Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Was Scott Peterson innocent ?


Booth

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, JaneH said:

No, but sometimes I think I'm one of the few who reads them carefully.  The reason for my posting the excerpts is to see the exact wording so we can avoid misrepresentations in the discussion.

The Peterson family website has an article about Scott's timeline for the 24th:  
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/scotts-timeline.html

Scott left home between 9:50 and 10:08.  Karen Servas found the dog in the street with the leash on sometime between 10:10 and 10:18.  Laci left for her walk sometime after Karen put the dog in the yard and before Graybill arrived on the street to deliver the mail between 10:35 and 10:50.  Laci was seen walking in the neighborhood by several people.   Here's a link to an article about the sightings mentioned in the A&E docuseries:

http://pwc-consulting.blogspot.com/2017/09/lacis-walk-a-docuseries.html

If Laci left home around 10:15, she would have returned from her walk between 11:00 and 11:15 when the Medina burglary was in progress.  She confronted the burglars and was abducted by them.  She was never seen again until her body was found at Pt. Isabel on April 14.

Aw c'mon Jane, at least let's start with established facts.

Scott left at 10:07.

Servas put the dog back at 10:18. 

Laci was supposed to walk in the park, right?

So, which people saw her? All of them? One of them? Specifics Jane?

When did she change into khaki pants? 

Why confront burglars without her dog to protect her?

Why confront burglars at all, why not call 911?

Why would Todd and Co. abduct/kill her? 

Why would burglars wait around 25-30 minutes to be seen by Jackson?

Where was Laci during this 25-30 minutes? 

Where did they keep Laci after the burglary?

Why would Todd give up the burglary to Adam Tenbrink knowing he was harboring Laci?

Did Todd transport Laci on bike, use Pearce's mom's car, or the mysterious van?

What date did they take her to the bay?

Surely you have a theory, or is this why they won't let you on the team. Your job is to keep muddying the water while the others promote documentaries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/21/2018 at 12:37 PM, Jerry Gallo said:

 Reminds me of when Scott got home from the bay the day Laci disappeared...just went on with his business without a second thought, he was damn hungry for that pizza. 

Re: that particular time-frame, have you noted that Peterson hadn't tried to reach Laci on her cell phone? (I mention it because I'm not sure I was ever aware of it until I noticed it while reading through the cell recs. a while back.)

On 4/21/2018 at 2:32 PM, Jerry Gallo said:

Roughly six hours after he discovers his amazing wife is missing, Scott chuckled when relaying to Brocchini that it was too cold to golf. Can you ask him, after 13+ years in San Quentin, if he still thinks that is funny?  

Or why he thought it was funny 13 years ago. (Just mildly curious as to the excuse a sociopath would offer, that's all.)

Speaking of the cold, re: when asked which jacket Laci might would have worn- or which jacket might be missing, I found it very peculiar that Peterson answered that Laci always stole his stuff.

1 hour ago, Jerry Gallo said:

The secret is made up nonsense. There is nothing that indicates this boat was a secret gift. If it was a gift for someone in his family, he'd have no reason to keep that from Ron. If it was a gift for Ron, no reason to keep it from his dad. There was nothing precision about any of this. No testimony Laci was there. No registration paperwork submitted by the defense. There's nine, all things boat where your standard for evidence is tossed aside.

 

(Of course, it's absurd, but) do you know where this even comes from that it was a surprise?

Anyway, re: the two people Peterson spoke to over the phone on his way back from the marina, I can surely imagine that in retrospect, the fact that Peterson hadn't mentioned anything about a/the boat, where he'd been or what he'd been doing must have weighed very heavy on their minds. :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, regi said:

Re: that particular time-frame, have you noted that Peterson hadn't tried to reach Laci on her cell phone? (I mention it because I'm not sure I was ever aware of it until I noticed it while reading through the cell recs. a while back.)

Or why he thought it was funny 13 years ago. (Just mildly curious as to the excuse a sociopath would offer, that's all.)

Speaking of the cold, re: when asked which jacket Laci might would have worn- or which jacket might be missing, I found it very peculiar that Peterson answered that Laci always stole his stuff.

(Of course, it's absurd, but) do you know where this even comes from that it was a surprise?

Anyway, re: the two people Peterson spoke to over the phone on his way back from the marina, I can surely imagine that in retrospect, the fact that Peterson hadn't mentioned anything about a/the boat, where he'd been or what he'd been doing must have weighed very heavy on their minds. :yes:

Of course, one call to cell phone at 2:15p. All those plans, he's calling the house. There are a bunch of things that we're asked to believe were reasonable. For example, an innocent Scott let's dog with leash on out in back yard. Doesn't realize he left the gate open. Comes home, dog is same spot he left him in. 

The chuckle, stealing his stuff, the "but Laci"... bizarre stuff, but perfectly normal to some. #smh

I think MG floated the surprise theory based on Lee's acknowledging Scott's purchases in college. 

For me, ignoring Lee's call before arriving and Amy's on the way home are also telling. But as we know, lies and behavior count for nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Of course, one call to cell phone at 2:15p. All those plans, he's calling the house. There are a bunch of things that we're asked to believe were reasonable. For example, an innocent Scott let's dog with leash on out in back yard. Doesn't realize he left the gate open. Comes home, dog is same spot he left him in. 

The chuckle, stealing his stuff, the "but Laci"... bizarre stuff, but perfectly normal to some. #smh

I think MG floated the surprise theory based on Lee's acknowledging Scott's purchases in college. 

For me, ignoring Lee's call before arriving and Amy's on the way home are also telling. But as we know, lies and behavior count for nothing. 

Scott left 2 messages on the home phone and one message on Laci's cell phone.  What were the times for Lee and Amy's calls?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Aw c'mon Jane, at least let's start with established facts.

Scott left at 10:07.

Scott left shortly after the Martha Stewart meringue statement at 9:48.

Servas put the dog back at 10:18. 

She testified that the latest she put the dog back was 10:18.  In a Grogan report, she said it could have been between 10:10 and 10:17.

Laci was supposed to walk in the park, right?
Her mother assumed she walked in the park.  She often walked in the neighborhood.

So, which people saw her? All of them? One of them? Specifics Jane?

All of the ones on the map I linked plus 3 others who have not been named publicly.

When did she change into khaki pants? 
Most likely after she returned from walking the dog.

Why confront burglars without her dog to protect her?
She had already put McK in the back yard when she noticed the burglars.

Why confront burglars at all, why not call 911?
Laci tended to be impulsive and probably did not anticipate their violent reaction.

Why would Todd and Co. abduct/kill her? 

Todd, in particular, was out on bail awaiting sentencing for 2 prior first degree burglaries at the time he committed the Medina burglary.  It would have been his third strike and he would have been sentenced to 25 years to life with no possibility of parole for 25 years.  

Why would burglars wait around 25-30 minutes to be seen by Jackson?

They didn't.  Most likely they left with Laci and returned in the white van seen by Jackson to get the safe.

Where was Laci during this 25-30 minutes? 

In the first vehicle.

Where did they keep Laci after the burglary?

Don't know.

Why would Todd give up the burglary to Adam Tenbrink knowing he was harboring Laci?

He didn't tell Adam everything.

Did Todd transport Laci on bike, use Pearce's mom's car, or the mysterious van?

None of the above.  No witnesses saw the first vehicle.

What date did they take her to the bay?

Sometime between January 4 and January 6 IMO.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Laci was supposed to walk in the park, right?

The kicker is that it's precisely what Peterson wanted people to think.

In the Diane Sawyer interview, he tried to reinforce the notion that Laci walked to the park that morning.

(It's at the very beginning. :whistle:)

 

Edited by regi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, regi said:

The kicker is that it's precisely what Peterson wanted people to think.

