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

7 hours ago, Regi said:

Well, as to the order in which calls were received, I think Amy's testimony does correlate w/the recs., since her estimate is the earliest (5:15-5:30).

 I struggle with this...which is why I wish that Scott's second cell phone records, along with his land line records, were available. As well as Amy's home and cell and Laci's cell. To be honest, I have issues with Amy's testimony. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2018 at 7:10 PM, Jerry Gallo said:

I hear ya on all fronts. Next step is supposed to be tomorrow when the defense is likely to file their last request for extension, then their reply is supposed to be filed by August 10. I don't expect that to produce any fireworks, more legal hair pulling. The end game on this is likely still well down the road. So, I may stick here and argue the minutia you've avoided, I may not. Depends on how things go in here. Some say Scott's odds are 3%, State of California statistics indicate a little better at 10%. I don't see ineffective counsel getting it done, not like this was a public defender assigned to the case. Scott and his family chose and paid MG to try what he could and it didn't work. I mean let's be honest, walk witnesses, whose times were all over the place, who MG himself said he couldn't put on the stand because they wouldn't hold up to cross-examination likely won't get it done. I don't see Todd or Aponte getting it done. I don't see Jeanty getting it done. And the twine isn't even in the damn thing. So, separate from my opinion of Scott's guilt, I've seen no one give this thing much of a chance in legal circles. I can say Gibbs seemed to be the brains of the operation and his retiring can't help. Unsure if him doing so tells us anything or if the guy just had a date on the calendar and he honored it. I could see Scott filing a future appeal of the appeal with Gardner as the ineffective one. The snake oil guys, just don't see them swaying anyone.    

I agree that the walk witnesses were not very reliable. But should they have been called anyway? Probably. Put them all on the stand, and force the jury to conclude that all of them were mistaken. That being said, despite my personal opinion of Geragos's work here, I agree that ineffective counsel is not gonna fly. Scott was not entitled to a perfect defense. If this case comes back, I still think it'll be on one(or more) of the jury issues.

Let me ask you this though. If the bodies had never turned up, would you still feel comfortable finding Scott guilty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Booth said:

I agree that the walk witnesses were not very reliable. But should they have been called anyway? Probably. Put them all on the stand, and force the jury to conclude that all of them were mistaken. That being said, despite my personal opinion of Geragos's work here, I agree that ineffective counsel is not gonna fly. Scott was not entitled to a perfect defense. If this case comes back, I still think it'll be on one(or more) of the jury issues.

Let me ask you this though. If the bodies had never turned up, would you still feel comfortable finding Scott guilty?

I probably could have, but I don't think any panel of 12 jurors could convict without the bodies washing up in the bay. And I could comprehend their inability to do so. 

The renting/borrowing of cars for a day to visit the bay (exhibit P-208), along with surveillance and phone records placing him at the Concord switches that corroborate the trips on 12/24 and in early January are too suspect for me to conclude anything other than Scott needing to know if it was time to jet or not. Add to this what we know about 12/6-12/8. Shawn finds out and confronts Scott about being married. On 12/8, he wakes up and does a search for boats and boat ramps on the Pacific Ocean. Looking at Watsonville on the map, he considered that as a potential spot to go fishing in Monterrey Bay in a 14ft boat? A boat that was supposed to be a surprise for Ron. Fishing was a morning decision, just happened to have bought a boat two weeks prior and went to the spot he finally decided on to launch, his wife just happened to disappear that day. I know it's not concrete evidence, but I can't conceive anything whatsoever that explains this as innocent, normal behavior where he was just unlucky all this unraveled the way it did.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2018-07-11 at 10:19 AM, Jerry Gallo said:

I probably could have, but I don't think any panel of 12 jurors could convict without the bodies washing up in the bay. And I could comprehend their inability to do so. 

The renting/borrowing of cars for a day to visit the bay (exhibit P-208), along with surveillance and phone records placing him at the Concord switches that corroborate the trips on 12/24 and in early January are too suspect for me to conclude anything other than Scott needing to know if it was time to jet or not. Add to this what we know about 12/6-12/8. Shawn finds out and confronts Scott about being married. On 12/8, he wakes up and does a search for boats and boat ramps on the Pacific Ocean. Looking at Watsonville on the map, he considered that as a potential spot to go fishing in Monterrey Bay in a 14ft boat? A boat that was supposed to be a surprise for Ron. Fishing was a morning decision, just happened to have bought a boat two weeks prior and went to the spot he finally decided on to launch, his wife just happened to disappear that day. I know it's not concrete evidence, but I can't conceive anything whatsoever that explains this as innocent, normal behavior where he was just unlucky all this unraveled the way it did.  

 

Imagine for a moment that Laci’s skull and limbs were to turn up in the backyard of some rural home in Tracy, California and Scott Peterson was exonerated shortly thereafter. Isn’t it interesting how everything that you currently find suspicious and inconceivable would suddenly turn on a dime with alternate explanations that make perfect sense after all.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2018 at 9:19 AM, Jerry Gallo said:

I probably could have, but I don't think any panel of 12 jurors could convict without the bodies washing up in the bay. And I could comprehend their inability to do so. 

The renting/borrowing of cars for a day to visit the bay (exhibit P-208), along with surveillance and phone records placing him at the Concord switches that corroborate the trips on 12/24 and in early January are too suspect for me to conclude anything other than Scott needing to know if it was time to jet or not. Add to this what we know about 12/6-12/8. Shawn finds out and confronts Scott about being married. On 12/8, he wakes up and does a search for boats and boat ramps on the Pacific Ocean. Looking at Watsonville on the map, he considered that as a potential spot to go fishing in Monterrey Bay in a 14ft boat? A boat that was supposed to be a surprise for Ron. Fishing was a morning decision, just happened to have bought a boat two weeks prior and went to the spot he finally decided on to launch, his wife just happened to disappear that day. I know it's not concrete evidence, but I can't conceive anything whatsoever that explains this as innocent, normal behavior where he was just unlucky all this unraveled the way it did.  

"I probably could have"??? Man, you're hedging pretty hard here...

Bear in mind, everything that you're citing is meaningless if the bodies aren't found. The boat, the searches, the trips, everything. All of these facts being "suspicious" are predicated strictly on the fact that the bodies were found in the bay. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2018 at 11:42 PM, Sly Humour said:

 

Imagine for a moment that Laci’s skull and limbs were to turn up in the backyard of some rural home in Tracy, California and Scott Peterson was exonerated shortly thereafter. Isn’t it interesting how everything that you currently find suspicious and inconceivable would suddenly turn on a dime with alternate explanations that make perfect sense after all.

 

You understood my point perfectly. Once the bodies were found in/near the bay, confirmation bias ruled the day. "There was no possible way for that to happen if Scott didn't do it. Despite all of the indications otherwise, Scott must've done it, somehow". The state created an imaginary theory and ran with it. One that was not only unsupported, but actually contradicted by the bulk of the evidence that they themselves presented. It's absurd.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Booth said:

"I probably could have"??? Man, you're hedging pretty hard here...

Bear in mind, everything that you're citing is meaningless if the bodies aren't found. The boat, the searches, the trips, everything. All of these facts being "suspicious" are predicated strictly on the fact that the bodies were found in the bay. 

LOL, you're beating me up for hedging on a hypothetical? There goes the kinship!!! :lol:

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Booth said:

You understood my point perfectly. Once the bodies were found in/near the bay, confirmation bias ruled the day. "There was no possible way for that to happen if Scott didn't do it. Despite all of the indications otherwise, Scott must've done it, somehow". The state created an imaginary theory and ran with it. One that was not only unsupported, but actually contradicted by the bulk of the evidence that they themselves presented. It's absurd.


Agreed. 

To me, one of the most profound examples in this case of confirmation bias is contained in a paragraph on page 160 of the book that was written by Susan Rocha in 2006 entitled For Laci. In this paragraph she describes a conversation that she had with her daughter Amy four days after Laci went missing. In that conversation both her and Amy express incredulity that Scott would claim to have observed Laci sitting on a bench in the bathroom curling her hair when, to the best of their recollection, there had never, ever been a bench in the bathroom. However, the very night that Laci is reported missing, a Modesto Police officer snapped a photograph of the bathroom that not only shows the curling iron laying on the counter beside the sink, but also one of the kitchen stools directly in front of the mirror. 

But because she and Amy had never seen a bench in the bathroom before, she determined through confirmation bias that there never was one and therefore Scott must have been lying about watching Laci curl her hair in the bathroom that morning. And what solidifies the confirmation bias is that nearly four years later while writing her book, she makes reference to this event to substantiate her conclusion that Scott must have been lying despite the fact that this photrographic evidence cleary demonstrates that he was telling the truth the whole time. The bench was quite obviously the stool, and it was there all aong.

He simply called it a bench.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sharon's book...conformation bias that affected the trial...sincerely astute observation as always. Better stick to Tracy and the imaginary killers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2018 at 6:04 PM, Jerry Gallo said:

LOL, you're beating me up for hedging on a hypothetical? There goes the kinship!!! :lol:

 

:D:D I'm not trying to beat you up, Jer, but "I probably could have" is three hedges in four words!

Yes, it was a hypothetical, but so much of what you've cited as unreasonable/suspicious/incriminating is contingent on the bodies being found in the bay. I've acknowledged several times that the location of the bodies is quite damning against Scott. It certainly is. Without that happening though, what would you have? The case essentially falls apart if they're never found.  Again, I know it's hypothetical, I'm just asking you to concede that point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Sharon's book...conformation bias that affected the trial...sincerely astute observation as always. Better stick to Tracy and the imaginary killers.  

 

Not surprisingly you missed the point. 

And nothing in what I wrote suggested that her book or confirmation bias affected the trial. 

But I appreciate you demonstrating the ease with which you formulated that erroneous conclusion and then attempted to link  my observation to your mistake.

A blunder of epic proportion, to be sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Reasonable Doubt" if juries listened to our laws, most locked up people that are innocent wouldn't be locked up, but also more people that are guilty would be free as well, I'd like to see some DNA or I have reasonable doubt.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, -Nuke- said:

"Reasonable Doubt" if juries listened to our laws, most locked up people that are innocent wouldn't be locked up, but also more people that are guilty would be free as well, I'd like to see some DNA or I have reasonable doubt.

 

Well said.

That is precisely the way the criminal justice system is supposed to work. It is a far more palatable outcome that a guilty person walks free than an innocent person is incarcerated or executed for a crime he or she didn’t commit. 

Unfortunately the jury in this trial monumentally misunderstood the concept of Moral Certainty beyond a Reasonable Doubt and convicted Scott Peterson. 

 We could ask Cameron Todd Willingham how that feels... but we’re too late.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Booth said:

:D:D I'm not trying to beat you up, Jer, but "I probably could have" is three hedges in four words!

Yes, it was a hypothetical, but so much of what you've cited as unreasonable/suspicious/incriminating is contingent on the bodies being found in the bay. I've acknowledged several times that the location of the bodies is quite damning against Scott. It certainly is. Without that happening though, what would you have? The case essentially falls apart if they're never found.  Again, I know it's hypothetical, I'm just asking you to concede that point. 

:lol: My post, I thought, was actually an admission that I would likely be an outlier in your scenario. I don't think a jury would have collectively convicted him without the bodies. As it relates to my fence-riding "probably could have", that was more in reference to having to decide that back then, without the benefit of 15 years of forum discussion and dissecting literally every word of the trial record. Plus, I'd have access to ALL the evidence, who knows what I would have found within that pro or con.

