Page 10 of 20 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 109 to 120 of 229

Thread: Bonita Papers

  1. #109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zoomama View Post
    Come on! Do you really think that in this day and age (even 14 years ago at that) that anyone would think that an autopsy wouldn't be performed on a dead child found in the home? I hardly think that at all. I would bet that even in a rush as this must have been the perp had to KNOW that an autopsy must be done. Her death wasn't natural ergo an autopsy. Her death was at the hands of another ergo autopsy. She was only 6 years old and dead ergo autopsy. Am I wrong here?
    I'm with you, Zoomama. I don't believe for one minute that two highly educated, middle-aged adults who not only were apprised of Beth having had an autopsy when she clearly died from injuries caused in a car accident, but also had a copy of Mindhunter on the bedside table, would not have known there would be an autopsy of a murdered child found in the basement.

    Not only that, but I believe the Ramseys had legal help before they ever called 911--hence the obstruction of LE gathering the phone records through subpoena.

    Just my opinion.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  2. #110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    Personally, I don't think JR was involved at that point. Whatever you think of JR's alibi, he at least had one and it was good enough to convince the police that he'd been asleep in bed. Patsy, on the other hand, had no alibi and was cavorting around in the morning in the same clothes and makeup she'd had on the night before. If Patsy and John were involved in the murder/staging together, they'd both have their "I was asleep" alibis taken care of.
    JR had an alibi? Wow, I missed that completely. I thought Patsy said she was asleep all night, Burke was in his room and said to be asleep, and John said he was asleep all night.

    That leaves none of them with an alibi as far as I understood what they told LE. If they were all sleeping, how could they possibly know what the others were doing? That means all we have is each proclaiming "I was asleep," and no one to back anyone up--which I thought meant no alibi...?

    But maybe I missed something critical here and thanks for bringing it to my attention. If you could share JR's alibi with me, thanks so much. That would eliminate him at long last and bring us to two possible suspects.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  3. #111
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    I think what Fr. Brown meant was that JR being "asleep" WAS his alibi. Not in my book, however. A REAL alibi means he was somewhere else (not in the house) and that can be verified.
    Just him saying he was asleep means nothing. He also said his son was asleep the whole time, later admitting it wasn't true.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  4. #112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee View Post
    I think what Fr. Brown meant was that JR being "asleep" WAS his alibi. Not in my book, however. A REAL alibi means he was somewhere else (not in the house) and that can be verified.
    Just him saying he was asleep means nothing. He also said his son was asleep the whole time, later admitting it wasn't true.
    I see. As I have understood it, saying you did something else during the time frame a murder took place is not an alibi if you can't prove it. If it were, prisons would be empty.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  5. #113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    JR had an alibi? Wow, I missed that completely. I thought Patsy said she was asleep all night, Burke was in his room and said to be asleep, and John said he was asleep all night.

    That leaves none of them with an alibi as far as I understood what they told LE. If they were all sleeping, how could they possibly know what the others were doing? That means all we have is each proclaiming "I was asleep," and no one to back anyone up--which I thought meant no alibi...?

    But maybe I missed something critical here and thanks for bringing it to my attention. If you could share JR's alibi with me, thanks so much. That would eliminate him at long last and bring us to two possible suspects.
    I guess you're trying to take the mickey out of me here. That's OK.

    Being asleep in bed isn't much of an alibi, I admit, but that's what most of us are doing in the middle of the night. Assuming that Steve Thomas's opinion is representative of police opinion, I surmise that corroborating facts were in order, i.e., John's side of the bed looked slept in, his shower stall was wet, his sink was wet, maybe his toothbrush was wet, and he was wearing different clothes from the night before.

    Patsy, on the other hand, was in full makeup (which we know she didn't have time to apply that morning) and wearing the same clothes as the night before. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that her side of the bed wasn't slept in. We know her shower stall wasn't wet. I'm betting her toothbrush wasn't wet. What woman is going to put all her makeup on and not bother to brush her teeth in the morning?

    So my point is, if you think John and Patsy committed the murder and/or staging together, then at some point John looks at his watch and says something to Patsy like "I'm going upstairs to make it look like I was asleep all night," to which Patsy replies, "Do that, honey. I'm just going to work on the ransom note a bit more. You don't think the police will notice that I haven't been to bed, do you?"

    (It just occurred to me that John said Patsy would just drop her clothes when she took them off. They probably wouldn't be wearable the next day. Now I understand why the police asked John that question.)