In the Diane Sawyer interview, he tried to reinforce the notion that Laci walked to the park that morning.

(It's at the very beginning. :whistle:)

There's a lot of creative editing in the Diane Sawyer interviews.  Of the ninety minutes of interviews done, only 12 minutes were ever broadcast.  

In this video segment, Scott is talking about himself going to the park after Laci disappeared.  They did walk together there often and Laci sometimes walked in the park by herself.  However, Scott did not tell the police that she planned to walk in the park on the day she disappeared. He told them that she planned to walk the dog.  

This is from Grogan's testimony:

GROGAN: What I recall of that is, I asked Mr. Peterson if Laci walked in the residential area around there, if he knew the route that she walked in that area. And he said no.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he did tell you, or tell Boyer in your presence on the 26th, that Laci did sometimes walk the residential streets in the neighborhood, but she didn't venture far from the home, right? Correct? You wrote that in your report, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And you also wrote in the report Laci had no particular route around the neighborhood, and typically left through the French doors that led her to the backyard?

GROGAN: Yes, I think that's accurate.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that specifically Chris Boyer asked, when was the last time, prior to Tuesday, that Laci went for a walk. And Scott answered specifically last Sunday around the neighborhood, and last Friday in the park. Is that correct? Bates stamp 2915.

GROGAN: Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott did it.

Deal with it.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, regi said:

I meant when- or sometime after- he got home.

My bad! You are absolutely right, no calls to Laci's cell, no calls to Sharon's saying "did Laci bring the whipped cream", etc. Like I said, a buncha things. ;-)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JaneH said:

There's a lot of creative editing in the Diane Sawyer interviews.  Of the ninety minutes of interviews done, only 12 minutes were ever broadcast.  

In this video segment, Scott is talking about himself going to the park after Laci disappeared.  They did walk together there often and Laci sometimes walked in the park by herself.  However, Scott did not tell the police that she planned to walk in the park on the day she disappeared. He told them that she planned to walk the dog.  

This is from Grogan's testimony:

GROGAN: What I recall of that is, I asked Mr. Peterson if Laci walked in the residential area around there, if he knew the route that she walked in that area. And he said no.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he did tell you, or tell Boyer in your presence on the 26th, that Laci did sometimes walk the residential streets in the neighborhood, but she didn't venture far from the home, right? Correct? You wrote that in your report, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And you also wrote in the report Laci had no particular route around the neighborhood, and typically left through the French doors that led her to the backyard?

GROGAN: Yes, I think that's accurate.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that specifically Chris Boyer asked, when was the last time, prior to Tuesday, that Laci went for a walk. And Scott answered specifically last Sunday around the neighborhood, and last Friday in the park. Is that correct? Bates stamp 2915.

GROGAN: Yes.

 

4 hours ago, regi said:

The kicker is that it's precisely what Peterson wanted people to think.

In the Diane Sawyer interview, he tried to reinforce the notion that Laci walked to the park that morning.

(It's at the very beginning. :whistle:)

 

Oh yes, the infamous sobbing incident. But it's not part of the narrative, so it's excused - notice there's always an excuse?

 ;-)

Edited by Jerry Gallo
I wanted to edit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JaneH said:

Scott left shortly after the Martha Stewart meringue statement at 9:48.

So, it took him 20 minutes to travel a block? Cell towers dear, cell towers. 

She testified that the latest she put the dog back was 10:18.  In a Grogan report, she said it could have been between 10:10 and 10:17.

Doubtful she found the dog in the first three minutes, I'll accept 10:17

Her mother assumed she walked in the park.  She often walked in the neighborhood.

Scott sold the park, as regi pointed out. Did Diane sawyer edit in his words?

All of the ones on the map I linked plus 3 others who have not been named publicly.

So, 12 people, none were called to testify. Incompetence, right? What’s the timeline? Did you draw the walk path? Could you? Fascinated here, please, let’s work together on this! I promise to give you top billing, none of this “you do all the dirty work, I’ll collect the glory”.

