UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #9

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Timeline for baby N.


2 Jun 2016, Thu

Baby N was born at 34 weeks, weighing 3lb 9oz. "His clinical condition was “excellent” but he had haemophilia, a blood disorder. Subsequent investigations found him to have a mild version of the disease, and children of his age do not bleed for no reason, particularly in the throat, the prosecution say. The prosecution say Lucy Letby used Child N's haemophilia as a "cover" to attack him."

Unknown time -
LL texted a colleague about baby N: “we’ve got a baby with haemophilia. everyone bit panicked by seems of things although baby appears fine”.

8pm – LL’s night shift – LL was not N’s designated nurse. LL had two babies in room 4.

8.04pm -
LL texted colleague: she was going to “Google” haemophilia.

8.11pm –
LL texted her colleague: “complex condition, yeah 50:50 chance antenatally”.


3 Jun 2016, Fri

1am – N’s designated nurse went on break, leaving N “stable”. He cannot recall which colleague he asked to look after N.

1.05am – N's oxygen saturation levels fell from 99% to 40%, life-threatening levels. "Unusually", for a small premature baby, he was described as "screaming" and cried for 30 minutes. He recovered, while the doctor was then called to another emergency. 1st attempted murder charge.

Medical expert Dr Dewi Evans said he believed the deterioration of N was consistent with some kind of inflicted injury which caused severe pain, or him having received an injection of air.

Dr Sandie Bohin said such a profound desaturation followed by a rapid recovery, in the absence of any painful or uncomfortable procedure, suggested an inflicted painful stimulus. She said – “this is life threatening and screaming was most unusual. I have never observed a premature neonate to scream.”

Professor Sally Kinsey describes the collapse on June 3 as dramatic with no recognised medical cause.

The defence say there are "many reasons" why a baby would shout or scream. "It was far more likely to be hunger" - "you certainly won't find evidence of anything else".


14 Jun 2016, Tue

8am – LL’s day shiftdesignated nurse for baby N

8pm – end of LL’s day shift
- baby N in room 3 was “very unsettled” at beginning of the night shift


15 Jun 2016, Wed

5.10am – LL awake and using her phone.

7.12am – LL arrived for her day shift. LL was designated nurse for baby N

Time?
- LL texted a colleague “escaped 1, back in 3”. A colleague said LL came into the room to say hello but when her back was turned LL said N had desaturated and assisted with his breathing. The alarm was not sounding. 2nd attempted murder charge. A decision was made to intubate him.

Around 8am – When doctor tried to intubate N his throat was swollen and there was fresh blood in his throat. He couldn’t get the breathing tube down his throat because of swelling. He attempted intubation 3 times. The defence say “regarding the allegation Letby did something to cause Child N to bleed, the prosecution say the intubating doctor already saw blood, because Letby harmed him. The defence disagree and say blood was "not identified until intubation had already happened, or was in the process of happening". “There were three attempts to intubate him. The defence say, again, there was "sub-optimal care" for Child N.”

10am – More than two hours after attempts to intubate N, “1ml fresh blood aspirated from NG tube" recorded by LL on N’s dextrose chart. This bleeding is not recorded anywhere in the medical notes.

11.29am – LL messaged the doctor on Facebook “small amounts of blood from mouth and 1ml from NG. Looks like pulmonary bleed on x-ray. Given factor 8 – wait and see.” Other than that message there is no evidence she brought the bleeding to the attention of any of the medical staff on the ward which the prosecution say is “surprising” given his earlier collapse.

1.53pm – In notes recorded on the computer LL wrote that baby N was “stiff” on handling and extending upper limbs, back arching … settled in between episodes. The prosecution say this is similar to that found in other cases heard so far.

About 2.50pm – Baby N stopped breathing. LL’s nursing notes: "approx. 14:50 infant became apnoeic, with desaturation to 44%, heart rate 90 bpm. Fresh blood noted from mouth and 3mls blood aspirated from NG tube. Drs crash called”. 3rd attempted murder charge

2.56pm
– medical staff were crash bleeped.

2.59pm – A consultant was called. While awaiting the consultant a junior doctor looked into N’s airway and saw blood in the throat and a large swelling at the end of his epiglottis, he could only just see the bottom of the vocal cords. He had never seen anything like this before in a newborn baby. A specialist team had to intubate.

