Jonathan Yardley’s strange book review!

MONDAY, MARCH 17, 2014

Kitty Genovese, still not remembered: Every Sunday, Jonathan Yardley writes a book review for the Washington Post Outlook section.

In our view, Yardley’s reviews help make the Sunday Post a better read than the bloated Sunday Times. That said, Yardley’s latest review struck us as notably strange.

Yardley reviewed a pair of books about the killing of Kitty Genovese, our country’s latest fiftieth anniversary event. In 1964, the killing of Genovese, a 28-year-old New York City woman, created a nationwide discussion which has never really ended.

At the start of his review, Yardley recalls the horrific basic events. He even recalls some events which didn’t happen, a basic fact he didn’t note until late in his review.

Over the last fifty years or so, our press corps has invented quite a few major events. This may be one of the first such inventions in this modern era:
YARDLEY (3/16/14): Half a century ago this month two weeks after the incident took place—the New York Times published on its front page, in a prominent position and under what was for the Times an unusually large four-column headline, a story that began: “For more than half an hour 38 respectable, law-abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk and stab a woman in three separate attacks in Kew Gardens. . . . Not one person telephoned the police during the assault; one witness called after the woman was dead.”

The story was gritty and local, in both respects uncharacteristic of the Times in those days, and it made a huge splash, not merely among the newspaper’s readers but across the nation as other news organizations picked up on it. To this day I remember it vividly. I was working for the Times, though not as a local reporter, and living on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, only a few miles from where Kitty Genovese was sexually assaulted and murdered. New Yorkers were not nearly as edgy about crime in 1964 as they were a decade later during the city’s steep if temporary decline, and the Genovese story made readers suddenly aware of the quotidian dangers people face in an urban environment.
Yardley heard about this heinous murder as a young New York Times reporter. We heard about it as a high school junior in California.

This heinous event was discussed all over the country. As Yardley explains, it changed the sociology books. (Yardley quotes a professor who describes the killing of Genovese as “the most-cited incident in social psychology literature until the September 11 attacks of 2001.”)

In many ways, this brutal murder changed the ways Americans thought of themselves. This was a very famous event, and it produced a very long public discussion.

Here’s the problem—in many ways, that splashy report in the New York Times was factually wrong. Somewhat oddly, Yardley waits until the end of his review to tell his readers that.

When he does, it seems to us that he’s weirdly imprecise.

In the passage which follows, Yardley finally notes that the New York Times got the story wrong in that splashy front-page report. But just how wrong did the New York Times get it?

Strangely, we never get told:
YARDLEY: [W]hat happened to Kitty Genovese in March 1964 affected the way many people think about crime and their responsibility to take action against it. The irony, though, is that the essential element in this notion of collective guilt—the charge that 38 witnesses failed to come to Genovese’s aid—is almost certainly untrue. The figure was tossed out by Michael Murphy, the New York City police commissioner, at lunch with A.M. Rosenthal, who in 1964 was city editor of the Times. “Brother, that Queens story is one for the books. Thirty-eight witnesses,” Murphy told Rosenthal, and added: “Thirty eight. I’ve been in this business a long time, but this beats everything.”

Rosenthal, a driven and ferociously ambitious journalist who eventually became executive editor of the Times, went back to the office and assigned the story to a reporter named Martin Gansberg. Apparently neither Rosenthal nor Gansberg ever tried to verify Murphy’s firm figure of 38 witnesses: “It came from the police; that was enough. Nobody ever identified the thirty-eight witnesses or counted the witnesses in the detectives’ reports.” The figure was accepted by other newspapers and magazines and cited as gospel by Malcolm Gladwell in his pop-sociological bestseller “The Tipping Point,” proof positive that journalists are as susceptible to the herd instinct as everyone else.

