Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
Booth

Scott Peterson was innocent

1,211 posts in this topic

Just now, Jerry Gallo said:

Servas testified she placed dog in back yard at 10:18am. Medina testified they didn't leave until 10:32am. Both times backed up by documented proof (Medina phone records, Servas Austin's receipt). Neither time challenged by defense. Thus, not credible that she interrupted Todd and Pierce burglary.

http://pwc-sii.com/Research/Servas/servas.htm    So based on one witness who kept changing her story, faulty time printing, "receipt time printing is unreliable" i have checked that personally.  He's guilty??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, regi said:

^ I don't think it even occurred on the 24th, and one of the supporter arguments is that it's highly unlikely it occurred on the 26th because by then, the neighborhood was a media circus, but I think I've offered sufficient info which I think shows that until the 26th, this was actually just a local story. 

 

I'll eventually go back through the thread to catch the gist of what each poster thinks. That said, when the burglary happened is irrelevant to me based on other factors. Anyone who believes it is more plausible to think that petty thieves would risk dumping a body in the bay to frame Scott AFTER the world was alerted that Scott was fishing there (meaning eyes were open to the issue) than to think that Scott did it when the world was unaware loses me in an instant. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jerry Gallo said:

Often when I used to discuss this case, I was asked what made me conclude Scott was guilty. It was pointed out that jurors are supposed to take each piece of evidence and consider it on it's own merits. I did that and assumed the most innocent version of every piece. I then spliced each piece together into a complete story line from the day he asked Shawn Sibley to hook him up to the day he was arrested. That story was the most fundamentally unbelievable story I had ever heard, beyond comprehension or imagination. I then assumed the most likely version of the story based on what we would likely agree are facts and that story looked like most episodes of Dateline where the husband killed the wife. There are surely legitimate issues within the habeas writ that could grant Scott some level of recourse, but looking at the most fundamental aspects of this case, no one has been able to convince me that he's just terribly unlucky and the victim of a frame. Just not plausible.

You must have had fun reading all those Star Magazines.    The real facts are there was Zero evidence.  So, this is how i conclude you did your research. The verdict you give is guilt from him being a man with a sex addiction, for the only actual statement you make of evidence you concluded was "From the day he asked Shawn Sibley to hook him up".   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sugarnspice said:

http://pwc-sii.com/Research/Servas/servas.htm    So based on one witness who kept changing her story, faulty time printing, "receipt time printing is unreliable" i have checked that personally.  He's guilty??

How did you conclude a statement of "based on one witness...he's guilty". I simply pointed out that the burglary timeline doesn't work based on trial testimony, Servas timeline of 10:18am was never impeached. Your anecdotal opinion that receipt time printing is unreliable has no merit unless you can show that it was faulty on that particular receipt.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sugarnspice said:

You must have had fun reading all those Star Magazines.    The real facts are there was Zero evidence.  So, this is how i conclude you did your research. The verdict you give is guilt from him being a man with a sex addiction, for the only actual statement you make of evidence you concluded was "From the day he asked Shawn Sibley to hook him up".   

Zero physical evidence in the way of forensics, perhaps. A calculated murderer in his own home with 12 hours unaccounted for COULD explain that. Are you intimating that Scott didn't ask Shawn to hook him up, worded in whatever vernacular that makes you comfortable? 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

^ Well, actually, mtDNA results indicated that the hair in the plyers was from a relative of Sharon Rocha.

 

 

Edited by regi
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only asked about a profiler because if there was no solid evidence against him it would stand to reason they should be looking elsewhere.

I do not however believe thieves played a role in this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rashore said:

Oh gosh, you don't need to shout. But since you bring those questions up, do you happen to have any sort of research or statistics to answer them?

Just remembered, the Sam Shepherd case, famed case accused of murdering his wife.  A woman came forward and said she was his mistress and carrying his baby.  Years later he was exonerated by DNA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, regi said:

^ Well, actually, mtDNA results indicated that the hair in the plyers was from a relative of Sharon Rocha.