4.30pm - The junior doctor's retrospective notes recorded: "desaturated this afternoon at 2:50pm with blood in the oropharynx + blood in the NG tube. Improved with bagging. Elective intubation planned following ??? unsuccessful attempts with 2 registrars and 2 consultants cords difficult to visualise”

Eventually N was transferred to Alder Hey where “he recovered quickly”. He did not suffer any other “spontaneous bleeds” at any time as a result of his condition.

Medical expert Dr Dewi Evans said the blood seen in Child N's stomach had originated there, caused not from intubation attempts but "instead some preceding trauma". He suggested that “thrusting” a NG tube into the back of the throat might be the mechanism used to inflict the injury.

Dr Sandie Bohin suggested only two possible explanations; either inflicted trauma or a spontaneous bleed. She considers the latter less likely as the haemophilia was 'only moderate'. Dr Bohin’s view was that the likely cause of the bleeding was trauma to the mouth, to the throat or to the oropharynx, most likely from a NGT or suction catheter.

Professor Sally Kinsey excluded the possibility of a pulmonary haemorrhage - in other words, bleeding in the lungs, causing the collapse on June 15. In her opinion such bleeding would not have occurred spontaneously in a child with Child N's degree of haemophilia and swelling [in the throat] was evidence of trauma. Professor Kinsey also ruled out heavy-handed intubation as a cause.

LL could not explain (in police interview) not notifying anyone about the blood recorded at 10am.


16-22 Jun 2016 – LL in Ibiza
 
Timeline for baby N.

15 Jun 2016, Wed

5.10am – LL awake and using her phone.

7.12am – LL arrived for her day shift. LL was designated nurse for baby N

Time?
- LL texted a colleague “escaped 1, back in 3”. A colleague said LL came into the room to say hello but when her back was turned LL said N had desaturated and assisted with his breathing. The alarm was not sounding. 2nd attempted murder charge. A decision was made to intubate him.

Around 8am – When doctor tried to intubate N his throat was swollen and there was fresh blood in his throat. He couldn’t get the breathing tube down his throat because of swelling. He attempted intubation 3 times. The defence say “regarding the allegation Letby did something to cause Child N to bleed, the prosecution say the intubating doctor already saw blood, because Letby harmed him. The defence disagree and say blood was "not identified until intubation had already happened, or was in the process of happening". “There were three attempts to intubate him. The defence say, again, there was "sub-optimal care" for Child N.”

10am – More than two hours after attempts to intubate N, “1ml fresh blood aspirated from NG tube" recorded by LL on N’s dextrose chart. This bleeding is not recorded anywhere in the medical notes.

11.29amLL messaged the doctor on Facebooksmall amounts of blood from mouth and 1ml from NG. Looks like pulmonary bleed on x-ray. Given factor 8 – wait and see.” Other than that message there is no evidence she brought the bleeding to the attention of any of the medical staff on the ward which the prosecution say is “surprising” given his earlier collapse.

1.53pm – In notes recorded on the computer LL wrote that baby N was “stiff” on handling and extending upper limbs, back arching … settled in between episodes. The prosecution say this is similar to that found in other cases heard so far.

About 2.50pm – Baby N stopped breathing. LL’s nursing notes: "approx. 14:50 infant became apnoeic, with desaturation to 44%, heart rate 90 bpm. Fresh blood noted from mouth and 3mls blood aspirated from NG tube. Drs crash called”. 3rd attempted murder charge

2.56pm
– medical staff were crash bleeped.

2.59pm – A consultant was called. While awaiting the consultant a junior doctor looked into N’s airway and saw blood in the throat and a large swelling at the end of his epiglottis, he could only just see the bottom of the vocal cords. He had never seen anything like this before in a newborn baby. A specialist team had to intubate.

4.30pm - The junior doctor's retrospective notes recorded: "desaturated this afternoon at 2:50pm with blood in the oropharynx + blood in the NG tube. Improved with bagging. Elective intubation planned following ??? unsuccessful attempts with 2 registrars and 2 consultants cords difficult to visualise”

Eventually N was transferred to Alder Hey where “he recovered quickly”. He did not suffer any other “spontaneous bleeds” at any time as a result of his condition.

