1491 users online (302 members and 1189 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 3 of 112 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 103 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 1676
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    416
    On a lighter note, I was grocery shopping yesterday and was disgusted to be bombarded with the pictures of killer on the cover of "In Touch" rag-mag. My beloved Prince was relegated to a small corner, and there was the killer in an orange jumpsuit with a photoshopped bouquet. I guess she now has star status with Drew Peterson and Scott Peterson, who graced many a rag-mag cover in their heyday as well. Yuck! Why? Why do we glorify murderers? I hope their sales drop. Only $2.99 (being sarcastic). And no, I didn't sneak read it in line.
    Also Steve, I wanted to "thank you" for your posts and insight in the previous thread as several posts were spot on. Sometimes my "Thank You" button works on this phone & sometimes it doesn't.
    And thanks to all the wonderful posters on this thread for being here to discuss this case that for some reason still has my interest. Yes H4M, my hubby looks at me weird too when he asks what I am reading and tell him it's about JA. I get an eye roll as he about faces out of the room.

  2. #32
    Madeleine74's Avatar
    Madeleine74 is online now Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,220
    Quote Originally Posted by TexMex View Post
    Travis May 26

    I'm addicted to it
    But it is bullshiz
    Yet I'm addicted to it
    And you know it
    And you know I will take you back
    You always know
    You know I'll get pissed but I'll take you back


    He also meant that. And he did take her back. Like his guilt and religion and "caregiver" type personality demanded IMO . She was in his home and in his bed June 4. Taking pictures of Jodi like he discussed May 10 This was due to a codependent toxic relationship with a sociopath. Jmo
    EXACTLY! And that's why it's important to understand Travis' role in all of this if one wants to understand the reality of the situation. I'm not into speculating people's feelings and thoughts or what they might have intended. I go with the evidence and where that evidence leads. And the evidence is pretty clear on matters in which both of these people were entwined in a dysfunctional, toxic, downspiraling situation. I don't think there can be many good outcomes when dealing with someone with BPD and narcissism; this would certainly count as the worst (just like Ryan Poston's murder -- check that one out if you want to see uncanny parallels with this case).

  3. #33
    Just as a minor aside, the pictures taken didn't reflect anything that was said on the "May 10" call.

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    EXACTLY! And that's why it's important to understand Travis' role in all of this if one wants to understand the reality of the situation. I'm not into speculating people's feelings and thoughts or what they might have intended. I go with the evidence and where that evidence leads. And the evidence is pretty clear on matters in which both of these people were entwined in a dysfunctional, toxic, downspiraling situation. I don't think there can be many good outcomes when dealing with someone with BPD and narcissism; this would certainly count as the worst (just like Ryan Poston's murder -- check that one out if you want to see uncanny parallels with this case).
    If you want to look just at the "facts," and leave aside all interpretations of feelings, intentions, and thoughts, then all you are left with is the fact that a handful of naked photos were taken that day in the early afternoon, none of them depicting actual sexual activity, and then hours later more photos of him were taken in the shower, then he was murdered.

    There are no other facts. There is no evidence about how she got into his house, whether or not he threatened to call the cops but didn't, how long she was there, why he let her stay in the house, whether or not he kicked her out only to have her return. No evidence. Just assumptions and speculation.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Great State of Texas
    Posts
    7,614
    Quote Originally Posted by Hope4More View Post
    Just as a minor aside, the pictures taken didn't reflect anything that was said on the "May 10" call.
    IMO they did. Just listened to it yesterday. Very similar. Especially the one of her on her back, face turned, jawline focus pic

    Corpus Christi, Texas

  6. #36
    Madeleine74's Avatar
    Madeleine74 is online now Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,220
    - I don't have to know how she got into his house that fateful day to know she in fact did get into his house.

    - There are time-stamped photos of the 2 of them, verified by testimony on the stand by a forensic examiner called by Juan. Good enough for me to know those photos were taken that day, again proving she was at TA's house the day he was killed.

    - It doesn't matter to me whether they had sex or not. I think they did (based on the circumstantial evidence of KY jelly, his erection, them being nude, that being what they usually did when the opportunity was present). The point is they were together that afternoon and she then killed him. Good enough to prove to me she was there at the scene.

    - Facts that prove she planned the murder far in advance were presented. Good enough for me to see that she did, in fact, pre-plan TA's murder and intended to kill him.

    - There is zero doubt that she killed him, she intended to kill him, she did kill him, she pre-planned it. There is zero doubt they had a dysfunctional relationship, she had one or more personality disorders, TA had his own issues, they were attracted to each other, and they had a semi-secret sexual relationship lasting over more than a year. All that proves killer and victim were in each other's orbit at various times.

    I don't need to imagine anything when all the facts line up to show who killed whom, on what day, at what time, with 2 weapons, the physical evidence that was there, etc. etc. I don't even know what's in dispute at this point. Oh wait. Travis' emails in which he used language that many of us saw as cruel or abusive. But that was not the totality of their exchanges, it only represented a part of it (a small part, perhaps).

    She's exactly where she needed to be and is, for life, without the chance at parole. I can live with that.

  7. #37
    Tex-- I'm typing up what's gonna meet your interpretation half way, maybe 3/4ths of the way. The last bit of the way...not.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    480
    Hope4More to TrialWatcher, yesterday:


    " I think it's plenty clear where I ended up on this, after going back and forth for a very long time. Hint- I didn't end up saying I didn't believe they had sex that day.



    It's not clear what your view is. That's why people have asked you to explain. It's a genuine wish to understand. Since I first noticed, you've appeared to not believe they had sex. Then you changed your mind - they did have sex. Followed by no sex - floated rape as a theory, Yesterday - you were hinting you believe they did have sex. Why hint? You are clear on most other things, why not this? You repeatedly say you don't want to discuss it then - discuss it. As below. Please try to understand why this is confusing?


    Hope4More, I have taken quotes most relevant here:

    "Nailing up final notice-- not going there again, even to explain that I'm not going there again. Do I believe they had sex on June 4? Consider me an agnostic. I think it is more likely that they did than they did not, but I wouldnít be the slightest bit surprised if evidence unexpectedly fell out of the sky and say, definitively proved that the timestamps on those photos couldnít possibly be accurate, or proved just as conclusively that one or more of the photos were taken on another day".

    An agnostic looks to be persuaded in the face of evidence (generally). You have claimed to not understand the technical details - from your own posts - regarding the timestamps and expert testimony on photographs. To not accept the evidence - or argue against it - it not something that makes sense to me when the strength of the photo evidence is overwhelming


    "The timestamped photos were extremely important to JMís case not because they showed the naked bodies of Travis and his murderer, but because they placed her in his house on the day he was murdered. Time stamped photos of the two sitting down and having tea would have accomplished that same purpose".


    Evidence of her being there was important. Juan detailed why. What they were doing is also relevant - as it shows a naked, graphic sexual intimacy .This doesn't fit with your theory on Travis having nothing to do with Arias. So, do you reject the evidence on the day or adjust the theory? You moved on to force or rape - despite there being a mountain of evidence suggesting anything but. Some of your points, I have no trouble agreeing with. Some of the psychological aspects too. Yet I think you are wrong on the draw of sex for Travis because the evidence presented by Juan Martinez was overwhelming. The texts support the sexual interaction evidence. The sex on the day and all interactions between them show that the pattern was not broken. She killed Travis before he could erode her from his life.


    "One is about being genuinely intimate and is a reflection of that intimacy, the other involves moving and fitting body parts and can mean so little as to take place between strangers who pay and are paid to partake. I donít see any indication of intimacy in those photos, or playfulness, or happiness, or enjoyment. Neither are even smiling. From the first time I made the mistake of looking at the photos of her nether regions, what Iíve sensed is the photographerís contempt or complete detachment. The photos are, IMO, completely devoid of sentimentality, much less of intimacy or affection."


    "If they had sex that day, it was for her an act of hostility. If they had sex that day, what was it for him?"

    The evidence shows sexual interaction. No one claimed they were 'making love". It was sex that Travis - in his own words and voice - weeks earlier had shown desire for. He thought Arias was hot. He thought pigtails were hot. A naked Arias - in pigtails was on his bed. You think Travis wasn't interested in the sex? I think he wasn't interested in having much more to do with Arias but the sex - he took it. It was there. No judgement on him for doing that.

    The reason I ever cared one way or another is because I couldnít connect the dots between May 26 and June 4. Made no sense to me, and I take no quarter with things that donít make sense to me.

    The dots were pretty easy to connect from the texts, emails and their toxic relationship. It makes perfect sense to me given his words. He did not cut her off. Fact. She was in his bedroom on June 4 - having sex. Fact. Undisputed fact by defence, two juries, Arias, Juan and Travis' family. The sexual interaction was proven to be true in a court of law. It's a fact. You say you have no quarter with things that don't make sense. I have tolerance for a range of opinions and theories. When they fly in the face of the evidence that convicted Arias of slaughter, I want to find out why. It makes sense to me to discuss June 4 in a way that allows everyone to contribute. Hinting, being cryptic or selective discussing - despite telling people there will be no discussion - doesn't make sense to me.
    Last edited by TrialWatcher; 05-11-2016 at 01:00 PM.

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    - I don't have to know how she got into his house that fateful day to know she in fact did get into his house.

    - There are time-stamped photos of the 2 of them, verified by testimony on the stand by a forensic examiner called by Juan. Good enough for me to know those photos were taken that day, again proving she was at TA's house the day he was killed.

    - It doesn't matter to me whether they had sex or not. I think they did (based on the circumstantial evidence of KY jelly, his erection, them being nude, that being what they usually did when the opportunity was present). The point is they were together that afternoon and she then killed him. Good enough to prove to me she was there at the scene.

    - Facts that prove she planned the murder far in advance were presented. Good enough for me to see that she did, in fact, pre-plan TA's murder and intended to kill him.

    - There is zero doubt that she killed him, she intended to kill him, she did kill him, she pre-planned it. There is zero doubt they had a dysfunctional relationship, she had one or more personality disorders, TA had his own issues, they were attracted to each other, and they had a semi-secret sexual relationship lasting over more than a year. All that proves killer and victim were in each other's orbit at various times.

    I don't need to imagine anything when all the facts line up to show who killed whom, on what day, at what time, with 2 weapons, the physical evidence that was there, etc. etc. I don't even know what's in dispute at this point. Oh wait. Travis' emails in which he used language that many of us saw as cruel or abusive. But that was not the totality of their exchanges, it only represented a part of it (a small part, perhaps).

    She's exactly where she needed to be and is, for life, without the chance at parole. I can live with that.

    You seem to have been spared the desire/interest/compulsion to try to puzzle through those thoughts, feelings, intentions, and bits of evidence that have kept many of us here for this long, occupied with doing just that. Lucky you?

    There's no disagreement to be had on anything relating to the big picture. JM saw to that.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    480
    Quote Originally Posted by TexMex View Post
    IMO they did. Just listened to it yesterday. Very similar. Especially the one of her on her back, face turned, jawline focus pic
    I agree. The pictures reflected much of what was said on May 10. Pigtails, hot. Graphically intimate photos taken by both of them. Travis being aroused. KY present.


  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    480
    Quote Originally Posted by Hope4More View Post
    If you want to look just at the "facts," and leave aside all interpretations of feelings, intentions, and thoughts, then all you are left with is the fact that a handful of naked photos were taken that day in the early afternoon, none of them depicting actual sexual activity, and then hours later more photos of him were taken in the shower, then he was murdered.

    There are no other facts. There is no evidence about how she got into his house, whether or not he threatened to call the cops but didn't, how long she was there, why he let her stay in the house, whether or not he kicked her out only to have her return. No evidence. Just assumptions and speculation.
    What is a fact? Is it an undisputed, proven by a court of law, graphic, photographed, sexual interaction? Yes. Was that fact backed by evidence and a sequence of recorded discussions and writings by the given parties? To claim that they didn't show sexual activity is opinion that flies in the face of the facts.

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by TrialWatcher View Post
    Hope4More to TrialWatcher, yesterday:


    " I think it's plenty clear where I ended up on this, after going back and forth for a very long time. Hint- I didn't end up saying I didn't believe they had sex that day.



    It's not clear what your view is. That's why people have asked you to explain. It's a genuine wish to understand. Since I first noticed, you've appeared to not believe they had sex. Then you changed your mind - they did have sex. Followed by no sex - floated rape as a theory, Yesterday - you were hinting you believe they did have sex. Why hint? You are clear on most other things, why not this? You repeatedly say you don't want to discuss it then - discuss it. As below. Please try to understand why this is confusing?


    Hope4More, I have taken quotes most relevant here:

    "Nailing up final notice-- not going there again, even to explain that I'm not going there again. Do I believe they had sex on June 4? Consider me an agnostic. I think it is more likely that they did than they did not, but I wouldnít be the slightest bit surprised if evidence unexpectedly fell out of the sky and say, definitively proved that the timestamps on those photos couldnít possibly be accurate, or proved just as conclusively that one or more of the photos were taken on another day".

    An agnostic looks to be persuaded in the face of evidence (generally). You have claimed to not understand the technical details - from your own posts - regarding the timestamps and expert testimony on photographs. To not accept the evidence - or argue against it - it not something that makes sense to me when the strength of the photo evidence is overwhelming


    "The timestamped photos were extremely important to JMís case not because they showed the naked bodies of Travis and his murderer, but because they placed her in his house on the day he was murdered. Time stamped photos of the two sitting down and having tea would have accomplished that same purpose".


    Evidence of her being there was important. Juan detailed why. What they were doing is also relevant - as it shows a naked, graphic sexual intimacy .This doesn't fit with your theory on Travis having nothing to do with Arias. So, do you reject the evidence on the day or adjust the theory? You moved on to force or rape - despite there being a mountain of evidence suggesting anything but. Some of your points, I have no trouble agreeing with. Some of the psychological aspects too. Yet I think you are wrong on the draw of sex for Travis because the evidence presented by Juan Martinez was overwhelming. The texts support the sexual interaction evidence. The sex on the day and all interactions between them show that the pattern was not broken. She killed Travis before he could erode her from his life.


    "One is about being genuinely intimate and is a reflection of that intimacy, the other involves moving and fitting body parts and can mean so little as to take place between strangers who pay and are paid to partake. I donít see any indication of intimacy in those photos, or playfulness, or happiness, or enjoyment. Neither are even smiling. From the first time I made the mistake of looking at the photos of her nether regions, what Iíve sensed is the photographerís contempt or complete detachment. The photos are, IMO, completely devoid of sentimentality, much less of intimacy or affection."


    "If they had sex that day, it was for her an act of hostility. If they had sex that day, what was it for him?"

    The evidence shows sexual interaction. No one claimed they were 'making love". It was sex that Travis - in his own words and voice - weeks earlier had shown desire for. He thought Arias was hot. He thought pigtails were hot. A naked Arias - in pigtails was on his bed. You think Travis wasn't interested in the sex? I think he wasn't interested in having much more to do with Arias but the sex - he took it. It was there. No judgement on him for doing that.

    The reason I ever cared one way or another is because I couldnít connect the dots between May 26 and June 4. Made no sense to me, and I take no quarter with things that donít make sense to me.

    The dots were pretty easy to connect from the texts, emails and their toxic relationship. It makes perfect sense to me given his words. He did not cut her off. Fact. She was in his bedroom on June 4 - having sex. Fact. Undisputed fact by defence, two juries, Arias, Juan and Travis' family. The sexual interaction was proven to be true in a court of law. It's a fact. You say you have no quarter with things that don't make sense. I have tolerance for a range of opinions and theories. When they fly in the face of the evidence that convicted Arias of slaughter, I want to find out why. It makes sense to me to discuss June 4 in a way that allows everyone to contribute. Hinting, being cryptic or selective discussing - despite telling people there will be no discussion - doesn't make sense to me.
    Trial- as evidenced by my taking a huge amount of time to reply to Steve, I have no problem explaining what I think and why I think it, and I was willing to do that, despite the topic, because Steve obviously was curious how I got from point A to point B. He and I disagree on some points; that exchange wasn't about the disagreements, or about arguing specific details, it was about understanding why each thought as we did.

    It is that kind of exchange that I appreciate most because it gives me the opportunity to learn, and to see things from another perspective.

    Agnostic means I'm not 100% sure and could be convinced to believe yes or no, provided with what I consider conclusive evidence. Changing one's mind based on new evidence or persuasive interpretations of evidence is, in both my profession and world view, an indication of intellectual honesty, a willingness to keep an open mind. I consider it a good thing, both for myself, and in others.
    Last edited by Hope4More; 05-11-2016 at 01:30 PM.

  13. #43
    Madeleine74's Avatar
    Madeleine74 is online now Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Hope4More View Post
    You seem to have been spared the desire/interest/compulsion to try to puzzle through those thoughts, feelings, intentions, and bits of evidence that have kept many of us here for this long, occupied with doing just that. Lucky you?

    There's no disagreement to be had on anything relating to the big picture. JM saw to that.
    This case reminds me of some other cases. In and of itself it's not the big mystery to me as it has been to others. I can't possibly know what went through anyone else's mind, speaking of the people involved in the case, unless they specifically told/tell us. I'm not a mind reader and I don't feel a compulsion to try and guess either, it's because I like answers, not guesses. Some things cannot be known and I can live with that. In the end it is what it is. Maybe someone else will learn from this case, but probably not many.

    Arias doesn't scare me like she does others here. She's like any other premeditated first degree killer--they're all dangerous in their own way. As long as society is safe from a killer, then that's all I can hope for. Can't bring back any of the dead and spending time hating her is energy I don't have to expend. For instance, if JA's mug is on a tabloid in the store, 99% of the time I don't even notice it or give it a 2nd thought--I look past her as if she doesn't exist. She holds no place in my brain, outside of the times I've participated in these various threads. I've never found her interesting; in fact I couldn't bear to watch most of her testimony because it/she was so deadly dull. She really is out of sight/out of mind for me. The sentence she got was the exact sentence I always thought she'd get, there was zero fear of her getting anything less. My feelings about or towards her felt a lot like how Juan described his feelings. For him it was another case, not terribly unlike other cases, just a longer one. He wasted no energy on the murderess--she didn't fascinate him or scare him either. Just another disordered person who killed and who needed to be convicted.
    Last edited by Madeleine74; 05-11-2016 at 01:58 PM.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Great State of Texas
    Posts
    7,614
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    This case reminds me of some other cases. In and of itself it's not the big mystery to me as it has been to others. I can't possibly know what went through anyone else's mind, speaking of the people involved in the case, unless they specifically told/tell us. I'm not a mind reader and I don't feel a compulsion to try and guess either, it's because I like answers, not guesses. Some things cannot be known and I can live with that. In the end it is what it is. Maybe someone else will learn from this case, but probably not many.

    Arias doesn't scare me like she does others here. She's like any other premeditated first degree killer--they're all dangerous in their own way. As long as society is safe from a killer, then that's all I can hope for. Can't bring back any of the dead and spending time hating her is energy I don't have to expend. For instance, if JA's mug is on a tabloid in the store, 99% of the time I don't even notice it or give it a 2nd thought--I look past her as if she doesn't exist. She holds no place in my brain, outside of the times I've participated in these various threads. I've never found her interesting; in fact I couldn't bear to watch most of her testimony because it/she was so deadly dull. She really is out of sight/out of mind for me. The sentence she got was the exact sentence I always thought she'd get, there was zero fear of her getting anything less. My feelings about or towards her felt a lot like how Juan described his feelings. For him it was another case, not terribly unlike other cases, just a longer one. He wasted no energy on the murderess--she didn't fascinate him or scare him either. Just another disordered person who killed and who needed to be convicted.
    Well said. It's a waste of energy hating her or calling her names. The thing that I take away from this is educating people on how to spot the "Jodi" that may be their coworker, their boyfriend, their daughter or in my case..our son's girlfriend. I happened to be watching this trial while a sociopath was breaking in to my sons home. She slashed his tires. She lied, manipulated, fabricated etc. We really knew something was wrong but after hearing DeMarte testify it was clear we were dealing with a borderline and NPD person. Further education led to a strategy of separating our son and grandson from this insanity. I honestly feel she could have hurt someone if things progressed any further.

    So if we can understand the dynamics of the behavior disorders and recognize the signs then keep them away some good can come from this trial.

    The Shayna Hubers reference was spot on by the way.

    “He says he is only with me [because] I make him feel so awful when I cry,” Hubers wrote. “My love has turned to hate.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/shocking-th...ry?id=31500565

    Corpus Christi, Texas

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    This case reminds me of some other cases. In and of itself it's not the big mystery to me as it has been to others. I can't possibly know what went through anyone else's mind, speaking of the people involved in the case, unless they specifically told/tell us. I'm not a mind reader and I don't feel a compulsion to try and guess either, it's because I like answers, not guesses. Some things cannot be known and I can live with that. In the end it is what it is. Maybe someone else will learn from this case, but probably not many.

    Arias doesn't scare me like she does others here. She's like any other premeditated first degree killer--they're all dangerous in their own way. As long as society is safe from a killer, then that's all I can hope for. Can't bring back any of the dead and spending time hating her is energy I don't have to expend. For instance, if JA's mug is on a tabloid in the store, 99% of the time I don't even notice it or give it a 2nd thought--I look past her as if she doesn't exist. She holds no place in my brain, outside of the times I've participated in these various threads. I've never found her interesting; in fact I couldn't bear to watch most of her testimony because it/she was so deadly dull. She really is out of sight/out of mind for me. The sentence she got was the exact sentence I always thought she'd get, there was zero fear of her getting anything less. My feelings about or towards her felt a lot like how Juan described his feelings. For him it was another case, not terribly unlike other cases, just a longer one. He wasted no energy on the murderess--she didn't fascinate him or scare him either. Just another disordered person who killed and who needed to be convicted.

    POS "Haters" can readily be found on Twitter, even now, but I haven't encountered any here.

    Personally, I find sociopaths fascinating, intellectually, and at a more primal level, disturbing; predators can have that effect.

    It's the expression of psychopathy I find interesting, not necessarily the person. In this case, I agree that the POS is profoundly boring otherwise. Her journals were nothing less than a chore to read- not an original thought to be found in them.

    I agree that the case itself for JM was just another case, but he's made it pretty clear he thought the POS was in fact not in the least an ordinary defendant. He's called her the "most sophisticated" defendant he has ever encountered on the stand, and has even said he thought she could have bested him on cross had he not been adequately forewarned of her "gifts" and prepared.

    Me, post-trial, I've found it immensely satisfying to dig through what wasn't available at trial and puzzle the pieces, not only to uncover her lies, but as a way of understanding more about the why of what happened. Doesn't change a thing, but as you said, nothing changes the basic realities of any murder case.

Page 3 of 112 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 103 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #8
    By Coldpizza in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias
    Replies: 573
    Last Post: Yesterday, 10:53 PM
  2. Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #6
    By KateB in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias
    Replies: 1416
    Last Post: 05-10-2016, 02:19 PM
  3. Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #5
    By KateB in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias
    Replies: 1647
    Last Post: 03-26-2016, 09:56 PM
  4. Sentencing and beyond- Jodi Arias General Discussion #4
    By KateB in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias
    Replies: 1253
    Last Post: 02-11-2016, 09:48 PM
  5. Sentencing and beyond- Jodi Arias General Discussion #3
    By KateB in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias
    Replies: 1365
    Last Post: 01-10-2016, 11:35 PM

Tags for this Thread