 

 

Concede the point and agree it is likely Laci's hair and likely got there between 12/23-12/24, hence the "perhaps". ;-) However, for the purpose of discussion and in an effort to be cordial, I am comfortable with a stipulation that there was no physical evidence/smoking gun that proved he killed her. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Colt Storm said:

I only asked about a profiler because if there was no solid evidence against him it would stand to reason they should be looking elsewhere.

I do not however believe thieves played a role in this.

Don't worry about it, you can ask anything you like here.  I think a profiler is a good idea.  The defense should do this for the retrial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jerry Gallo said:

Zero physical evidence in the way of forensics, perhaps. A calculated murderer in his own home with 12 hours unaccounted for COULD explain that. Are you intimating that Scott didn't ask Shawn to hook him up, worded in whatever vernacular that makes you comfortable? 

Are you forgetting the computer search for the sunflower umbrella the morning of the 24th?  Or the huge blunder of Scott recounting Martha Stewart and Meringue , the prosecution stating he lied, then the defense playing the show from that morning where Martha talks Meringue. How does one murder your wife without a drop of evidence?  None, zip, not anything!  You say strangle. So, how is it no dog smelled the death?  Okay, so he wrapped her in some amazing non smelling form of plastic that would not let a drop of smell out, were talking 12 hours here.  So, in order to have no decomosistion smell he would have had to do it within minutes, get the body on this amazing plastic, so then how did he get the body in the truck with no one seeing it? Transport it, no one seeing, get it to the marina, "remember, no trace for no dog could trace, there's still zero evidence".  Then get the body into a boat that a witness seen had no way a body, get it out into the ocean on a boat that will sink if you try and toss even a hundred pounds off, and totally pull this off?   I grew up with boats, even though there is proof of that boat not being able to withstand this, i personally know it can't, the boat will tip and sink.  What i say is, that is impossible.  No way.   There would have to be the tiniest bit of evidence, and there's not.  I keep stating that the only person who knows his guilt or innocence is Scott.  But if i am going to go by what the law states, in the case of Scott Peterson, he should not have been convicted for being a sex addict.   We all know someone like that, usually men, are they murderer's?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sugarnspice said:

Are you forgetting the computer search for the sunflower umbrella the morning of the 24th? 

Yeah, usage was for five minutes and included a "search" to Peterson's e-mail.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, regi said:

Yeah, usage was for five minutes and included a "search" to Peterson's e-mail.

 

Yes, both Laci and Scott shared a email.  items viewed that day were on a Yahoo shopping site, items viewed were a garden weather vane. At 8:44 a.m., a Gap fleece scarf, priced at $6.99, was viewed, as well as a sunflower motif umbrella stand for $29.99.  Strange items for a man to be viewing, also, some could say he watched Martha Stewart as well.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sugarnspice said:

Yes, both Laci and Scott shared a email.  items viewed that day were on a Yahoo shopping site, items viewed were a garden weather vane. At 8:44 a.m., a Gap fleece scarf, priced at $6.99, was viewed, as well as a sunflower motif umbrella stand for $29.99.  Strange items for a man to be viewing, also, some could say he watched Martha Stewart as well.

To my knowledge, there wasn't any weather vane, but regardless, what I find "strange" is the notion that Laci would check Peterson's e-mail.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Sugarnspice said:

Are you forgetting the computer search for the sunflower umbrella the morning of the 24th?  Or the huge blunder of Scott recounting Martha Stewart and Meringue , the prosecution stating he lied, then the defense playing the show from that morning where Martha talks Meringue. How does one murder your wife without a drop of evidence?  None, zip, not anything!  You say strangle. So, how is it no dog smelled the death?  Okay, so he wrapped her in some amazing non smelling form of plastic that would not let a drop of smell out, were talking 12 hours here.  So, in order to have no decomosistion smell he would have had to do it within minutes, get the body on this amazing plastic, so then how did he get the body in the truck with no one seeing it? Transport it, no one seeing, get it to the marina, "remember, no trace for no dog could trace, there's still zero evidence".  Then get the body into a boat that a witness seen had no way a body, get it out into the ocean on a boat that will sink if you try and toss even a hundred pounds off, and totally pull this off?   I grew up with boats, even though there is proof of that boat not being able to withstand this, i personally know it can't, the boat will tip and sink.  What i say is, that is impossible.  No way.   There would have to be the tiniest bit of evidence, and there's not.  I keep stating that the only person who knows his guilt or innocence is Scott.  But if i am going to go by what the law states, in the case of Scott Peterson, he should not have been convicted for being a sex addict.   We all know someone like that, usually men, are they murderer's?  

Computer search is irrelevant. Shared computer, clever killer COULD explain. Some help for your side...meringue mentioned once and it wasn't about what to do with meringue, that was a non-issue other than embarrassing prosecution. However, 24th MS was about cookies, 23rd was not. I call that a split. I've seen people dismiss all dog evidence, then others are indignant dogs didn't smell something. Who cares? We know for a fact Scott was at the bay, there is zero evidence of burglars or anyone else being there. Go try to dump 150 lbs off a MOVING boat, every test was still. Also, didn't those umbrellas go from Covena to warehouse to marina and back? Phone records are probably where I place the most weight, how he handled things once he arrived home was big too. Also notice few people as passionate as you seem to be discuss much of Scott's rogue behavior and yet quite adamantly accuse others of being one-sided. I could care less if Scott had affairs or was a sexual deviant, factors in rather minimally. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Its a wonder the reason is why he kill her on Christmas eve, if she found out he was cheating on her she would have left him and their home. What was the reason for him to do that on Christmas  eve?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, regi said:

To my knowledge, there wasn't any weather vane, but regardless, what I find "strange" is the notion that Laci would check Peterson's e-mail.

 

From what i know is that they didn't have a separate one, they both shared the same one.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Sugarnspice said:

From what i know is that they didn't have a separate one, they both shared the same one.

Nothing odd about it. Lots of people, including my husband and I, share one e-mail account. He would never know he received an important message if I didn't tell him. He doesn't check it very often.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jerry Gallo said:

Computer search is irrelevant. Shared computer, clever killer COULD explain. Some help for your side...meringue mentioned once and it wasn't about what to do with meringue, that was a non-issue other than embarrassing prosecution. However, 24th MS was about cookies, 23rd was not. I call that a split. I've seen people dismiss all dog evidence, then others are indignant dogs didn't smell something. Who cares? We know for a fact Scott was at the bay, there is zero evidence of burglars or anyone else being there. Go try to dump 150 lbs off a MOVING boat, every test was still. Also, didn't those umbrellas go from Covena to warehouse to marina and back? Phone records are probably where I place the most weight, how he handled things once he arrived home was big too. Also notice few people as passionate as you seem to be discuss much of Scott's rogue behavior and yet quite adamantly accuse others of being one-sided. I could care less if Scott had affairs or was a sexual deviant, factors in rather minimally. 

Burglars were arrested for the break in across street.  Lieutenant overheard conversation on phone between brothers, one in jail, he talked about knowing that Laci Peterson seen the burglars, tip was hidden until right after trial was over.   Sorry, but a 14 ft aluminum boat at full speed in choppy ocean water is not going to sustain being left alone with no one driving to dump a 150 lb body, it would flip.  The umbrella's your talking about were different from the one looked at on computer.  I have never accused anyone of being one sided.  In fact, i studied to be in law enforcement, my career changed.  I personally do not know if Scott killed Laci.  But i truly do not like injustice, and if i ever seen a unjust case in my life besides Sonny Jacobs and Jesse Tafero, this is it.  I could not in good conscience convict Scott with non existent evidence.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Comey2016 said:

You remind me of Richelle Nice. 

Thankfully I am confident trial 2 will be nothing like trial 1.

Trial 2 will be different? Has humanity changed so much in only a few years? 

It will take a very finely (Defense) picked group of jurors to get Scott off, I think. Not impossible, but I think a hung jury is the best he will be able to hope for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sugarnspice said:

Burglars were arrested for the break in across street.  Lieutenant overheard conversation on phone between brothers, one in jail, he talked about knowing that Laci Peterson seen the burglars, tip was hidden until right after trial was over.   Sorry, but a 14 ft aluminum boat at full speed in choppy ocean water is not going to sustain being left alone with no one driving to dump a 150 lb body, it would flip.  The umbrella's your talking about were different from the one looked at on computer.  I have never accused anyone of being one sided.  In fact, i studied to be in law enforcement, my career changed.  I personally do not know if Scott killed Laci.  But i truly do not like injustice, and if i ever seen a unjust case in my life besides Sonny Jacobs and Jesse Tafero, this is it.  I could not in good conscience convict Scott with non existent evidence.

Burglars were arrested on Jan 2, 2003, I think we can agree on that. My problem with your version of the burglary is that it involved more supposition based on flimsy reasoning than my version. More on that as time permits.

Who said full speed? Choppy ocean water? It would flip? My point here is that no tests were done with the boat moving and anyone who's been in a 14ft boat knows buoyancy is different when a boat is moving than when it is still.

The point about the umbrellas is that no one in the innocent/not proven camp acknowledged that which is clearly suspicious. Do the patio umbrellas prove anything on their own? No. Is it a reasonable question as to whether or not they could have been used for concealment of a body when they were loaded at the house that morning, forgotten at the warehouse, taken to the bay, taken to the warehouse, then taken home. Three times he sees those things wrapped in a tarp and he "forgets"? 

Look, if you couldn't convict, I comprehend that even as I differ. And I have and will concede points that may not loom as big for me or that may favor Scott as I have done two or three times in my first day here. But in all my time discussing this case back in the day and currently because of the appeal and TV show, I do not comprehend the need for the SII/not proven to adamantly and passionately swear off any circumstantial evidence as contributing to his guilt. For every time this happens, my belief in his guilt grows because people aren't diffusing the information with more logical reasoning, they are shouting it down with unbelievable claims.

   

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Trial 2 will be different? Has humanity changed so much in only a few years? 

It will take a very finely (Defense) picked group of jurors to get Scott off, I think. Not impossible, but I think a hung jury is the best he will be able to hope for.

I'd put a retrial at 60/40 against, their writ appears weaker than I expected a decade later. But I admit I have no legal background. The question that should trouble those hoping for a retrial and acquittal is, how many of the witnesses will testify credibly to all the alternate theories in a retrial? Also, I wonder, if appellate justices deny the appeal, will anyone accept the verdict any easier or will said judges be added to the conspiracy?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

I'd put a retrial at 60/40 against, their writ appears weaker than I expected a decade later. But I admit I have no legal background. The question that should trouble those hoping for a retrial and acquittal is, how many of the witnesses will testify credibly to all the alternate theories in a retrial? Also, I wonder, if appellate justices deny the appeal, will anyone accept the verdict any easier or will said judges be added to the conspiracy?

Yeah, I could see those odds. Myself, I would put it at closer to 2 to 1, or even 3 to 1, given the pool of people who usually end up on juries. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, regi said:

Here's a clue for those who actually need a clue: As he's expecting his first child, he's telling his mistress that he's thinking of having a vasectomy, and that he doesn't feel the need to have a biological child.

Uhhhh. . .men lie to women to get sex.  You know that right?   Furthermore, he's telling his MISTRESS this, not his WIFE. . .as if to say "girl, don't get too attached to me. . .i'm in just in this for the sweet, sweet, boning"   I honestly don't think anything he said to Amber, a woman he was just using for sex, should be taken literally. . .seriously people. . .what's probably not being conveyed is the very next thing said in these little snippets they've been releasing. . .

"Oh I lost my wife,". . .(translation: pity me so we can get naked. . .)

I could go on. . .but I don't feel the need.  

Now. . .if he had told his WIFE this. . .and she wrote it down in a diary, or told friends about it. . .and then got pregnant against his will. . .yeah. . .that I can see as a big red flag. . .

Ms. Amber. . .she's nothing. . .she was nothing to Scott. . .and she should probably not be as much of this case as she currently is. . .not saying discount it completely. . .but the level of emphasis placed on this booty call is just ridiculous. . .

"

20 hours ago, Jackal_ said:

A few things...

How any one can say he definitely committed the crime is beyond me. There is factually 0 pieces of credible physical or forensic evidence that proves he did it. 

Love it or hate it, the justice system sides with the accused until enough evidence is offered to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That did not happen in this case. In fact, the exact opposite happened which should have led to a not guilty verdict. 

The jury was about the most pathetic group of one sided, attention seeking, peer pressured groups I've ever seen on a criminal case. The only one doing their job was the original foreman who was literally threatened to vote guilty and went to the judge with this info. Instead of the judge dismissing the juror (#8), he did nothing and the foreman decided to leave on his own accord for his own safety. New juror Richelle Nice, a single mother with a clear hatred and agenda for cheaters, comes in and immediately says he's guilty without looking at lack of evidence. She has since been proven to be a liar, manipulator, and should honestly be jailed for lying during the Voir Dire. The other original "no guilty" juror eventually changed his mind because "what sane man would leave his 7.5 month wife pregnant on a whim for a fishing trip an hour or so away". Um what? That makes him a murderer? I went on a golf trip 6 hours away from my 8 month pregnant wife last minute knowing she had my mother in law with her or close by. Guess that means I'm a murderer or a psychopath? Justin Falconer was dismissed for a one off comment to Laci's brother that had nothing to do with the actual case. Juror #8 is left on the jury after physically intimidating other jurors who don't share the same thoughts as him and tells a bartender he's "going to get Scott" when determine life in prison or death. Yeah that seems fair.

The whole "he didn't show enough emotion" bit is so unbelievably ridiculous it doesn't even warrant diving into. Everyone shows emotions in different ways. As an accused you are instructed to not show emotions or it could be mis-viewed as being emotionally unstable. Even saying that there were eye witnesses in the courtroom who said they saw Scott physically emotional at certain times, tearing up, shaking, unable to look at the pictures of Laci's torso and his unborn son's body. 

The bodies of Laci and Conner were found in the same Bay where Scott was the day they disappeared. It took them several months, several expert divers, and several debunked theories that you can dump a 150lb body off of a 14 ft. boat (when you can't even dump a 100lb weight over the side of the same boat without tipping/capsizing it) before the bodies were actually found. You really think it's hard to imagine (if Scott didn't do it) that whoever did wouldn't understand Scott is the prime suspect and how easy it would be to dump her body at a later date to even further suspect Scott? Why would Scott incriminate himself to the point of telling police exactly where he was only to have dumped the bodies in the same spot. 

The theories are he killed her in their house, or his boat, or his truck, or at the warehouse, yet there is not even 1 piece of evidence that supports that. There is not 1 eyewitness that saw Scott with a tarp or doing anything suspicious. Yet he apparently did it the night before (proven innacurate thanks to eye witnesses and internet searches the following morning from Laci) or the morning of (because it's so easy to go unnoticed carrying a body in a tarp in the daylight). 

I do agree the defense should have put the eye witnesses on the stand to determine a better timeline. Yet they had already proven the prosecutors original theory wrong in that he killed her the night before when the prosecutors came out and said Laci was still alive the morning of the 24th. Again, how in the hell would Scott dispose of a body in broad daylight? Other witnesses who saw him at the marina say they never saw him dragging/carrying anything out of the ordinary and they certainly didn't see anything large in his boat taking off from the marina. So where was the body at that point? 

He never incriminated himself once in all the botched wiring attempts. He claimed his innocence to anyone/everyone when he had no idea others were listening. It's clear he is a cheating ******* and deserved to be shown in the media as such. Just because he's a terrible husband with a clear sex addiction doesn't mean he's a murderer. 

Did he do it or not? I honestly have no idea. But the physical/forensic evidence that is actually there all sides with Scott. The circumstantial evidence and what the media wanted points to Scott being guilty. I choose to believe factual/physical/forensics evidence over anything else and if I'm on the jury, there is no way in hell I say guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because there is no solid evidence to support it. 

Hear!  Hear!

20 hours ago, regi said:

If you don't know now, you never will, in other words, to you, this will always be a mystery.

Most murders are. . .the only way to know for sure is to resurrect the dead. . .and that tends to not work. . .and is often very messy. . .

15 hours ago, Sugarnspice said:

This is correct, your first sentence of what i was saying.

"emphasis that an affair is not always the catalyst"

Nothing else.  I don't offend easy.  So none taken.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. . .the offense comment was not directed at you specifically, but to any and all who might be offended at the thought that some men might actually snap and kill a woman cause she burned their dinner or wouldn't stop nagging. . .we live in an era of whiny cry babies who can't take reality for what it is. . .men do tend to go psychotic more often than woman I think. . .personally I believe it's the same drive that causes us to obsess about women so much so that we do things to try to impress them that causes a few to go mad. . .sometimes. . .that drive goes wrong. . .and there's where the murderers and rapists come from. . .

At any rate, yes we are in agreement. . .an affair does not make a man a murderer. . .Just look at president Clinton. . .he didn't kill Hilary. . .sure he lied to the nation. . .but he didn't kill her. . .it literally takes a special level of despicableness and evil for a person to actually cross that line. . .Sure you can rob a person. . .even rape them. . .hurt them. . .but to take their life. . .you'd almost have to lose a piece of your soul. . .

14 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Often when I used to discuss this case, I was asked what made me conclude Scott was guilty. It was pointed out that jurors are supposed to take each piece of evidence and consider it on it's own merits. I did that and assumed the most innocent version of every piece. I then spliced each piece together into a complete story line from the day he asked Shawn Sibley to hook him up to the day he was arrested. That story was the most fundamentally unbelievable story I had ever heard, beyond comprehension or imagination. I then assumed the most likely version of the story based on what we would likely agree are facts and that story looked like most episodes of Dateline where the husband killed the wife. There are surely legitimate issues within the habeas writ that could grant Scott some level of recourse, but looking at the most fundamental aspects of this case, no one has been able to convince me that he's just terribly unlucky and the victim of a frame. Just not plausible.

You are free to believe what you want to believe and the prosecution is free to present whatever **** case they want. . .what concerns me is that his trial was UNFAIR. . .with that one juror admitting to lying to get on the jury so she could railroad him and the accusations of the police suppressing tips and the p*** poor defense. . .in essence. . .that trial should have ended the second Gregaros stood up and made that F&*king joke.  

How the hell does a man, who attended so many years of college, law school. . .took the bar. . .passed it. . .thinks its okay to stand up in a trial and make a joke of the defense and is still allowed to practice law and is not immediately disbarred. . .it's just flabbergasting. . .

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Computer search is irrelevant. Shared computer, clever killer COULD explain.

To me, it's only logical that Peterson checked his own e-mail- btw, there may actually been an e-mail sent from Peterson to some guy about a golf bag- but just the fact that Peterson's e-mail was accessed tells me that it was Peterson who used that laptop computer between 8:40 and 8:45.

Now, as for those other searches, I think we could only guess as to why he made those.

12 hours ago, Sugarnspice said:

From what i know is that they didn't have a separate one, they both shared the same one.

Per Wall's trial testimony, Laci had her own e-mail.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.