A person being confused, mixing stories, and seemingly not "mourning" correct, should never be considered evidence.. Guilty or not, she was unlawfully convicted. Watching the video interviews that they say she lied in, it's very clear that she has _100%_ faith in the justice system, and is trying her best to "be a detective" with them to help, not to throw them off. And any inconsistencies in her stories she blindly agrees with the interviewers, simply being humble and getting convinced by THEM that she has remembered it wrong. Every time she "straight up lied", it was words the detectives used, and not what she did. She had blind faith in them to figure out the truth, and only when presented directly with "you murdered him for financial gain" was the time she directly denied. All other times she was convinced that she had remembered wrong, or that she had said something wrong by the detectives stating it directly to her. Unfortunately, wanting to be helpful in form of suggesting ways it might have happened, will just implicate yourself. That being said, I cannot be sure she is guilty or not. But the fact that Vass' DNA was NOT transferred by some boots (as presented in the trial), and the fact that evidence containing vomit that was bagged and sent for "tox" was never presented or actually SENT to tox, is enough to say there has been a miscarriage of justice. Those evidence were "conveniently" not submitted to the trial and shows there has been deliberate action by someone to "throw away" this detail since it didn't fit the prosecutions case. And the raids + allegations for perversion of justice done towards the independent investigator, the lawyer that got Vass' first signature, and that guy that lived in the car, just shows how badly the "system" wants this case shut down. And why has nobody challenged why the fire extinguisher was missing? It was put forward that she used it as a counterweight to sink his body, but the fire extinguisher specifically mentioned in the case would be close to neutrally buoyant, and at max would have sunk with 1,5 to 2 kg of weight, making the body resurface again pretty quickly once it decays and makes gasses, easily overpowering such a small weight. One could theorize on a scenario where the fire extinguisher was loaded with drugs where they bought the boat (the huge drug bust was from exactly where they bought it) to make them unaware drug-mules (not uncommon apparently). And the pick-up guy that went for it when the boat looked empty, ran in to a "problem". Who ever planted it would have sufficient knowledge about how to scuttle the boat slowly after the pickup. Or why was the torch (flashlight) found with Bob's blood on it? One would assume that Bob and Sue both would use the cabin lights to see when it's dark. Even if she committed the murder as put forward, she wouldn't have "snuck aboard" using it to see? The state suggests it was in use when he was murdered, and lends more credence to Bob waking up from some abnormal sounds.
I used to be able to listen with earbuds or before going to sleep. This new ad format put an end to that; it's really disrupting. I understand monetizing, but wow. Maybe there's another way to listen.
@@donnacovathere is. Get UA-cam premium. It's one of the best things I've done. From the complaints in the comment sections of this channel, the ads seem off the charts. Without UA-cam premium I wouldn't be listening to this channel. That's why, as great as this channel is, there are so few subscribers relatively speaking.
The sad irony is if she had done that she never would have been a suspect. The police would have cottoned on to the other line of evidence, which was very clear, and followed that line of inquiry instead. First thing most people do is reach for the bottle of alcohol or pills if confronted by something traumatizing. A lot of people suffer from motor mouth syndrome and do themselves a lot of harm by opening their mouths. If you run off at the mouth while under the influence of some drug, even a prescribed one, while also suffering the shock of trauma, you are likely to end up saying things you will regret. Yes, stay silent, call a lawyer.
To start with, I thought she was guilty without doubt. However, the information gathered after her hearing has cast doubt in my mind. To be clear, I think she's guilty. However, I can't bring myself to believe she is guilty without a shadow of doubt. GREAT storytelling! Love the way you laid this all out.
I wonder if drugs were involved. There was subsequently a case in the Australian state of Queensland, where police had found drugs hidden on a yacht. The yacht in this case had first sailed from Queensland. Had drugs been placed in the fire extinguisher which went missing with Bob’s disappearance , prior to the yacht being sold to them both several weeks earlier ? Had someone come to claim them and encountered Bob aboard?
This is one more case in a long list of cases that seem to focus on one individual. 😢 To the point they've disregarded credible information that would remove an individual as a suspect. Imo, they have their suspect & needed this case closed! You really have to wonder? How many innocent people have been convicted of crimes they never committed? To spend life in jail for something you didn't do! Then it's near impossible to have this reversed! Unless, on the slim chance, you get an appeal! What a living nightmare, especially for the family!