By 2004, when a conference on the crime was held, 40 years after it took place, Cook writes, “anyone willing to do a little Googling might have suspected that ‘thirty-eight witnesses’ carried a whiff of urban legend,” yet “of the ten most popular social-psychology textbooks of 2005, all carried accounts of the Genovese case, with all ten accounts maintaining that thirty-eight witnesses watched Kitty die without lifting a finger to help.”

So social psychologists as well as journalists are served a helping of humble pie in Cook’s book, though it’s unlikely that any of them will be eating it...
Even Gladwell got it wrong! Perhaps he needs more practice!

“The charge that 38 witnesses failed to come to Genovese’s aid is almost certainly untrue,” Yardley writes. We’re told that the number “carrie[s] a whiff of urban legend.”

But nowhere are we ever told how strong that whiff of legend might be. Was it really 35 silent witnesses? Perhaps as few as two dozen?

In fact, that Times report was heinously wrong, or at least that’s our understanding of the current state of the case. Scanning Cook’s book as best we can on-line, it looks like he says that maybe two witnesses really saw what was happening that night—and one of them did call police.

In many quarters, Genovese remains a sanctified figure, as well she should, because of the brutal nature of her death. But as he reviews two books about her killing, Yardley is weirdly imprecise about the part of the story which made this event so famous.

As major fans of Yardley’s work, we find this review rather puzzling. We offer a speculation:

As Yardley notes, the man who created this “urban legend” went on to become a kingpin of the New York Times, a god of the mainstream press corps. Today, his son is editorial page editor of the Times.

Does professional courtesy mean that we the rubes still can’t be told about how badly he misreported this event? Does it mean we can’t be told that the New York Times essentially invented the tale about the uncaring neighbors?

Eight years later, in 1972, a group of upper-end reporters may have invented another influential tale, the claim that Candidate Muskie wept. Is Yardley shying away from helping us see how far back this practice extends—this habit of dreaming up socially useful “parables” which help us believe the right things? (That’s a term from Cook’s book.)

In our view, Yardley is a terrific reviewer, and this is a strange review. A final point:

If we’re reading Cook’s book correctly, Genovese died in the arms of a loving neighbor and friend, a woman who risked her own life to go to the aid of her friend.

Therein lies the heart of this extremely famous story. Fifty years later, does the might of the Times, and professional courtesy, mean that we still can’t be told?

54 comments:

  1. This event is mentioned frequently in social psychology because it inspired the bystander studies of Latane & Darley. It is not mentioned in its own right, but in the context of that other work. If other events are not mentioned, it is largely because it is rare for a single historical event to inspire a line of research, especially one that becomes the foundation for continuing studies and thus many subsequent references. It also inspired Phil Ochs to write "A Small Circle of Friends."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, if it's inspirational, then print it! Truth and facts are for suckers that are a day late and a dollar short.

      Delete
    2. Nobody said that. I just pointed out that this wasn't widely cited in social psych because of Genovese but because the research was important.

      Delete
  2. OMB (Many and Mysterious Are the Ways of the OYB)


    "But nowhere are we ever told how strong that whiff of legend might be. Was it really 35 silent witnesses? Perhaps as few as two dozen?"

    "In many ways, this brutal murder changed the ways Americans thought of themselves." BOB


    Nowhere are we told how "many ways" you Americans changed in thinking about yourselves. Not even one way is described. Nor its consequences.

    KZ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, that's not true. Somerby talked about the citations of the report in social psychology -- that is at least one way America changed in thinking about ourselves. Somerby's point, which you are ignoring, is that so few people were witnesses (2) that merely saying it wasn't 38 is far from a sufficient correction of the record.

      Delete
    2. Another commenter proving Bob was right in the Dowd post...about commenters.

      Delete
  3. Fifty years later, does the might of the Times, and professional courtesy, mean that we still can’t be told?

    Some day Yardley may be up for an award with some high Timesie as a judge. Or, he might want to apply for a job at the Times some day. Also, if he doesn't give professional courtesy to the Times, they might not reciprocate. So, yes, it's prudent for him to pull his punches.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you know how old he is?
      He can do as he wishes.