  6. #114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    I see. As I have understood it, saying you did something else during the time frame a murder took place is not an alibi if you can't prove it. If it were, prisons would be empty.
    I know that Fr. Brown believes Patsy did all of this herself. I'm not disputing this but I guess I'm not sure as of yet. Something tells me that the man of the house, a CEO of a hugely successful company, a Navy Man no less, would not let his wife call police and friends over until he studied the ransom note; searched the house; looked out the windows to see if there were any suspicious vehicles that could contain someone monitoring the situation; and arrived at a plan of action.

    But I'm interested in knowing: How many of you posters feel Patsy was involved in the whole thing by herself? How many think the coverup, at least, was done by both?

  7. #115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    I guess you're trying to take the mickey out of me here. That's OK.
    No, Fr Brown, I was straight up asking you a question. You made a statement that JR had an alibi, weak though it was. I truly wanted to know if you had info I missed. There is so much in this case, sometimes I come across stuff that I can't believe I missed. Also, sometimes I find I've forgotten important stuff over the years. I don't even read on the case that much anymore at other forums, now, believe it or not...:computer:...so I was asking if you had some info. I don't know how else I could have asked.

    I did state my own perceptions of the Ramseys' stories about that night. My problem is with the qualifiers you use to deduce that John has an alibi:

    Being asleep in bed isn't much of an alibi, I admit, but that's what most of us are doing in the middle of the night.
    If you ask around the forum, people who know me know very well it's not what I'm doing in the middle of the night. Even if it were John's habit--and as a man with a serious day job, it's a reasonable assumption--it's not proof that on the night his daughter was murdered in his home under some very unusual circumstances he was in fact in bed sleeping.

    Assuming that Steve Thomas's opinion is representative of police opinion, I surmise that corroborating facts were in order, i.e., John's side of the bed looked slept in, his shower stall was wet, his sink was wet, maybe his toothbrush was wet, and he was wearing different clothes from the night before.
    That's a lot of speculation, no matter how reasonable it sounds. If Thomas solved the case, it never went to trial, so all the detail we have is his briefly stated theory in his book, his relatively few media appearances, and his hour on TV with the Ramseys running him over as fast as they could drive that bus. What Thomas said was that he gave John a pass, and my perception is that was because the evidence as Thomas interpreted it (without a trial) wouldn't prove in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt that John Ramsey had a part in the murder or cover up.

    IMO Steve clearly had his sites on Patsy because he felt it could be proven Patsy was involved due to the ransom note she so clearly wrote; so Thomas coerced JR on LKL into agreeing that he wasn't in fact awake or present during the murder. By doing so, Steve confirmed for the public that John couldn't give Patsy an alibi. But Steve was working like a detective, looking at what he felt could be proven in court with the evidence, and that was his focus.

    Patsy, on the other hand, was in full makeup (which we know she didn't have time to apply that morning) and wearing the same clothes as the night before. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that her side of the bed wasn't slept in. We know her shower stall wasn't wet. I'm betting her toothbrush wasn't wet. What woman is going to put all her makeup on and not bother to brush her teeth in the morning?
    If Patsy was up all night, why didn't she have time to re-apply her makeup? It doesn't take that long, really. I must say, I've worn a lot of makeup in my life, as well, and when I put it on, you can bet eight hours later, even under good circumstances, it's worn off. Patsy had to re-apply her makeup that morning if the last time she'd put it on was before they went to the Whites', I'd bet money on that. I'd argue that with Thomas, who I am sure has no first hand experience on that topic.

    Also we don't know her teeth weren't brushed. We don't know that John's were. Maybe John was sweating a lot while dealing with the violent death of his child and how to save his family from certain destruction if LE shows up and arrests one or all of them, so he took a quick shower because he knew he smelled like a hunted animal and needed to look like he'd awakened, taken his usual shower, etc. For all we know. Patsy took a shower in his bathroom, as well--if hers was broken, of course she could have. I don't want to shock, but my husband and I have used the same bathroom and shower for decades.

    Then there is the obvious; it's a weak argument that what they said is the truth because it sounds reasonable. So much could have happened--and did--that none of us has even imagined.