Medical expert Dr Dewi Evans said the blood seen in Child N's stomach had originated there, caused not from intubation attempts but "instead some preceding trauma". He suggested that “thrusting” a NG tube into the back of the throat might be the mechanism used to inflict the injury.

Dr Sandie Bohin suggested only two possible explanations; either inflicted trauma or a spontaneous bleed. She considers the latter less likely as the haemophilia was 'only moderate'. Dr Bohin’s view was that the likely cause of the bleeding was trauma to the mouth, to the throat or to the oropharynx, most likely from a NGT or suction catheter.

Professor Sally Kinsey excluded the possibility of a pulmonary haemorrhage - in other words, bleeding in the lungs, causing the collapse on June 15. In her opinion such bleeding would not have occurred spontaneously in a child with Child N's degree of haemophilia and swelling [in the throat] was evidence of trauma. Professor Kinsey also ruled out heavy-handed intubation as a cause.

LL could not explain (in police interview) not notifying anyone about the blood recorded at 10am.


16-22 Jun 2016 – LL in Ibiza

I wonder which doctor LL was messaging on facebook, and whether it was the same one she messaged about Baby Q .
 
Ok, this is odd. Re Baby Q on 25 June:

LL was baby Q's designated nurse and was in room 2 but she also signed medication for another baby at 9.04am and asked her colleague to keep an eye on Baby Q.

BUT.. when she texts the Dr later that night she says the reason she had left Baby Q was because she had to get back to her designated baby in room1.

Which designated baby in room 1? Her designated baby was Baby Q in room 2! Unless we are mssing some information that confirms that she also had a designated baby in room 1? Would the handover sheet have confirmed who each nurse's designated babies were, and which room they were in? As the handover sheet for that day was found in LL's home (meaning that only LL had access to whatever information was on it).


"The day shift on June 25, Letby was on duty and was Child Q's designated nurse. Child Q had been moved into room 2.Just after 9am, Letby and the nurse were together in nursery 2, and it was feeding time. The other nurse attended to another child in the room.

The 9am fluid chart, in Letby's handwriting, appears unfinished, with numbers noted for fluids, but no record for the feed or Letby's signature initials at the bottom of the 9am column. The prosecution suggests something caused Letby to leave halfway through doing this.

Letby signed for medication for another baby at 9.04am. The other nurse agreed to keep an eye on Child Q at 9am. A few minutes later, Child Q's monnitor alarms activated to alert staff to a deterioration in his condition"...

..."She texted a doctor at 10.46pm and asked "do I need to be worried about what Dr G was asking?" The doctor sought to put her mind at rest and told her that Dr G was only asking to make sure that the normal procedures were carried out. She replied that after Child Q had collapsed she (LL) had walked into the equipment room and Dr G had been asking the other nurse who was present in the room (when Child Q had collapsed) and how quickly someone had gone to him because she (LL) had not been there.


She continued her texts to the doctor, telling him that she had needed to go to her designated baby in room 1."


 
Ok, this is odd. Re Baby Q on 25 June:

LL was baby Q's designated nurse and was in room 2 but she also signed medication for another baby at 9.04am and asked her colleague to keep an eye on Baby Q.

BUT.. when she texts the Dr later that night she says the reason she had left Baby Q was because she had to get back to her designated baby in room1.

Which designated baby in room 1? Her designated baby was Baby Q in room 2! Unless we are mssing some information that confirms that she also had a designated baby in room 1? Would the handover sheet have confirmed who each nurse's designated babies were, and which room they were in? As the handover sheet for that day was found in LL's home (meaning that only LL had access to whatever information was on it).


"The day shift on June 25, Letby was on duty and was Child Q's designated nurse. Child Q had been moved into room 2.Just after 9am, Letby and the nurse were together in nursery 2, and it was feeding time. The other nurse attended to another child in the room.

The 9am fluid chart, in Letby's handwriting, appears unfinished, with numbers noted for fluids, but no record for the feed or Letby's signature initials at the bottom of the 9am column. The prosecution suggests something caused Letby to leave halfway through doing this.

Letby signed for medication for another baby at 9.04am. The other nurse agreed to keep an eye on Child Q at 9am. A few minutes later, Child Q's monnitor alarms activated to alert staff to a deterioration in his condition"...

..."She texted a doctor at 10.46pm and asked "do I need to be worried about what Dr G was asking?" The doctor sought to put her mind at rest and told her that Dr G was only asking to make sure that the normal procedures were carried out. She replied that after Child Q had collapsed she (LL) had walked into the equipment room and Dr G had been asking the other nurse who was present in the room (when Child Q had collapsed) and how quickly someone had gone to him because she (LL) had not been there.


She continued her texts to the doctor, telling him that she had needed to go to her designated baby in room 1."


It's possible she had a baby in room 1 too. We got less and less detail from the reporters for each baby as they worked towards Q, perhaps they were fatigued by that stage of the opening speech. I would have expected one of them to have picked up on the prosecution saying she lied about that, if she did.

Looking back over the details for baby Q I noticed that the vomit was of "clear fluid" but she was supposed to have just given him a trophic feed of milk, so the vomit should have been at least cloudy or milky looking. Literally minutes after aspirating his stomach and giving him a tiny drop of milk, there should have been no clear fluid to vomit, or air in his stomach.

When Doctor G attempted to speak to the other nurse, I'm assuming he went in the equipment room to speak in relative privacy, he must have seen LL coming into the room and I do wonder whether he was forced to change tack and ask how quickly someone had attended to Q, but really had been intending to ask how long LL had been gone before Q collapsed.

It would be really interesting to know the reason LL went into the equipment room - whether she'd monitored the doctor and the nurse going in there and the curiosity was too much to bear, or if she genuinely needed to go in there at the same time too. IMO
 
It's possible she had a baby in room 1 too. We got less and less detail from the reporters for each baby as they worked towards Q, perhaps they were fatigued by that stage of the opening speech. I would have expected one of them to have picked up on the prosecution saying she lied about that, if she did.

Looking back over the details for baby Q I noticed that the vomit was of "clear fluid" but she was supposed to have just given him a trophic feed of milk, so the vomit should have been at least cloudy or milky looking. Literally minutes after aspirating his stomach and giving him a tiny drop of milk, there should have been no clear fluid to vomit, or air in his stomach.

When Doctor G attempted to speak to the other nurse, I'm assuming he went in the equipment room to speak in relative privacy, he must have seen LL coming into the room and I do wonder whether he was forced to change tack and ask how quickly someone had attended to Q, but really had been intending to ask how long LL had been gone before Q collapsed.

It would be really interesting to know the reason LL went into the equipment room - whether she'd monitored the doctor and the nurse going in there and the curiosity was too much to bear, or if she genuinely needed to go in there at the same time too. IMO

Yes hopefully we'll hear a bit more about everything when they get to baby Q. From what we've heard so far it sounds like LL was supposed to feed Baby Q 0.5ml of milk but the notes are left unfinished and only mention fluid not milk and the vomit was clear fluid, which would also fit in with her not having given any milk.

If guilty, I wonder was this a slip up, and she genuinely forgot to give the milk, and instead allegedly just injected air and a clear fluid and then realised once Baby Q vomited (and it was clear)that this would expose the fact that something had been put into his stomach and that that something wasn't milk like it should have been?

IMO
 
I was going back to reads about the opening days of the trial, both prosecution and defense---and saw an interesting snippet:

Oct 13th
2:34am

The judge has arrived in court. Proseuctor Nicholas Johnson KC will resume the prosecution case outline shortly.
Firstly, discussions on the use of iPads that the jury will use are taking place.

The iPads will not have internet access, and have bespoke passwords for each juror, and will only store the evidence in the case for them to access.


I thought that ^^^ was good to see that each juror has an iPad full of case evidence to go through.

Well they'd need it in this confoundingly complex case. Honestly, I really admire those that have committed themselves and their time to this trial. They probably had no idea at the off how mentally, emotionally and physically demanding it was going to be.

Out of jury hours, I wonder how jurors resist the temptation to google? I'd be googling like no one's business. ;)
 
Well they'd need it in this confoundingly complex case. Honestly, I really admire those that have committed themselves and their time to this trial. They probably had no idea at the off how mentally, emotionally and physically demanding it was going to be.

Out of jury hours, I wonder how jurors resist the temptation to google? I'd be googling like no one's business. ;)
What would you be googling?

They've been given tons more information about the case than the public has.
 
Yes hopefully we'll hear a bit more about everything when they get to baby Q. From what we've heard so far it sounds like LL was supposed to feed Baby Q 0.5ml of milk but the notes are left unfinished and only mention fluid not milk and the vomit was clear fluid, which would also fit in with her not having given any milk.

If guilty, I wonder was this a slip up, and she genuinely forgot to give the milk, and instead allegedly just injected air and a clear fluid and then realised once Baby Q vomited (and it was clear)that this would expose the fact that something had been put into his stomach and that that something wasn't milk like it should have been?

IMO
I can't believe how small there feeds are.
0.5ml that just shows how tiny these babies are.
 
I’m just looking at the cases and I’m wondering about the possible differences as affects between similar injuries. For instance in the case of baby n we have this reported

“Medical expert Dr Dewi Evans said he believed the deterioration of Child N "was consistent with some kind of inflicted injury which caused severe pain".

Dr Sandie Bohin said such a profound desaturation followed by a rapid recovery, in the absence of any painful or uncomfortable procedure, suggested an inflicted painful stimulus.

She said – “this is life threatening. He was also noted to be … ‘screaming’ and apparently cried for 30 minutes. This is most unusual. I have never observed a premature neonate to scream.”



And in the case of baby E we have what I will gauge to be more significant trauma but apparently no desaturation until the time of the alleged air embolus. Is it likely that a more significant form of trauma wouldn’t cause a desaturation in baby E but would in baby N ? Or is there a possible reason for it to not be noted, is it also a inconsistency in the cases as apparently Lucy letby often calls for help following a desaturation? Or is the loca of the injury a factor in desaturations?

“Extraordinary bleeding" in a baby boy allegedly murdered by nurse Lucy Letby could have been caused by a rigid wire or tube, a court has heard.

The infant, referred to as Child E, lost a quarter of his blood volume before he collapsed and died in the Countess of Chester Hospital's neo-natal unit, jurors at Manchester Crown Court heard.”


i‘m also wondering why only the mothers report mentions the screaming that could be heard from the “corridor”. I would have thought something so profound would have been heard by other nurses or staff with supporting statements in the testimony.

“The woman described how she had gone to the neonatal unit to feed them at about 9pm on 3 August 2015 when she heard Baby E’s “horrendous” screams from the corridor.

Letby was the only nurse in the room at that time and was standing by a work station near Baby E’s incubator, the jury was told.

She asked Letby what was wrong with her son and Letby replied that the bleeding had been caused by a feeding tube rubbing his throat, the court heard. The mother said she accepted the explanation but was still concerned.”

 
Last edited:
I’m just looking at the cases and I’m wondering about the possible differences as affects between similar injuries. For instance in the case of baby n we have this reported

“Medical expert Dr Dewi Evans said he believed the deterioration of Child N "was consistent with some kind of inflicted injury which caused severe pain".

Dr Sandie Bohin said such a profound desaturation followed by a rapid recovery, in the absence of any painful or uncomfortable procedure, suggested an inflicted painful stimulus.

She said – “this is life threatening. He was also noted to be … ‘screaming’ and apparently cried for 30 minutes. This is most unusual. I have never observed a premature neonate to scream.”



And in the case of baby E we have what I will gauge to be more significant trauma but apparently no desaturation until the time of the alleged air embolus. Is it likely that a more significant form of trauma wouldn’t cause a desaturation in baby E but would in baby N ? Or is there a possible reason for it to not be noted, is it also a inconsistency in the cases as apparently Lucy letby often calls for help following a desaturation? Or is the loca of the injury a factor in desaturations?

“Extraordinary bleeding" in a baby boy allegedly murdered by nurse Lucy Letby could have been caused by a rigid wire or tube, a court has heard.

The infant, referred to as Child E, lost a quarter of his blood volume before he collapsed and died in the Countess of Chester Hospital's neo-natal unit, jurors at Manchester Crown Court heard.”


i‘m also wondering why only the mothers report mentions the screaming that could be heard from the “corridor”. I would have thought something so profound would have been heard by other nurses or staff with supporting statements in the testimony.

“The woman described how she had gone to the neonatal unit to feed them at about 9pm on 3 August 2015 when she heard Baby E’s “horrendous” screams from the corridor.

Letby was the only nurse in the room at that time and was standing by a work station near Baby E’s incubator, the jury was told.