Yes, you decide ahead who’s guilty and then - confirmation bias sets in. This also happened in the most famous Australian case ever - Lindy Chamberlain. Think dingo, baby, desert. Merle Streep played Lindy in the film version.
I feel like law enforcement/prosecutors get tunnel vision or fall in love with their own ideas way too often, focusing on a single suspect and disregarding anything that doesn’t fit their pet theory. It’s frightening. In USA with the advent of DNA a lot of innocent people are slowly working their way out of prison, and even then the cops refuse to believe they were wrong.
Man. IDK if she's guilty or not, but if the facts are as presented and there isn't any additional evidence left out, this seems like a pretty clear miscarriage of justice. Being a compulsive liar makes a person an annoying weirdo, but it doesn't make them a murderer.
I was surprised that the jury convicted her. Didn’t think that there was sufficient evidence to meet the standard of proof. As to whether or not she was guilty who knows.
I aint convinced of her innocence, but there sure as hell is reasonable doubt in whatever happened on that boat that night. Guilty or not, the circumstancial evidence does not have enough weight in my opinoon.
Wow, this is a really interesting story, which i hadn't heard of before. A lot going on here. The Meaghan Vass DNA would probably be enough for "reasonable doubt" in the USA court system. Despite Vass's lies, DNA doesn't lie, so she was on the boat at some point right!? Intriguing!
For me the moral of this story is... Be honest and truthful right from the start. Because even if she was innocent, she dug the hole deeper with bullshit and changing the details. I doubt we will ever know the truth but at least one person does.
It's not unusual that people with back problems swim. As a matter of fact they swim to relieve their back problems. It actually is possible that he could swim but not get into a dinghy.
So many lies right from the start, that ultimately convicted Sue. She simply became more and more guilty looking with every lie she told. The fact that it took very good knowledge of that boat to open valves and turn off switches etc. also points to her. The thugs going aboard to rob would not have known about those things, or at least it was very unlikely and Megan’s lies and histrionics killed that scenario anyway.
THE way this case is presented in CASEFILE it sounds very likely the accused is not guilty. If she has been convicted through circumstantial evidence the Australian Legal System has FAILED again. Rather than being able to rely on the system proving either Innocence or guilt where appropriate it appears as if it a game of Chance. Listening to this Podcast no other reasons were mentioned such as a poor marriage etc. It appears there has to be involvement by other persons. One thing I have observed is this Legal system moves far too slowly ... JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED. I hope fervently the TRUTH will out ... can't rely on the police also. It's time we as a nation looked into the System ... if an overhaul is necessary and heads must roll then so be it ...
They didn’t want to overturn her conviction because she would no doubt have received a multi million dollar settlement which would have come out of public funding.
Great episode. This is definitely strange. Are they sure they got the right woman for the DNA match? Mistakes can be made...But a domestic partner caught lying about what they did during the murder 9 times out of time is a sign of their guilt. But what is the motive? Money? Pure hatred? Was their relationship strained before this? And they weren't even married?? I'm still listening lol, but I don't hear anyone convincingly discussing this in court. If she did it, it seems like a very elaborate scheme involving dark dinghy trips, bludgeoning (definitely work), corpse transports, maybe an accomplice that you'd have to pay off, threaten or really really trust...what's the Big Drive to go through all that??
Maybe Bob threatened divorce and to cut her out of his will. Who knows. Her constant lies and retractions seem extremely suspicious-- this case is hard to have strong feelings in favour of one suspect, though I tilt towards his wife. People can snap in the mist of rage. It is extremely hard to explain away that teenager's DNA though. That alone makes it very hard to be anywhere near sure of the wife's guilt. As far as other witness statements on the night, well I think we should always be VERY careful when considering those. Time and time again people give amazingly innacurate and conflicting accounts-- because people aren't observant when they don't need to be, because who expects events like this if they aren't involved? Looking and being observant aren't the same thing; much like the difference between hearing and listening.
