Michael Brown Shooting

PCP Hallucinations in Ferguson

Blaming drugs for Michael Brown's death revives an ugly stereotype.


Fox News

Darren Wilson thought Michael Brown was "on something." Or so says one of Wilson's friends, describing the police officer's state of mind when he shot and killed the unarmed black teenager on August 9 in Ferguson, Missouri. "He really thinks he was on something, because he just kept coming," said the friend, identified only as "Josie," during a phone call to a St. Louis radio show last week. "It was unbelievable."

Earlier that same day, Fox News commentator Jim Pinkerton made a similar suggestion. "Eyewitnesses said that Brown was charging the cops," Pinkerton said on the channel's Happening Now show. "We'll know more with a blood test. If he was high on some drug, angel dust or PCP or something…it's entirely possible you could take a lot more than six bullets and keep charging." In other words, if Brown was high on PCP, firing just six rounds into him would be a mark of restraint.

A few hours later, The Washington Post reported that the blood test anticipated by Pinkerton showed "Brown had marijuana in his system when he was shot." The article, based on information from an unnamed source familiar with St. Louis County's investigation of the shooting, said nothing about PCP.

Unfazed by that news, R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., editor in chief of The American Spectator, speculated in a column published two days later that PCP-laced marijuana caused the aggressive behavior described by Wilson. "Those Swisher Sweet cigars are used as a conduit for ingesting a mixture of PCP and marijuana," Tyrrell wrote, referring to the stolen cigarillos Brown was carrying. "My guess is that Brown's senseless death was brought on by…psychosis and permanent brain injury."

It should be emphasized that witnesses disagree about whether Brown was moving toward Wilson when he was shot, which is a central point of contention in the case, since it underpins Wilson's claim that he fired in self-defense. But either way, attempts to explain Brown's alleged actions by reference to psychoactive substances he might have consumed exaggerate the power of those chemicals, which may encourage the use of excessive force by stoking officers' fears of people whom they perceive to be "on something." This kind of fear mongering is also regrettable because it harks back to a shameful history of warnings about people with dark skin and drug-infused blood.

The invocation of PCP to explain what looks like excessive police force is familiar from the 1992 trial of the Los Angeles police officers who beat Rodney King. "I thought that the suspect was under the influence of PCP," Sgt. Stacey Koon testified. "In my mind, he had exhibited this Hulk-like strength which I had come to associate with PCP." Although King tested negative for PCP, Koon still thought his mistaken belief about the content of King's blood should count as a mitigating factor, since everyone knows that PCP turns people into irrationally violent monsters with superhuman strength.


As is often the case with illegal drugs, what everyone knows turns out to be wrong. In a1988 review of 350 journal articles on PCP in humans, the psychiatrist Martin Brecher and his colleagues concluded that "PCP does not live up to its reputation as a violence-inducing drug."

Brecher et al. noted that high doses of PCP can produce "severe agitation and hyperactivity," along with "cognitive disorganization, disorientation, hallucinations, and paranoia." Combined with the drug's anesthetic effect, which makes users less sensitive to pain and therefore harder to restrain, such acute reactions have contributed to PCP's fearsome image. Yet in their search of the literature, Brecher and his co-authors found only three documented cases in which people under the influence of PCP alone had committed acts of violence. They also noted that between 1959 and 1965, when PCP was tested as a human anesthetic, it was given to hundreds of patients, but "not a single case of violence was reported."

This does not mean PCP users are never violent. But when they are, their behavior cannot be understood as a straightforward effect of the drug. "Research on the nexus between substance use and aggression," notes the criminologist Jeffrey Fagan, "consistently has found a complex relation, mediated by the type of substance and its psychoactive effects, personality factors and the expected effects of substances, situational factors in the immediate settings where substances are used, and sociocultural factors that channel the arousal effects of substances into behaviors that may include aggression." The pharmacologist John P. Morgan and the sociologist Lynn Zimmer put it this way: "No drug directly causes violence simply through its pharmacological action."

This point is obvious when we consider alcohol, the drug that is most strongly associated with violence. The fact that some people get into fights after drinking does not mean alcohol makes them behave that way. Variations in responses to alcohol across individuals, cultures, and situations show that drinking does not necessarily lead to bloodshed.

To some extent, the ascription of malevolent powers to chemicals is an attempt to explain behavior that otherwise seems inexplicable. That is one reason so many news outlets credulously accepted the claim that synthetic stimulants known as "bath salts" were responsible for the gruesome 2012 attack in which Rudy Eugene, a 31-year-old black man, chewed off the face of Ronald Poppo, a 65-year-old white man he encountered on Miami's McCarthur Causeway. The story generated headlines like "Bath Salts, Drug Alleged 'Face-Chewer' Rudy Eugene May Have Been On, Plague Police and Doctors" and "New 'Bath Salts' Zombie-Drug Makes Americans Eat Each Other."

CBS Miami

Like PCP, "bath salts" reportedly rendered people uncontrollable, giving them the strength of several men. How many men, exactly, was a matter of dispute. "I took care of a 150-pound individual who you would have thought he was 250 pounds," Armando Aguilar, president of the Miami Fraternal Order of Police, told the local CBS station. "It took six security officers to restrain the individual." Six looked like a strong contender, since two days later the same station attributed exactly the same quote to a local emergency room physician, Paul Adams.

But that was not the end of the matter. The next day, Adams told ABC News "it usually takes four to five people" to control someone who appears in the emergency room after consuming "bath salts." That same day, however, The Daily Beast quoted Adams as saying "to place someone safely in restraints, it's taken seven security guards and one doctor." The story also quoted Sgt. Javier Ortiz, vice president of the Miami FOP, who said "we just had a guy that took seven police officers and two supervisors to restrain." Averaging all these numbers, we can determine that it takes 6.4 men to restrain the typical bath-salt-fortified perp or patient.

Charlie Dent, a Republican congressman from Pennsylvania, jumped on the Miami Zombie story like Rudy Eugene did on poor Ronald Poppo. "When they learn about this face-chewing situation in Florida," Dent told Roll Call in June 2012, "hopefully that will change a few minds." Dent was referring to the debate over his proposed ban on chemicals used in "bath salts." Apparently he got his wish, because a few weeks later Congress approved the Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 2012, which bans two of those substances, MDPV and mephedrone. On the very same day, toxicological tests revealed that Eugene had not consumed "bath salts" after all.

The scary claims about "bath salts," like the scary claims about PCP, rang a bell with drug policy historians. They knew that, before marijuana acquired a reputation as a "drop-out drug" that sapped people's motivation, rendering them lethargic and docile, it was feared as a "killer drug" that triggered mayhem and murder. A 1917 report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture quoted an El Paso police captain who said marijuana users "become very violent, especially when they become angry, and will attack an officer even if a gun is drawn." He added that they "seem to have no fear, [are] insensible to pain," and display "abnormal strength," so that "it will take several men to handle one man."

Under Harry Anslinger, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics got a lot of mileage out of such claims. A 1936 pamphlet from the bureau warned that "prolonged use of Marihuana frequently develops a delirious rage which sometimes leads to high crimes, such as assault and murder. Hence Marihuana has been called the 'killer drug.'…Marihuana sometimes gives man the lust to kill, unreasonably and without motive. Many cases of assault, rape, robbery, and murder are traced to the use of Marihuana." While white people sometimes committed such marijuana-induced crimes, press coverage of cases involving Mexicans and blacks tended to highlight their racial identities, as reflected in headlines such as "Mexican, Crazed by Marihuana, Runs Amuck With Butcher Knife" and "Obsessed Negro Murders Greek."

The New York Times

Drug-crazed blacks also figured prominently in early coverage of the cocaine menace. In a 1914 New York Times article headlined "Negro 'Cocaine' Fiends Are a New Southern Menace," the pathologist Edward Huntington Williams explained that several factors make "the cocaine-sniffing negro" a "peculiarly dangerous criminal." Williams claimed that cocaine-induced paranoia "often incites homicidal attacks upon innocent and unsuspecting victims." Worse, cocaine magnifies the danger of such attacks by improving the criminal's aim and providing "a resistance to the 'knock down' effects of fatal wounds": "Bullets fired into vital parts, that would drop a sane man in his tracks, fail to check the 'fiend'—fail to stop his rush or weaken his attack." In response to this problem, Williams reported, Southern police officers had begun switching to larger-caliber guns.

Jim Pinkerton seemed to be channeling Williams on Monday, when he claimed that someone fortified by PCP "could take a lot more than six bullets and keep charging." But even if that were true, its relevance to the shooting of Michael Brown is hard to see, since there is no evidence that he was under the influence of PCP. It is not even clear that he was under the influence of marijuana. Although the Post reported that Brown "had marijuana in his system," THC can be detected in blood long after the drug's effects wear off: for up to eight hours in one-time users and for a day or two in frequent users. In any case, Pinkerton probably would not argue that pot, which lost its reputation as a "killer drug" many years ago, made Brown aggressive or impervious to bullets.

Echoes of Williams also could be heard in the warnings about irrationally violent crackheads that began to appear in news coverage and popular entertainment in the late 1980s. Menacing crackheads, typically portrayed as black, were an updated, less explicitly racist version of the "cocainized Negroes" that supposedly bedeviled Southern sheriffs in Williams' time. Yet the violence that people attributed to crack was overwhelmingly a product of prohibition. A 1997 analysis of "crack-related" homicides in New York City found that 85 percent grew out of black-market disputes. About 7 percent occurred during crimes committed to support a crack habit. Only one homicide out of 118 involved a perpetrator who was high on crack.

The message of these false narratives is pretty clear: Illegal drugs are scary, especially when mixed with the blood of African-American men. Commentators should think twice before reviving this ugly stereotype in an attempt to exculpate police for killing a black teenager.

This article originally appeared at Forbes.com.

NEXT: Steve Chapman: Democracy and Ferguson

Michael Brown Shooting Drug War Drug Policy Journalism Drugs

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

58 responses to “PCP Hallucinations in Ferguson

  1. I did not become violent under the effects of PCP.

      1. This is correct.

      2. Violent? Hell, I could barely move.

    1. What about poor mans PCP where you mix skittles, Arizona iced tea watermelon flavor and bottles of cough syrup? Oh wait where have we heard 2 of those ingredients before?

  2. And Wilson’s drug of choice?


    Ban it. For the chidrunz.

    1. White POWER?

      Or Black POWER?

      1. Police POWER, or as I now deem it, popopow.

    2. Have the results of Wilson’s drug testing been released? After all, he’s the killer here.

  3. Sounds like a solid slam dunk to me dude.


  4. The young man in Ferguson was about 6′ 3″ and weighed about 300 lbs. Drugged or not, him charging you, regardless of color would be a scary thing and beyond even most trained policemen to handle physically.

    1. don’t use logic it interrupts the meme.

    2. Ah yes, the, “what would YOU do in that situation” gambit. True, at a freshly-turned 36 with a bad knee and around ten years since the last time I was involved in anything like martial arts training, I’m absolutely not going to gamble on my ability to subdue someone who’s got about 60 pounds on me and those good springy young joints. I’d probably pop him if there was even a question in my mind.

      Which, of course, is why I get paid to make websites and not drive around town packin’ heat and a license to detain anyone I choose based on my own judgement. Police can’t claim that their jobs are too dangerous to perform correctly on the one hand and then claim that they need to maintain the capability to consistently outgun any and all non-cops, potential criminals, movie villains, or standing military forces. Cops get guns I can’t have, privileges I don’t have, equipment such as body armor, tasers, etc., that I’m not legally allowed to own or purchase, the ability to operate effectively outside of the law, and a paycheck on top of it all. The tradeoff is that cops assume risks that I and the rest of us who don’t have the privileges which come with that elevated legal status. If a cop isn’t any better at resolving a conflict with a big teenager than I am, then lose the badge, buy your own gun, and subject yourself to the same laws you’ve been enforcing on the rest of us.

      1. Get back in your car, lock the doors, and call for backup. But of course, we can’t do that, because rebellion must be dealt with immediately and severely. Plus, your cop buddies might make fun of you. Plus, what’s the fun of having a gun if you don’t get to use it?
        In the old days, cops used to travel in pairs. Now, the cab is too full of electronic fishing equipment to allow another occupant. So each cop gets his very own, tax-payer funded car, which of course, must be left running at all times, so that the poor pubic servant must never be forced to endure 5 minutes of discomfort (after existing whatever business he has illegally parked in front of for the last half hour) while the AC/Heater brings the vehicle to a comfortable temperature.
        Actually, that last part may be unfair. In my experience, a failure to start is one of the most common problems experienced with vehicles, caused by many different mechanical issues, so I could see it being policy to keep on-duty vehicles ready to go at a moment’s notice. But as a taxpayer, I question whether that means the AC must be running the whole time, especially with gas over $3 a gallon.

        1. Don’t forget the dashboard computer, which is NOT an obstruction, unlike a bead necklace or air freshener hanging from the rearview mirror.

        2. His window was obviously down or he wouldn’t have been able to get the suborbital fracture from skittles2. The officer and one video eyewitness said that skittles2 went away then ran back at the cop, just like he did to the Asian clerk at the end of the liquor store robbery video.

    3. yea, cuz out running a fatty for 3 mins is well outside the bounds of police work.

      srlsy, im a fatty, we got 5 mins of rage then we are winded for 10.

      giant fat people are not a physical threat, unless the buffet runs out of shrimp.


      1. In that 5 minutes, HULK SMASH! tho.

        5 minutes is probably longer than most fights. It’s practically a whole bjj match, a wrestling match, or a round of MMA. Unless you have some good training, which cops don’t get at the academy, you’re not going to fend off a committed attacker with 100 lbs on you for 5 minutes if that guy clinches with you.

  5. Who the heck takes PCP these days? Who even sells it?

    1. Crazed negroes, duh.

  6. Firing six bullets into him is not a sign of restraint It is a sign the officer didn’t have a machine gun.

  7. Wow – the author takes a simple, speculative statement — “he must have been on something” — and links it to drug-sniffing-Negro paranoia from 100 years ago, as if the cop was suggesting that he must have been on something *because* he’s black.

    Perhaps the commentators were simply offering that it is inherently irrational to charge at a cop who is pointing a gun at you, and to continue charging after he begins firing, so it’s likely that he was under the influence of a mind-altering substance.

    And regarding the sarcastic point about firing just six shots being a “mark of restraint” — given that the point of using deadly force is to stop an attacker, what is the maximum number of shots that’s reasonable when the attacker is still approaching? Three? If a cop fires three times at an attacker and hits him in the arm all three times, and the attacker continues to approach, is the cop supposed to say, “Well, gee, I’ve already shot him three times, and that’s the max,” and holster his weapon? I can’t understand this fixation with the number of rounds fired. If he had fired 14 rounds into the suspect, and he was still charging, firing a 15th would have still been appropriate. Again, you apply deadly force until the threat is neutralized, not until you reach some arbitrary maximum number of bullets.

    1. Again, you apply deadly force until the threat is neutralized, not until you reach some arbitrary maximum number of bullets.

      Is that all threats everywhere at all times?

      If you stare into the threatening abyss long enough…

      1. No, mad.casual, not all threats everywhere at all times; just deadly threats. It’s not reasonable to apply deadly force to someone who is threatening to tickle you or threatening to post an unflattering picture of you on Facebook. OK, does that clear up the confusion?

        1. I’ll agree with you the moment that police give up the right to stop and detain anyone they choose. Until then, the elevated privileges police enjoy carry with them a higher responsibility. Otherwise, cops are just the state’s favorite gang.

          1. Why would you wait until that time to agree? The right to use deadly force to deter a violent attack has nothing to do with being a cop per se. Are you saying that, if you found yourself being charged by a 300-lb man who had just beaten you hard enough to break your eye socket, you’d decline to do so because police still have the right to stop and detain people arbitrarily?

          2. Ok stopping people wearing gang colors walking down the middle of the street that fit the description of a liquor store robbery less than 10 min prior? “Hands up” witness took off his shirt from the robbery to go on video but he had a warrant for his arrest.

        2. OK, does that clear up the confusion?

          Nope. No confusion as it’s pretty straightforward. I don’t care what playbook you’re following; shooting an unarmed man to death in the street is pretty underhanded.

          “Eye-for-an-eye” is supposed to be the shitty version of a moral standard, this is shooting to death for punching.

          If it weren’t a police officer, Wilson would be a fugitive or up on charges.

          Firing until the fullest definition of neutralized is achieved is for non-humans and/or combat zones. Even soldiers in a combat zone are expected to demonstrate restraint enough not to slaughter civilians (or waste rounds) needlessly.

          1. I was jumped by 5″unarmed” blacks after using an ATM, luckly it was on security video or I would be a white GZ. Skittles2 was stupid enough to attack a cop just like Rodney King was in his full video.

    2. Well, first, there is the issue of aim. I bet I could neutralize most threats with one well placed round. I might even be able to do it non-lethally. Second, that was not the only option the officer had. I will bet you money he had a tazer, which can be lethal, but is not designed to be, unlike a firearm. Also, he could have (GASP!) retreated. You know, got in his vehicle and called for back up. But a MAN doesn’t back down from some punk, so of course, for the cop’s ego, the kid must be killed.
      All of this of course, is only true if the kid was far enough away to give the officer choices. If it was a close proximity thing, then of course that changes things. But if it was close proximity, then how can you fire off six rounds before the bigger guy grabs you? And the officer himself admits the 30 ft range witnesses claimed, I believe.

      1. Oh, and if the officer CAN”T neutralize a guy with one shot, then that means his aim is not good. Which means he had no business firing off six rounds in a heavily populated area. If he can’t assure his bullets are going where he wants them to, then what assurance do we have that they won’t hit someone else? Or does officer safety trump the safety of those whom the officer has sworn to serve and protect?
        The whole officer safety thing is bullshit anyway. Police officer is not anywhere near the most dangerous job. Cab drivers get killed on the job more often, as do roofers, just to name a couple of more dangerous jobs in America. So LEO’s inordinate fear of being killed in the line of duty smells like rank cowardice to me.

        1. The officer had a suborbital fracture(bone behind eye). The cohort of the NYC black shot on his way to church was hit by 17 bullets and survived. Rodney King was so high on crack a police issue stun gun had no effect on him.

  8. “THC can be detected in blood long after the drug’s effects wear off: for up to eight hours in one-time users and for a day or two in frequent users. ”


    a one time user can have weed in their system for up to 30 days. heavy users will take longer to cleanse it out of their systems.

    3 days? nope., ive failed enough drug tests. i’ve quit for a week, 2 weeks, a month, 2 months.. and i’ve still tested positive.

    the longer you smoke and the fatter you are, the longer it takes to become clean.


    1. You make sense, FFM, but I’ve never gotten a consistent answer regarding this, from people being tested to people doing the testing.

      (I realize that urine tests are different than hair samples).

      I have had experienced people tell me that contact highs are very real (I’m skeptical) and that you will never test positive after 30 days no matter how heavy a toker you are.

      1. contact highs are very real, hahahahh.

        they will happen if you are in a very confined space, but im talking 3-4 people in a bathroom smoking a couple blunts. you will get high.

        i’ve only ever done urine samples. the longest i went w/ out smoking before i failed a test was 40+ days. i even took a bottled cleanser (per directions) before the test and pissed dirty.

        the last test i took was over a decade ago. the lady from teh test center called me and said “we’ve had some issues w/ your test. we’ve had a positive result for marajawanna and we were wondering if you are taking any medication that may cause this” i replied, “it was probably all the weed i smoked.” she laughed. i didnt get a job.

        i would like to find you the page that explains how pot is fat soluble and how it attaches to fat cells and science stuff, but im high and dammit, you have goolge. sorry pal.

        i’m a long time heavy smoker. used to be a weekend warrior, but then i mangled myself and now weed helps w/ the bone pain. *shrug*


    2. I think the article and you are talking about different things. THC, the most psychoactive cannibinoid, is metabolized relatively quickly.

      There are other cannibinoids besides THC in marijuana that aren’t very psychoactive (if at all) but take MUCH longer to metabolize or flush out of the body.

      Most drug tests (of course) don’t differentiate between cannibinoids which is why you can be found potentially “guilty” of a DUI weeks after eating a pot brownie.

      1. this. ^^

        it’s why the DUI laws are fucking bullshit. there is not test currently that can tell if you are high or just have residual cannibinoids in your blood.

        and being high does not equal dangerous behind the wheel! i remember 2 studies, 1 found that the majority of people in america think that a high driver is just as bad as a drunk driver, which is complete bullshit.

        the 2nd one, out of england, has to be at least a decade+ old, did actual, behind the wheel driving tests and concluded that your average high driver was a safer driver than anyone over 65.
        everyone of the high drivers drover slower, was much more safer, and overall performed better. *shrug*

        but you know, gotta fill those prisons w/ dangerous people that get high and cook their babies in the oven.



    3. The article was talking about a blood test done during the autopsy. Most drug tests test the urine. I’m not sure on everything, but if I remember right, it has to do with how soluble (or not) THC is in water. I’m not sure if it’s highly soluble or non-soluble, but the result is that it gets stored in fatty tissue. As the fat is burned by the body, the THC is released into the urine. So a person with very low body fat can pass a urine test after a shorter amount of time than an obese person.

    4. He was talking about blood samples, not urine samples. I believe blood samples don’t detect for the usual 30-ish days that urine tests do.

      Also, he said “THC.” Not sure about blood tests, but I believe the urine tests check for THC metabolites, not THC.

  9. I’ve never tried pcp, but from the descriptions it sounds like a chemical I have tried– 5-MeO-DiPT. I found that drug dissociative, dark, slightly frightening, and… crystalline. It would definitely sharpen you up for a night of ultra violence. I didn’t much care for it, until my girlfriend at the time wanted to go “do it.”That was a good move as sex was just unbelievable– crazy and animalistic.

    Anybody here try pcp and then “do it”? How was it?

    Oh, in other news, another person off their rockers is shooting up an army base. If only more people had guns around we’d all be safer, I guess.

    1. Tis a pity you weren’t there.

    2. Or, a female officer had an emotional breakdown in an office on base and fired one (1) shot, killing herself.

      But keep trying to push that narrative, you lying sack of shit. I’d believe in a hell if I thought people who wish for murders so they can push their political agenda would go there.

    3. 5-MeO-DiPT is a psychedelic tryptamine that acts primarily as an agonist of 5-HT receptors in the brain.

      PCP is an ionotropic glutamate receptor antagonist, best classified as a dissociative anesthetic.

      Unless you want to get into some rather technical talk about 5-HT2AR/mGluR2 oligomer complexes, it’s simplest to say that they are unrelated, pharmacologically or phenomenologically.

      1. Yeah, as Carnival said, completely different drugs. About as similar as LSD and vicodin.

  10. I’m not sure telepathic drug metabolite tests should be admissible in a court of law.

  11. We don’t have any confirmation of blood tests that would lead anyone to a reasonable factual conclusion. The most factual reporting (appears) to be he had smoked marijuana at some point in the last 30ish days. It’s a good enough point that bringing PCP derangement into the discussion would remind someone of the hysteria related to ‘drug related crimes’ that helped march us toward the current ridiculous drug war. Personally, I’d have preferred the article edited down to 2-3 paragraphs.

  12. Like marijuana, all of the drugs mentioned in this article are Schedule 1 narcotics, which means they have no currently accepted medical use. Schedule 1 narcotics are severely limited in the types of testing that can occur. None of the tests cited in this article contain the scientific rigor needed to draw a conclusion one way or the other. The reasoning put forth by this article is defective.

    1. To be accurate, the drugs have “no currently accepted medical use” by the DEA. This is by no means a medical or scientific decision.

    2. I can list off a number of possible medical uses for a huge number of currently Schedule 1 drugs. I say ‘possible’ because DEA obstructionism makes it next to impossible to follow up on early studies done before the banhammer started coming down.

      Nothing the DEA does has anything to do with legitimate science or medicine.

      1. The law prevents the testing. A hunch or a desire isn’t good enough.

  13. Can we please dispense with the “teenager” narrative? Thousands of American MEN have died in defense of their country who hadn’t yet reached the age of 20. We never hear reports on the death of “teen soldiers,” why the fixation on Michael Brown’s age?

    The man was reportedly 6’4″ and 290 lbs. Anyone that size who chooses can be a lethal menace, no matter their age.

    1. I just wonder what makes him more important than the people in Chicago who get counted every week, but are never named.

      1. Didn’t you hear Al Sharpton? He was a gentle giant, and slain by the Man.

      2. Or the white guy wearing headphones shot by a black cop for not listening to him 2 days after skittles2 died. Dillon Taylor was killed in a case of mistakecoon ID.

  14. Didn’t read the article; waiting for the autopsy results. Then we can talk, right?

  15. my best friend’s mother makes $66 /hr on the computer . She has been without work for 7 months but last month her payment was $13283 just working on the computer for a few hours. go…..

    ?????? http://WWW.JOBSAA.COM

Comments are closed.