She asked Letby what was wrong with her son and Letby replied that the bleeding had been caused by a feeding tube rubbing his throat, the court heard. The mother said she accepted the explanation but was still concerned.”

Chester Standard reporter missed out part of the expert opinion for baby N.

ITV reported:

"At 1.05am, the day-old baby suffered a sudden lowering of his blood oxygen levels to life-threatening levels.

Unusually for such a small, premature baby he was crying and screaming.

The child recovered after emergency assistance from doctors and nurses.

Independent medical experts said the baby’s sudden deterioration was consistent with some kind of "inflicted injury or him having received an injection of air."

Who are the children alleged to have been murdered by Lucy Letby? | ITV News
 
Which designated baby in room 1? Her designated baby was Baby Q in room 2! Unless we are mssing some information that confirms that she also had a designated baby in room 1? Would the handover sheet have confirmed who each nurse's designated babies were, and which room they were in? As the handover sheet for that day was found in LL's home (meaning that only LL had access to whatever information was on it).

We've been hearing phrases such as "the handover sheet" giving the impression that it's a single piece of paper. I got the impression, though, that all the nurses got a copy each. If that's the case then it cannot be that LL was taking it home to hide evidence or information. It would be pointless anyway as there surely would be an electronic copy.
 
Last edited:
What would you be googling?

They've been given tons more information about the case than the public has.

The point about not researching the case independently is because if you do you'll inevitably find comments from people "in the know", such as the legion of FB muppets and haters, who may influence your deliberations.
 
Independent medical experts said the baby’s sudden deterioration was consistent with some kind of "inflicted injury or him having received an injection of air."

Who are the children alleged to have been murdered by Lucy Letby? | ITV News

You see, this is precisely the sort of statement which seems very wide open and "catch-all", if you will.

I mean an "inflicted injury" or "injection of air"! These are two wildly different diagnoses and modes of injury. Why would an expert who was apparently looking at these cases blind (ie; with no prior information of what the police suspect) arrive at those two significantly different conclusions? Conclusions which neatly fit the prosecutions theory.

The two conclusions seem to be so far apart as to be very unlikely to be independently arrived at. I'm sure there are dozens, if not hundreds, of other possible causes for the desaturations yet these two were settled upon.

Only mh opinion, obviously.
 
The point about not researching the case independently is because if you do you'll inevitably find comments from people "in the know", such as the legion of FB muppets and haters, who may influence your deliberations.
It's for a whole host of reasons. You could look up the scene of an alleged crime, for example, and not know that it has changed since the crime was committed, you could research one of the witnesses for example, and find the wrong person with the same name. That's why jurors must only base their deliberations on what they have seen and heard in court. Jurors have received custodial sentences for contempt of court, it's taken very seriously. They have the best vantage point of anyone and there's plenty of opportunity for discussion, once the twelve of them start deliberating, what they think the evidence proves or doesn't prove.
 
It’s the comparison between baby N and baby E I’m not really understanding though. Why a desat for baby N but apparently not for baby E even with what seems to be a more significant injury?

I couldn’t say if the location of the injury would cause A difference in timing of a desaturation. One might think an injury to the throat would perhaps cause a more immediate lowering of blood oxygen caused by the swelling and consequent restriction of air flow.
Does anyone know when the trial will resume?

scheduled for the ninth of january.
 
You see, this is precisely the sort of statement which seems very wide open and "catch-all", if you will.

I mean an "inflicted injury" or "injection of air"! These are two wildly different diagnoses and modes of injury. Why would an expert who was apparently looking at these cases blind (ie; with no prior information of what the police suspect) arrive at those two significantly different conclusions? Conclusions which neatly fit the prosecutions theory.

The two conclusions seem to be so far apart as to be very unlikely to be independently arrived at. I'm sure there are dozens, if not hundreds, of other possible causes for the desaturations yet these two were settled upon.

Only mh opinion, obviously.
I’m not sure anybody could be completely unbiased in approach to a diagnosis if the national CRIME agency approached them and said explain this doctor. It’s very different in context to a fellow doctor approaching and saying the same IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
109
Guests online
2,858
Total visitors
2,967

Forum statistics

Threads
602,658
Messages
18,144,548
Members
231,472
Latest member
Momo1
Back
Top