Is it time to release the Newtown massacre photos?

Robert Parry, a former AP and Newsweek reporter, wrote last week that it was time to release the crime scene photos from the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, in which 20 six- and seven- year olds were massacred by a young man who had taken his mother’s guns.

Parry argues that it’s time to release the crime scene photos, and it’s an interesting, if controversial, argument.

If we are to prevent future Newtown massacres, we need – as a country – to study what actually happens to human beings when they are subjected to the violence of these powerful weapons. Yet, viewing these awful photos is equally necessary if we – as a nation – decide to place some twisted notion of what the Framers intended in the Second Amendment over the bodies of these 20 first-graders and the many other victims from mass killings.

It’s an argument we’ve had before: Over the photos of a dead Osama bin Laden.  Though there were different reasons for releasing the bin Laden photos (e.g., closure for his victims, for starters).  But Americans, while not terribly prudish about committing, enabling and  tolerating violence, doesn’t much like to see it.  Nonetheless, if the parents were willing, what’s the downside of releasing the photos?

I do think photos (and now video) can send a powerful, if not the most powerful, message.  It’s why I agreed, during the Jeff Gannon affair way back in 2005, to publish the then- conservative and anti-gay reporter’s prostitution photos, even though some were quite graphic.  I had a long talk with gay journalist and activist Michelangleo Signorile about it, at the time, seeking his advice as to what to do.  First, I wanted Mike’s advice about whether I should run the story at all, but second, about whether I should run the photos.

Mike said, run ’em.

And here’s why.  As Mike explained it, and I agreed, I would actually be misrepresenting the story had I not shown the photos.  The photos weren’t prejudicial in their severity – they were the truth.  And the truth wouldn’t be nearly as stark if people didn’t see it for themselves.  It would be the journalistic equivalent of pulling a punch.

We had a similar discussion a few weeks back, in the comments to a post I wrote about new techniques they’re using to catch people who trade in child porn.  I’d written at the time, in my post:

My concern, as a journalist, is what if someone clicks on the file because they’re writing a story about child porn?  I’ve never seen child porn, I have no idea what it is, or how bad it is, though I can imagine. I could imagine someone doing the due diligence and wanting to see what this industry is really like if they’re trying to explain to the reader just how bad it really is.

Some of the readers disagreed with me – they didn’t see how seeing the actual photos would make a difference for a journalist writing about the issue:

I think everyone probably has an idea what it is without having seen it.

Another reader disagreed with the first:

I think many people really don’t know how repulsive it is. It’s that bad.

And that’s the problem, at least to bring the issue back to gun violence.  I don’t think people fully appreciate just how bad these massacres really are.  If anything, we’ve become somewhat deadened to them over the years of “insert new massacre here.”

Parry tells in the original article above, about one mother wanting the governor to see exactly what the Newtown violence had done to her son. Here’s the original reporting from the Stamford Advocate:

Veronique Pozner wanted [Connecticut Governor Dannel] Malloy to see what the bullets did to Noah, who was barely 6, the youngest Newtown victim.

In the casket, Noah’s eyes were closed, his long lashes resting on his cheeks, Naomi Zeveloff reported in the Forward. The bottom half of his face was covered by a cloth.

” … there was no mouth left,” Veronique Pozner told the newspaper. “His jaw was blown away.”

In Noah’s right hand she placed a clear stone with a white angel inside. She wanted to place one in his left hand, too, but that hand was gone.

Noah was shot 11 times.

The mom was then asked why she wanted the governor to see her son in his casket:

“I needed it to have a face for him,” Pozner said. “If there is ever a piece of legislation that comes across his desk, I needed it to be real for him.”

Here are some Google images of little Noah. Look at those photos. Now imagine him shot 11 times, and in the condition his mother described. It’s true that simply seeing the happy photos of Noah, and know the rest of the story, is poignant enough.  But I still can’t help but wonder if anyone can truly appreciate what it must be like to have an entire classroom full of small children basically assassinated.  If they did, Congress, and the American people, might not already be as bored with this story as they seem to now be.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

81 Responses to “Is it time to release the Newtown massacre photos?”

  1. crashtx1 says:

    Poor Gabby’s brain doesn’t work and she’s being manipulated by the anti-gun wackos. I feel bad for her.