In the episode it's mentioned there was a lot of arguing and a probable upcoming separation, with the yacht itself having introduced a lot of tension, constantly needing repairs, it was a costly investment and the couple each wanted different things as far as the usage of the yacht (long trips, short trips,) still, it's hard to imagine this as reason enough to kill someone. Just get a divorce! (Or in this case a legal separation.) Sure it's gonna be costly and messy. But at their age - to Kill the other person!? I can't wrap my head around it
The psychologist and film producer Eva Ash talks about how the cops tried to shut her and the rest of her crew from making a doco about the case by confiscating all of her film footage and following them around plus bugging their phones they even charged one guy with trying to pervert the course of justice
Yes, it depends on how much circumstantial evidence, how strong it is, patterns of behaviour etc over a long period. Etc. Every case is different. The husband in the case of the fantastic podcast TEACHER’s PET was convicted of his wife’s murder on circumstantial evidence. Rightly so, in the opinion of virtually everyone. @@tlcdogspa5512
update. she got parole but had to make some concessions. Still divided opinion as to her guilt or innocence. I personally think that she was innocent and that the story of the homeless people, the crooks and possibly drug attic’s going onto the boat and surprising Bob, and then killing him is the most likely story.
Great case! I still have a feeling sue had something to do with it. Why would an innocent person tell so many lies? Also the expert knowledge of the boat to mess with the valve isn't something some homeless people would know.
I have a feeling some cop or someone important was involved because the cops seem to have done sloppy work and overall the case was so weird all around. I dont think sue did it
Sounds like Sue was either part of a plot to kill Bob or a pathological liar that lied herself into prison. Listening to this presentation I can say as a juror on that trial I would have gone with the prosecutions case.
It seems odd that everyone just assumes Megan might have been present and seen something... but that it wasn't Sue she saw. The last story she gave was only after a lot of pressure to say exactly that, a story already fed to her. We don't know that she did sneak onto the boat and see Sue commit murder, clearly, but we also don't know that she didn't. That could explain her hysterical reaction to all the pressure to speak. It's not only the police making big assumptions.
Finally I've been looking for somewhere to say this about the case I wanted to know why meaghan vass was given a big guilt trip by her interviewer on 60 minutes for Finally telling shes been through hell in her young life drugs homelessness its like the interviewer is just blaming her for this miscarriage its actually the police and prosecutors fault evidence went missing and never mentioned in court the prosecutor knew the evidence was weak thats why went missing in the first place he thought they might get an acquittal on the evidence they didn't care who they got as long as someone was sent down
Oh my god Bob was walking around with a knife believing an intruder might have broken in,the horror,what's he supposed to do find the guy and luck his junk?
![DREAM WAVES 🎧 Sleep Music [ 1,8Hz Delta ] Binaural Beats Insomnia Healing, Sleep Hypnosis](/img/n.gif)
A person being confused, mixing stories, and seemingly not "mourning" correct, should never be considered evidence.. Guilty or not, she was unlawfully convicted. Watching the video interviews that they say she lied in, it's very clear that she has _100%_ faith in the justice system, and is trying her best to "be a detective" with them to help, not to throw them off. And any inconsistencies in her stories she blindly agrees with the interviewers, simply being humble and getting convinced by THEM that she has remembered it wrong.
Every time she "straight up lied", it was words the detectives used, and not what she did. She had blind faith in them to figure out the truth, and only when presented directly with "you murdered him for financial gain" was the time she directly denied. All other times she was convinced that she had remembered wrong, or that she had said something wrong by the detectives stating it directly to her.
Unfortunately, wanting to be helpful in form of suggesting ways it might have happened, will just implicate yourself.
That being said, I cannot be sure she is guilty or not. But the fact that Vass' DNA was NOT transferred by some boots (as presented in the trial), and the fact that evidence containing vomit that was bagged and sent for "tox" was never presented or actually SENT to tox, is enough to say there has been a miscarriage of justice. Those evidence were "conveniently" not submitted to the trial and shows there has been deliberate action by someone to "throw away" this detail since it didn't fit the prosecutions case. And the raids + allegations for perversion of justice done towards the independent investigator, the lawyer that got Vass' first signature, and that guy that lived in the car, just shows how badly the "system" wants this case shut down.
And why has nobody challenged why the fire extinguisher was missing? It was put forward that she used it as a counterweight to sink his body, but the fire extinguisher specifically mentioned in the case would be close to neutrally buoyant, and at max would have sunk with 1,5 to 2 kg of weight, making the body resurface again pretty quickly once it decays and makes gasses, easily overpowering such a small weight. One could theorize on a scenario where the fire extinguisher was loaded with drugs where they bought the boat (the huge drug bust was from exactly where they bought it) to make them unaware drug-mules (not uncommon apparently). And the pick-up guy that went for it when the boat looked empty, ran in to a "problem". Who ever planted it would have sufficient knowledge about how to scuttle the boat slowly after the pickup.
Or why was the torch (flashlight) found with Bob's blood on it? One would assume that Bob and Sue both would use the cabin lights to see when it's dark. Even if she committed the murder as put forward, she wouldn't have "snuck aboard" using it to see? The state suggests it was in use when he was murdered, and lends more credence to Bob waking up from some abnormal sounds.
episode starts: 2:54
ads end: 45:34
second ads end: 1:21:35
I used to be able to listen with earbuds or before going to sleep. This new ad format put an end to that; it's really disrupting. I understand monetizing, but wow. Maybe there's another way to listen.
Y'all should just pay him for his time and effort and then he could stop using ads.
@@donnacovathere is. Get UA-cam premium. It's one of the best things I've done. From the complaints in the comment sections of this channel, the ads seem off the charts. Without UA-cam premium I wouldn't be listening to this channel. That's why, as great as this channel is, there are so few subscribers relatively speaking.
Thank you man
@@endless3chowhy, it’s UA-cam
This ladies and gentlemen is why you never speak to police innocent or guilty uphold your right to remain silent 🤫
Amen!!!
The sad irony is if she had done that she never would have been a suspect. The police would have cottoned on to the other line of evidence, which was very clear, and followed that line of inquiry instead. First thing most people do is reach for the bottle of alcohol or pills if confronted by something traumatizing. A lot of people suffer from motor mouth syndrome and do themselves a lot of harm by opening their mouths. If you run off at the mouth while under the influence of some drug, even a prescribed one, while also suffering the shock of trauma, you are likely to end up saying things you will regret. Yes, stay silent, call a lawyer.
To start with, I thought she was guilty without doubt. However, the information gathered after her hearing has cast doubt in my mind. To be clear, I think she's guilty. However, I can't bring myself to believe she is guilty without a shadow of doubt. GREAT storytelling! Love the way you laid this all out.
Wow..thanks been waiting for a new one..and it's 2 hours.😀
I wonder if drugs were involved. There was subsequently a case in the Australian state of Queensland, where police had found drugs hidden on a yacht. The yacht in this case had first sailed from Queensland. Had drugs been placed in the fire extinguisher which went missing with Bob’s disappearance , prior to the yacht being sold to them both several weeks earlier ? Had someone come to claim them and encountered Bob aboard?
I love this show iv just started watching it 😊i love how you cover everthing thank you.😢
This is one more case in a long list of cases that seem to focus on one individual. 😢
To the point they've disregarded credible information that would remove an individual as a suspect.
Imo, they have their suspect & needed this case closed!
You really have to wonder?
How many innocent people have been convicted of crimes they never committed?
To spend life in jail for something you didn't do!
Then it's near impossible to have this reversed!
Unless, on the slim chance, you get an appeal!
What a living nightmare, especially for the family!
Yes, you decide ahead who’s guilty and then - confirmation bias sets in. This also happened in the most famous Australian case ever - Lindy Chamberlain. Think dingo, baby, desert. Merle Streep played Lindy in the film version.
I feel like law enforcement/prosecutors get tunnel vision or fall in love with their own ideas way too often, focusing on a single suspect and disregarding anything that doesn’t fit their pet theory. It’s frightening. In USA with the advent of DNA a lot of innocent people are slowly working their way out of prison, and even then the cops refuse to believe they were wrong.
Who needs the 3 Stooges when you have the Australian Police?!! FFS. Unbelievable.
Man. IDK if she's guilty or not, but if the facts are as presented and there isn't any additional evidence left out, this seems like a pretty clear miscarriage of justice. Being a compulsive liar makes a person an annoying weirdo, but it doesn't make them a murderer.
Yes it does
Sue's lies were not "mix-ups" as she says.
She straight up lied. What did she expect to happen?
I was surprised that the jury convicted her. Didn’t think that there was sufficient evidence to meet the standard of proof. As to whether or not she was guilty who knows.
I aint convinced of her innocence, but there sure as hell is reasonable doubt in whatever happened on that boat that night. Guilty or not, the circumstancial evidence does not have enough weight in my opinoon.
Wow, this is a really interesting story, which i hadn't heard of before. A lot going on here. The Meaghan Vass DNA would probably be enough for "reasonable doubt" in the USA court system. Despite Vass's lies, DNA doesn't lie, so she was on the boat at some point right!? Intriguing!
For me the moral of this story is... Be honest and truthful right from the start. Because even if she was innocent, she dug the hole deeper with bullshit and changing the details. I doubt we will ever know the truth but at least one person does.
Another great Aussie crime story...love it
At 65 years old Bob was a strong swimmer yet at his age he couldn’t get into the dinghy without help?
my thought exacly ;)
He could swim so that makes her guilty. Think I've heard it all now.
It's not unusual that people with back problems swim. As a matter of fact they swim to relieve their back problems. It actually is possible that he could swim but not get into a dinghy.
My thoughts exactly
that jumped to me from the start
We need to remember that it is not a justice system, it is a legal system.
This is 2 yrs ago did sue get parolled? Thanx casefile ure the best story teller
Thx m8
13:04 why didn’t he drop her back to shore and then drive the dingy back to the yacht?
well that sucks. thanks for all the research though.
Why hire a lawyer if you're not going to listen to them or bring them with you 🤔🙄
Shocking injustice
Killer episode
Perfect, doing taxes...this will save the day.
Death & taxes…..perfect.
@@neuterspadeyourpets.6201 ahhhh the two things you can never avoid.
So many lies right from the start, that ultimately convicted Sue. She simply became more and more guilty looking with every lie she told. The fact that it took very good knowledge of that boat to open valves and turn off switches etc. also points to her. The thugs going aboard to rob would not have known about those things, or at least it was very unlikely and Megan’s lies and histrionics killed that scenario anyway.
THE way this case is presented in CASEFILE it sounds very likely the accused is not guilty. If she has been convicted through circumstantial evidence the Australian Legal System has FAILED again. Rather than being able to rely on the system proving either Innocence or guilt where appropriate it appears as if it a game of Chance.
Listening to this Podcast no other reasons were mentioned such as a poor marriage etc. It appears there has to be involvement by other persons.
One thing I have observed is this Legal system moves far too slowly ... JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED.
I hope fervently the TRUTH will out ... can't rely on the police also. It's time we as a nation looked into the System ... if an overhaul is necessary and heads must roll then so be it ...
Housework finished now time to relax !!
Dude. What a crazy ordeal.
Imagine being in jail for 12 years because the police and court system trust some juvenile delinquent more than you
How can it be reasonable doubt with a literal puddle of someone else's dna on the boat 😂😂😂. Ridiculous
I guess that's one of the perks of being a salvage agent
They didn’t want to overturn her conviction because she would no doubt have received a multi million dollar settlement which would have come out of public funding.
Great episode. This is definitely strange. Are they sure they got the right woman for the DNA match? Mistakes can be made...But a domestic partner caught lying about what they did during the murder 9 times out of time is a sign of their guilt. But what is the motive? Money? Pure hatred? Was their relationship strained before this? And they weren't even married?? I'm still listening lol, but I don't hear anyone convincingly discussing this in court. If she did it, it seems like a very elaborate scheme involving dark dinghy trips, bludgeoning (definitely work), corpse transports, maybe an accomplice that you'd have to pay off, threaten or really really trust...what's the Big Drive to go through all that??
Maybe Bob threatened divorce and to cut her out of his will. Who knows. Her constant lies and retractions seem extremely suspicious-- this case is hard to have strong feelings in favour of one suspect, though I tilt towards his wife. People can snap in the mist of rage.
It is extremely hard to explain away that teenager's DNA though. That alone makes it very hard to be anywhere near sure of the wife's guilt.
As far as other witness statements on the night, well I think we should always be VERY careful when considering those. Time and time again people give amazingly innacurate and conflicting accounts-- because people aren't observant when they don't need to be, because who expects events like this if they aren't involved? Looking and being observant aren't the same thing; much like the difference between hearing and listening.
@@williamarthurfenton1496he couldn't have threatened to divorce her, as they were not married.
yeah that teenager girl pissed me off with her inconsistent bullshit, especialy because she s my age or like a year older lol@@williamarthurfenton1496
In the episode it's mentioned there was a lot of arguing and a probable upcoming separation, with the yacht itself having introduced a lot of tension, constantly needing repairs, it was a costly investment and the couple each wanted different things as far as the usage of the yacht (long trips, short trips,) still, it's hard to imagine this as reason enough to kill someone. Just get a divorce! (Or in this case a legal separation.) Sure it's gonna be costly and messy. But at their age - to Kill the other person!? I can't wrap my head around it
The psychologist and film producer Eva Ash talks about how the cops tried to shut her and the rest of her crew from making a doco about the case by confiscating all of her film footage and following them around plus bugging their phones they even charged one guy with trying to pervert the course of justice
Talk about corruption. Noone does it better than in Tasmania. No wonder Hodgman quit.
Circumstantial evidence is barely evidence IMO. It MIGHT point exactly at what happened or it might just be nothing. So frustrating.
Not true. Circumstantial cases can be very strong.
Circumstantial evidence can be quite compelling. It just depends on how the circumstances line up.
Yes, it depends on how much circumstantial evidence, how strong it is, patterns of behaviour etc over a long period. Etc. Every case is different. The husband in the case of the fantastic podcast TEACHER’s PET was convicted of his wife’s murder on circumstantial evidence. Rightly so, in the opinion of virtually everyone. @@tlcdogspa5512
Another great case of Australian justice
👋🏻 LINK YOUR SPONSORS…
…so you get credit
update. she got parole but had to make some concessions.
Still divided opinion as to her guilt or innocence. I personally think that she was innocent and that the story of the homeless people, the crooks and possibly drug attic’s going onto the boat and surprising Bob, and then killing him is the most likely story.
am i really the first one here!!!
Yeah you are!
Yeah! You did it :)
@DeFCoN rude! :(
@@FingerSpazm no you did it!
@@danrobinson572 WE did it
Great case! I still have a feeling sue had something to do with it. Why would an innocent person tell so many lies? Also the expert knowledge of the boat to mess with the valve isn't something some homeless people would know.
Shockingly bad police work as usual. Lies lies lies coming from every direction.
I hope Meagan burns in hell.... along with those monsters who killed poor Bob ugh I'm so pissed
Scares you,huh? Such shoddy police work and you're locked up for 11 years.
I have a feeling some cop or someone important was involved because the cops seem to have done sloppy work and overall the case was so weird all around. I dont think sue did it
Put me in the Sue did it camp.
Shes guilty alright
yeah if you're rich and white in Australia you have got no reason to lie like she has she's as guilty as sin
What a mess.
lol she was worried cause he was running around drunk with a knife so she had to....KILL HIM FIRST? instead of idk getting psych help? 💀
Sounds like Sue was either part of a plot to kill Bob or a pathological liar that lied herself into prison. Listening to this presentation I can say as a juror on that trial I would have gone with the prosecutions case.
The fact that you aren't sure, but would be willing to convict her is astonishing.
@@awright119021 let's hope this person never sets foot onto a jury 😂😁🤣😋🤗🤗
stop standing up for a murderer..@@awright119021
What a huge miscarriage of justice. Very sad.
It seems odd that everyone just assumes Megan might have been present and seen something... but that it wasn't Sue she saw. The last story she gave was only after a lot of pressure to say exactly that, a story already fed to her. We don't know that she did sneak onto the boat and see Sue commit murder, clearly, but we also don't know that she didn't. That could explain her hysterical reaction to all the pressure to speak. It's not only the police making big assumptions.
Who are you
They threw the right person in prison. Wife had so many lies they were bleeding out of her ears.
Finally I've been looking for somewhere to say this about the case I wanted to know why meaghan vass was given a big guilt trip by her interviewer on 60 minutes for Finally telling shes been through hell in her young life drugs homelessness its like the interviewer is just blaming her for this miscarriage its actually the police and prosecutors fault evidence went missing and never mentioned in court the prosecutor knew the evidence was weak thats why went missing in the first place he thought they might get an acquittal on the evidence they didn't care who they got as long as someone was sent down
🇦🇺🙋♀️💯👍
Some people can't accept reality,their emotions blind.
Oh my god Bob was walking around with a knife believing an intruder might have broken in,the horror,what's he supposed to do find the guy and luck his junk?
Hate it when they luck their junk..
On a vomit rag? Get real
Nice try Sue.
I suspect wifey
Lol never mind spoke too soon. They figured it out