Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #59 *ARREST*

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #821
IMHO, Barry's failure to make it in the MLB may have been a turning point. The Alexandria Times-Tribune newspaper headline said "Barry Morphew Drafted by Toronto Blue Jays." It really screams of "small town boy succeeds."

The article goes on to say, "He greeted the call with a mixure of elation and anxiety. Although obviously pleased with the opportunity to turn pro, Morphew is unsure how the draft will affect his college plans." Evidently, he ultimately decided to forego the college plans and pursue the MLB dream. Did he regret that decision?

So, during 1986 and 1987, he was with a Blue Jays farm team, but no confirmation on the reason for leaving. I'd be really curious to understand what happened when he returned home. Was he greeted with disappointment (his dad? others?)? Suzanne would have still been in high school at that time.

Looks like they stayed together as a couple, and she went on to Perdue, as did he (although I've seen previous posts on whether he graduated) and they got married in 1994.

His dad passed away in 2006; yes, that may have been a turning point as well, but in MOO, I think it was earlier.

OCanada, far be it from me to give any credits to BM but Suzanne's step brother said, maybe it was in his last interview, that BM graduated from Purdue.

There's unimpressible stats from the season w/ the Canadian farm team. Maybe he missed skinning raccoons? Didn't someone state earlier in the threads that he accepted the team's offer of $20,000 to join the league? If so, that gives one pause to wonder if he chose to go solely for the quick cash, which was fairly good money back in the early '90s. Did he join for the monetary benefit and not out of a dream-fulfilling desire to achieve accolades from arduous hours of practice and playing competitive back to back ballgames in hopes of making it to the Major Leagues or was that his father's dream for Barry?
.
 
  • #822
OCanada, far be it from me to give any credits to BM but Suzanne's step brother said, maybe it was in his last interview, that BM graduated from Purdue.

There's unimpressible stats from the season w/ the Canadian farm team. Maybe he missed skinning raccoons? Didn't someone state earlier in the threads that he accepted the team's offer of $20,000 to join the league? If so, that gives one pause to wonder if he chose to go solely for the quick cash, which was fairly good money back in the early '90s. Did he join for the monetary benefit and not out of a dream-fulfilling desire to achieve accolades from arduous hours of practice and playing competitive back to back ballgames in hopes of making it to the Major Leagues or was that his father's dream for Barry?
.


I think Barry was a very big fish in a small pond at home in Indiana and found things very different when mixing with others more talented than him playing league games. His ego probably could not cope. So he went home to nurse his injured ego.
 
  • #823
I think though that another poster posted a link with a case in Colorado who got bond for first degree murder? IIRC. I don't remember for sure but a Google search did bring up this link, so it appears it can happen:
Judge: Man charged with 1st degree murder can bond out of jail
Yeah, but in that case the decision was made because they didn't feel the accused put the community in peril and he was likely not a flight risk.

Forcing a child to drink a lot of water is also a lot different than violently killing one's spouse and then tampering with the body. Imo
 
  • #824
I think Barry was a very big fish in a small pond at home in Indiana and found things very different when mixing with others more talented than him playing league games. His ego probably could not cope. So he went home to nurse his injured ego.

I think you are on to something here, Skigh. Barry was used to being the golden boy at home, at school and in his small town. After he got on the Canadian team he was just one of many players and probably not the best. He wasn’t getting the accolades he was used to, wasn’t getting preferential treatment and no one was doting on him on or off the field. <modsnip> it just wasn’t worth it: how dare they not realize how extraordinary he was and just treat him like everyone else!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #825
I don't think there is any chance BM will be released on bail/bond. Ain't no way. I think his recent Mexican vacation may be a big strike against that. Wife missing? No problem, jet off to sunny Mexico. On trial for her murder? Outta here, adios.

I wonder if his new attorneys will attempt to prevent the release of the AA. I would imagine they will, but I don't think they'll be able to prevent it. What legal basis could they use for keeping it under wraps?

I'm very curious as to what approach they will take in defending BM. Are we going to see the Bushy-Haired Stranger defense?
 
  • #826
I believe the next court date is Thursday, May 27. Hoping for an AA release too!
Colorado Judicial Branch - Court Docket Search

I’m having a heck of a time with this website today and not sure if it’s my wifi connection or what. I see posts that are quoted and replied to, but when I click on the original post that was replied to, I get an error message. So frustrating. Then when I scroll back thru the pages, I can’t find the post either. Think I’ll call it a night. Take care everyone, maybe the AA will be released Friday. Court for BM is at 4:00 this coming Friday!
 
  • #827
  • #828
I don't think there is any chance BM will be released on bail/bond. Ain't no way. I think his recent Mexican vacation may be a big strike against that. Wife missing? No problem, jet off to sunny Mexico. On trial for her murder? Outta here, adios.

I wonder if his new attorneys will attempt to prevent the release of the AA. I would imagine they will, but I don't think they'll be able to prevent it. What legal basis could they use for keeping it under wraps?

I'm very curious as to what approach they will take in defending BM. Are we going to see the Bushy-Haired Stranger defense?
BM defense lawyers do have their work cut out for them. Defense can’t be as simple as mistaken identity. Each of the following elements must be proven:
  • He alone committed the murder
  • He had specific intent to do so
  • deliberation; and
  • premeditation
They will have to discredit the evidence which will be monumental imo. The amount of digital evidence could be astronomical because I think BM made lots of mistakes. The gps & EVI won’t match up to what BM’s statements were to investigators. BM had lots of hours to account for over Mother’s Day weekend. I suspect motive will come from Suzanne’s own words via texts to her friend & sister. And motive will probably be bolstered by forensic accounting. I don’t doubt the state has the evidence. DA could have gone for lesser charge of 2nd degree or a crime of passion situation, but I think the evidence for murder 1 was overwhelming and staring them in the face. No way he’s released on bail. The AA will be kept from public consumption as long as the defense can keep it from being released. It must be damning or why bother? All MOO.

Hope everyone has a great
week. #FindSuzanne
EBM
 
Last edited:
  • #829
BM defense lawyers do have their work cut out for them. Defense can’t be as simple as mistaken identity. They will have to discredit the evidence which will be monumental imo. The amount of digital evidence could be astronomical because I think BM made lots of mistakes. The gps & EVI won’t match up to what BM’s statements were to investigators. BM had lots of hours to account for over Mother’s Day weekend. I suspect motive will come from Suzanne’s own words via texts to her friend & sister. And motive will probably be bolstered by forensic accounting. I don’t doubt the state has the evidence. DA could have gone for lesser charge of 2nd degree or a crime of passion situation, but I think the evidence for murder 1 was overwhelming and staring them in the face. No way he’s released on bail. The AA will be kept from public consumption as long as the defense can keep it from being released. It must be damning or why bother? All MOO.

Hope everyone has a great
week. #FindSuzanne
Agree wholeheartedly. I think there is a mountain of evidence that will prove that the only one who could have disappeared Suzanne is her husband. There are too many gaps, that he will not be able to fill in.

I'd love to see him on the stand, trying to explain some of his actions. I highly doubt that will happen, can you imagine? "Let me tell you what happened...."
 
  • #830
I think we are all waiting with baited breath for what they do release and the preliminary. I don’t know if they have monumental amounts or the prior prosecutor might have bitten so thinking they have uncovered something relatively new.
 
  • #831
I think Barry was a very big fish in a small pond at home in Indiana and found things very different when mixing with others more talented than him playing league games. His ego probably could not cope. So he went home to nurse his injured ego.
For the last 12 months Barry’s ego no longer had Suzanne around to bolster it every.single.day like she did for 30+ years. The ego boosting has had to depend on “Barry’s Team” of younger cohorts, his mom, and new girlfriend (s) for the last 12 months. Hope they don’t fall down on their responsibilities. No wonder we saw plastic surgery, veneers, push-up contests, and more blonde tips. His midlife crisis must be in full swing. I bet he’s the only 53 year old man in Salida who sunbathed on their patio in early May. Wonder if he spends his 1 hour a day out of his cell in the sun with some foil under his chin catching rays! Enjoy that Turkey bologna sandwich today, Mr Morphew! Yuck! #GoodTimes
Speculation and MOO
EBM
 
Last edited:
  • #832
I think though that another poster posted a link with a case in Colorado who got bond for first degree murder? IIRC. I don't remember for sure but a Google search did bring up this link, so it appears it can happen:
Judge: Man charged with 1st degree murder can bond out of jail
Seriously, this bond case is no comparison here. Military man was held without bail for several months prior to judge discretion to grant bail. Charges against wife were also dismissed and the man still has not been arraigned after more than a year.
 
  • #833
RBBM. I think people forget that first the young man came out and asked Barry what he was doing when they saw him going through the trash. The store was closed but the workers were finishing up. I believe BM thought no one was in the store. After being confronted by the young man BM figured he better give them a story. That’s when BM knocked on the door and came in and explained his wife was missing. When they asked for her description that’s when he wrote that ridiculous note about the baby blue bike helmet and biking clothes. He also said his daughters were making up flyers and he’d bring some by later. I think that might be why CM asked Tiffany if she ever saw him again, which apparently she didn’t.

Yep, I pointed that out way back when, when it was first reported.
I do think BM thought no one would see him because the store was closed.


I'm glad I asked the "what do you all think Barry was really doing" question because some of y'all have shared some really interesting ideas. What makes the most sense to me is the suggestion someone made (sorry, I forgot who) was that he was hoping to snag a receipt from a few days prior to "prove" he was somewhere other than where investigators suspected he was. I mean, if he went to the lengths he did for the Broomfield alibi, and I 100% believe that's what that was, then rifling through the trash at a convience store after hours, is really not a big deal.

jmo
 
Last edited:
  • #834
^^sbm

There are a few states where bail is allowed for defendants accused of murder but Colorado is not one of them. Defendants charged with murder in Colorado are held until their guilt or innocence is determined.

https://www.denver-colorado-crimina...il-bond-laws-and-rules/bail-bonds-in-colorado
I respectfully disagree. IMO, BM has a right to bail.

The Colorado Constitution establishes a right to bail except in "capital cases where proof is evident or presumption is great." Since Colorado abolished the death penalty last year, I doubt the capital case exception applies. There are a few other restrictions, but BM doesn't meet the criteria and the procedural requirement for an immediate hearing has not been met.

See if you agree. A statute, Section 16-4-101 of Colorado Revised Statutes, elaborates on the Constitution's description of bailable offenses:

§ 16-4-101. Bailable offenses - definitions

(1) All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties except:

(a) For capital offenses when proof is evident or presumption is great; or

(b) When, after a hearing held within ninety-six hours of arrest and upon reasonable notice, the court finds that the proof is evident or the presumption is great as to the crime alleged to have been committed and finds that the public would be placed in significant peril if the accused were released on bail and such person is accused in any of the following cases:

(I) A crime of violence alleged to have been committed while on probation or parole resulting from the conviction of a crime of violence;

(II) A crime of violence alleged to have been committed while on bail pending the disposition of a previous crime of violence charge for which probable cause has been found;

(III) A crime of violence alleged to have been committed after two previous felony convictions, or one such previous felony conviction if such conviction was for a crime of violence, upon charges separately brought and tried under the laws of this state or under the laws of any other state, the United States, or any territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States which, if committed in this state, would be a felony;

(IV) A crime of possession of a weapon by a previous offender alleged to have been committed in violation of section 18-12-108 (2) (b), (2) (c), (4) (b), (4) (c), or (5), C.R.S.;

(V) Sexual assault, as described in section 18-3-402, sexual assault in the first degree, as described in section 18-3-402, as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, sexual assault in the second degree, as described in section 18-3-403, as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, sexual assault on a child, as described in section 18-3-405, or sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust, as described in section 18-3-405.3 in which the victim is fourteen years of age or younger and seven or more years younger than the accused.

(c) When a person has been convicted of a crime of violence or a crime of possession of a weapon by a previous offender, as described in section 18-12-108 (2) (b), (2) (c), (4) (b), (4) (c), or (5), C.R.S., at the trial court level and such person is appealing such conviction or awaiting sentencing for such conviction and the court finds that the public would be placed in significant peril if the convicted person were released on bail.

(2) For purposes of this section, "crime of violence" shall have the same meaning as set forth in section 18-1.3-406 (2), C.R.S.

(3) In any capital case, the defendant may make a written motion for admission to bail upon the ground that the proof is not evident or that presumption is not great, and the court shall promptly conduct a hearing upon such motion. At such hearing, the burden shall be upon the people to establish that the proof is evident or that the presumption is great. The court may combine in a single hearing the questions as to whether the proof is evident or the presumption great with the determination of the existence of probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime charged.

(4) Except in the case of a capital offense, if a person is denied bail under this section, the trial of the person shall be commenced not more than ninety-one days after the date on which bail is denied. If the trial is not commenced within ninety-one days and the delay is not attributable to the defense, the court shall immediately schedule a bail hearing and shall set the amount of the bail for the person.

(5) When a person is arrested for a crime of violence, as defined in section 16-1-104 (8.5), or a criminal offense alleging the use or possession of a deadly weapon or the causing of bodily injury to another person, or a criminal offense alleging the possession of a weapon by a previous offender, as described in section 18-12-108 (2) (b), (2) (c), (4) (b), (4) (c), or (5), C.R.S., and such person is on parole, the law enforcement agency making the arrest shall notify the department of corrections within twenty-four hours. The person so arrested shall not be eligible for bail to be set until at least seventy-two hours from the time of his or her arrest has passed.
 
  • #835
I respectfully disagree. IMO, BM has a right to bail.

The Colorado Constitution establishes a right to bail except in "capital cases where proof is evident or presumption is great." Since Colorado abolished the death penalty last year, I doubt the capital case exception applies. There are a few other restrictions, but BM doesn't meet the criteria and the procedural requirement for an immediate hearing has not been met.

See if you agree. A statute, Section 16-4-101 of Colorado Revised Statutes, elaborates on the Constitution's description of bailable offenses:

§ 16-4-101. Bailable offenses - definitions

(1) All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties except:

(a) For capital offenses when proof is evident or presumption is great; or

(b) When, after a hearing held within ninety-six hours of arrest and upon reasonable notice, the court finds that the proof is evident or the presumption is great as to the crime alleged to have been committed and finds that the public would be placed in significant peril if the accused were released on bail and such person is accused in any of the following cases:

(I) A crime of violence alleged to have been committed while on probation or parole resulting from the conviction of a crime of violence;

(II) A crime of violence alleged to have been committed while on bail pending the disposition of a previous crime of violence charge for which probable cause has been found;

(III) A crime of violence alleged to have been committed after two previous felony convictions, or one such previous felony conviction if such conviction was for a crime of violence, upon charges separately brought and tried under the laws of this state or under the laws of any other state, the United States, or any territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States which, if committed in this state, would be a felony;

(IV) A crime of possession of a weapon by a previous offender alleged to have been committed in violation of section 18-12-108 (2) (b), (2) (c), (4) (b), (4) (c), or (5), C.R.S.;

(V) Sexual assault, as described in section 18-3-402, sexual assault in the first degree, as described in section 18-3-402, as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, sexual assault in the second degree, as described in section 18-3-403, as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, sexual assault on a child, as described in section 18-3-405, or sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust, as described in section 18-3-405.3 in which the victim is fourteen years of age or younger and seven or more years younger than the accused.

(c) When a person has been convicted of a crime of violence or a crime of possession of a weapon by a previous offender, as described in section 18-12-108 (2) (b), (2) (c), (4) (b), (4) (c), or (5), C.R.S., at the trial court level and such person is appealing such conviction or awaiting sentencing for such conviction and the court finds that the public would be placed in significant peril if the convicted person were released on bail.

(2) For purposes of this section, "crime of violence" shall have the same meaning as set forth in section 18-1.3-406 (2), C.R.S.

(3) In any capital case, the defendant may make a written motion for admission to bail upon the ground that the proof is not evident or that presumption is not great, and the court shall promptly conduct a hearing upon such motion. At such hearing, the burden shall be upon the people to establish that the proof is evident or that the presumption is great. The court may combine in a single hearing the questions as to whether the proof is evident or the presumption great with the determination of the existence of probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime charged.

(4) Except in the case of a capital offense, if a person is denied bail under this section, the trial of the person shall be commenced not more than ninety-one days after the date on which bail is denied. If the trial is not commenced within ninety-one days and the delay is not attributable to the defense, the court shall immediately schedule a bail hearing and shall set the amount of the bail for the person.

(5) When a person is arrested for a crime of violence, as defined in section 16-1-104 (8.5), or a criminal offense alleging the use or possession of a deadly weapon or the causing of bodily injury to another person, or a criminal offense alleging the possession of a weapon by a previous offender, as described in section 18-12-108 (2) (b), (2) (c), (4) (b), (4) (c), or (5), C.R.S., and such person is on parole, the law enforcement agency making the arrest shall notify the department of corrections within twenty-four hours. The person so arrested shall not be eligible for bail to be set until at least seventy-two hours from the time of his or her arrest has passed.
Yup I’m nervous. I do not see anything that absolutely makes a murder charge an unbailable offense in Colorado. The 90 days to trial bothers me as well. I would be okay with Barry sitting in jail for a year or so until he goes to trial. We have no idea what the AA contains, and I assume the defense lawyers are going to pull out every stop. I think this is their moment. Coming off of the success of their last big case, they have made an investment in their future. If they lose because it was such a strong case against their client, no harm, no foul for them.
 
  • #836
I respectfully disagree. IMO, BM has a right to bail.

The Colorado Constitution establishes a right to bail except in "capital cases where proof is evident or presumption is great." Since Colorado abolished the death penalty last year, I doubt the capital case exception applies. There are a few other restrictions, but BM doesn't meet the criteria and the procedural requirement for an immediate hearing has not been met.

See if you agree. A statute, Section 16-4-101 of Colorado Revised Statutes, elaborates on the Constitution's description of bailable offenses:

§ 16-4-101. Bailable offenses - definitions

(1) All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties except:

(a) For capital offenses when proof is evident or presumption is great; or

(b) When, after a hearing held within ninety-six hours of arrest and upon reasonable notice, the court finds that the proof is evident or the presumption is great as to the crime alleged to have been committed and finds that the public would be placed in significant peril if the accused were released on bail and such person is accused in any of the following cases:

(I) A crime of violence alleged to have been committed while on probation or parole resulting from the conviction of a crime of violence;

(II) A crime of violence alleged to have been committed while on bail pending the disposition of a previous crime of violence charge for which probable cause has been found;

(III) A crime of violence alleged to have been committed after two previous felony convictions, or one such previous felony conviction if such conviction was for a crime of violence, upon charges separately brought and tried under the laws of this state or under the laws of any other state, the United States, or any territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States which, if committed in this state, would be a felony;

(IV) A crime of possession of a weapon by a previous offender alleged to have been committed in violation of section 18-12-108 (2) (b), (2) (c), (4) (b), (4) (c), or (5), C.R.S.;

(V) Sexual assault, as described in section 18-3-402, sexual assault in the first degree, as described in section 18-3-402, as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, sexual assault in the second degree, as described in section 18-3-403, as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, sexual assault on a child, as described in section 18-3-405, or sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust, as described in section 18-3-405.3 in which the victim is fourteen years of age or younger and seven or more years younger than the accused.

(c) When a person has been convicted of a crime of violence or a crime of possession of a weapon by a previous offender, as described in section 18-12-108 (2) (b), (2) (c), (4) (b), (4) (c), or (5), C.R.S., at the trial court level and such person is appealing such conviction or awaiting sentencing for such conviction and the court finds that the public would be placed in significant peril if the convicted person were released on bail.

(2) For purposes of this section, "crime of violence" shall have the same meaning as set forth in section 18-1.3-406 (2), C.R.S.

(3) In any capital case, the defendant may make a written motion for admission to bail upon the ground that the proof is not evident or that presumption is not great, and the court shall promptly conduct a hearing upon such motion. At such hearing, the burden shall be upon the people to establish that the proof is evident or that the presumption is great. The court may combine in a single hearing the questions as to whether the proof is evident or the presumption great with the determination of the existence of probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime charged.

(4) Except in the case of a capital offense, if a person is denied bail under this section, the trial of the person shall be commenced not more than ninety-one days after the date on which bail is denied. If the trial is not commenced within ninety-one days and the delay is not attributable to the defense, the court shall immediately schedule a bail hearing and shall set the amount of the bail for the person.

(5) When a person is arrested for a crime of violence, as defined in section 16-1-104 (8.5), or a criminal offense alleging the use or possession of a deadly weapon or the causing of bodily injury to another person, or a criminal offense alleging the possession of a weapon by a previous offender, as described in section 18-12-108 (2) (b), (2) (c), (4) (b), (4) (c), or (5), C.R.S., and such person is on parole, the law enforcement agency making the arrest shall notify the department of corrections within twenty-four hours. The person so arrested shall not be eligible for bail to be set until at least seventy-two hours from the time of his or her arrest has passed.
Respectfully, this is a capital offense albeit capital punishment is currently suspended and/or abolished in Colorado. To my knowledge, there's no evidence the DA failed with proof evident presumption great and the defendant has not filed a motion challenging the same. The ball for bail is in Barry's court -- bring it on. MOO

SALIDA, Colo. (CBS4) – A 53-year-old Colorado husband who is accused of killing his wife appeared before a judge for the first time after being arrested on murder charges at his home near Poncha Springs. Barry Morphew is charged with murdering Suzanne Morphew, even though her body hasn’t been found. The judge ordered that he be held in the Chaffee County Detention Facility without bond.

Barry Morphew, Accused Of Killing Wife Suzanne, Makes First Appearance In Court

ETA: Patrick Frazee and Donte Lucas were not considered or granted bail. Both recently convicted of first-degree murder with body of the victim never recovered. Letecia Stauch is also being held without bail. Chris Watts held without bail.....
 
Last edited:
  • #837
@CGray123 Is there anything relating to significant flight risk with regard to a capital crime? Is there a limit to the amount of the bail (as in could the Judge make it such an astronomical amount that no bond agent could come up with the amount)?
 
  • #838
Was the offense Barry is charged with committed before capital punishment was abolished? Would he be grandfathered in with that?
 
  • #839
Respectfully, this is a capital offense albeit capital punishment is currently suspended and/or abolished in Colorado. To my knowledge, there's no evidence the DA failed with proof evident presumption great and the defendant has not filed a motion challenging the same. The ball for bail is in Barry's court -- bring it on. MOO

SALIDA, Colo. (CBS4) – A 53-year-old Colorado husband who is accused of killing his wife appeared before a judge for the first time after being arrested on murder charges at his home near Poncha Springs. Barry Morphew is charged with murdering Suzanne Morphew, even though her body hasn’t been found. The judge ordered that he be held in the Chaffee County Detention Facility without bond.

Barry Morphew, Accused Of Killing Wife Suzanne, Makes First Appearance In Court

ETA: Patrick Frazee and Donte Lucas were not considered or granted bail. Both recently convicted of first-degree murder with body of the victim never recovered. Letecia Stauch is also being held without bail. Chris Watts held without bail.....

My reasoning is that "capital offense" refers to capital punishment and is defined in the law as an offense punishable by death. Colorado did not suspend the death penalty. SB 20-100 abolished capital punishment in Colorado when the governor signed it into law, so there is no longer a "capital offense" in Colorado.

However, you may be right. The allegations of the complaint put the date of the offense before the effective date of the abolishing statute, so the prosecution could theoretically elect to pursue the death penalty in this case. It may technically, therefore, be a "capital offense" for purposes of bail eligibility.
 
  • #840
Yep, I pointed that out way back when, when it was first reported.
I do think BM thought no one would see him because the store was closed.


I'm glad I asked the "what do you all think Barry was really doing" question because some of y'all have shared some really interesting ideas. What makes the most sense to me is the suggestion someone made (sorry, I forgot who) was that he was hoping to snag a receipt from a few days prior to "prove" he was somewhere other than where investigators suspected he was. I mean, if he went to the lengths he did for the Broomfield alibi, and I 100% believe that's what that was, then rifling through the trash at a convience store after hours, is really not a big deal.

jmo

That was a good question and generated interesting responses.

Maybe he was looking for a receipt for two sandwiches, dated for Saturday May 9, hoping to prove Suzanne was alive and hungry, to bolster a story that he had thrown out there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
91
Guests online
1,497
Total visitors
1,588

Forum statistics

Threads
632,349
Messages
18,625,089
Members
243,099
Latest member
Snoopy7
Back
Top