    So my point is, if you think John and Patsy committed the murder and/or staging together, then at some point John looks at his watch and says something to Patsy like "I'm going upstairs to make it look like I was asleep all night," to which Patsy replies, "Do that, honey. I'm just going to work on the ransom note a bit more. You don't think the police will notice that I haven't been to bed, do you?"
    I've seen the photos of the bed, and it appears that someone slept in it at some point. Steve said it appeared Patsy's side wasn't slept in, but it was a kingsize bed, and for all we know, Patsy slept close to JR in it, or maybe threw her covers back over her side, or she slept in JB's bed and JB slept with John or Burke, or one of them slept on a couch, etc. There were a lot of beds in that home, and families don't always end up where we think they should be--JB sure didn't. What if the bed was still as it was when they got up Christmas morning, and neither of them slept in it that night? I don't see Patsy making beds Christmas day, but we don't know.

    All I know about who was asleep and who wasn't is what the Ramseys said and wrote, what I've read that the Ramseys told LE and others, and what I see in crime photos. IMO, the Ramseys lied, often and without hesitation. I believe very little of what they said about their behavior and what happened that night, or at any other relevant time or event, when it comes to the murder.

    I don't know that JR wasn't asleep and that Patsy wasn't a raving lunatic running some diabolical plan. I don't know that Burke wasn't involved in any way, or that another family member didn't have some part in the prior molestation. I can't answer those questions, because I truly don't have facts to build the case that Patsy's toothbrush wasn't wet and JR's was, that JR slept but Patsy didn't, etc. Until I do, I can't conclude that JR had an alibi because he said he was asleep.

    If you can, if that's what you believe because that makes sense to you, no problem; that's your theory and more power to you. I absolutely cannot say you're wrong. Or right.

    All these years, and we don't know the most basic facts and answers to these questions, because the Ramseys had the best of legal advice, possibly before they ever dialed 911, and they took it--to the grave.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  8. #116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    I know that Fr. Brown believes Patsy did all of this herself. I'm not disputing this but I guess I'm not sure as of yet. Something tells me that the man of the house, a CEO of a hugely successful company, a Navy Man no less, would not let his wife call police and friends over until he studied the ransom note; searched the house; looked out the windows to see if there were any suspicious vehicles that could contain someone monitoring the situation; and arrived at a plan of action.

    But I'm interested in knowing: How many of you posters feel Patsy was involved in the whole thing by herself? How many think the coverup, at least, was done by both?
    I think John was involved in the cover up, at least. Here's why:

    John lied to LE about that broken basement window. First, he didn't mention it to LE until four months later, when he claimed he saw it open that morning but just closed it and didn't think much of it--WITH HIS DAUGHTER THOUGHT TO BE KIDNAPPED BY INTRUDERS at the time. Second, he led Fleet White straight to it that afternoon when he ran to the basement to "search" the house at Arndt's behest. Then in '98, when John told his story to LE about breaking the window, he described climbing in through it in detail, and re-enacting that detail, anyone can see it's physically impossible for him to have done it that way.

    So John lied, plain and simple, about that window. Why would he do that? If he used it as staging, whey later undo that by saying he climbed in when he clearly didn't? All I can figure is he doesn't want it known who did break the window. Maybe JAR is the one who forgot his key and broke it one night, and after the suitcase was used in the staging and the semen-stained duvet was found in it, with the chiild's book, JR wanted to point away from JAR because clearly no intruder broke the window that night--THE BROKEN GLASS WAS ALREADY CLEANED UP, so he knew, or maybe his lawyers/investigators asked him these questions and he saw the weakness and was afraid after he'd put White onto it, LE would start asking around. Or something. SOMEthing made John try to undo that staging.

    So why did JR lead Fleet to the window that afternoon? Because, as a former FBI profiler once said when being interviewed on crime scene staging, when the stager wants to make it appear that an "intruder" is the perp, four patterns are repeatedly found by LE and one of those is creating an entrance and an escape for the "intruder." Broken window--that's how the intruder got in; suitcase--that's how he got back out. Only that staging had problems which couldn't be anticipated in the fear and adrenalin of that night by those who were not professionals: JR probably realized when he and White were suddenly "looking" for broken glass around the suitcase that upon close inspection, this "exit" was going to fall through. So when the time was right, four months later after their lawyers had seen so much of the evidence analysis and they had time to limit the interviews and prepare for the evidentiary problems that could have nailed the Ramseys had Hunter not been so eager to cooperate with the prime suspects, JR dropped his little bomb--which he did not in fact detail until another 14 mo's later with Lou Smit, I might add.

    I also don't believe JR wouldn't have called Lockheed Martin first and immediately if he believed his child had in fact been kidnapped, especially by someone claiming to be a foreign faction of terrorists stating precisely it was his company that brought this about. As the International Defense Contractor's protocol would clearly have been defined and understood by JR, who had moved up in the company to a director, Patsy's Christmas letter said. Any international company like LM--and there are very few--would have infinitely more expertise in such a crime; so no way would JR have had Patsy call 911 to a rinky dink PD to handle this right off. BULL!