  2. crashtx1 says:

    But you seem to enjoy killing babies, many more babies that died in this shooting.

  3. pelermon says:

    Since there are SO MANY people how question the shooting ever took place in the first place. Causing fighting, anger, hate, disrespect, among ourselves. They should have cleared this up LONG AGO to prevent this. Its like they actually WANT us at each others throats

  4. I would rather see crime scene images and video of the real events that took place that day, all we have see is fake images of the wrong school, and a lot of cars and people going around in circles. Where is the school surveillance video??

  5. Betty Merry says:

    Was Sandy Hook a “drill” with CRISIS ACTORS?

  6. karmanot says:

    I see we have a pro Nazi down vote.

  7. RyansTake says:

    If releasing these photos could help pass the legislation, and the legislation could even stop one future Newtown from happening, then I’d rather be a “ghoul” than someone so uncaring that he’d not want them published.

  8. RyansTake says:

    Sadly, I think it may just take these photos to remind people of the need to get this done. While I’d prefer for them to remain private in normal circumstances, if it would help pass legislation that could prevent tragedies, better that than we wait for the next Newtown.

  9. Paul says:

    Remember Emmett Till, a black 14 year old who was brutally killed in Mississippi in 1955, after allegedly flirting with a white woman. His mother insisted on an open gasket at his funeral. This was a pivotal moment in the civil rights struggle.

  10. KingCranky says:

    The members of the House of Reps didn’t care enough to do anything when Gabby Giffords, one of their own colleagues, was shot, they sure won’t lose any sleep, or do anything constructive, when the dead are schoolchildren.

    I’d love for any of these gun-fetishists/firearm industry lackeys to explain why they show more loyalty to the NRA than the Constitution they swore to uphold & defend when taking their Oath of Office.

    Interesting too how our Congress moved so quickly to enact, with no NRA opposition or armed protesters against it, the “Patriot” Act after the Sept. 11 attacks, but insists that any such attempts to do so after the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre would be wrong, “in the heat of the moment” that should never take the place of sober-minded restraint.

    The hypocrisy of the NRA legislators is infuriating.

  11. keirmeister says:

    Well, yeah…there’s that too.

  12. peterjohn936 says:

    No such thing as an aborted baby. tt’s an aborted “fetus”. Words and their meanings are important so stop messing them up.

  13. Zach says:

    The reasons there was a different reaction to 9/11 was: the perpetrators had a different religion and skin color from most Americans, and the attack could be used to justify a war against Iraq that was already being planned, whereas any war resulting from mass shootings would be against a major lobbying organization from which many of our elected officials receive money.

  14. keirmeister says:

    …And sadly, you may be correct as well. It’s a frightening thought: if nothing substantial comes after Sandy Hook, it probably never will.

  15. samizdat says:

    Sadly, you’re absolutely correct in everything you say, but my cynicism is preventing me from believing that enough American gun owners will be swayed by the images to experience a change of heart.

  16. catdance says:

    I think you’d have to ask the parents what they think — you can’t make an assumption on their behalf. As we see above, one mother certainly felt photos should be seen.

  17. catdance says:

    A day later, I see your comment is still here. So where’s the censorship, Rosebud? This is a free country and an open forum. People have the right to disagree with you. If your delicate little psyche can’t handle disagreement, or if your debating skills aren’t up to handling the real world, I suggest that you stick to websites where everyone is just like you.

  18. catdance says:

    One can argue that it is not a “political” agenda, but a moral one. And an issue of safety.

  19. catdance says:

    I agree 100% that the photographs should be made available. It is all too easy to accept carnage when it is out of sight – without seeing it, we can believe an argument that it is acceptable in the service of a, b or c. Faced with the reality, we realize it is not. Americans demanded a halt to the Viet Nam “incursion” in large part because they were able to see what was going on every day on the news. It’s no wonder the Bush administration blacked out coverage of the Iraq war. I really do believe we, as a nation of individuals, are more intelligent and decent than the events of the last few years would make it appear. And I think various special interests (Neocons, Faux News, the NRA, etc.) realize that we are. That’s why they make every effort to censor and/or spin the information we require to make informed decisions.