As for concession, what I listed was only a small portion of the CE that related specifically to the bodies. I still find every bit of the collection of CE equally suspicious and incriminating without the bodies. I would simply conclude the bodies washed out to sea or were swallowed by the muck in the bottom of the bay. For you, I comprehend you need physical evidence that didn't exist. And I comprehend that the lack of bodies would violate your sensibilities even further. Your requirement needs tangible things and I comprehend and respect that - letter of the law stuff. My requirement does not - CE that collectively doesn't have one reasonable thing that organically refutes it - spirit of the law stuff. Your requirement doesn't acknowledge behavioral evidence from a profile or investigative point of view and I respect that too. My requirement not only acknowledges it, but goes one step further. It asks the question, why didn't one thing organically appear on it's own within Scott's actions and words, his defense team's case, and all this discussion to give me pause? That isn't a question specifically for you to answer, it's just a question that has no legitimate answer as far as I can tell. 

Just one example...the Croton watch...IF that was a legitimate piece of evidence that could help Scott, I have no doubt that you or I would have PROVEN that rather than the defense or the infomercial going to great effort to blow up innuendo. One simple question for the pawn shop owner would have cleared it up. What happened to the watch? If it was Laci's watch and it was resold for a hefty profit because it was in fact her diamond encrusted watch that was pawned, he could produce a receipt for hundreds of dollars to prove it. If he kept it for nostalgic reasons, he could show it to us for comparison to the photo of it. Instead, they crafted a narrative that lacks corroboration. Corroboration is not required, but if it is that easy and natural to present it, why wouldn't you do so? Why put forth the effort to slander LE and interview the guy with vague generalities all these years later? Because it's not required or because it was a ruse? Nearly every talking point in this case in Scott's defense requires someone to elaborate on innuendo, piecemeal info and what is not rather than organic what is. Sorry if we are back at square one, just trying to explain that lack of concession isn't arguing against you, it's arguing against nature as it relates to Scott. Spirit of the law...blast me for that is you like, that's just where my head is sir.     

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2018 at 4:58 PM, Jerry Gallo said:

 I struggle with this...which is why I wish that Scott's second cell phone records, along with his land line records, were available. As well as Amy's home and cell and Laci's cell. To be honest, I have issues with Amy's testimony. 

You mean you question whether Amy and Peterson actually did speak between 5:15-5:30?

On 7/11/2018 at 9:19 AM, Jerry Gallo said:

I probably could have, but I don't think any panel of 12 jurors could convict without the bodies washing up in the bay.

I certainly could/would have, because I'd be convinced that that's where (the bay) when ("fishing trip") and how (since body never recovered) he disposed of Laci's body.

On 7/15/2018 at 6:16 PM, Sly Humour said:

To me, one of the most profound examples in this case of confirmation bias is contained in a paragraph on page 160 of the book that was written by Susan Rocha in 2006 entitled For Laci. In this paragraph she describes a conversation that she had with her daughter Amy four days after Laci went missing. In that conversation both her and Amy express incredulity that Scott would claim to have observed Laci sitting on a bench in the bathroom curling her hair when, to the best of their recollection, there had never, ever been a bench in the bathroom.

They had no knowledge of any bench in the bathroom- that's all- and it's info. from Peterson at a time when Sharon and Amy were certainly not suspecting Peterson and so it can't be "confirmation bias". (Btw, I'm so sick of that term; whoever came up with it, I'd like to punch them in the mouth.) Anyway...

It's on page 115-6, and if anything, it serves as an example of Peterson's deflection.

Sharon wrote that when she asked Peterson what Laci was doing when he left, he smiled and said she looked so cute, sitting on her little bench, styling her hair.

Now, I don't know anything about any seat in the bathroom, but I do know that Sharon wrote that she'd gone to the house the next morning (25th) and had searched room to room and so evidently, when Peterson told her that, she hadn't recalled/hadn't seen any such thing.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Regi said:

You mean you question whether Amy and Peterson actually did speak between 5:15-5:30?

