site. Not really surprised since they work so hard to really earn it. It's the future of TV in terms of technology. I am writing this comment because I absolutely detest Comcast.
Just try to cancel its service. They will grind you into the earth using automated harassment tools and using foreign low cost Help desk antagonize-rs. Finishing with false billings that are sent to collection agencies. Actually, I enjoy the challenge. I look forward to court and making press releases. Your phone service sucks, your website sucks. He went through my house, removed items and now my service is out in a couple rooms. I had to go out and purchase the items he removed, replace them and now everything is working again He said it was Tried to stream a show on my computer tonight.
Waiting, Waiting, Waiting, nothing!!! I pay for this shit? Internet goes down every month at home, reboot every two weeks. Wait for 20 minutes to talk to someone who has no clue and no resolution. Why is there no competition for cable and internet? They get away with total abuse!
Signed up for internet service this Last Friday. My eq came on Monday. After dealing with their customer service for less than a day. I am already over it. Today I forgot and X1 updated —- so of course NO signal. What pain in the butt. They have ZERO loyalty to their existing customers, can only get good deal as a new customer!
The customer service, while staying within professionalism, basically says "sorry about your luck! AT 1am Comcast decides not to provide anyone in my city with WiFi, cutting short all of our YouTube videos, and shutting down our online American history courses.
I might have to actually read a book. I do not pay this kind of money for this disgusting quality of life. I am hoping I can post this without even one star, but I feel sure when I hit submit it will force me to be a one star reviewer I am not on social media, but again tonight, I find myself with zero TV in an area where Comcast has taken over service and we cannot get a lot of the other upgraded bundles like even ATT or Verizon offers, because of corruption in the Alexandria City officials!
Tonight again we have zero service, and everywhere else I've ever lived that was an automatic credit. No sir, not here. We will have to call, hound, badger, and then And, they don't care. Got our bill doubled in less than two years, even calling customer service to review and make changes, no change, no real reduction, just more piddling on the phone. We're moving in two weeks, cannot wait! Be careful about loosing your internet!!
So dont let them inside your house take router and plug it to the outside cable have the little fucker tech prove it works to the outside cable and NEVER let him in your house. Next fucking time my service mysteriously stops for no apparent fucking reason I'm going to start a class action. I've had the same service for well over a year now. Comcast just sent me a letter stating I was "accidentally" given HBO.
So I look up my service plan on their website and it shows that HBO is checked in green as included in that plan. They forgot to cover every facet of their fraudulence Anyone interested in a class action lawsuit? I'm going to run for City Council with only one campaign promise: Get new internet and cable providers in Cambridge. Get your shit together, Comcast. God dammit between not being,able to switch the channel for 20 minutes to finally changing it and all it does is start glitching im going to end up dying of a brain aneurysm.
Im so fucking pissed off at comcast , if they didnt have my nads in their grubby little money gouging paws of satan no way would i continue this excruciating punishment. If i had a choice of paying one more dime to comcast and licking the jam out between the toes of a 73 year old obese homeless man with athletes foot, id choose the latter 7 days a week. Comcast remotes should double as dildos so you can keep getting fucked by comcast in more ways than you thought you were limited to before.
I used to work for these assholes back in , I was also a customer The only real benefit they offer to employees anyway I worked in the direct sales department. I worked in the heat, cold rain and was even ordered to work during a dangerous storm! Bullshit slave job and overpriced cable and internet!
Ralph Roberts The Founder and Late Chairman must be spinning in his grave, to see what his greedy son has done to this company! My expensive comcast internet is very slow to connect and frequently and inexplicably does not work at all for hours at a time. I will be moving to my hermit hut in the mountains soon when I retire so I am looking forward to the time when I will cancel my Comcast internet I already had the pleasure of cancelling my comcast cable.
Hey Comcast, eat your shitty internet. There you go fat stupid cuntcast. Make the intenet go out for no fucking reason in the middle of the night and not listen when i try to restar it. I deserve to watch my show and Comcast is a fucking useless cunt. Comcast is constantly going down in our area, which happeneds about three times a week. It sucks because our cellular plan has its weak spot in our area so we just get fucked by weak service and shitty internet.
Once we were leaving our house and saw a bunch of those idots standing out in the middle of the street clueless as fuck. They shut off my service for 4 days straight, required us to call them 4 times to finally turn it back on, and are now slowing down the internet every night. This happens at least 4 or more times a week. This was even after Comcast called me and told me that the service tech would be running about an hour and seven minutes late past the window I was originally given.
Two hours and seven minutes later, still no installer, and my parents still don't have cable TV or phone service. I was told by customer service that, since the technician didn't show up, they could just reschedule an installation appointment for July 31st, almost two weeks later! That is totally unacceptable. I'm a loyal customer of Comcast for 15 years and now they can decide to charge me dollars a month for cable?
I gave up their fucking cable but kept our routers because, well I need internet and don't feel like going through the process of hooking up another router. It must be some shitty coincidence that the week we stopped buying cable our internet speeds slow down dramatically. Just spent a week trying to get these clowns to acknowledge that I own my own modem and that they need to stop billing me for a rental. Honestly, they claim to be focused on improving their shit-sucking customer support, but it blows just as badly as it always has.
But I sense that as long as this market is allocated between these two, we all will just be screwed, ripped off, lied to and cheated, as we have all along. Not only were we blatantly lied to about that, but the internet speed as well.
Tons of free Mujer Gorda Q Mujere Golda Polno Ei Ti3nt Xwmmqhounyofap Sa X Ct Res Resnum 5 Ved 0cb4qfjae porn videos and XXX movies are waiting for you on Redtube. Find the best Mujer Gorda Q Mujere Golda Polno Ei Ti3nt Xwmmqhounyofap Sa X Ct Res Resnum 5 Ved 0cb4qfjae videos right here and discover why our sex tube is visited by millions of porn lovers daily. A morning fuck at the hotel, nothing better than wake up sex. Sweet teens in hot videos. Wake up and fuck by pierre woodman. Tons of free Ct porn videos and XXX movies are waiting for you on Redtube. Find the best Ct videos right here and discover why our sex tube is visited by millions of porn lovers daily. Nothing but the highest quality Ct porn on Redtube!