Why was Karr so important to Lacy??

Wood also pointed out that unidentified DNA was also recovered from beneath JonBenet's fingernails on both hands. But investigators have long said that contamination problems render those samples of little value. A Rocky Mountain News Exclusive by Charlie Brennan
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-DNA.htm
 
Nope.....the killer has been identified by the DNA---especially the touch DNA which matches the other DNA. There just isn't a name attached to the DNA, which could indicate it was no one close to the family. That's sufficent for me---there is no innocent explanation for the same DNA being found in multiple locations.

Maikai,
I note you do not address my questions to you about what you describe as DNA forensic evidence. This I will assume is due to ignorance on your part.

No person has been identified as the owner of DNA found on JonBenet, from this it follows, as night follows day, that you cannot prove that the owner of said DNA killed JonBenet.


That's sufficent for me---there is no innocent explanation for the same DNA being found in multiple locations.
Since you are so ignorant about the type of DNA found on JonBenet's person, why should anyone give any credence to your opinion.

There are multiple possible innocent explanations why there might be the same DNA found at different locations on JonBenet.

As an IDI you really do not have a coherent theory, you should just stick to opining that the parents are innocent and leave it at that.


.
 
I assume you're English so I'll give you a pass in your condescending tone. There was dna mixed in blood found on JBR's panties. The same DNA was found under her fingernails, although I believe it was degraded.

You can't explain away the touch DNA. It was found in pertinent locations on her underwear---areas where the perp would have used pressure. The DNA was a problem with the Grand Jury and I think it was an issue with Scheck---he was totally silent about his opinion, but it stands to reason that his whole innocence project is based on DNA, so I doubt he would have been a good witness. Besides which, both him and Lee were primarily hired so the Ramseys couldn't hire them. Neither one did that much in the case. After the Grand Jury raised the issue, the police were running around collecting DNA--trying to explain it away---they were not successful.

The Grand Jury did not have expertise in DNA....but several were educated and were in fields where analytical research was required. This wasn't a dum dum redneck jury that would convict a ham sandwich. I would expect that in Boulder---they have a higher education rate than many cities.

Maikai,
I assume you're English so I'll give you a pass in your condescending tone. There was dna mixed in blood found on JBR's panties. The same DNA was found under her fingernails, although I believe it was degraded.
Thanks for the language pass, the condescension is actually debate, your oblique attempt at ad hominem is noted.

So you have no answer to the DNA questions I posed, again I will assume this is due to ignorance on your part, and not due to any lack of linguistic development on your behalf?

You can't explain away the touch DNA.
Of course you can, its obvious that your lack of knowledge, will not allow for other explanations.

The Grand Jury did not have expertise in DNA....
I have no further questions for these witnesses.

....but several were educated and were in fields where analytical research was required.
So what. The jury are entitled to form any conclusions they care, but they will not be professional, informed decisions.

I understand scientific and medical procedure, and recommend that you should undertake trepanning to release a serious build up of noxious gases in your cranium, which might affect your cognitive abilities on internet discussion boards.


.
 
Nope.....the killer has been identified by the DNA---especially the touch DNA which matches the other DNA. There just isn't a name attached to the DNA, which could indicate it was no one close to the family. That's sufficent for me---there is no innocent explanation for the same DNA being found in multiple locations.

The killer has NOT been identified. Identifying the killer means NAMING the killer. Do you honestly not understand that?
There are plenty of other explanations for the DNA.

As for Smit- remember he did NOT solve this case. He was not there and does not know who killed JB anymore than we do. He based his opinions purely on the fact that the R were Christians like him. Christians kill. So do Jews. And every other religious denomination on the planet. Religious affiliation is not a pass on the ability to commit murder.
Smit said a lot of things that are NOT facts, the ridiculous suitcase being used to climb on was one of them. Smit doesn't know what happened that night. FW said he moved the suitcase to its position under the window and Smit completely ignored that FACT.
BOTH parents admitted touching her underwear waistband. Patsy said she put the longjohns on her, and JR carried her up (with witnesses) with his hands around her waistband, and the panty waistband is right there next to the longjohns waistband. If those skin cells were on either parents' hands, that is one way to account for the skin cells being on both garments.
We don't know exactly how it got there, but to say that there is no other explanation other than the killer left it defies belief. It is simply untrue.
If I had to pick one parent, I'd say JR left the skin cells, simply because he would have likely touched the panty waistband when he was carrying her, and his shirt fibers were INSIDE the panty crotch, leading me to believe he put them on her or wiped her down, possibly with that shirt.
 
