You're deliberating ignoring the geodata that places them both in the same place at the same time, then the fact that the sexual photograph contains geodata from the same place around the same time. Photo geodata puts Hunter and Natalie in the same time and place as the footjob event.

The mark in the photograph is simply used to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the woman giving the footjob is Natalie - we already know that they were both there when the footjob occurred - again, the GEODATA. Unless you'd like to argue that Natalie was just waiting in the next room while someone with the same scar gave Hunter a footjob. The mark is the same shape, at the same angle, in the same location, on a foot that has the same proportions as Natalie. That proves beyond reasonable doubt - unless you can offer a doubt based on reasons beyond "come on man, be honest". Everything I've stated is completely rational, and if it's not, then I invite you to challenge any of it with actual logic.

If you dig deeper, you get more than the scar. We have the entire lower half of her face now in another pic. Overlay that with another face pic from her social media. Matcheroo. Get fucked commies.

You're deliberating ignoring the geodata that places them both in the same place at the same time, then the fact that the sexual photograph contains geodata from the same place around the same time. Photo geodata puts Hunter and Natalie in the same time and place as the footjob event.

The mark in the photograph is simply used to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the woman giving the footjob is Natalie - we already know that they were both there when the footjob occurred - again, the GEODATA. Unless you'd like to argue that Natalie was just waiting in the next room while someone with the same scar gave Hunter a footjob. The mark is the same shape, at the same angle, in the same location, on a foot that has the same proportions as Natalie. That proves beyond reasonable doubt - unless you can offer a doubt based on reasons beyond "come on man, be honest". Everything I've stated is completely rational, and if it's not, then I invite you to challenge any of it with actual logic.

If you dig deeper, you get more than the scar. We have the entire lower half of her face now in another pic. Overlay that with another face pic. Matcheroo. Get fucked commies.

You're deliberating ignoring the geodata that places them both in the same place at the same time, then the fact that the sexual photograph contains geodata from the same place around the same time. Photo geodata puts Hunter and Natalie in the same time and place as the footjob event.

The mark in the photograph is simply used to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the woman giving the footjob is Natalie - we already know that they were both there when the footjob occurred - again, the GEODATA. Unless you'd like to argue that Natalie was just waiting in the next room while someone with the same scar gave Hunter a footjob. The mark is the same shape, at the same angle, in the same location, on a foot that has the same proportions as Natalie. That proves beyond reasonable doubt - unless you can offer a doubt based on reasons beyond "come on man, be honest". Everything I've stated is completely rational, and if it's not, then I invite you to challenge any of it with actual logic.

You're ignoring the geodata that places them both in the same place at the same time, then the fact that the sexual photograph contains geodata from the same place around the same time. Photo geodata puts Hunter and Natalie in the same time and place as the footjob event.

The mark in the photograph is simply used to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the woman giving the footjob is Natalie - we already know that they were both there when the footjob occurred - again, the GEODATA. Unless you'd like to argue that Natalie was just waiting in the next room while someone with the same scar gave Hunter a footjob. The mark is the same shape, at the same angle, in the same location, on a foot that has the same proportions as Natalie. That proves beyond reasonable doubt - unless you can offer a doubt based on reasons beyond "come on man, be honest". Everything I've stated is completely rational, and if it's not, then I invite you to challenge any of it with actual logic.

`You're ignoring the geodata that places them both in the same place at the same time, then the fact that the sexual photograph contains geodata from the same place around the same time. Photo geodata puts Hunter and Natalie in the same time and place as the footjob event.

The mark in the photograph is simply used to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the woman giving the footjob is Natalie - we already know that they were both there when the footjob occurred - again, the GEODATA. Unless you'd like to argue that Natalie was just waiting in the next room while someone with the same scar gave Hunter a footjob. The mark is the same shape, at the same angle, in the same location, on a foot that has the same proportions as Natalie. That proves beyond reasonable doubt - unless you can offer a doubt based on reasons beyond "come on man, be honest". Everything I've stated is completely rational, and if it's not, then I invite you to challenge any of it with actual logic.

You're ignoring the geodata that places them both in the same place at the same time, then the fact that the sexual photograph contains geodata from the same place around the same time. Photo geodata puts Hunter and Natalie in the same time and place as the footjob event.

The mark in the photograph is simply used to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the woman giving the footjob is Natalie - we already know that they were both there when the footjob occurred - again, the GEODATA. Unless you'd like to argue that Natalie was just waiting in the next room while someone with the same scar gave Hunter a footjob. The mark is the same shape, at the same angle, in the same location, on a foot that has the same proportions as Natalie. That proves beyond reasonable doubt - unless you can offer a doubt based on reasons beyond "come on man".

You're ignoring the geodata that places them both in the same place at the same time, then the fact that the sexual photograph contains geodata from the same place around the same time. Photo geodata puts Hunter and Natalie in the same time and place as the footjob event.

The mark in the photograph is simply used to prove that the woman giving the footjob is Natalie. Unless you'd like to argue that Natalie was just waiting in the next room while someone with the same scar gave Hunter a footjob. The mark is the same shape, at the same angle, in the same location, on a foot that has the same proportions as Natalie. That proves beyond reasonable doubt - unless you can offer a doubt based on reasons beyond "come on man".

You're ignoring the geodata that places them both in the same place at the same time, then the fact that the sexual photograph contains geodata from the same place around the same time.

The mark in the photograph is simply used to prove that the woman giving the footjob is Natalie. Unless you'd like to argue that Natalie was just waiting in the next room while someone with the same scar gave Hunter a footjob. The mark is the same shape, at the same angle, in the same location, on a foot that has the same proportions as Natalie. That proves beyond reasonable doubt - unless you can offer a doubt based on reasons beyond "come on man".