  20. ComradeAnon says:

    I don’t want to see these pictures. I can’t handle it. I have trouble even reading about this. But I strongly support rules and actions that would reduce the chance of something this horrible from happening again. And if a parent wants anyone or everyone to see what happened to their child, then I strongly support their actions. Verinique Pozner is a very brave mom.

  21. yorkie says:

    The photos should be shown to everyone in Congress. My husband was on a jury for a man accused of really horrible abuse to a woman, and everyone on the jury was forced to look at the photographs of the injuries and the crime scene. He understood the true horror of the scene.

  22. Gary Buelow says:


  23. keirmeister says:

    I think the issue with 9-11 has a significant difference to Sandy Hook: On 9-11, WE were attacked as a nation vs. a small group of families (relatively speaking). So perhaps the comparison is not valid.

    But fair enough if you believe people don’t need to see the dead bodies. I think it’s psychology: an image burned into your mind lasts far longer than a story you only hear about. And it’s similar to the notion that anger or outrage often sparks change more than simply doing something because it makes sense.

  24. AdmNaismith says:

    Run ’em.
    For every f*ck who thinks a gun is the answer to life’s every little problem, they need to see the dead kids that are the real outcome.

  25. SkippyFlipjack says:

    The question is not whether the images made the event more shocking, because they did; it’s whether people, in the absence of the images, would have been sufficiently moved to act (like, to support the invasion of the wrong country, for example), and the answer is absolutely yes. These weren’t 3000 deaths in some faraway place, they were primarily in the central downtown of our biggest city. If there was not a photo, video or audio of the event, it would still have had nearly the same impact because of the scale of the destruction.

    This is a tangent though — the original question is whether people can grasp the enormity of the cold-blooded murder of 20 first-graders without seeing photos of their dead bodies. I think the answer is yes.

  26. karmanot says:

    I love kissing the left. Wanna watch?

  27. karmanot says:

    Where’s the censorship? It is take a troll to task day. And, you are invited.

  28. karmanot says:

    Go away

  29. Carl Gorney says:

    And in the mid 50s, we saw the photo of Emmett Till in his coffin; his mother OKed releasing the photo.

  30. Carl Gorney says:

    Nice that you’re cribbing off Michael Weiner Savage’s books…and that you, like him, are a nutcase.

  31. karmanot says:

    respect, dignity, and honor ——- sensationalizing the blown apart bodies of dead children only degrades American sensibilities even further, if that is possible.

  32. Indigo says:

    Don’t bother. It’s demeaning when the squeamish say things from the “It’s too violent” reflex response. Yes, it is violent. That’s the point but all too often pushed aside. ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’ was “too violent” when it was published but that’s what slavery looked like. Tarantino’s ‘Django’ comes in for the same critique but that’s how slavery was. Sliding external reality off the table in favor of abstractions is all too a favorite stonewalling technique. Publish the photos and the hyper-sensitive will be be conflicted between their squeamishness and their wish to enforce gun control. They won’t look and they will object and with that the whole conversation shifts from the need for gun control to protecting the squeamish from “too violent” pictures. That doesn’t help.

  33. avahome says:

    War should be the last resort and for a valid reason not, oh yeah like “stop the spread of communism”. Let’s face it, we are either “learners” or the “learned”.

  34. keirmeister says:

    Re: U.S. attitude concerning torture, there are other forces at play as well. Images of torture do not shock people as much if they feel the victim deserves it. But again, images of “The Enemy” in humiliating poses or of their corpses is not strong enough to overcome the fear of them in the first place. What’s the easiest way to become comfortable harming a person? You make them a non-person in your mind.

    Abu Ghraib did bring abuse to light, and it became an issue for many Americans who didn’t want that type of behavior done in their name.

    And remember, waterboarding is still an abstraction in our minds. Remember when a few pro-waterboarding guys had it done to them (trying to prove it wasn’t torture)? Their opinions changed immediately because they EXPERIENCED it.

  35. karmanot says:


  36. keirmeister says:

    3000 people indeed. I’m not minimizing that. But I submit to you that the number was not as shocking as the images of seeing people jumping off of buildings, etc. As an event being described to someone with words, 3000 deaths is an abstraction. Seeing the suffering, panic, and fear…hearing the screams…it becomes personally real in the psyche, because it
    creates an EXPERIENCE for those who were not physically there or directly connected through friends or loved ones.

    We hear or read about way more deaths in other countries, but we have a disconnection to it. When we see images of it (particularly of children), it becomes more personal.

    …And as we’ve seen recently with respect to gay rights, personalizing an issue…actually experiencing it for oneself, makes a big difference and becomes harder to escape.

    Again, this isn’t about understanding what happened; it’s about understanding the depth of the problem and feeling it strongly enough to affect change.

  37. Paul S Meade says:

    What a great idea. I’d try to sell it to my congressperson. In fact, I’m going to suggest it to mine.

  38. jomicur says:

    Yeah, but people defending the “gun rights” of criminals and psychopaths are angels, right?

  39. jomicur says:

    Is it necessary for it to stop all future wars in order for it to have done any good?

  40. Roman Berry says:

    What’s on display here is not liberalism.

  41. Roman Berry says:

    Just as soon as we start releasing photos of the civilians we kill with our drones, and the photos of our war dead, sure.

    Forget the snark, my honest answer here is no. No damn way am I going to get behind using crime scene photos of someone’s dead children to push a political agenda. What Parry is pushing for here is no different than all those creeps pushing photos of dead babies into the faces of others to push their agenda, and most liberals have the good sense to be offended by that. Offensive is offensive no matter which side does it.

  42. Mark Crist says:

    Let me see if I’m understanding this correctly, The NRA gets grief for the insensivity of sending out robocalls and not editing out the entire city of Newtown, and now some are suggesting using crime scene photos of the shooting at Sandy Hook in order to further a political agenda? I’m not seeing how the two are any different other than by degree. And in this case the NRA would be trailing far behind those that advocate releasing the photos.
    I would suggest that this debate be kept at some level of civility. Releasing the photos will only cause the families of the victims further harm and would likely cause a backlash against their goal.

  43. Why Not? says:

    No issue here. Release them all. But don;’t stop there. Release the security videos from the school. And pictures and video of abortions – especially partial birth and late term. And security videotape from Benghazi. And footage from drone strikes. And of Christians being tortured and killed in the name of Islam. Need more? Yep. Release it all.

  44. magster says:

    I worry about desensitization in the long term if the release of ugly photos becomes the standard. Not necessarily disagreeing with you on whether these photos should be released, it’s just a concern I have if we do.

  45. BeccaM says:

    I’ll say this much: If I were the parent of one of those kids and I had the photos, I’d be mailing and faxing them to members of Congress every day, demanding to know how many more children (and adults) have to die before we find and implement effective means to keep “guns of mass destruction” out of the hands of crazies and the violent.

  46. milli2 says:

    Releasing them without the parents permission would be a travesty and I don’t think anyone is pushing for that. As for “impact” – yeah, sometimes you have to see reality in order to understand it. Talking about it doesn’t cut it. If you want an arsenal in your basement, then you should have to see what your “freedom” really buys.

  47. I see conservative views are censored around here.

  48. This coming from people that would shriek when shown pictures of aborted babies in the hopes of saving the unborn. Liberals are all for “choice” yet talk about saving the children……Give me a break.

  49. Stuff It says:

    So how about the Fast & Furious photos of Brian Terry, and oh yes, those photos of the Benghazi killings of the 4 Brave Americans that the obama clowns didn’t want to do anything about, I am sure I am missing a few others, your as sick as the left that you kiss up too…..

  50. Mike Meyer says:

    Now THAT’S politics& accurate politicking I might add. Who knows? Might work. On THIS society though, its pretty iffy.

  51. Liberalism is a mental disorder, proof below.

  52. SkippyFlipjack says:

    I think 9/11 hit us so hard because 3,000 people died.

    Also, there were a lot of images from that event that we never saw and didn’t need to in order to understand what happened.

  53. Juan de la Pinga says:

    You people are ghouls…

  54. samizdat says:

    “The Abu Ghraib torture and rape photos exposed depravity in our own
    ranks and changed our perspective of how the war was being run”.

    True enough. But it didn’t seem to change minds regarding torture in general in this country: (Note, in particular, the comments of Buddha is Laughing; gets right to the heart of the illegality of torture);

  55. Drew2u says:

    Remember when the Right was saying, “Release the Bin Laden photos!” and when some lawmakers got to see the photos, the lawmakers’ reaction were, “Oh shit..”

  56. Drew2u says:

    Within the given time-period (5 minutes) and the amount of bullets fired (156) and the number of victims (26) – forgive me if my numbers are off by a couple -, that amounts to one bullet shot every two seconds and a new victim every 12 seconds over that 5 minute period.

    In that scenario, I can’t imagine every 12 seconds thinking if ones self is going to be the next to receive 6 .223 caliber bullets.

  57. Yopeace says:

    NH Chiefs of Police have created a raffle to give away a gun a day for
    31 days in May. The first day’s prize is a semi automatic assault
    weapon. Please join the community in asking the Chiefs: “Give up the gun
    giveaway and accept the offer of a buyback of all of the raffle

  58. samizdat says:

    Hmmm, kind of like at the end of WWII, when Good Germans were made to tour the work and death camps.

  59. samizdat says:

    No. It won’t make a goddamn bit of difference to the gun nut whackjobs, and the sales and MarketingPRopaganda agents of the arms manufacturers, the NRA. Money is the only thing they care about. Profit at all costs–including that of human life. To most manufacturers these days, human lives are merely the most annoying of the impediments to profit, and the easiest to mitigate, especially if you’ve got a CongressWHORE(tm) on the chain.

  60. Do whatever it takes, run em

  61. SkippyFlipjack says:

    If the deaths of 21 first graders didn’t send a powerful enough message, nothing will. It’s just violence porn, and it’ll get us into a weeklong “should we release them or not” national debate that will distract from the real issue, like how “Was Rush mean to Sandra Flake?” got us completely away from the substance of her remarks to Congress about the need for affordable birth control.

    This reminds me of the thinking of anti-abortion activists who think “If we just put pictures of dead babies on signs, people will stop getting abortions.”

  62. MyrddinWilt says:

    How about on a billboard right outside the NRA HQ so that the evil bastards have to look at the deaths they caused every day.

    And put the name of a different NRA staff member there each day.

  63. Bobbie Barnhill says:

    I think it was in the 1960s that Larry Flint released fliers titled. “War is Obscene” in response to criticism of Hustler Magazine. It was pictures of dead solders in Viet Nam, and other war pictures. It worked.

  64. Suemarie says:

    Whether the photos are released or not, this discussion is valuable to keep the issue from fading away and to keep the horror in mind.

    That said, I hope I never see the photos. When it was reported that the first responders were having a tough time, I thought, yes, so many young children, that would be terrible. I guess I pictured lots of small
    bodies, but not blood and disfigurement.

  65. sunmusing says:

    Unfortunately, no and no…I have friends on the Wall too…the one friend who, when they drafted him, told me, I was to stay here(home) and to try to stop the war…All five of my friends from High School, who were drafted, are on the Wall…The war ended…and so did our commitment to un-biased and truthful reporting…the proof is in the beltway pundits gobshitery….

  66. UncleBucky says:

    Remember what Emmett Till’s mother did? She had an OPEN COFFIN for her kid. To SHOW the world what racists did do to her son, and what they could still do to other children and adults in the name of White Supremacy.

    In this case, were I a parent, I would know who my kid was, and that the body, ripped by bullets, was not my kid anymore. Like Mrs. Mobley, they will know the difference. And be brave enough to show the world so that NOT ONE MORE KID is murdered.

    Meh. NRA.

  67. A_nonymoose says:

    The photos don’t need to be shown to America; they need to be shown to Congress. Every one of those amoral, greedy assholes and their deep-pocketed NRA minders should have been dragged down to the morgue. They need to see the carnage they’re responsible for, on a daily basis, until the sight of one more shredded body makes them puke, and then maybe, just maybe, they’ll grow a soul and do what’s right for this country.

  68. UncleBucky says:

    RELEASE the photos and video, but be sure to get NRAers reactions to the photos ON VIDEO. That is true daylight.

  69. UncleBucky says:

    You know, that’s an idea for the (sadly) “next time”. LET THE NRAers in the town have to tour a site where anyone was killed. Let them view and experience the carnage done by assault weapons. Video them observing. Have a social worker interview them while doing this. And let the NRAer try to use the word “collateral damage” or “the price we pay for our freedom” with the scene of mutilation and death behind them.

    It would be over in a week. NRA down the toilet.

  70. OtterQueen says:

    I don’t need to see photos to understand that a massacred 6-year-old is a horrible tragedy and we should do everything we can to prevent this from happening again. I don’t want to see them and I really resent anybody trying to tell me what I “need.”

  71. caphillprof says:

    Out of sight, out of mind. There is truth in the aphorism.

  72. ComradeRutherford says:

    I for one do not want to see that. I’ve seen enough images of real carnage. But my personal reaction to this is not all that important. I agree that our society has been living in a sanitized world, we as a culture don’t see death up close and personally. Especially not grisly images of mass murder.

    In our sanitized American culture the piles of dead bodies we create in our video games just fade away and disappear. I always wished that the video game makers wouldn’t do that, but leave the dead where they fell for the rest of the game. Instead our video games tell us that killing people doesn’t make a mess.

    However, I bet that there will be far-right crazies that will fervently believe that Obama personally orchestrated a fake photo shoot to make those images using his ‘True Obamabot’ followers who sacrificed their own children for Obama’s anti-American agenda to take away our sacred guns.

  73. avahome says:

    American little children slaughtered in their school…..that doesn’t happen here in America. It happens elsewhere in the world from savages…oh wait.

  74. avahome says:

    My husband fought in the Nam. The traveling war memorial on those destroyed I viewed at a cemetery in Houston….names in front of my face…sadness. Did it stop future wars? or should I say Will it stop future wars?

  75. I’m sure the families would love to see the photos plastered all over the media, but then as long as you get the “impact” you want, who gives a damn?

  76. keirmeister says:

    The photos need to be released. America has a long habit of hiding harsh realities behind rosy depictions, but imagery is strong. Why did 9-11 hit us so hard? Because we SAW it unfold. The Abu Ghraib torture and rape photos exposed depravity in our own ranks and changed our perspective of how the war was being run.

    Sometimes, and apparently often in the U.S., we need to be SHOCKED into change…and that’s unfortunate. It would make so much more sense to be proactive about such things.

    But…with all of that said, I think we don’t have a right to insist that the photos be released. Ultimately, I think that decision should be left to the victims’ families.

    Of course, I would also argue that the photos should be shown privately to lawmakers – so that they understand the gravity of their decisions.

    I can only imagine that the crime scene photos are horrific and haunting. And we SHOULD be horrified and haunted by them.

  77. milli2 says:

    I’ll go further than that – In any future massacre, which will unfortunately happen again, Wayne Lapierre and every elected pro-gun politician should have to be the ones to sort the bodies and body parts.

  78. sunmusing says:

    I thought about this when Newtown first happened, and we were hearing about the horror of the crime scene…I thought it would be a good idea to show the “true” and un-biased effect of unlimited ammo on little bodies…I weep as I write this…having lost my daughter, and in sympathy for the parents of, not only Newtown, but all the rest of the children lost to gun violence…I then have to question why we don’t show all the photos from Iraq, Afganistan, and the rest of the photos from around the country….Why Newtown? Why now? As a father and a photographer, I know the power of the Image, I know the mixed blessings of parenthood, It may be a good thing to show most of the country, but I fear there are those who don’t care, and are too calloused to do anything about it, even though it is well within their power to do so…this is one tough argument just because of the power of the image itself…the Nam war proved that, so our government set about to control the imagery and the story lines….that is why we are so squeemish about these types of photos…the bottom line is…the corporations will not allow anything to disrupt the flow of profits…

  79. sane37 says:

    release the photos

  80. Yes, I have said this since after the shooting – these photos needs to be shown,
    probably blown-up and exhibited gallery style in every city in this country. Perhaps
    the show could exhibit before and after photos of gun violence. People need to
    really see the damage the crazy gun culture is causing in America, and in an
    “up-close-and-personal” way that they don’t forget. I experienced a similar feeling
    the 1st time I saw the AIDS quilt in the 80’s.

  81. avahome says:

    I agree with you. Unless the photos are released it is just not real to some people. This story needs to stay front and center in the news……

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS