Welcome to the Prison Talk Online Community! Take a Minute and Sign Up Today!






Go Back   Prison Talk > BREAK TIME > Crime & Court Talk
Register Entertainment FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

Crime & Court Talk News and discussion on all things to do with crime and/or the court system.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #76  
Old 05-26-2005, 09:38 PM
CET CET is offline
Banned
 

Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Mn
Posts: 4,321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts
Default

I think he's a psychopath. I don't believe in the death penalty however. It was more circumstantial evidence against him.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #77  
Old 05-27-2005, 01:10 AM
GottheTshirt GottheTshirt is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oklahoma USA
Posts: 111
Thanks: 0
Thanked 14 Times in 5 Posts
Default You can't handle the truth!!!!!

Please forgive me, I am reminded of Jack's famous line.

The fact is, the evidence did not prove Scott committed a crime.

What got the man convicted was a s$$t that has since gone on to make a lot of money telling HER side of the story. Whatever that is.

Basically, people don't understand what discovery is or how it works. Fact is, there was a lot of exculpatory evidence on Scott's part. BUT, if the detectives don't reveal it to the D.A.'s office, it doesn't have to be given to the defense.

Such was the case here.

Whether he is innocent or guilty, I have no idea. What I DO know is that he should have never been found guilty of being a liar and cheater. That is not a crime. Perhaps he should have been charged with adultery.

I think it's a shame that a jury could be as deluded and D.A.-handled as they were. I would at least like to think the members of this forum would have minds of their own, and further, had Scott been tried by members of this forum, I think the worst that would have happened would be a hung jury.

Legally, I think he is innocent. Having a mistress does not make you guilty of murder.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 05-27-2005, 07:50 AM
missyT missyT is offline
missyT
 

Join Date: May 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 11
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CET
I think he's a psychopath. I don't believe in the death penalty however. It was more circumstantial evidence against him.
Many people, over the course of Scott's case, have carelessly thrown around the terms "psychopath, and "sociopath", in an attempt to label Scott.

There has never been a psych eval done, by a PROFESSIONAL, that labels him either a psychopath or sociopath. IMO, you are using the term irresponsibly here.

missyT
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 05-27-2005, 07:53 AM
missyT missyT is offline
missyT
 

Join Date: May 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 11
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GottheTshirt
Please forgive me, I am reminded of Jack's famous line.

The fact is, the evidence did not prove Scott committed a crime.

What got the man convicted was a s$$t that has since gone on to make a lot of money telling HER side of the story. Whatever that is.

Basically, people don't understand what discovery is or how it works. Fact is, there was a lot of exculpatory evidence on Scott's part. BUT, if the detectives don't reveal it to the D.A.'s office, it doesn't have to be given to the defense.

Such was the case here.

Whether he is innocent or guilty, I have no idea. What I DO know is that he should have never been found guilty of being a liar and cheater. That is not a crime. Perhaps he should have been charged with adultery.

I think it's a shame that a jury could be as deluded and D.A.-handled as they were. I would at least like to think the members of this forum would have minds of their own, and further, had Scott been tried by members of this forum, I think the worst that would have happened would be a hung jury.

Legally, I think he is innocent. Having a mistress does not make you guilty of murder.
Very well said!

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but when those opinions are drawn on innuendo and false information from the media, it makes me crazy!

I can assure you, to anyone on this forum who has a loved one they feel was wrongfully convicted...I will never judge your situation without knowing the facts!

missyT
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 05-28-2005, 01:22 AM
GottheTshirt GottheTshirt is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oklahoma USA
Posts: 111
Thanks: 0
Thanked 14 Times in 5 Posts
Default Aw shucks....

Thanks missyt for the kind words, but when I went to school, we were trained to "follow the money". An ordinary person becomes something you don't understand when you wave dollar bills in front of them. Has anyone had a death in the family and fought over assets? These people become ABNORMAL quite quickly.

Personally, I don't believe Amber was at first manipulated by money. Oh no, the cops saw to that when they threatened her with accessory after the fact. She was scared to death, and rightfully so, she just cashed in after the fact.

The half-sister? Her saga barely begs a mention, except some people make it so. She rates high on my list of gold-diggers in this case, perhaps #1. Read her book, and you will find that while it was probably written by a ghostwriter, THEY were not even good enough to hide the fact that the book could have gone either way, had he been aquitted. (And probably sold more books!). I'm sure it was being compiled while the trial was in progress.

Because it seems important to someone, I will state for the record that I followed the trial closely. Further, I did not pay for the transcripts, as I found them for free on the internet.

Whether or not this makes me more intelligent I will leave to the reader.

To sum up, I do not know if Scott is innocent or guilty. I don't have to.

Or system of government does not presume to decide if someone is innocent.

Only, not guilty.

Perhaps it is a shame that someone who is actually innocent can never clear his/her name by a verdict of "not guilty," it is the law, and for now we are stuck with it. O.J. and Mr. Blake were found not guilty, and now have the everyday shame of never again finding work to which they would otherwise be entitled. Deserved? Maybe.

But if they are innocent, the answer would be 'certainly not.'

I am a convicted felon. I have served the sentence for my wrongful conviction. In the People's Republic of Oklahoma, I cannot cut hair, because I am a convicted felon. I cannot be a vet, and care for an animal in pain, because I am a convicted felon. I cannot become an elected official of the City Council, because I am a convicted felon. Nor can I vote, which is taxation without representation. The list of jobs I cannot have is quite lengthy, most without reason, except that elected officials have become whores to the people that give them money to win elections.

A system that I cannot participate in.

Perhaps I would like to be a whore?

I'll just wait for my next girlfriend to be a suspect in her husband's death.

I digress, and apologize, gentle readers for what has been an emotional rollercoaster, regardless of where you sit.

I said it before, and say it again...get the back story. The discovery violations are too numerous to list. Scott's friends were bewildered by the fact that there were numerous sightings of his wife when he had an alibi, but these were only reported by newsmagazines when in a reinactment, a friend of Scott's confronted the detective in charge of the case. He told him then that since those facts didn't mesh with their interpretation of the case, they would not be investigated.

Follow the discovery.

If the detectives don't give it to the prosecution, the prosecution ain't got to give it to the defense.

It isn's quite fabricating evidence, as in the O.J. trial, but it is the OMISSION of evidence.

Quite disturbing.

Sorry for the thesis....

Rarely do I become involved in something so emotional, but I cannot sit by and watch missyt defend something of which she has first hand knowledge, against folks that only have the witch-hunting abilities of the FBI.
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 05-28-2005, 09:12 PM
mzknotty's Avatar
mzknotty mzknotty is offline
Alive and Well.
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 104
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

So well said, thank you!!!

Not Guilty!!!
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 06-05-2005, 05:21 PM
clemo clemo is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I couldn't say for sure if he is innocent or guilty. My post on the media coverage was about an observation on how prejudicial it was. Whether it was intended or not any media coverage to the extent I witnessed whilst on a short holiday in the US would plant notions of guilt or innocence in anyones mind. My only comments on the case have been about the media coverage. It's wrong for the media to report on the case in the way they did. Based on what I saw I formed an opinion on Scott's innocence and if I can form an opinion then any potential juror could.

Although I don't follow US court cases, I would imagine that it is common practice for unscrupulous prosecuters to use the media to 'reach out' to potential jurors.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 06-05-2005, 06:18 PM
Ken'sWife's Avatar
Ken'sWife Ken'sWife is offline
Ken's Loving Wife
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York and each other's hearts!
Posts: 3,332
Thanks: 0
Thanked 21 Times in 15 Posts
Default

clemo, welcome to PTO!
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 06-05-2005, 08:20 PM
BrandNewGirl's Avatar
BrandNewGirl BrandNewGirl is offline
Loving Life Now!!
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 5,462
Thanks: 289
Thanked 212 Times in 122 Posts
Default

I can't say "guilty" or "innocent" because I didn't follow the case. I CAN say that this is a SUPPORT forum, not a bashing one, and remember how YOU (loose term here.."you" can mean anyone) would feel if you were one of Scott's loved ones and you came on here and read all the bashing and "He's guilty" statements. Your loved one may very well be guilty too, but nobody comes on here bashing them.

Please keep this in mind. We are all here for the same reasons...support.

Nance
__________________
"No one is ever completely useless. You can always stuff their butt full of candy, tie them to the ceiling, and hit them like a pinata until they explode."
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 06-05-2005, 10:08 PM
clemo clemo is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken'sWife
clemo, welcome to PTO!
Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 06-06-2005, 07:20 AM
Ken'sWife's Avatar
Ken'sWife Ken'sWife is offline
Ken's Loving Wife
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York and each other's hearts!
Posts: 3,332
Thanks: 0
Thanked 21 Times in 15 Posts
Default

You are welcome and welcomed! I agree the media is too powerful and out of control about pointing fingers.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 07-29-2005, 02:55 PM
greeneyezin209 greeneyezin209 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: california
Posts: 13
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

WELL I DO BELIEVE SCOTT IS INNOCENT. AND WHAT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT IS THE MEDIA ALREADY HAD HIM ASSUMED GUILTY AND SO DID THE MODESTO POLICE DEPT. ALL BECAUSE HE HAD AN AFFAIR, NOW COME ON HE IS NOT THE ONLY MAN TO DO THAT ANYWHERE,HES HUMAN EVERYONE MAKES MISTAKES,...BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN HE KILLED LACI OR CONNER AT ALL. I WATCHED THE CASE FROM THE BEGINING AND IM FROM MODESTO BORN HERE ...HE DID NOT HAVE A FAIR TRIAL WHAT SO EVER . I BELIEVE IN HIS INNOCENCE..I FELL IT IN MY HEART HE DID NOT DO IT.....I SUPPORT SCOTT FULLY.......TY FOR UR TIME HERE,,,,MELISA FROM MODESTO CA
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 08-01-2005, 04:02 PM
greeneyezin209 greeneyezin209 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: california
Posts: 13
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Innocent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All The Way Innocent!! Im Behind You Scott Always Will Be
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 08-27-2005, 12:23 PM
sweetiepie1989's Avatar
sweetiepie1989 sweetiepie1989 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 15
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Following the case leads to a conviction of death!

I did follow the case of Mr. Peterson and if ou look at the evidence in totality you will understand why it is that the jury gave him the death penalty.


First, it wasn't him that reported his wife "missing to the police" it was Sharon Rocha who called the police. And when the police arrive to take a statement from him he didn't know what he was fishing for? Now come on folks who goes out fishing and doesn't know what kind of fish they are fishing for!

He was asked that night if he had marriage problems or a girlfriend. He said NO! Later on we discover that was a LIE!

There are over 300 hours of taped conversations with Amber Frey and Scott!

He lies about being at the candel light vigil for his wife and tells Amber he is in Paris!

He tries to sell the house!

He sold Laci's Land Rover.

He goes to the Berkeley Marina 5 times and rents cars 3 times to avoid investigators!

He changes his appearance and buys a Mercedes under his Mothers name and has 15k cash and his brothers license and is 30 minutes away from the Mexican border with camping equiptment, dress shoes, white shirts, jeans, dress pants, viagra, water purification system, and other stuff in the trunk when he is arrested. What does he say to the police when he is arrested?? "Did you find my wife and son?"

Investigators knew that he made 5 weights made from pitchers but could Scott could only account for 1! they never found the pitcher either!!

I believe Scott's statements that he made in the past also convicted him! Such as he "was hoping for infertility".

These all played a part in him getting the death penalty. There was to much of a coincidence that her body washed up exactly where he was "fishing" 4 month earlier.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 09-03-2005, 06:07 PM
Dewlilly Dewlilly is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: SC, USA
Posts: 1
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Your question really has two meanings. Why is Scott factually not guilty, and why is Scott legally not guilty?
Factually not guilty? Well, no one can prove that. But, I can tell you why I believe he is factually not guilty.
The MPD conducted a very thorough investigation intended to prove Scott murdered Laci:
1. 3 searches of the home. The first the same night Laci disappeared. The police were in that home and secured it within an hour after she was reported missing. They did 4 walk-throughs, examined the house for any signs of a crime, and the tech ID officer used an alternate light source to check for blood. All items collected as evidence tested NEGATIVE.
The second search was Dec 26-27, and included the FBI. Luminol tests were performed on anything that looked the least bit suspicious. A cadaver dog was in the home, but did not alert, even though the Prosecutors said she was likely murdered on the night of the 23rd, and thus would have been several hours in the home before being removed. The trailing dog could not trail Laci from the house to the warehouse, where the Prosecution claims Scott brought her in order to pick up his boat. The trail dog did not indicate Laci was in the pickup. The cadaver dog did not alert on the pickup. All items collected as evidence tested NEGATIVE.
The third search was in mid-February, and specifically was to look for evidence of a soft kill enabled by Laci being drugged. Over a hundred bags of evidence were removed. All items tested NEGATIVE. When Laci's body was found, she did not have any indications of being drugged.
2. Extensive wire-tapping, over 3000 calls recorded. No confessions, no incriminating statements. The wiretaps provided no evidence whatsoever that Scott engaged in any crime.
3. Spies among friends and family. Hundreds of phone conversations were recorded at the request of MPD by Amber Frey, Sharon Rocha, and Brent Rocha, and possibly other as yet unkown persons. Again, these produced no confessions or incriminating statements.
4. Extensive ground and gps surveillance. Again, these produced no evidence that he committed a crime.
5. Extensive investigation into his finances. Again, no evidence that he had a financial motive for committing the murder.
6. Extensive efforts to encourage Trade Corp to audit his activities. No evidence - Trade Corps internal audit totally exonerated Scott of any financial mishandling or misappropriations.
7. Extensive investigation by the SDEA into the possibility that Scott was selling anyhdours ammonia to meth makers. Again, no evidence of any such activity, either by Scott or by Trade Corp.
Scott Peterson was put under the microscope in this investigation. If he went to the bathroom, someone knew whether it was to do #1 or #2 and whether he washed his hands, that's how intrusive this investigation was into his life. And yet they could produce no physical evidence, no confession, no incriminating statements of any involvement in any crime at the trial.
Scott Peterson volunteered information about his alibi, provided proof that he was there. No person who is such a criminal genius as to get through almost 4 months of microscopic investigation without leaving any physical evidence or incriminating statements is going to be stupid enough to put himself at the scene of any portion of the crime.
Nor is any person that brilliant going to be stupid enough to describe a different set of clothing for Laci. He would never have been stupid enough to dispose of her body in the same clothes she was wearing the day before (as the Prosecution suggests he did) and then tell the story that she was up and around that morning, and he certainly would be smart enough to describe exactly what she was wearing when he disposed of her body.
Now, to address the question of "legally not guilty."
Even if someone believes in their gut that Scott did murder Laci, we have the question of burden of proof. Distaso shifted the burden of proof, very artfully, I must admit, in his closing rebuttal arguments. He said that it was not reasonable to conclude that anyone other than Scott Peterson put Laci's body in the Bay. That means that if Scott didn't prove someone else did it, you must convict him. The jurors that have spoken out have consistently implied that they put the burden of proof on Scott.
That is unconstitutional; therefore, it is not legal. Scott Peterson should never have been convicted on the evidence presented, and he should never have had the burden of proof placed on his shoulders.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 09-18-2005, 03:13 PM
Bin Waitin Bin Waitin is offline
Banned
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 380
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default A jury found him guilty

So in my book, he's guilty. I don't believe it should be a death penalty case, but my feeling is the jury did not err on this one.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 07-30-2019, 11:10 PM
EvonyJade EvonyJade is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 1
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default ridiculous

okay guys, just wanting to interject some of my own insight on this. I never typically get this involved with true crime cases I see on TV, but this one really struck me.

Partly because I was married to a narcissistic habitual cheater, so this case was fairly similar to what I have experienced first hand. Of course, I was not murdered, so we have that going for me!

Anyways, one common thing I went through with my husband, was that he would go in and out of these phases, he would be angry, or annoyed, or cruel, picking apart everything I do, making me feel worthless... and of course, I loved him. I thought maybe it was just me. If I couldnt please him, I simply just stayed quiet until he would ease out of his mood....

A few days later, he would be happy again, typically when other people were around. He wanted everyone to think about our relationship as this awesome team raising my kids, he wanted everyone to believe he would do anything for me. maybe to some extent he would have. there were some genuine moments. but, generally speaking, as soon as they left, there would come a darkness. a cold shudder between the two of us.

and some days, he would feel broken, and need me to comfort the depression, and the sadness, the guilt, the anger, the lonliness. because he felt inadequate, he felt stuck in the patterns imposed on him as a child (oh there was tons of ptsd).

and some days, he was straight up gone. either with another woman, or chasing drugs.

because of all of those moments he spent looking good in the public eye, nobody really believed me when i told them about the bad moments. if he disappeared, or if he was physical with me, or if i found him messaging another woman... nobody cared.

eventually, i gave up, stopped asking for help from family and friends, and i got a restraining order, and i filed for divorce, and i pulled together public resources that could help me out of it.

but we shared children, so the war continued, though it started weighing in for me, when he was finally caught with drugs, while my daughter was in his custody. i was able to enforce rehab, and it worked, though he still contained that narcissistic persona, and it would show when he came around my new boyfriend, trying to be super nice, to promote this idea that he would do whatever i wanted, but then secretly, would try to get me to participate in making fun of my boyfriend, like we had some inside joke that my boyfriend didnt know, like he had more of an in with me than my new boyfriend....

he got a new girl pregnant, and soon they would break up, and he would get with a new girl, who incidentally happened to be a girl I used to get insecure about... though, after a few weeks, she had him upright, and acheiving things he hadnt yet... so i was excited about his progress. he even went to rehab, and started working on coparenting, but he still showed signs that made me uncomfortable.

unfortunately, we lost him in a car accident a few years ago. but, after his new fiance went through his phone, she learned the cold hard truth, that I was right. he was a habitual cheater, literally talking to numerous women, every day, and just like myself, she had to read him tell stories of himself that were not true, lying about where he is, or what hes doing, read him saying the same things to them that he said to her, and even more, what he used to say to me.

now, I have told you this story, not for my own needs... but rather to give you a good peek into the general persona and behaviors of someone like Scott Peterson.

He is lonely, and socially awkward, and insecure with himself. Remember at first, they didnt want kids... and a year later they were trying to get pregnant. and then they did. I can totally see this being a situation where she wanted to try, and he wanted to make her happy, so he went along with it. however, he is still going to have his moments. he still needs someone to fulfill his happiness... and he is too afraid to ask her, or tell her his needs, and maybe sometimes he demands it angrily, and she puts her foot down.

this can easily drain a relationship, and either party could potentially cheat or stray. it happens all the time.

but narcissists are not the type to strike like a snake or an alligator, they dont quickly snap to kill... if they want to destroy you, they are literally treating you like a chess board... they will play a couple moves to distract you, wait to see your distracted... pull in others to trick them into hating you in your distraction... they will wait until you are affected by the isolation... they will dangle themselves in front of you, to seem heroic, so that you depend on them... they will repeat this process over and over, and each time, they will dig further into insulting you, or pushing at you, r isolating you....

you would get to a point that you dont want to do anything, in fear that you would screw up, and make them angry. You would not go outside, you would not want to be around your family. you do not want to go out in public. you do not even want anyone around you to breathe, in fear that he might blame it on you.

so the idea that together, they visit his worksite, and then they visit her sister's salon together, and not a single person has any sense of negative energy, I mean realistically, it could be that he was that good, but it could also just be that there was nothing wrong... but the one fact I can vouch for, is that if he wanted to murder her, he would not have done it the next day. he would have waited until noone had seen her for weeks to ensure she was finally broken and reliant on him... so that he can feel the power of breaking her heart, and feeling important... in control of her emotions of him....

now sure... Scott cheated. Scott lied. Scott was a narcissistic asshat. Scott had no emotions? Probably because he was so overwhelmed with guilt, and sorrow, and that 'now shes gone, why didnt I tell her i love her' and all kinds of feelings... but ya know whats key here? HE DIDNT WANT ANYONE TO SEE HIS EMOTIONS. this is straight up symptom of narcissistic behavior... if he looks weak, it makes him feel even more inadequate. so of course, his first instinct? looking for comfort.

I completely agree his actions were pathetic...

but. I think he's innocent. there is no evidence. there was no autopsy reports indicating any foul play to her body, (though, obviously her body was destroyed, but how?) and there was no crimescene. no murder weapon. a solid aliby.

now, maybe this is not enough to determine he is innocent. and im willing to consider alternatives, but... once those officers actually looked in to the evidence, and witnesses, and everything... if they could actually come up with actual physical evidence, then we could reevaluate this...

and the problem here, is that youve got the media reporters saying things like 'he is guilty, if yall dont like it, so be it'.... but they dont realize they are the ones who are unhappy with the collection of evidence... our system should not allow for this much flexibility... if they have physical evidence and can link it to someone, sure... i can accept that... but with NO EVIDENCE at all... only speculative ideas on what could have happened.... should not be enough to convict.

regardless of the media reporters, or the far sided jurors, or the crowds of people outside... dont convict unless we have physical evidence.... and then keep looking for the evidence...

and the fact that everyone can keep considering him guilty just based on his attitude is astounding.... because were all asswholes...
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 07-31-2019, 03:33 AM
studebaker71 studebaker71 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: california
Posts: 245
Thanks: 97
Thanked 276 Times in 141 Posts
Default

Hes guilty. But..... The laws in California are pretty crazy for divorce and stuff. Some people off their rocker may do terrible things when faced with complications from a California divorce. stuff like lifetime alimony and that.... Some people that are already a screw loose in debt and absorbed into self may just do something terrible to their lives when under pressure like that. I know when I got a divorce I felt alone and desperate financially. I felt like I was cast into an abyss. Never wish to ever hurt someone though physically.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:59 AM.
Copyright © 2001- 2017 Prison Talk Online
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Website Design & Custom vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media
Message Board Statistics