Most likely after she returned from walking the dog.

So, she went in the house, left the dog outside leashed, then went back out to confront the burglars? Was she going to style them out of the robbery?

She had already put McK in the back yard when she noticed the burglars.

Then went in to change pants?

Laci tended to be impulsive and probably did not anticipate their violent reaction.

Tended and probably? How many times did you meet Laci to arrive at either assumption?

Todd, in particular, was out on bail awaiting sentencing for 2 prior first degree burglaries at the time he committed the Medina burglary.  It would have been his third strike and he would have been sentenced to 25 years to life with no possibility of parole for 25 years.

12/12/01 was the date of the first burglary complain, what was the date of the other? Also, what is the penalty for first degree murder? 

They didn't.  Most likely they left with Laci and returned in the white van seen by Jackson to get the safe.

But it was a tan van, wasn’t it? And who is they? Todd was the one, now it’s a come and go robbery?

In the first vehicle.

Two vehicles now?

Don't know.

Compelling!

He didn't tell Adam everything.

I see. Go ahead and rat me out for the burglary, not for the kidnap/murder. That Steve Todd is some kind of smart!

None of the above.  No witnesses saw the first vehicle.

So, we know there is a first vehicle how?

Sometime between January 4 and January 6 IMO.

Well, IMO lets you off the hook in message board etiquette 101.

Good job Jane! I salute your effort to put yourself out there, even as the narrative still needs a lot of work!

More questions, we're making progress! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, JaneH said:

Scott left 2 messages on the home phone and one message on Laci's cell phone.  What were the times for Lee and Amy's calls?

Aw dammit Jane, I figured as one of the few who reads the transcripts carefully, you'd know this. Not good form, if you had a SPA title or mean girl Twitter profile, you may be in danger of a demotion. Fortunately, I'm here to help.

11:44am - Lee

3:44pm - Amy

No need to thank me, I am on your side! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

 

The uterus??? Just being honest, you haven't answered for it yet. You cannot answer anything that doesn't mention twine, but you can't/won't explain how Conner exited the uterus. That's not sarcasm, the lack of respect is on your end by continually repeating the same stuff and refusing to answer the other. Hence, you seem obsessed with defending your Nobel Prize. #12 x 2

 

 

How about I explain it...

According to Laci’s own doctors she was 32w1d on December 23rd. The expert forensic pathologist and forensic anthropologist both concluded that the baby was between 33 and 38 weeks old when he died. Virtually everyone else who observed the baby’s body after he washed ashore described him as a full or near full term baby. For the mathematically challenged, this means that Laci Peterson died no earlier than December 29, 2002 and possibly as late as the last week in January 2003.

So she interrupts the burglary, Todd and Pearce force her into the van, and she winds up in the Airport District minutes later. Todd and Pearce are no murderers so they hand her off to the satanic neighbors who frequent 417 Kerr Ave around the corner (directly across the street from the Tenbrink household at 418 Kerr Ave, in case you didn’t know) She is driven out of town that afternoon (takes a pee on the way) and winds up at the Woodward reservoir sometime later. Short on time, her captors miss the Grand High Climax and so they keep her alive until January 20th, the next day of sacrifice for a female and child on the satanic calendar.

Scott’s Brook’s Island alibi is now bigger news than Iraq so Laci’s captors know exactly where to toss her after the ritual. No sense dumping her anywhere else otherwise Todd and Pearce are screwed. Probably happens around midnight right at the Albany bulb since half the satanic worshipers in California know the place. And just like that the baby is cut from her uterus during the same ritual that also involves her dismemberment (or maybe they don’t dismember her and tidal action does take care of the rest). They toss her torso into the water and either keep her other items (which is not unusual according to experts on the subject) or they toss those into the ocean as well and the sturgeons handle the rest.

Now listen carefully… Connor goes into a large but thin plastic Target pallet bag (probably drifted over to the Bulb from the Richmond Bridge restoration project). They wrap some twine tightly around the outside of the bag with a knot to keep him in there and then use duct tape to secure the bag to a couple of metal pipes lying around (plenty of those on the Bulb with all those metal sculptures) and then they toss him into the bay right next to his mother.

Three months of circling around the Richmond Inner Harbour and that pallet bag starts to tear open along the seafloor, just like the ends of Laci’s pants. When the baby’s body finally works its way free of the bag in early April and washes up on the shore a few days later, that twine is all that’s left… still wrapped tightly around his neck and under his arm with that same original knot. No abrasions on his neck because the plastic was there between the twine and his skin almost the entire time.

And because he was weighted down and she wasn’t, they drift apart over the months and that's why they wind up on different shores on different days.

As for the tape on the baby’s ear? Not a stretch to imagine that electrical tape was used at the bridge and wound up in the pallet bag… and when they roll him up in there it got pressed against his folded ear.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, pallidin said:

Scott did it.

Deal with it.

LOL!

I must admit I'm contradictorily drawn to this thread on a daily basis but fed-up with the self-congratulatory back-slapping throughout. :D It would be good to get full closure on this one to put an end to this back and forth over petty details (in most cases).

I will also admit to being a fence-sitter on this one. He 'probably' did do it, but as is often said on this board (in the other sub-forums at least), is that the plural of anecdote is not data. And in this case, the majority of evidence against Scott appears to be anecdotal or at worse, innuendo based on his other actions.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

More questions, we're making progress! 

Scott left shortly after the Martha Stewart meringue statement at 9:48.

So, it took him 20 minutes to travel a block? Cell towers dear, cell towers. 

Don’t be confused by Jacobson’s phony cell phone experiment.  Scott could have been at his office when he checked his voice mail at 10:08.
She testified that the latest she put the dog back was 10:18.  In a Grogan report, she said it could have been between 10:10 and 10:17.

Doubtful she found the dog in the first three minutes, I'll accept 10:17 .
Her first estimate was 10:30.  Then she tells Grogan 10:10.  Why not 10:00?  Her time estimates are not reliable.

Her mother assumed she walked in the park.  She often walked in the neighborhood.

Scott sold the park, as regi pointed out. Did Diane sawyer edit in his words?
He wasn’t talking about Laci going to the park on the morning of the 24th.

All of the ones on the map I linked plus 3 others who have not been named publicly.

So, 12 people, none were called to testify. Incompetence, right? What’s the timeline? Did you draw the walk path? Could you? Fascinated here, please, let’s work together on this! I promise to give you top billing, none of this “you do all the dirty work, I’ll collect the glory”.
Yes, I drew the walk path and wrote and article about it.  You’ll have to go to the link to see it.
Had Geragos known about Graybill’s 12-27 interview with Callahan and Skultety, he would have put on the witnesses.  The habeas claims ineffective assistance of counsel for his failure to find the  handwritten report.

Most likely after she returned from walking the dog.

So, she went in the house, left the dog outside leashed, then went back out to confront the burglars? Was she going to style them out of the robbery?
She didn’t notice them until after she changed clothes and went outside to get the mail or possibly to get into her car to do errands.

She had already put McK in the back yard when she noticed the burglars.

Then went in to change pants?

See previous answer.

Laci tended to be impulsive and probably did not anticipate their violent reaction.

Tended and probably? How many times did you meet Laci to arrive at either assumption?
Not long before she was abducted she confronted two women who were fighting in the street in front of her house.

Todd, in particular, was out on bail awaiting sentencing for 2 prior first degree burglaries at the time he committed the Medina burglary.  It would have been his third strike and he would have been sentenced to 25 years to life with no possibility of parole for 25 years.

12/12/01 was the date of the first burglary complain, what was the date of the other? Also, what is the penalty for first degree murder? 

It may have been the same date. Have you checked the case index?

They didn't.  Most likely they left with Laci and returned in the white van seen by Jackson to get the safe.

But it was a tan van, wasn’t it? And who is they? Todd was the one, now it’s a come and go robbery?
Diane Jackson first reported the van as white.  Stough  manipulated her to say it was tan.  We don’t know who they are, but we have some ideas.

In the first vehicle.

Two vehicles now?
Right.

Don't know.

Compelling!

Honest.

He didn't tell Adam everything.

I see. Go ahead and rat me out for the burglary, not for the kidnap/murder. That Steve Todd is some kind of smart!
Adam was his good friend.  He trusted him.

None of the above.  No witnesses saw the first vehicle.

So, we know there is a first vehicle how?

Circumstantial evidence.  Todd didn’t carry everything away on his bike. The Jackson van was only there to pick up the safe.

Sometime between January 4 and January 6 IMO.

Well, IMO lets you off the hook in message board etiquette 101.

Good job Jane! I salute your effort to put yourself out there, even as the narrative still needs a lot of work!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, JaneH said:

There's a lot of creative editing in the Diane Sawyer interviews.  Of the ninety minutes of interviews done, only 12 minutes were ever broadcast. 

For at least a couple of reasons, it's amusing to me that you'd point out anything about editing (btw, I'm reminded of Frey having said in an interview that Peterson complained about editing, that they'd cut out info. pertaining to his feelings for her)...but editing has nothing to do with my point since it's out of Peterson's own mouth that we hear him say that he'd been walking the dog to the park where she walked- which is perpetrating the notion that that's where Laci went that morning, and which correlates with his theory to Grogan that Laci was targeted by a vagrant for her jewelry.

Edited by regi
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

My bad! You are absolutely right, no calls to Laci's cell, no calls to Sharon's saying "did Laci bring the whipped cream", etc. Like I said, a buncha things. ;-)

Right, well, I was trying to point out that earlier in the day, he'd called home and then her cell, yet he didn't repeat that later. In other words, once he was home and saw that Laci wasn't there, it's inexplicable (since it's how he'd approached the same scenario earlier) that he wouldn't then have tried her cell.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

11:44am - Lee

3:44pm - Amy

No need to thank me, I am on your side! 

I don't know about you, but it raises my brow when I see questions about anything I think should already be- or fully expect should be- known.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

For me, ignoring Lee's call before arriving and Amy's on the way home are also telling.

Oh, for me, too (absolutely!), and I was already well aware of those issues, but the issue re: Laci's cell is something I either hadn't previously known/noticed or knew and simply forgot. Either way, I don't remember that it was ever considered or mentioned...

 

Edited by regi
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Matt Vinyl said:

LOL!

And in this case, the majority of evidence against Scott appears to be anecdotal or at worse, innuendo based on his other actions.
 


Agreed... and otherwise known as Reasonable Doubt

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Matt Vinyl said:

 And in this case, the majority of evidence against Scott appears to be anecdotal or at worse, innuendo based on his other actions.

I don't know what you're characterizing is "anecdotal" or "innuendo", and so it appears to me that you're confusing those terms with what's actually referred to and recognized as 'consciousness of guilt'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, regi said:

I don't know about you, but it raises my brow when I see questions about anything I think should already be- or fully expect should be- known.

I think you should do some of the work.  We don't have everything memorized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JaneH said:

I think you should do some of the work.

I beg your pardon? It's your mission, not mine, to get a cold-blooded murderer off of death row.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, regi said:

Right, well, I was trying to point out that earlier in the day, he'd called home and then her cell, yet he didn't repeat that later. In other words, once he was home and saw that Laci wasn't there, it's inexplicable (since it's how he'd approached the same scenario earlier) that he wouldn't then have tried her cell.

No question. Additionally, the answering machine and how he started the call to Sharon also give him away, along with what we know he ignored when he got home, including the two things he himself found odd per his own words. But we know words and behaviors only matter when they support Scott.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to Was Scott Peterson innocent ?
  • The topic was locked
  • The topic was unlocked
  • This topic was locked and unlocked

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.