JDI - A Possible Prosecution?

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

His blog is very compelling. The only thing that doesn't fit for me is his belief that PR is totally "innocent." And by that I mean, she was oblivious to what happened, and that's why she made the 911 call when she did.

Are we then to believe PR is also oblivious to the fact that there was prior vaginal trauma. How does PR reconcile that fact post autopsy? given how they refused to release "certain medical records," points to an awareness that something was worth hiding. IMO the autopsy findings weren't a surprise, and there are only 2 people in that household likely to have abused JRB. IMO one would be worth protecting, and one wouldn't.

Also, very significant for me is the GJ findings, and what they voted to indict on.
 
His blog is very compelling. The only thing that doesn't fit for me is his belief that PR is totally "innocent." And by that I mean, she was oblivious to what happened, and that's why she made the 911 call when she did.

Are we then to believe PR is also oblivious to the fact that there was prior vaginal trauma. How does PR reconcile that fact post autopsy? given how they refused to release "certain medical records," points to an awareness that something was worth hiding. IMO the autopsy findings weren't a surprise, and there are only 2 people in that household likely to have abused JRB. IMO one would be worth protecting, and one wouldn't.

Also, very significant for me is the GJ findings, and what they voted to indict on.

bettybaby00,
The theory on that blog is that of a lone JDI. This theory is highly selective regarding the evidence produced. It totally ignores evidence that asks tricky questions, like: How did Patsy accomplish everything she said in such a small space of time, why did Patsy deny all knowledge regarding the breakfast bar artifacts, which were plainly hers, why did she not know there were no size-12's in JonBenet's underwear drawer, why is PR's fibers all over the wine-cellar, who put JonBenet's hair up using those hair-ties, why did JR not anticipate PR only partially reading the RN, big failure here?

For me its a theory that does not get off the ground, it fails to fly. Its a theory about future speculative events, which never happened, and which we know given what did occur, probably would never have taken place.

What the evidence suggests, at a minimum, is that all three R's were complicit in the staging and death of JonBenet.

.
 
I see that DocG (JDI theory) blogged again a few days ago (7/27/13) after several months' absence. This, on the subject of PREMEDITATION.

http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com...d-max=2014-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=6

Interesting that there are no comments yet. I was reading through older posts, and there is one a few pages back discussing the validity of his JDI theory, and there was quite a debate going on. It was also interesting to see those who don't agree with his theory countering with Kolar's deductions!
 
New development in the Sid Wells case:

Colorado investigators are asking for help finding a man suspected of killing Sid Wells, a 22-year-old college student who was dating actor-director Robert Redford's daughter when he was shot to death three decades ago.

Boulder police issued a statement Wednesday saying they're looking for Thayne Smika, who is still being sought after a murder warrant was issued for his arrest in 2010. They're seeking the public's help on the 30th anniversary of Wells' death.

Police suspected Smika, Wells' roommate, and arrested him a few months after investigators said they linked him to the murder. Smika was never prosecuted because the district attorney at the time declined to take the case.

http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2013/08/01/colo-police-seek-help-with-high-profile-cold-case
 
I think I'm missing something. I know this was mentioned on Tricia's show last night, but is there a connection to the Ramsey case?

No, I just posted it because it shows that Boulder PD is still working on other cold cases. Since they are looking for the suspect, it makes me think that they would prosecute him if they found him. So I feel like if there was sufficient evidence to charge John with something that the statute of limitations had not run out on, they most likely would. Or at least I don't think the fact that these cases all happened 10+ years ago is a deterrent. I even saw an article with all the cold cases that Garnett had prosecuted...But why not this one?

I also read an article recently about how the Colorado Bureau of Investigation Cold Case Team (I think that was their name) was in Boulder? I wonder if the decision to renew the effort to find Sid Well's killer had something to do with that meeting? I also wonder what was said about JonBenet's case.
 
No, I just posted it because it shows that Boulder PD is still working on other cold cases. Since they are looking for the suspect, it makes me think that they would prosecute him if they found him. So I feel like if there was sufficient evidence to charge John with something that the statute of limitations had not run out on, they most likely would. Or at least I don't think the fact that these cases all happened 10+ years ago is a deterrent. I even saw an article with all the cold cases that Garnett had prosecuted...But why not this one?

I also read an article recently about how the Colorado Bureau of Investigation Cold Case Team (I think that was their name) was in Boulder? I wonder if the decision to renew the effort to find Sid Well's killer had something to do with that meeting? I also wonder what was said about JonBenet's case.


Ahhhh, now I get you :)

It's interesting b/c I was getting the vibe last night that many--including Kolar it seemed--believe JR was not really involved in anything except the cover up??? Was I hearing that correctly??? I will admit I was a tad typsy when I listened to the broadcast late last night. If that is the case, then I feel it is why Kolar stated he didn't believe there would ever be a resolution as BR is untouchable, PR is in the ground, and whatever involvement JR had, he is now also untouchable b/c of the statute of limitations???

I'm actually quite confused ATM, b/c if this is Kolar's belief, what was his theory of prosecution that he sent to the DA???? :scared: :scared:
 
Ahhhh, now I get you :)

It's interesting b/c I was getting the vibe last night that many--including Kolar it seemed--believe JR was not really involved in anything except the cover up??? Was I hearing that correctly??? I will admit I was a tad typsy when I listened to the broadcast late last night. If that is the case, then I feel it is why Kolar stated he didn't believe there would ever be a resolution as BR is untouchable, PR is in the ground, and whatever involvement JR had, he is now also untouchable b/c of the statute of limitations???

I'm actually quite confused ATM, b/c if this is Kolar's belief, what was his theory of prosecution that he sent to the DA???? :scared: :scared:

Here, Here!! Didn't get to listen last night, so will pull up the archive as soon as I can.

By the way, the DA mentioned in the article posted about Smika was none other than good old Alex Hunter! AKA No Guts, No Glory!

I don't know how he has a clear enough conscience to collect his pension check for the lackluster service he gave to Boulder.
 
I just CAN'T believe that this is how an innocent parent who wants his daughters killer to be found would react!I can't sorry!

11 Q. Without revealing the substance of

12 what you were given with respect to any reports

13 that your investigators may have given you, do

14 you remember if you ever saw any investigative

15 reports concerning Chris Wolf?

16 A. I don't remember seeing any

17 investigative reports regarding Chris Wolf.


18 Q. Do you remember whether or not you

19 were shown investigative reports with respect to

20 any of the other potential suspects that you may

21 or may not have been looking at?

22 A. I don't recall ever seeing a report

23 on any suspect that they might have looked at.


24 MR. HOFFMAN: All right. For the

25 purpose of my next question, I would like the

0009

1 court reporter to please mark this as Plaintiff's

2 Exhibit 14 for identification. And, actually, I

3 am going to turn to the portion to which I am

4 going to direct Mr. Ramsey to look at this.

5 (Plaintiff's Exhibit-14 was marked for

6 identification.)

7 THE WITNESS: You want me to read

8 this part that is highlighted?

9 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Yes. After you

10 had an opportunity to read it to yourself, please

11 read it out loud.

12 A. You want me to read it out loud? I

13 am sorry; I wasn't listening. I was reading.

14 Q. Yes, Mr. Ramsey.

15 A. "Katie Couric: You also mentioned

16 Chris Wolf, a total stranger whose girlfriend

17 reported that he had disappeared on Christmas

18 night and was very agitated rather when he

19 watched the news of the murder on TV.

20 "John Ramsey: Uh-huh.

21 "Katie Couric: Why do you mention

22 him?

23 "John Ramsey: Because he had been

24 widely mentioned in the news, and we wanted to

25 clarify the facts that we knew.

0010

1 "John Ramsey: I can tell you when,

2 when we first startled looking at it, one

3 particular lead early on, my reaction was, 'This

4 is it. This is the killer.' And our

5 investigators said, 'Whoa, whoa, whoa,' he'd say,

6 'Don't do a Boulder police on me. Don't rush to

7 conclusions.'"

8 Q. Do you remember making this statement?

9 A. I don't remember making the statement,

10 but that was a number of years ago, I guess,

11 so....

12 MR. HOFFMAN: In fact, just simply

13 for the record, I believe this is the Katie

14 Couric Today Show. It was aired on, I believe,

15 March 24th. And I believe it was in the year

16 2000.

17 MR. WOOD: Are you talking about his

18 statement to Katie or the statement to the

19 investigator?

20 MR. HOFFMAN: The statement to Katie

21 that --

22 MR. WOOD: Did you understand he was

23 asking you if you remember making a statement to

24 Katie as opposed to the investigator?

25 THE WITNESS: Yeah.

0011

1 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Okay. Now, do you

2 remember who it was that you were -- that you

3 made the statement, This is it, this is the

4 killer? Do you remember who that person was, the

5 investigator that had shown you material on it?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Can you name that person?

8 A. I don't recall his first name.

9 Helgoth was his last name, a fellow that

10 committed suicide on Valentine's Day, the day that

11 Alex Hunter told the world that they were going

12 to get the killer.

13 Q. Right. So you were not referring to

14 Chris Wolf in that statement; is that correct?

15 A. No. That is correct.

16 Q. Now, I want to ask you, in the

17 statement, there is a reference to an early lead.

18 What kind of lead was it? Was it -- you know,

19 specifically. Since you weren't shown any files.

20 MR. WOOD: Do you mean how was he

21 imparted, the information imparted to him by

22 Helgoth?

23 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes. I had asked him

24 earlier if he ever had an opportunity to review

25 any of the investigative files on any of the

0012

1 murder suspects.

2 MR. WOOD: No, you didn't. You

3 asked him if he had ever reviewed any

4 investigative reports.

5 MR. HOFFMAN: All right. Reports.

6 MR. WOOD: And now you are asking

7 him how he obtained the information about Helgoth?

8 MR. HOFFMAN: Uh-huh, yes. If he

9 hadn't seen any investigative reports.

10 THE WITNESS: I think -- I don't

11 recall specifically whether my attorney told me

12 about him or one of the investigators, but

13 typically I communicated with my attorney.

14 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Were you actually

15 shown evidence or were you just simply given a

16 summary?

17 A. I have not seen any evidence that the

18 police have.

19 Q. Any evidence that your investigators

20 have?

21 A. I have seen a few things relating to

22 your client. I don't know that I have seen

23 anything relating to Helgoth.


24 Q. All right. Were you involved in

25 directing the activities of these investigators

0013

1 that were working on your behalf?

2 A. I was not.


3 Q. Then what was, basically, your

4 association with the private investigation of the

5 potential suspects in the murder of JonBenet

6 Ramsey?

7 A. The investigators were retained by our

8 attorneys, and they stated to me that the

9 principal purpose of those investigators was to

10 prepare a defense in the case that the police

11 might bring a charge against me.

12 I hoped that they would also follow

13 up on leads that came to us, but I was

14 frequently reminded by our attorneys that their

15 principal role was to prepare a defense should

16 that be necessary
.



he NEVER CARED about their investigation" re the intruder because there was NONE...it was all about building a DEFENCE not looking for a killer....now why wouldn't you give a damn?there is only one answer:cause you KNOW who did it.
 
Here are some of my thoughts:

If the note was written after Jon Benet's death, it's more likely that the Ramseys are guilty. If an intruder killed Jon Benet, I have a hard time believing that they would stick around to write a long note. The writer of the note was not at all rushed.

If an intruder did it, I think they came in while the Ramseys were out of the house on Christmas day and had a leisurely time writing the note while the Ramseys were out. They imitated Patsy Ramsey's writing. The note expresses their fantasy as they planned and worked themselves up to the crime.

I think the note does indicate consciousness of death, which suggests it was written after the murder. But it could be either way. That's an important question.

The other major issue is the sexual abuse. The experts have disagreed on this. If JonBenet was chronically sexually abused over a period of time, then it's likely that one or both of her parents killed her. On the other hand, if she was not abused, it's unlikely that her parents who had never abused their children suddenly committed this brutal crime.

I have read that JonBenet visited the doctor many times, like 37, in her final year. In that case, I would think that the doctor would have noticed evidence of sexual abuse if it was present.

And then there's also the foreign DNA.

So I am undecided. I think the likely truth depends on: what is stronger evidence, the foreign DNA or the supposed chronic molestation? I don't think that both of those can be valid. Secondly: is there consciousness of JonBenet's death in the ransom note, or does the ransom note express fantasy and state of mind as a premeditating intruder killer plans the murder?

Also if it was an intruder, I think they were very close to the Ramseys. I doubt that the $118k can be coincidental. I think they would also be physically close by, because they may have arrived on foot, which would explain why they didn't want to remove JonBenet from the house, and I think that they may have been able to watch for police activity and other movements.
 
Here are some of my thoughts:

If the note was written after Jon Benet's death, it's more likely that the Ramseys are guilty. If an intruder killed Jon Benet, I have a hard time believing that they would stick around to write a long note. The writer of the note was not at all rushed.

If an intruder did it, I think they came in while the Ramseys were out of the house on Christmas day and had a leisurely time writing the note while the Ramseys were out. They imitated Patsy Ramsey's writing. The note expresses their fantasy as they planned and worked themselves up to the crime.

I think the note does indicate consciousness of death, which suggests it was written after the murder. But it could be either way. That's an important question.

The other major issue is the sexual abuse. The experts have disagreed on this. If JonBenet was chronically sexually abused over a period of time, then it's likely that one or both of her parents killed her. On the other hand, if she was not abused, it's unlikely that her parents who had never abused their children suddenly committed this brutal crime.

I have read that JonBenet visited the doctor many times, like 37, in her final year. In that case, I would think that the doctor would have noticed evidence of sexual abuse if it was present.

And then there's also the foreign DNA.

So I am undecided. I think the likely truth depends on: what is stronger evidence, the foreign DNA or the supposed chronic molestation? I don't think that both of those can be valid. Secondly: is there consciousness of JonBenet's death in the ransom note, or does the ransom note express fantasy and state of mind as a premeditating intruder killer plans the murder?

Also if it was an intruder, I think they were very close to the Ramseys. I doubt that the $118k can be coincidental. I think they would also be physically close by, because they may have arrived on foot, which would explain why they didn't want to remove JonBenet from the house, and I think that they may have been able to watch for police activity and other movements.
Welcome Oldspice. I hope you will continue to research this complex case in your logical way and share your thoughts as they evolve.
 
Do you ever think about how the R's would behave if JBR was actually kidnapped by an intruder? Just think about how much money, resources, and effort they put into defending themselves, and imagine all of that being used to actually find their daughter/her killer. For most missing kids, you're at the mercy of LE, with how much effort they put into the case. But when you have the amount of $$ that the R's had, they can pretty much pay for your own investigation. They could hire world-class searchers, investigators, get very prominent people involved in the case, etc. They could pay for searches anywhere at anytime. They could buy advertising space in newspapers or on TV. As much attention as JBR's case received, I think if she had really being kidnapped or killed by an intruder, it would've been on a whole other level.
 
Do you ever think about how the R's would behave if JBR was actually kidnapped by an intruder? Just think about how much money, resources, and effort they put into defending themselves, and imagine all of that being used to actually find their daughter/her killer. For most missing kids, you're at the mercy of LE, with how much effort they put into the case. But when you have the amount of $$ that the R's had, they can pretty much pay for your own investigation. They could hire world-class searchers, investigators, get very prominent people involved in the case, etc. They could pay for searches anywhere at anytime. They could buy advertising space in newspapers or on TV. As much attention as JBR's case received, I think if she had really being kidnapped or killed by an intruder, it would've been on a whole other level.

and JR would never have called the friends over (maybe not even LE,he had other choices) ,he wouldn't have taken the risk (RN threat),he's a very calculated man and had been under pressure before

imo
 
Do you ever think about how the R's would behave if JBR was actually kidnapped by an intruder? Just think about how much money, resources, and effort they put into defending themselves, and imagine all of that being used to actually find their daughter/her killer. For most missing kids, you're at the mercy of LE, with how much effort they put into the case. But when you have the amount of $$ that the R's had, they can pretty much pay for your own investigation. They could hire world-class searchers, investigators, get very prominent people involved in the case, etc. They could pay for searches anywhere at anytime. They could buy advertising space in newspapers or on TV. As much attention as JBR's case received, I think if she had really being kidnapped or killed by an intruder, it would've been on a whole other level.[/QUOTE]

Your thoughts gave me pause. There were some well known remarks made by JR over the years about his concern for how much money Patsy was spending and by him with reference to how much money he gave up for the case - and in the early years, even resented it. He even kept his own ledger sheet at home in his desk of his accounts so he could admire....ahem, monitor.....it regularly in private.