Roy23,
Dont go there pal! If you know so much about the DNA, tell the board what type it is: Semen, Saliva?

Any IDI must demonstrate that the DNA found on JonBenet arrived there via some other route than via another Ramsey. There were four in the house at one point, all are potential vehicles for DNA transfer.

IDI must identify DNA from a known suspect and demonstrate that this suspect has no alibi for the night JonBenet was killed.

Simply identifying a suspect is not sufficient since there may an innocent explanation for the DNA, e.g. environmental cross-transfer.

RDI has more evidence than IDI, since IDI theories offer no evidence at all, that is zero because there was no intruder!

The DA has not told us if there is any Ramsey DNA on JonBenet, particularly on her groin region, how come, is it a secret?


.



UKGuy,

There is one particular point that I think you keep missing. IDI doesn't have to demonstrate anything. This is the United States of America and we have laws that put all burden of proof on the State. The State has all the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt RDI. Not IDI.

And seriously forget about me and what I think. The State itself, the one's who can prove your RDI beliefs, either believe the Ramsey's are innocent or most likely innocent. And hey lets just forget about that Mary Lacey says about it. The Boulder mouthpiece, Chief Beckner, says it.

So I would refrain from using the word ignorant at us IDI's so often. We can respect that you feel very passionate about your belief. But the word Ignorant seems kind of strong when the very people you put your hope in have changed their view, put DNA in the stringent Codis databank, etc.
 
This is like having a battle of the facts with unarmed people (IDI). You should know your facts, have links and be convincing, anything other then that is a waste of time, yours and ours.

Until very recently touch DNA was not even allowed into court. Many countries still dont allow it. In fact touch dna is used more often in clearing someone of a crime then it is in aiding in a guilty verdict (unless there is enough corroborating evidence to support it). Its not reliable enough, what with the very real possibility of contamination. The possibilities of secondary or even further transfers are to high. This leaves a guilty verdict based on Touch DNA open for appeal (which is what the Rs would have done had this gone the other way). Dont worry, I came armed..

So lets say the Rs are at the Ws Christmas party, shaking hands, hugging, touching serving spoons and plates, making drinks and taking drinks handed to them, opening gifts (gifts that had been in stores, touched by how many people I cant even guess, wrapped in paper also from a store and you get the idea, its limitless)... There was so much transfer that night you probably could have made a whole human being from it. The point is, it doesnt matter that it was there, its not even a big deal that it was, what does matter however is how it got there, you have to know that before you can say that it belongs to a killer. Until you know that, its just as likely to be innocent transfer. Its a 50/50 shot and with all the other evidence taken into consideration I'd say IDI's shot is about as big as the samples that were tested...

Touch DNA
Edited by Dr. Maher Noureddine, forensic DNA expert

So, when the SBI lab or investigators refer to “touch DNA,” you should think – very small amounts of DNA. With “touch DNA,” physical contact is sometimes assumed or hypothesized. Therefore, you should also think about the physical environment from which this evidence was collected. Always consider alternative explanations for why someone’s DNA would be expected to be found in a given area or on a given surface.

Because such a small amount of evidence is being analyzed (as few as 5-10 cells) contamination and transfer of DNA are issues that should be considered through each step in the analysis. Evidence collection , extraction of DNA, amplification and interpretation are four areas where attorneys should be aware of possible problems. http://ncforensics.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/touch-dna/


Touch DNA Resources

As to how likely it is that an innocent touch of a person or object will result in a DNA transfer, the variables are numerous. In fact, some individuals just tend to ‘shed’ their DNA more than others. This can be a biological variable or behavioral (think more sweating, more face rubbing, etc.). All things being equal….the more time a person is in contact with something, the more DNA they will likely deposit. However, consider an example of two people, each wearing a different ski mask for the same period of time. Will they leave the same amount of DNA? Of course not.

To demonstrate how easily DNA can transfer via innocent means, one need look no further than the forensic DNA laboratory. Extraordinary measures are used to ensure that among other things, the analyst’s DNA does not contaminate evidence they are working on. I can tell you that it happens, and more often than you might think. It does not mean that the analyst is terrible, it is just a testament to the ubiquitous nature of DNA and how easily it can be transferred. Of course, if this is occurring in laboratories, remedial steps must occur to limit the chances of it happening again.
http://forensicdnaconsulting.wordpress.com/

More Follows..............
 
Science and Society
Feature
Anything you touch may be used against you
Philip Hunter1
1Philip Hunter is a freelance journalist in London, UK.


SNIP

The Forbes appeal coincided with a paper published by the Australian Institute of Criminology, which stated that DNA evidence made convictions 33 times more likely in sexual assault cases (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2010). The paper also found that jurors were generally more likely to convict based on DNA evidence even though they often did not understand the science involved. The authors even suggested that the safety of these verdicts might be compromised by widespread misconceptions about the infallibility of DNA evidence by jurors who are “overawed by the scientific garb in which the evidence is presented and attach greater weight to it than it is capable of bearing.” If successful, Forbes' appeal could have a profound impact on the use of DNA evidence in court if jurors lose confidence in its infallibility. But the setback is likely to be only temporary, and might lead to greater discrimination in the application of DNA evidence.

If successful, Forbes' appeal could have a profound impact on the use of DNA evidence in court if jurors lose confidence in its infallibility

The controversy has arisen partly out of confusion between the use of DNA profiling as an investigative tool and as evidence in court. Its power as an investigative tool continues to increase, but its reliability as evidence will always vary depending on the exact nature of the DNA profile obtained and the state of the sample from which it was derived. The very fact that it is possible to obtain DNA profiles from degraded samples means that there are borderline cases in which the accuracy of DNA profiles is doubtful.

Snip

Having more loci increases the statistical power of DNA matching as a tool and decreases the chance of suspects being falsely identified. But other factors play a role too, notably the state of the sample. The older and more degraded the biological material is, the less loci can be amplified and the higher the risk of laboratory error. In such cases, the actual probability of a match between the partial DNA profile and an entry in a DNA database is a matter of intelligent guesswork; in fact this is the reason why the Forbes case was appealed.

There is also considerable risk arising from basic laboratory errors, as the hunt for the elusive ‘phantom of Heilbronn' demonstrated. For years, German, French and Austrian police investigators pursued a female suspect who, according to DNA evidence, had committed dozens of crimes and several murders over the course of 14 years including shooting two police officers in Heilbronn in 2007. Eventually, however, they discovered that the DNA profile retrieved from 40 crime scenes in three countries actually came from an employee of the Austrian company that produced the swabs police used to take samples at the crime scenes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892330/
 
I'm only using this for the DNA info and not inserting another case on Jonbenets board..

[COLOR="red"]Touch DNA test would not have helped in Aarushi case: Expert[/COLOR]

Aarushi, the daughter of dentist parents Rajesh and Nupur Talwar, was found murdered mysteriously in their Jalvayu Vihar apartment in Delhi's suburban Noida May 16, 2008. The family's domestic help, Hemraj, whom Noida police initially suspected for the murder, was also found killed a day later on their flat's terrace.

Aarushi's father was arrested and kept behind bars for 50 days in connection with the two killings, but he was later let off because of lack of evidence against him.

According to Nagaraju, the touch DNA test was not the best option for solving the Aarushi case.

"In touch DNA analysis, the DNA is amplified from a small sample which is left from the human body on objects on the crime scene. From the small sample, the DNA is amplified and a profile is prepared," Nagaraju said.

Unlike the normal DNA test which takes a larger sample of cells, the touch DNA test requires only seven or eight cells from the outermost layer of skin.

"Though the technique is simple, the method of collecting sample is critical. The chances of contamination are high," he said.


"If someone else has touched the object (from which skin cells are lifted), their DNA will also be amplified and it will be difficult to zero in on the criminal. So it is not a very robust method of getting evidence," he said.

The scientist said because of these complications attached to the test, it would not have proved a good method for finding evidence in Aarushi case.

"This case was transferred from one agency to the other, so it was difficult to get any conclusion based on this test," he said.

CDFD director J. Gowrishankar had earlier expressed difficulty in collecting evidence through various conventional tests - other than touch DNA - conducted on objects found on the crime scene.

"The CBI had asked us to inspect various articles that were found in the flat. None of them gave any evidence to link the suspect, whom the CBI had in their mind, to the crime," Gowrishankar said Wednesday.

Nagaraju added that the touch DNA test could be challenged in court.
http://twocircles.net/2010dec30/touch_dna_test_would_not_have_helped_aarushi_case_expert.html
 
UKGuy,

There is one particular point that I think you keep missing. IDI doesn't have to demonstrate anything. This is the United States of America and we have laws that put all burden of proof on the State. The State has all the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt RDI. Not IDI.

And seriously forget about me and what I think. The State itself, the one's who can prove your RDI beliefs, either believe the Ramsey's are innocent or most likely innocent. And hey lets just forget about that Mary Lacey says about it. The Boulder mouthpiece, Chief Beckner, says it.

So I would refrain from using the word ignorant at us IDI's so often. We can respect that you feel very passionate about your belief. But the word Ignorant seems kind of strong when the very people you put your hope in have changed their view, put DNA in the stringent Codis databank, etc.

Roy23,
There is one particular point that I think you keep missing. this is Websleuths Internet Discussion Board, not the USofA. If you wish to prosecute a particular theory, then you must offer evidence to back it up, to date I have seen no evidence that backs up any IDI claims.

e.g. its simply circumstantial, and may not even turn out to be important in evidential terms!


So I would refrain from using the word ignorant at us IDI's so often.
I use it in a technical sense, I'll be using it again shortly, since all IDI claims seem to based on this assumption.

As per other IDI's I note you do not answer questions relating to the DNA, but address ad hominem remarks to me!

put DNA in the stringent Codis databank, etc.
Once the person who owns the said DNA is identified and its shown he/she has no alibi for the night JonBenet was killed, then I'll start taking an IDI theory seriously.

Until then RDI is the most coherent theory out there, since most of the forensic evidence links the parents to the crime-scene, one which Patsy Ramsey stated she never visited.

And the parents have a motive for killing JonBenet. As yet I have seen no motive offered by any IDI theory!


.
 
DNA evidence powerful, but not always the full story
Police drop charges against Minneapolis man rape victim knew



DNA can be critical evidence to connect defendants to victims in some cases, said Stephen Cribari, a law professor at the University of Minnesota. But it doesn't prove when or how the evidence was placed there.

"There may be a lot of innocent explanations for its presence," Cribari said. "How do you know when it happened? DNA is just one piece of evidence. It may be a very important piece, but it's one piece."
http://www.bioforensics.com/news/MN_rape_10-09-1.html
 
Roy23,
There is one particular point that I think you keep missing. this is Websleuths Internet Discussion Board, not the USofA. If you wish to prosecute a particular theory, then you must offer evidence to back it up, to date I have seen no evidence that backs up any IDI claims.

e.g. its simply circumstantial, and may not even turn out to be important in evidential terms!



I use it in a technical sense, I'll be using it again shortly, since all IDI claims seem to based on this assumption.

As per other IDI's I note you do not answer questions relating to the DNA, but address ad hominem remarks to me!


Once the person who owns the said DNA is identified and its shown he/she has no alibi for the night JonBenet was killed, then I'll start taking an IDI theory seriously.

Until then RDI is the most coherent theory out there, since most of the forensic evidence links the parents to the crime-scene, one which Patsy Ramsey stated she never visited.

And the parents have a motive for killing JonBenet. As yet I have seen no motive offered by any IDI theory!


.



IDI is a theory based on deductive reasoning. We don't need a suspect, or a motive. We don't have to have that. We especially don't need it when LE more than likely is the reason no intruder evidence was found. That possibility alone should limit RDI's tooting their horn so loudly since they even allowed cleanup of the residence.

RDI took their shot and couldn't make it stick. I realize all the RDI Boulder and Federal Gov't conspiricies, and how all the Ramsey wielded so much power theories have been spoken on.

The biggest thing though UK is that Boulder Govt in recent years have said some really important things. And you guys and gals ain't listening. They are not going to spoon feed it to you. You got to read between the lines. But of course you are not going to do that.

And one more thing, I don't have a problem with the DNA. RDI does. I hope they find who's it is. But you seem to think that is my problem. It's yours, trust me on that.
 
IDI is a theory based on deductive reasoning. We don't need a suspect, or a motive. We don't have to have that. We especially don't need it when LE more than likely is the reason no intruder evidence was found. That possibility alone should limit RDI's tooting their horn so loudly since they even allowed cleanup of the residence.

RDI took their shot and couldn't make it stick. I realize all the RDI Boulder and Federal Gov't conspiricies, and how all the Ramsey wielded so much power theories have been spoken on.

The biggest thing though UK is that Boulder Govt in recent years have said some really important things. And you guys and gals ain't listening. They are not going to spoon feed it to you. You got to read between the lines. But of course you are not going to do that.

And one more thing, I don't have a problem with the DNA. RDI does. I hope they find who's it is. But you seem to think that is my problem. It's yours, trust me on that.


Roy23,
We don't need a suspect, or a motive. We don't have to have that. We especially don't need it
Arguing from a postion where there is an absence of information, evidence or knowledge, is no basis for any theory inductive or deductive.

Such theories are usually termed pseudo-scientific at best since they fall on a continum between hard fact and speculation, and at worst a delusion.

And you guys and gals ain't listening. ... You got to read between the lines.
As usual your argument proceeds from an assumption of ignorance, here of course its not your own, but that of others.

Then again I have to remind you IDI as a theory has no forensic evidence that links to anyone outside of the Ramsey household. Yet we have numerous items linking the parents to the crime-scene, this makes them prime suspects!


.
 
Roy23,

Arguing from a postion where there is an absence of information, evidence or knowledge, is no basis for any theory inductive or deductive.

Such theories are usually termed pseudo-scientific at best since they fall on a continum between hard fact and speculation, and at worst a delusion.


As usual your argument proceeds from an assumption of ignorance, here of course its not your own, but that of others.

Then again I have to remind you IDI as a theory has no forensic evidence that links to anyone outside of the Ramsey household. Yet we have numerous items linking the parents to the crime-scene, this makes them prime suspects!


.



So my assumptions are ignorant because I have the DA and Police Chief saying that finding the source of the DNA is the key to finding JBR's killer. Rather I should come up with my own theory like you have since obviously you and I know more than the investigators and prosecutors in this case.

I am picturing you with your tin foil hat on reading articles and thinking you are learning. In this case, sometimes reading can make you ignorant. The reason is that somewhere on the internet there is information counter arguing what you would have just read.

I am going to listen to the Mark Beckner's of the world. I know I should listen to you instead but I just can't help it.
 
I wear a coat hanger with tin foil on the ends of it when I read articles and post them, so whats the point? We shouldnt read and research? WTF is that? I need to go now an clear all the books and articles out of my house so my kids dont look stupid....
 
Is anybody talking to you?


I'm sorry, I must have picked your signal up on my hanger antenna and thought someone was talking to me. I'm sure that you can understand the confusion... Well back to my hole while I wait for someone to talk to me, so I can post. Can someone direct me to rule that says you have to be spoken to in order to speak? I know where the one is that states no personal attacks....
 
I'm sorry, I must have picked your signal up on my hanger antenna and thought someone was talking to me. I'm sure that you can understand the confusion... Well back to my hole while I wait for someone to talk to me, so I can post. Can someone direct me to rule that says you have to be spoken to in order to speak? I know where the one is that states no personal attacks....



I know you know where that one is. That is precisely why I know debating with you is not a good idea. So before you press that button, please know I have no intention of saying anything that you might be a personal attack.
 
I know you know where that one is. That is precisely why I know debating with you is not a good idea. So before you press that button, please know I have no intention of saying anything that you might be a personal attack.


I have never reported someone for personal attack and if I recall, no one has been in trouble for personal attack on me. So thats unfair Roy. For the record, I wasnt debating with you either. I was simply shocked by a post that I read and the personal attack that came from it. Sorry, you dont like to debate with me, but Im a strong woman that comes prepared and armed and I know thats intimidating. Its okay, plenty of other folks that aint skeered... So if you dont mind, back to whats important here and thats Jonbenet and the prevention of misinformation...
 
Science and Society
Feature
Anything you touch may be used against you
Philip Hunter1
1Philip Hunter is a freelance journalist in London, UK.


SNIP

The Forbes appeal coincided with a paper published by the Australian Institute of Criminology, which stated that DNA evidence made convictions 33 times more likely in sexual assault cases (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2010). The paper also found that jurors were generally more likely to convict based on DNA evidence even though they often did not understand the science involved. The authors even suggested that the safety of these verdicts might be compromised by widespread misconceptions about the infallibility of DNA evidence by jurors who are “overawed by the scientific garb in which the evidence is presented and attach greater weight to it than it is capable of bearing.” If successful, Forbes' appeal could have a profound impact on the use of DNA evidence in court if jurors lose confidence in its infallibility. But the setback is likely to be only temporary, and might lead to greater discrimination in the application of DNA evidence.

If successful, Forbes' appeal could have a profound impact on the use of DNA evidence in court if jurors lose confidence in its infallibility

The controversy has arisen partly out of confusion between the use of DNA profiling as an investigative tool and as evidence in court. Its power as an investigative tool continues to increase, but its reliability as evidence will always vary depending on the exact nature of the DNA profile obtained and the state of the sample from which it was derived. The very fact that it is possible to obtain DNA profiles from degraded samples means that there are borderline cases in which the accuracy of DNA profiles is doubtful.

Snip

Having more loci increases the statistical power of DNA matching as a tool and decreases the chance of suspects being falsely identified. But other factors play a role too, notably the state of the sample. The older and more degraded the biological material is, the less loci can be amplified and the higher the risk of laboratory error. In such cases, the actual probability of a match between the partial DNA profile and an entry in a DNA database is a matter of intelligent guesswork; in fact this is the reason why the Forbes case was appealed.

There is also considerable risk arising from basic laboratory errors, as the hunt for the elusive ‘phantom of Heilbronn' demonstrated. For years, German, French and Austrian police investigators pursued a female suspect who, according to DNA evidence, had committed dozens of crimes and several murders over the course of 14 years including shooting two police officers in Heilbronn in 2007. Eventually, however, they discovered that the DNA profile retrieved from 40 crime scenes in three countries actually came from an employee of the Austrian company that produced the swabs police used to take samples at the crime scenes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892330/

Agatha_C,
There is also considerable risk arising from basic laboratory errors, as the hunt for the elusive ‘phantom of Heilbronn' demonstrated. For years, German, French and Austrian police investigators pursued a female suspect who, according to DNA evidence, had committed dozens of crimes and several murders over the course of 14 years including shooting two police officers in Heilbronn in 2007. Eventually, however, they discovered that the DNA profile retrieved from 40 crime scenes in three countries actually came from an employee of the Austrian company that produced the swabs police used to take samples at the crime scenes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892330/

LGC are a private forensic testing centre in the UK.
The LGC errors included the contamination between two samples in a lab. In one rape case it led to a false finding linking an innocent man to the crime scene. It was revealed last week the company also accidentally created a non-existent suspect during the inquiry into Gareth Williams, the MI6 worker whose body was found inside a bag at his London flat – leading police up a blind alley for more than a year.
Although sometimes with security cases you wonder if evidence has been deliberately deposited or removed? Nobody knows how this guy died, or when, only that he was found inside a locked holdall bag!

This is one case that is not being given widespread publicity!


.
 
I'm sorry, I must have picked your signal up on my hanger antenna and thought someone was talking to me. I'm sure that you can understand the confusion... Well back to my hole while I wait for someone to talk to me, so I can post. Can someone direct me to rule that says you have to be spoken to in order to speak? I know where the one is that states no personal attacks....

Agatha_C,
LOL, turn your coat-hanger slightly more to the left, you can pick the Do Not Post rules up there:
emotbanghead.gif
 
Agatha_C,
LOL, turn your coat-hanger slightly more to the left, you can pick the Do Not Post rules up there:
emotbanghead.gif


Thanks UK! Hope you brought your secret decoder ring for reading in-between the lines because whats written in ink on reports and studies is not going to teach you anything.... Its all between the lines.....

Oh wow, I turned my antenna to the left and Im picking up a soccer game in Sao Paulo need to go....
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
170
Guests online
2,188
Total visitors
2,358

Forum statistics

Threads
589,978
Messages
17,928,611
Members
228,028
Latest member
Kac1991
Back
Top