I do. Phone records do not support it. Now, that could mean that there were landline calls made we aren't privy to with those phone records not available or it could be a case of people not really having certainty on accurate times calls took place. I would lean towards the latter.

18 minutes ago, Regi said:

I certainly could/would have, because I'd be convinced that that's where (the bay) when ("fishing trip") and how (since body never recovered) he disposed of Laci's body.

 That would make two of us, but I doubt 12 of "us" would conclude the same.

19 minutes ago, Regi said:

They had no knowledge of any bench in the bathroom- that's all- and it's info. from Peterson at a time when Sharon and Amy were certainly not suspecting Peterson and so it can't be "confirmation bias". (Btw, I'm so sick of that term; whoever came up with it, I'd like to punch them in the mouth.) Anyway...

It's on page 115-6, and if anything, it serves as an example of Peterson's deflection.

Sharon wrote that when she asked Peterson what Laci was doing when he left, he smiled and said she looked so cute, sitting on her little bench, styling her hair.

Now, I don't know anything about any seat in the bathroom, but I do know that Sharon wrote that she'd gone to the house the next morning (25th) and had searched room to room and so evidently, when Peterson told her that, she hadn't recalled/hadn't seen any such thing.

Yet another item where someone has to make an excuse for Scott, that he doesn't know the difference between a vanity bench and a kitchen stool. 

What was in the trial regarding the bench and Sharon's testimony that the jury heard...had nothing to do with Sharon accusing Scott of being guilty IN THE TRIAL. It was her detailing her confusion in thinking Scott meant Laci has also gotten her hair cut when Scott did on the 23rd. Who gives a rip about her book a year or more after the trial, had no impact on the verdict. It's hyperbole.

Sharon Rocha: Well, on that, let me see. On that day, or the 1st, he told me that, I asked him what she was doing when he left the house, and he told me that she looked so cute because she was sitting on her bench in front of the mirror styling her hair the way Amy had shown her. And that surprised me because I didn't realize that Laci had had, or I thought by that, what he told me was that Laci had had her hair cut also the night before. Until later.

Lastly, the photo referencing the curling iron and "bench" is P37-D. The kitchen stools are referenced in P1-KK. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sly Humour said:

 

Not surprisingly you missed the point. 

And nothing in what I wrote suggested that her book or confirmation bias affected the trial. 

But I appreciate you demonstrating the ease with which you formulated that erroneous conclusion and then attempted to link  my observation to your mistake.

A blunder of epic proportion, to be sure.

LOL, there was no point, just you trying to look astute in Booth's eyes. First of all, it was on page one six-teen, not one six-ty. Secondly, you exaggerate the point when both simply wondered "what bench". They were clearly supporting Scott on the 28th, she was reflecting in hindsight on the things said and done by Scott and Amy in her book. A "profound example in this case" would be something that was relevant to this case and Sharon's excerpt in her book was not. If Sharon and Amy had not supported Scott on the 28th based on the bench issue, then maybe your post would have had some credibility. But we know they were still in support of Scott even as he's lying about the photo with Amber to Sharon at dinner on Jan 3. Just another swing and miss on your part and then throwing shade at me when it's exposed. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Phone records do not support it. Now, that could mean that there were landline calls made we aren't privy to with those phone records not available or it could be a case of people not really having certainty on accurate times calls took place. I would lean towards the latter. 

I think that one phone record does support it...

Speaking of that particular rec., it also shows a 911 call at 6:10, now, what's that about?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

That would make two of us, but I doubt 12 of "us" would conclude the same.

You mean because you think common sense isn't actually common? :lol:

Seriously, I don't know why you'd doubt it because I'd expect that they would.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Regi said:

I think that one phone record does support it...

Speaking of that particular rec., it also shows a 911 call at 6:10, now, what's that about?

I may be muddying the waters here. To be specific, on three different phone record exhibits, I see no cell activity on Scott's phone between 3:52p and 5:44p. The first two calls at 5:44p were 0:00 in duration. Thus, the first call supported by phone records, was Scott's original call to Sharon at 5:45. It lasted 37 seconds and she told Scott to call her friends and call her back. He called HIS friends and called her back at 5:48 where they talked 28 second and she told him to try the neighbors. He had an incoming call while on that second call with Sharon that lasted 28 seconds. That may have been Amy. Keep in mind, I am merely trying to reconcile the records the the testimony.

As for 911, he took two incoming calls from unknown persons right before the dial to 911. Three seconds...hard to say, I could make a case for both guilt and innocence on that...depending on where he was when he dialed, who he spoke to on the incoming calls, who was nearby when he dialed. For example, if LE pulled up or Sharon arrived and said Ron already called, one could explain it innocently. Just don't recall where he and others were at 6:10p from memory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Regi said:

You mean because you think common sense isn't actually common? :lol:

Seriously, I don't know why you'd doubt it because I'd expect that they would.

I mean because a) this forum shows some would acquit regardless of facts and bee) more generally, there seems to be more contrarians in society on almost any topic these days, can't find consensus that water is wet anymore. :lol:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

I may be muddying the waters here. To be specific, on three different phone record exhibits, I see no cell activity on Scott's phone between 3:52p and 5:44p. The first two calls at 5:44p were 0:00 in duration. Thus, the first call supported by phone records, was Scott's original call to Sharon at 5:45. It lasted 37 seconds and she told Scott to call her friends and call her back. He called HIS friends and called her back at 5:48 where they talked 28 second and she told him to try the neighbors. He had an incoming call while on that second call with Sharon that lasted 28 seconds. That may have been Amy. Keep in mind, I am merely trying to reconcile the records the the testimony.

And that's all I'm trying to do, too.

So, it's clear to me that Ron or Sharon must have spoken to Amy before Ron's 911 call- obviously, since Ron was under the impression that Peterson had been golfing, but I'd expect Amy to remember how and from whom she was made aware that Laci couldn't be located.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Regi said:

And that's all I'm trying to do, too.

So, it's clear to me that Ron or Sharon must have spoken to Amy before Ron's 911 call- obviously, since Ron was under the impression that Peterson had been golfing, but I'd expect Amy to remember how and from whom she was made aware that Laci couldn't be located.

Did the golf info come from Laci in the phone call from night before? Also, re: Amy, I got the impression that prior to Laci's disappearance, she and Laci were not as close as one might think. Sometimes paternal half-sibs are not as tight as maternal half-sibs or natural sibs who share both parents. In other words, I didn't see Amy as being over the top in her support for Laci in testimony. Milquetoast is how I'd describe it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Did the golf info come from Laci in the phone call from night before?

Since Sharon didn't write about it, I'm confident that it hadn't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

LOL, there was no point, just you trying to look astute in Booth's eyes. First of all, it was on page one six-teen, not one six-ty. Secondly, you exaggerate the point when both simply wondered "what bench". They were clearly supporting Scott on the 28th, she was reflecting in hindsight on the things said and done by Scott and Amy in her book. A "profound example in this case" would be something that was relevant to this case and Sharon's excerpt in her book was not. If Sharon and Amy had not supported Scott on the 28th based on the bench issue, then maybe your post would have had some credibility. But we know they were still in support of Scott even as he's lying about the photo with Amber to Sharon at dinner on Jan 3. Just another swing and miss on your part and then throwing shade at me when it's exposed. 

 

I suggest you read the post again. Even you can’t possibly miss the point a third time around. 

And the reason why you patting yourself on the back regarding the page number poke actually solidifies my opinion of you as a linear thinker is because three things never occurred to you. Speech to text is mainstream in 2018, 160 and 116 rhyme, and Sly might be using an iPad Pro when he posts.

So ponder that circumstantial evidence for a moment and if you are as astute as you’d like Booth to think you are then you’ll consider the possibility that I had the page number right all along and it was Siri who fumbled the ball.

 

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.