      Delete
  4. OMB (BOB Plays With His A.M. Rosenthal Doll)

    Essentially BOB is just like Rachel Maddow. As a teller of tall tales.

    A few weeks back we were told by BOB that Rachel Maddow invented words for the Chief of Police of Ft. Lee in response to a suggestion for traffic diversion made to him by Lt. Chip Michaels. It recalled heinous acts of the past he said. It was misleading.

    Here is what she said, as quoted by BOB:

    MADDOW (continuing directly): We don’t know if that was the police lieutenant’s intention. We know from the records released today that the Fort Lee police chief responded to the Port Authority policeman by essentially saying, “Are you crazy? That cannot happen, there’s already gridlock there.”

    BOB was right. Even covering herself with the weasel word "essentially" she embellished. Tonight he recalled the memory of that post for us by writing:


    "Does it mean we can’t be told that the New York Times essentially invented the tale about the uncaring neighbors?"


    Unfortunately for BOB, he did so immediately after quoting a book reviewer who wrote this:

    "The figure was tossed out by Michael Murphy, the New York City police commissioner, at lunch with A.M. Rosenthal, who in 1964 was city editor of the Times. “Brother, that Queens story is one for the books. Thirty-eight witnesses,” Murphy told Rosenthal, and added: “Thirty eight. I’ve been in this business a long time, but this beats everything.”

    They "essentially invented" a story told to them by the New York Police Commissioner?

    Well BOB, Al Gore "essentially" claimed he "invented" the Internet by your standards. Rachel Maddow cuts a jib Roger Ailes likes and you follow her example in your own work. And there are still, by your standards, a handful of "losers," rubes who still get played by you post after post.


    KZ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Essentially, no.

      Delete
    2. deadrat seems to infer agreement.

      Delete
    3. Compare and Contrast Journalism to Blogging)

      Journalism: NPR Interviews Book Author

      Blogging: BOB spins and attacks reviewer of Book Author

      BOB sez:...."the New York Times was factually wrong. Somewhat oddly, Yardley waits until the end of his review to tell his readers that.

      When he does, it seems to us that he’s weirdly imprecise....

      In fact, that Times report was heinously wrong, or at least that’s our understanding of the current state of the case. Scanning Cook’s book as best we can on-line, it looks like he says that maybe two witnesses really saw what was happening that night—and one of them did call police."

      NPR Interviews the Author:

      "CORNISH: So weeks after her murder, the story is investigated by The New York Times, which initially reports this claim about the 38 witnesses to the death of Kitty Genovese. Break that down for us. Where did that number come from, and did it reflect what happened that night?

      COOK: I don't think it did. In a fascinating chain of events, the story went practically unreported for two weeks. And 10 days after the crime, the new city editor for The New York Times - Abraham Rosenthal - had lunch with the chief of police, who said, you know that story out in Queens? That's one for the books; 38 witnesses. And Rosenthal thought that was a striking thing that might well resonate with readers - 38 witnesses. That was the story. That came from the police, and it really is what made this story stick.

      Over the course of many months of research, I wound up finding a document that was a collection of the first interviews. Oddly enough, there were 49 witnesses. I was puzzled by that until I added up the entries themselves. Some of them were interviews with two or three people, lived in the same apartment. I believe that some harried civil servant gave that number to the police commissioner, who gave it to Rosenthal; and it entered the modern history of America after that."

      http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=284002294


      Did that story change how Americans thought of themselves in "many ways" too numerous for blogger BOB, the "test results" expert," to enumerate or describe?

      Or did blogger BOB simply spin another story to fit his meme of Guild protection working half a century later to cover a case of bad reporting?

      KZ

      Delete
    4. You are a worthless waste of time, KZ.

      Delete
    5. Anon. @ 12:25 you are a follower who cannot refute the fact this blogger lies to you regularly.

      What amuses us is he so blatantly does it while demonstrating the lie within the very same post and some of his readers not only let him get away with it, they praise him and take offense when it is pointed out.

      KZ

      Delete
    6. KZ no one takes offense that you "point out" Somerby has lied regarding the Genovese mis-coverage. Because you've done no such thing.

      The coverage *was* awful.

      The story is still not fully reported -- that is to say, it's still reported in a misleading way -- even today.

      And you, as everyday, are a gobshite.

      Delete
    7. Let's see. In this post BOB says, trying to read a book online, he counts "two" witnesses. The author of the book, in an interview a partial transcript of which is included in the
      comment to which you reply, says there were actually "49."

      And the person who points out BOB's glaring error is a "gobshite." BOB must be proud of his rube reders who come to his defense with such stirring fervor and stunning facts.

      KZ

      Delete
  5. For another view, which "essentially" says Somerby's version is nonsense red this piece by the other book covered in the Yardley review:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/truth-kitty-genovese-article-1.1706942

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is the second time in less than a year Somerby has focused a post on the Genovese case, largely for the purpose of attacking the News York Times. His flight from the truth in service of his meme was evident then as well.

    In addition to repeatedly charging the Times with inventing the story, he said this:

    "Question: Did some “unidentified neighbor” really provide the iconic quote, "I didn't want to get involved?” Or did the Times invent that quote, which was so perfectly suited to drive the preferred story-line?

    Like you, we have no idea. The Times invented all kinds of facts. It may have invented that statement as well."

    Once again Somerby was not telling the truth.

    Here is what the Times actually wrote back in 1964.

    "It was 3:50 by the time the police received their first call, from a man who was a neighbor of Miss Genovese. In two minutes they were at the scene. The neighbor, a 70-year-old woman, and another woman were the only persons on the street. Nobody else came forward.

    The man explained that he had called the police after much deliberation. He had phoned a friend in Nassau County for advice and then he had crossed the roof of the building to the apartment of the elderly woman to get her to make the call.

    "I didn't want to get involved," he sheepishly told police."

    The Times took the quote from the police report. The Times got the witness figure from the Police Commissioner. The inventor is Bob Somerby.

    Oh, and just a note in passing. The previous post attacking the Times for its Genovese coverage was written to attack the Times for its Trayvon Martin coverage. It was another post in which Bob lied to claim someone else was lying

    ReplyDelete
  7. "repeatedly charging the Times with inventing the story"

    Do you not know how to comprehend what you read, or are you just an inveterate bullshitter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right. Bob calls the Times coverage "heinously wrong" but that doesn't mean they invented this story out of whole cloth.

      Delete
  8. I can read. And Somerby is an inveterate liar. From the "Incomparable Archives"

    "CAN WE TALK: Kitty Genovese died for George Zimmerman’s sins!
    FRIDAY, JULY 12, 2013

    Part 5—Two famous tales of the Times: Way back in 1964, the New York Times made up a story. (1 in paragraph 1)
    -----
    In large part, that fame occurred because of the story the New York Times made up. (2)
    -----
    Why in the world did the New York Times invent this dramatic tale? (3)
    -----
    At any rate, the New York Times invented a story which captured a growing concern in a simplistic fashion. (4)
    -----
    Long ago, the New York Times invented a story—a story designed to suit the times. The great paper invented a boatload of facts, helping us imagine that no one wanted to get involved. (5)


    ReplyDelete
  9. "Fifty years later, does the might of the Times, and professional courtesy, mean that we still can’t be told?"

    Ummm, Bob? Here is a link to a story from none other than the New York Times, written 10 years ago, which pretty much debunks the newspaper's first reporting of the Genovese murder.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/08/nyregion/kitty-40-years-later.html?src=pm&pagewanted=1

    Bob might also be surprised to learn that when I was in J-school in the early '70s, the Genovese reporting was used as a classic example of not taking the word of high police officials and running with it.

    Now that we are in the Information Age, all one really needs to do is to Google "Kitty Genovese" to discover whether or not Somerby is lying through his teeth when he claims that a code of silence has fallen upon this story in order to protect the New York Times, something that surely the Times' rivals in the highly competitive newspaper market would certainly have as their No. 1 priority.

    The truth, sad to Somerby and the fans he lies to, is that few street crimes if any and its coverage other than the Genovese murder that has been more dissected, analyzed and debunked and all over the course of the past 50 years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder why Somerby chose not to mention this review of the two books.

      http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2014/03/10/140310crbo_books_lemann?currentPage=all

      I also wonder why, in the four times Somerby has covered the Genovese story, he has felt the need to personalize his journalism review by mentioning his age and location when the story first appeared in 1964.

      Finally, I wonder, if you were to reviews just the posts on Genovese and the links contained in those posts and comments, how many different counts of the number of witnesses you would get?

      The author of the original Times article maintained he derived the number 38 from actual interviews with neighbors and the police. The editor who assigned the reporter claimed the number 38 came from the police Commissioner in a lunch conversation with the editor.

      Somerby's most exaggerated version of the Times coverage came in an effort to attack the New York Times for its Trayvon Martin coverage. Regardless of the accuracy of Times reporting in either case, some facts remain quite clear.

      Kitty Genovese is dead. Winston Mosely killed her. He was convicted.

      Trayvon Martin is dead. George Zimmerman killed him. He was acquitted.

      Delete
    2. What lesson do you draw from the split decision on convictions for the two homicides? Or are these just clear facts?

      Delete
  10. My name is janine from east London I want to thank Dr Olumo for helping reconcile with my love how broke up with me after three year into our relationship, I was introduced to Dr Olumo by a friend of mine and ever since my life has been going smoothly. If you are bad situation and you a good guardian and a good man of God I can assure Dr Olumo is the right man to contact. His contact mail address is drolumohomeofsolution@gmail.com and his lines are 08106176523,09035817525. God bless you for reading

    ReplyDelete

  11. hello,i am sandra smithFrom United Kingdom. I wish to share my testimonies with the general public about what this man called Dr sambo has just done for me , this man has just brought back my lost Ex husband to me with his great spell, I was married to this man called Steven we were together for a long time and we loved our self’s but when I was unable to give him a child for 2 years he left me and told me he can’t continue anymore then I was now looking for ways to get him back until a friend of mine told me about this man and gave his contact email(sambospellcaster@gmail.com) then you won’t believe this, when I contacted this man on my problems he prepared this spell cast. and bring my lost husband back, and after a month I miss my monthly period and i go for a test and the result stated am pregnant. am happy today am a mother of a baby girl, thank you once again the great DR sambo for what you have done for me, if you are out there passing through any of this problems listed below: you can contact him via Email; sambospellcaster@gmail.com

    1) If you want your ex back.

    (2) if you always have bad dreams.

    (3) You want to be promoted in your office.

    (4) You want women/men to run after you.

    (5) If you want a child.

    (6) You want to be rich.

    (7) You want to tie your husband/wife to be

    yours forever.

    (8) Or you have been scammed and you want to recover your lost money contact him on this email(sambospellcaster@gmail.com)

    ReplyDelete
  12. i want to use this medium to testify of how i got back my ex boyfriend. After 5 years in relationship with my husband with 3 kids, he suddenly started going out with other ladies and coming home late, most at times drunk and each time i confront him about this it turns out to be fight, he even threatened to divorce me severally, I was emotionally devastated because i was not sure of what to do to make him love me again, I tried all i could to make him love me again but all proved abortive until i saw a post on the internet on how a spell caster Dr. Zaki helps people restore back their broken relationship/marriage at first i doubted this but decided to give it a try, when i contacted this spell caster via email he helped me cast a re-union spell and within 5hours my husband came to me apologizing and today we are happily together again. Contact this great spell caster on your marriage and relationship problems at dr.zakispellhome@gmail.com Goodluck

    ReplyDelete
  13. nike shoes, Cheap Jordans,Cheap Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Max,Cheap Free Run Shoes,nike shoes,nike outlet,nike factory,nike store,nike factory outlet,nike outlet store,cheap nike shoes,nike sneakers, toms outlet, toms outlet,tom shoes,toms shoes outlet,tom shoes,toms wedges,cheap toms,toms.com, air jordan, air jordan,jordan shoes,cheap jordans,air jordans,jordan retro,air jordan shoes,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan retro, cheap jordans, cheap jordans,cheap jordan shoes,cheap jordan,cheap jordans for sale,jordans for cheap,jordan shoes,jordans,air jordan,jordan retro,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,air jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes,air jordan retro, jordan retro, jordan retro,jordan shoes,air jordan,air jordans,retro jordans,air jordan retro,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,cheap jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes, air max 90, air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 95,air max 2014,air max 2013,air max 1,nike air max,air max,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, air max 95, air max 95,nike air max 95,air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 2013,nike air max,air max,air max 2014,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, nike free 5.0, nike free 5.0, nike free trainer 5.0,nike free run 5.0,free running 2,nike free run,nike free,free running,nike running shoes,nike free trainer,free runs,free run 5.0, omega watches, omega watches,omega watch,replica watches,rolex watches,replica omega watches,rolex,watches for men,watches for women,rolex watches for sale,rolex replica,rolex watch,cartier watches,rolex submariner,fake rolex,rolex replica watches,replica rolex, ralph lauren outlet

    ReplyDelete
  14. ralph lauren outlet,ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren outlet,polo ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren,ralph lauren,polo ralph,polo shirts,ralphlauren.com,polo outlet,ralph lauren polo, oakley sunglass, oakley sunglasses,cheap oakley,cheap oakley sunglasses,oakley sunglasses cheap,oakley outlet,oakley sunglasses outlet,oakley vault,oakleys,oakley.com,sunglasses outlet,cheap sunglasses,oakley prescription glasses,fake oakleys,oakley glasses,oakley store,fake oakley,oakley sale,cheap oakleys,discount oakley sunglasses, ray ban sunglasses, Ray Ban Sunglasses,Ray Ban Outlet,Ray Ban Sale,Cheap Ray Bans,Cheap Ray Ban Sunglasses,ray ban sunglasses outlet,ray ban,rayban,ray bans,ray-ban,raybans,ray ban wayfarer,ray-ban sunglasses,raybans.com,rayban sunglasses,cheap ray ban, burberry, burberry,burberry outlet,burberry outlet online,burberry factory outlet,burberry sale,burberry handbags, chanel bags, chanel bags,chanel handbags,chanel sunglasses,chanel outlet,chanel purses,chanel handbags official site, coach outlet store, coach outlet,coach outlet store,coach outlet store online,coach outlet stores,coach factory outlet,coach factory,coach factory online,coach factory outlet online,coach outlet online, chaussures louboutin, louboutin,louboutin pas cher,christian louboutin,louboutin chaussures,louboutin soldes,chaussure louboutin,chaussures louboutin,chaussure louboutin pas cher,louboutin france, sac michael kors, michael kors,sac michael kors,michael kors sac,michael kors pas cher,sac michael kors pas cher,michael kors france, north face outlet, north face outlet,the north face,north face,the north face outlet,north face jackets,north face jackets clearance,northface, yoga pants, yoga pants,lululemon,lululemon outlet,lululemon athletica,lululemon addict,lulu lemon,lulu.com,lululemon.com, beats by dre

    ReplyDelete
  15. nike shoes, Cheap Jordans,Cheap Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Max,Cheap Free Run Shoes,nike shoes,nike outlet,nike factory,nike store,nike factory outlet,nike outlet store,cheap nike shoes,nike sneakers, toms outlet, toms outlet,tom shoes,toms shoes outlet,tom shoes,toms wedges,cheap toms,toms.com, air jordan, air jordan,jordan shoes,cheap jordans,air jordans,jordan retro,air jordan shoes,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan retro, cheap jordans, cheap jordans,cheap jordan shoes,cheap jordan,cheap jordans for sale,jordans for cheap,jordan shoes,jordans,air jordan,jordan retro,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,air jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes,air jordan retro, jordan retro, jordan retro,jordan shoes,air jordan,air jordans,retro jordans,air jordan retro,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,cheap jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes, air max 90, air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 95,air max 2014,air max 2013,air max 1,nike air max,air max,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, air max 95, air max 95,nike air max 95,air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 2013,nike air max,air max,air max 2014,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, nike free 5.0, nike free 5.0, nike free trainer 5.0,nike free run 5.0,free running 2,nike free run,nike free,free running,nike running shoes,nike free trainer,free runs,free run 5.0, omega watches, omega watches,omega watch,replica watches,rolex watches,replica omega watches,rolex,watches for men,watches for women,rolex watches for sale,rolex replica,rolex watch,cartier watches,rolex submariner,fake rolex,rolex replica watches,replica rolex, ralph lauren outlet, ralph lauren outlet,ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren outlet,polo ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren,ralph lauren,polo ralph,polo shirts,ralphlauren.com,polo outlet,ralph lauren polo, oakley sunglass, thomas sabo

    ReplyDelete
  16. oakley sunglasses,cheap oakley,cheap oakley sunglasses,oakley sunglasses cheap,oakley outlet,oakley sunglasses outlet,oakley vault,oakleys,oakley.com,sunglasses outlet,cheap sunglasses,oakley prescription glasses,fake oakleys,oakley glasses,oakley store,fake oakley,oakley sale,cheap oakleys,discount oakley sunglasses, ray ban sunglasses, Ray Ban Sunglasses,Ray Ban Outlet,Ray Ban Sale,Cheap Ray Bans,Cheap Ray Ban Sunglasses,ray ban sunglasses outlet,ray ban,rayban,ray bans,ray-ban,raybans,ray ban wayfarer,ray-ban sunglasses,raybans.com,rayban sunglasses,cheap ray ban, burberry, burberry,burberry outlet,burberry outlet online,burberry factory outlet,burberry sale,burberry handbags, chanel bags, chanel bags,chanel handbags,chanel sunglasses,chanel outlet,chanel purses,chanel handbags official site, coach outlet store, coach outlet,coach outlet store,coach outlet store online,coach outlet stores,coach factory outlet,coach factory,coach factory online,coach factory outlet online,coach outlet online, chaussures louboutin, louboutin,louboutin pas cher,christian louboutin,louboutin chaussures,louboutin soldes,chaussure louboutin,chaussures louboutin,chaussure louboutin pas cher,louboutin france, sac michael kors, michael kors,sac michael kors,michael kors sac,michael kors pas cher,sac michael kors pas cher,michael kors france, north face outlet, north face outlet,the north face,north face,the north face outlet,north face jackets,north face jackets clearance,northface, yoga pants, yoga pants,lululemon,lululemon outlet,lululemon athletica,lululemon addict,lulu lemon,lulu.com,lululemon.com, beats by dre, beats by dre,beats headphones,beats audio,beats by dr dre,beats by dre headphones,dr dre,dre beats,beats by dr,dr dre beats,dre headphones,beats by dr. dre,cheap beats, ferragamo, ferragamo,salvatore ferragamo,ferragamo shoes,ferragamo outlet,salvatore ferragamo outlet,ferragamo belts,ferragamo belt,ferragamo outlet, nike blazer, nike blazer,blazer nike,nike blazer pas cher,Chaussures Nike Blazer,Nike Blazer Femme, nike air force, swarovski crystal, swarovski

    ReplyDelete
  17. im impossible to understand your article. i would love to read a more intelligibility review of you at the later time

    ReplyDelete