[Vedderman]

Originally Posted by borlum ↗

I wonder why her jeans are put backwards?

They're actually not. She was hanged in her bra and panties and they laid the jeans across her lower torso for the photos in an effort to preserve some decency.

[makaluzo]

.

Suicide by hanging.
Victim - like a woman.
I tried to translate the news via Google.
Google translator gave garbage.
The human mind can not understand this translation.
Translation Google could not help me find out who hung there: a woman, or do not know who.

.

[Victorian_Hangman]

The link was at darkfetishnet.com I was merely passing the word from someone who was raising a stink over there. Wouldn't want anyone here or this site to have any trouble.

[kepler]

more photos for the two girls hanged by the forklift...... from different angle

[Victorian_Hangman]

I see what you mean about the image quality.

[bazoozoo_52]

New

[jogi199]

great video, would like to see more.

[Lion-hearted Girl]

Originally Posted by Vedderman ↗

I'm s rry, this is a 25-second cellphone-quality video with no watermarks, no copyrights posted, and all of he face ntifying features censored out. How exactly is someone calling it their 'property'?

Personally, I don't care for the video and I don't believe it has any place in this thread, since no one dies in it, but I still find it ridiculous that someone claims to 'own' a video with no watermarks, copyrights, or faces in it.

You're wrong. The person who made the video owns the copyright unless they've signed it over to someone else . No need for watermarks.

[Vedderman]

Originally Posted by Lion-hearted Girl ↗

You're wrong. The person who made the video owns the copyright unless they've signed it over to someone else . No need for watermarks.

No. You're wrong.

With no identifiable faces, no watermarks, and no listed copyrights, there is no fucking proof of ownership. Anyone can call it their 'property' and no one is in a position to dispute it because the video contains no verifiable features to establish ownership.

If the 'owner' wants to contact Chris with verifiable proof of ownership then fine. But the vid isn't likely to be taken down until such proof is provided, however much you may personally wish me to be wrong.

I know you enjoy trolling my posts in order to try and discredit everything I say, but the fact here is that you're fucking clueless and should keep your flapping gob shut. Ownership is not established simply because some anonymous tool on the internet wants to take credit for creating something.

[makaluzo]

.

In addition to the already published

.