    Well, those are some of the reasons I don't believe JR is without guilty knowledge in this murder.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  9. #117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    I think John was involved in the cover up, at least. Here's why:

    John lied to LE about that broken basement window. First, he didn't mention it to LE until four months later, when he claimed he saw it open that morning but just closed it and didn't think much of it--WITH HIS DAUGHTER THOUGHT TO BE KIDNAPPED BY INTRUDERS at the time. Second, he led Fleet White straight to it that afternoon when he ran to the basement to "search" the house at Arndt's behest. Then in '98, when John told his story to LE about breaking the window, he described climbing in through it in detail, and re-enacting that detail, anyone can see it's physically impossible for him to have done it that way.

    So John lied, plain and simple, about that window. Why would he do that? If he used it as staging, whey later undo that by saying he climbed in when he clearly didn't? All I can figure is he doesn't want it known who did break the window. Maybe JAR is the one who forgot his key and broke it one night, and after the suitcase was used in the staging and the semen-stained duvet was found in it, with the chiild's book, JR wanted to point away from JAR because clearly no intruder broke the window that night--THE BROKEN GLASS WAS ALREADY CLEANED UP, so he knew, or maybe his lawyers/investigators asked him these questions and he saw the weakness and was afraid after he'd put White onto it, LE would start asking around. Or something. SOMEthing made John try to undo that staging.

    So why did JR lead Fleet to the window that afternoon? Because, as a former FBI profiler once said when being interviewed on crime scene staging, when the stager wants to make it appear that an "intruder" is the perp, four patterns are repeatedly found by LE and one of those is creating an entrance and an escape for the "intruder." Broken window--that's how the intruder got in; suitcase--that's how he got back out. Only that staging had problems which couldn't be anticipated in the fear and adrenalin of that night by those who were not professionals: JR probably realized when he and White were suddenly "looking" for broken glass around the suitcase that upon close inspection, this "exit" was going to fall through. So when the time was right, four months later after their lawyers had seen so much of the evidence analysis and they had time to limit the interviews and prepare for the evidentiary problems that could have nailed the Ramseys had Hunter not been so eager to cooperate with the prime suspects, JR dropped his little bomb--which he did not in fact detail until another 14 mo's later with Lou Smit, I might add.

    I also don't believe JR wouldn't have called Lockheed Martin first and immediately if he believed his child had in fact been kidnapped, especially by someone claiming to be a foreign faction of terrorists stating precisely it was his company that brought this about. As the International Defense Contractor's protocol would clearly have been defined and understood by JR, who had moved up in the company to a director, Patsy's Christmas letter said. Any international company like LM--and there are very few--would have infinitely more expertise in such a crime; so no way would JR have had Patsy call 911 to a rinky dink PD to handle this right off. BULL!

    Well, those are some of the reasons I don't believe JR is without guilty knowledge in this murder.
    That would make a good closing argument. I agree. When I first read that John, when asked to search the house by Arndt, went straight to the room with the broken window, and after FW commented about the broken window, went directly to the wine cellar, I knew right there that John was involved in at least the coverup. Guilty of having at least knowledge of what took place.

    I think ST gave John a pass on the actual killing because of Johns demeanor when answering questions during that first interview. I believe ST even asked John: "John, did you kill your daughter?" I believe John's straight forward answer, and the way he answered, convinced ST that he wasn't involved in JBR's actual death. I believe he even commented, right after that interview, that "he didn't kill his daughter." On the other hand, ST was convinced that PR was lying and was all over the place during the interview. He was wanting to cuff her on the spot.

  10. #118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    No, Fr Brown, I was straight up asking you a question. You made a statement that JR had an alibi, weak though it was. I truly wanted to know if you had info I missed. There is so much in this case, sometimes I come across stuff that I can't believe I missed. Also, sometimes I find I've forgotten important stuff over the years. I don't even read on the case that much anymore at other forums, now, believe it or not...:computer:...so I was asking if you had some info. I don't know how else I could have asked.

    I did state my own perceptions of the Ramseys' stories about that night. My problem is with the qualifiers you use to deduce that John has an alibi....
    I don't seem to be able to make myself understood. I don't really know how convincing the case is that John was asleep; I only know that it was good enough to convince the police that he was.