Of course, now that he's living a more "secluded" lifestyle, pursuing his spiritual growth through a missionary based outreach into intercontinental areas, he realizes having a couple of planes, a few boats and multiple houses are just no longer his stamp of success. So he says in TOSOS.

Back to point of post: Do you suppose the consideration of how much cost might have had to go into what could have ended up being weeks of discovery for looking for a dumped body played into the decision to call police and get it over with?? How would it have looked, just as you observed, to the public if such a wealthy family did not pull out all the stops and spend whatever it took to locate their daughter? They would have had to spend, spend, spend.

Now, they did spend plenty in the early months for legal protection, but their other expenditures related to rewards, etc. were always considered minimal compared to their means. Even the ransom demand amount was minimal in comparison. Frugality all around, except for what was necessary for personal protection.

I hate to keep harping, but John Ramsey gave plenty of disclosures about being taught to work hard, value his money, and yet demonstrated his desire for spending for himself on top of the line vehicles - even in college - for his big boy toys (including lovers during first marriage).
 
Your thoughts gave me pause. There were some well known remarks made by JR over the years about his concern for how much money Patsy was spending and by him with reference to how much money he gave up for the case - and in the early years, even resented it. He even kept his own ledger sheet at home in his desk of his accounts so he could admire....ahem, monitor.....it regularly in private.

Of course, now that he's living a more "secluded" lifestyle, pursuing his spiritual growth through a missionary based outreach into intercontinental areas, he realizes having a couple of planes, a few boats and multiple houses are just no longer his stamp of success. So he says in TOSOS.

Back to point of post: Do you suppose the consideration of how much cost might have had to go into what could have ended up being weeks of discovery for looking for a dumped body played into the decision to call police and get it over with?? How would it have looked, just as you observed, to the public if such a wealthy family did not pull out all the stops and spend whatever it took to locate their daughter? They would have had to spend, spend, spend.

Now, they did spend plenty in the early months for legal protection, but their other expenditures related to rewards, etc. were always considered minimal compared to their means. Even the ransom demand amount was minimal in comparison. Frugality all around, except for what was necessary for personal protection.

I hate to keep harping, but John Ramsey gave plenty of disclosures about being taught to work hard, value his money, and yet demonstrated his desire for spending for himself on top of the line vehicles - even in college - for his big boy toys (including lovers during first marriage).

Well, Boulder PD spent about $2 million investigating the case, and I would think the cost would be even higher if JBR was missing. I remember reading that at its height, 35 people worked on this case, but when a child is missing, you could have hundreds. However, every case reaches the point where LE cannot spend anymore. Since JonBenet's family was wealthy, they could afford to pay for searches years later while other parents have to ask for donations.

I agree with you that if JonBenet was missing, people would expect a lot from her parents. I can definitely see John not wanting her to be a missing child, because of the amount of resources he would need to put into trying to find her when he wouldn't want her to be found. Then again, I feel like the R's will do whatever they want. I don't think the R's would be paying for searches years later just because that's expected of them.

It actually wouldn't surprise me if after seeing cases over the years, Patsy wished that JonBenet was a missing child. She could go on TV everyday, plead and cry on camera. There would searches with thousands of volunteers. I've even noticed that missing children cases get a lot more media coverage than murdered children. Alanna Gallagher, a 6-year-old girl found dead in the street in Texas, was never a national story, and many locals said there wasn't much coverage in the area either. If she had been missing, plenty of national coverage, for sure.
 
EH & MM - I think you're both onto something here. Could it have played a part in them deciding to call LE that morning? Who knows? JR sure didn't mind spending the money on himself, but became much more frugal when it came to spending it on anyone or anything else.

If she had truly been kidnapped by an intruder, I wonder how long JR would have continued to spend money looking for her? Would he have demanded that LE & FBI pay for everything, or would he have shelled out his own wealth looking for her? One has to wonder.

If they had decided to dump her, they wouldn't have wanted her found, at least until time had deteriorated any usable evidence. Would JR have instructed his investigators to avoid a certain area? Surely not, so how could he be sure they wouldn't find her within hours or days? He couldn't. Could this possibly account for the clean up and attempt to hide what really happened, then calling LE?

I've thought of all kinds of possible reasons they called LE that morning, but money was never a possibility in my mind, until now. I'd always figured JR wanted to dump her, and for what ever reason they called LE because of PR. Maybe it wasn't that way at all. Maybe JR just got too tight with the purse strings.

OH!! EH, the point you made about missing children attracting more national attention than murdered children just gave me a thought! I think it's possible that they thought only BPD would be handling the case and they had a better chance of getting away with it. I mean think about it. Yes, there was a RN, (they HAD to have a RN or else they would have been arrested immediately!) but what were the chances of BPD NOT finding her right away, before the FBI was called in? It's almost beyond belief that they didn't! BUT, if they'd dumped her, it's almost certain that the FBI would be called in immediately, which greatly increased the risk they would be caught and prosecuted. So maybe it wasn't about $, maybe it was arrogance on JR's part thinking he was smarter than BPD, and figuring if he gave BPD a fake boogie man/men to look for, and kept LM security and the FBI out of it, they were home free? Sure would explain why he never made the 1st call he should have made ---> LM security!

I've always thought there was no way he wanted her found in the house, but when examined from this angle, I can see how he might have thought the alternative would have been worse. (In his mind, at the time, before 911 was called.)
 
Also if it was an intruder, I think they were very close to the Ramseys. I doubt that the $118k can be coincidental. I think they would also be physically close by, because they may have arrived on foot, which would explain why they didn't want to remove JonBenet from the house, and I think that they may have been able to watch for police activity and other movements.

On second thought, if it was an intruder, they may have had the run of the empty house for several hours to explore and snoop around. It's possible that they learned about the $118k bonus from papers lying around or something like that, and incorporated that into the note to be creepy and to incriminate the Ramseys. Otherwise, if the killer was an intruder, they knew about the bonus because they heard about it.

Do you ever think about how the R's would behave if JBR was actually kidnapped by an intruder? Just think about how much money, resources, and effort they put into defending themselves, and imagine all of that being used to actually find their daughter/her killer. For most missing kids, you're at the mercy of LE, with how much effort they put into the case. But when you have the amount of $$ that the R's had, they can pretty much pay for your own investigation. They could hire world-class searchers, investigators, get very prominent people involved in the case, etc. They could pay for searches anywhere at anytime. They could buy advertising space in newspapers or on TV. As much attention as JBR's case received, I think if she had really being kidnapped or killed by an intruder, it would've been on a whole other level.

They did pay for their own investigation including prominent people. They hardly needed to pay for advertising to get media exposure for the case.
 
Also if it was an intruder, I think they were very close to the Ramseys. I doubt that the $118k can be coincidental. I think they would also be physically close by, because they may have arrived on foot, which would explain why they didn't want to remove JonBenet from the house, and I think that they may have been able to watch for police activity and other movements.

On second thought, if it was an intruder, they may have had the run of the empty house for several hours to explore and snoop around. It's possible that they learned about the $118k bonus from papers lying around or something like that, and incorporated that into the note to be creepy and to incriminate the Ramseys. Otherwise, if the killer was an intruder, they knew about the bonus because they heard about it.

Do you ever think about how the R's would behave if JBR was actually kidnapped by an intruder? Just think about how much money, resources, and effort they put into defending themselves, and imagine all of that being used to actually find their daughter/her killer. For most missing kids, you're at the mercy of LE, with how much effort they put into the case. But when you have the amount of $$ that the R's had, they can pretty much pay for your own investigation. They could hire world-class searchers, investigators, get very prominent people involved in the case, etc. They could pay for searches anywhere at anytime. They could buy advertising space in newspapers or on TV. As much attention as JBR's case received, I think if she had really being kidnapped or killed by an intruder, it would've been on a whole other level.

They did pay for their own investigation including prominent people. They hardly needed to pay for advertising to get media exposure for the case.

I'm talking a legitimate investigation. I think that the people hired by the R's were hired with the intention of them going on TV, and announcing the R's are innocent. People see these prominent people saying this, and they believe it.

Also, I meant that paying for ad space could simply be a supplement to the media coverage. But basically my point was, that when you have a lot of money, you can pay for things that most parents of missing kids cannot.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
87
Guests online
2,586
Total visitors
2,673

Forum statistics

Threads
600,817
Messages
18,114,064
Members
230,990
Latest member
DeeKay
Back
Top