    My point is that if you have two conspirators who spend hours writing ransom notes, doing something to a window (I'm not sure what), fashioning a garotte and strangling a little girl, all in aid of making it look like someone else did it, and one of them then goes upstairs and phonies up an alibi by mussing up the bed, running the shower and changing clothes, why didn't the other one do that too?

    It's kind of like two guys rob a bank and only one of them takes his mask off in the getaway car.

    It's odd enough that Patsy didn't take off her clothes and makeup, get in bed for five minutes, then get up and take a shower. But would one remember to do that and the other forget? Would the other one not notice? Impossible.

    I suspect that Patsy intended to do all that and be in bed when John woke up, but left it too long. After John was up and in the shower, it was too late. Then she had to pretend to be up before him.
    Last edited by fr brown; March 16, 2011, 12:41 pm at Wed Mar 16 12:41:48 UTC 2011.

  11. #119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    I know that Fr. Brown believes Patsy did all of this herself. I'm not disputing this but I guess I'm not sure as of yet. Something tells me that the man of the house, a CEO of a hugely successful company, a Navy Man no less, would not let his wife call police and friends over until he studied the ransom note; searched the house; looked out the windows to see if there were any suspicious vehicles that could contain someone monitoring the situation; and arrived at a plan of action.

    But I'm interested in knowing: How many of you posters feel Patsy was involved in the whole thing by herself? How many think the coverup, at least, was done by both?
    I hope that everyone would immediately dial 911 on finding a ransom note and not finding a child. (It's always struck me as odd that Fleet White looked under the bed for JonBenet. That's a testament to the loopiness of the ransom note, I guess. He instinctively didn't believe it.)

    I also would hope that just a missing child would quickly trigger a call to 911. It takes a little time to get search and rescue mobilized. Dial 911, then look in every nook and cranny. If you find the kid before search and rescue does, that's a good thing.

    For the record, I think that Patsy did the murder and staging alone. When John got up, he must have known that Patsy hadn't been to bed. How could JonBenet have gotten kidnapped when Patsy was up all night running around the house? Was Burke involved? Fleet White described Ramsey as "puzzled."

    Perhaps Ramsey feared that Patsy would try to frame him (as I think she did). Anyway, he decided to tough it out.

  12. #120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    If Patsy was up all night, why didn't she have time to re-apply her makeup? It doesn't take that long, really. I must say, I've worn a lot of makeup in my life, as well, and when I put it on, you can bet eight hours later, even under good circumstances, it's worn off. Patsy had to re-apply her makeup that morning if the last time she'd put it on was before they went to the Whites', I'd bet money on that. I'd argue that with Thomas, who I am sure has no first hand experience on that topic.

    Also we don't know her teeth weren't brushed. We don't know that John's were. Maybe John was sweating a lot while dealing with the violent death of his child and how to save his family from certain destruction if LE shows up and arrests one or all of them, so he took a quick shower because he knew he smelled like a hunted animal and needed to look like he'd awakened, taken his usual shower, etc. For all we know. Patsy took a shower in his bathroom, as well--if hers was broken, of course she could have. I don't want to shock, but my husband and I have used the same bathroom and shower for decades.
    I really don't see why she'd touch up her makeup after killing JonBenet. It would just make her look guilty. Her makeup immediately aroused the suspicions of the responding officer. Maybe she touched up after John got up and saw her, but before the police arrived. After John got up, it was too late to remove her makeup. That ship had sailed. On the other hand, she might want to make it look like she just put it on. And I don't know how good her makeup looked to the responding officer. Maybe it looked like hell, but he could still see the remnants of it.

    I don't know if her teeth were brushed or not, but I'm sure the police checked to see if her toothbrush was wet.

    She told the cops she didn't take a shower. Why would she lie about something that would be in her favor? Why would she put makeup on afterwards? It just made her look guilty.

    Anybody can make up a whole bunch of unlikely scenarios. I think it's desirable to fashion one simple one that explains the most.



Similar Threads

  1. Bonita Papers
    By Karen in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 101
    Last Post: February 9, 2005, 11:35 pm, Wed Feb 9 23:35:31 UTC 2005
  2. The "Bonita Papers" - Unedited Notes From Ramsey Case Documents
    By Tricia in forum Evidence Files: Ramsey murder case
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: April 10, 2004, 1:55 am, Sat Apr 10 1:55:43 UTC 2004
  3. The Complete Bonita Papers
    By Spade in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: January 20, 2004, 1:13 pm, Tue Jan 20 13:13:02 UTC 2004

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •