Websleuths
Go Back   Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community > Featured Case Discussion > JonBenet Ramsey

Notices

JonBenet Ramsey What really happened to 6 year old JonBenet? Someone is getting away with murder. All information posted on this site is gained through published documentation on this case. It is strictly opinion only.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-22-2005, 06:30 AM
Jayelles's Avatar
Jayelles Jayelles is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 2,389
Missing Cell Phone records

Apparently there were no recorded calls on a Ramsey cell phone for the month of December 1996. Is this odd?

Over the years, I have looked at different perpectives of this:-

December is a busy month for cell phone usage:-
- more people go shopping than at any other time of the year
- traffic is heavier in the cities than at any other time of the year
- women are more likely to call their men and ask them to pick up such and such than at any other time of year
So for me - December is a time when I am more likely to use a cell phone than any other.

jameson claims that this phone had no calls recorded because it was lost.

A poster, Beth said at jamesons that when people lose a cellphone, then they very often call that phone number to see if someone answers it or maybe even to find out if they can hear it rining from inside a coat pocket or behind a cushion and that this call at least would be on the record. At first I thought this was a valid point, but if the call wasn't answered, it wouldn't be on record - unless it switched to the voicemail (did we have voicemail in 1996?)

Then jameson made some points which I have never seen her make before:-

Quote:
It is in the police records - Patsy told them that John had lost his phone, she had gotten him a new one for Christmas. It was supposed to be a surprise but he walked in the room and saw it out on the counter - - ruined the surprise. I have seen the interview where she saidit- - sorry you haven't seen all I have.
http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID61/931.html

Now, the thing is - jameson claims her source for this as the Ramseys and also the police reports of interviews with the Ramseys. This is irrelevant - in both cases the source is the Ramseys. As initial prime suspects in their daughter's murder, their say so does not make something a fact. However, let's take their word for it and consider the implications...

So:-

1. The lost phone was John Ramsey's
2. Patsy bought him a replacement for his Christmas but that
3. He saw it lying on the counter and ruined the surprise.

Some problems immediaetly spring to mind:-

A CEO for a substantial company loses his cell phone - presumably in November if there are no recorded calls in December and his WIFE GETS HIM A NEW ONE - FOR CHRISTMAS....!

Whew. I can recall that my husband was definitely using a cellphone as standard practice in 1997 and most likely for some time before that. I even had one by summer 1998 beause I was contacted about my father's death on that phone. Now this is the UK - we are always WAY behind the US in such things. If we were using cellphones as commonplace in 1997, then the likelihood is that John Ramsey would have been using one for business long before 1997.

Puzzling question - Would a CEO of a substantial company be content to be without his cellphone for a month at the start of the busiest time of the year? Would he simply do nothing for a month and hope that Santa would bring him a new one?

My husband has lost his cellphone a couple of times. On each occasion it was a DISASTER and he had to get a replacement ASAP. No way if he lost his phone in November would the solution be for me to get him a replacement for Xmas!

This just doesn't ring true. If the lost cellphone had been Patsy's, then I might have had less trouble in believing it (based upon my own cellphone use).
__________________
This is only my opinion

Let the focus be on Madeleine




Together we can make a difference





Alert Viewer in Scotland

Member of Websleuths since April 2000
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-22-2005, 08:09 AM
Nehemiah Nehemiah is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Southern US
Posts: 1,500
The thing that comes to my mind is could Patsy have bought one to replace a personal cell phone? That perhaps John had two...business/personal...and she is referring to the personal?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-22-2005, 09:15 AM
Jayelles's Avatar
Jayelles Jayelles is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 2,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nehemiah
The thing that comes to my mind is could Patsy have bought one to replace a personal cell phone? That perhaps John had two...business/personal...and she is referring to the personal?
Do people carry two cellphones? I suppose some may - seems a bit of an emcumbrance - especially in 1996 when phones were much larger and much more expensive than they are nowadays.

I suppose it's possible. I don't recall reading anywhere that the Ramseys had collections of cell phones for different purposes.
__________________
This is only my opinion

Let the focus be on Madeleine




Together we can make a difference





Alert Viewer in Scotland

Member of Websleuths since April 2000
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-22-2005, 09:37 AM
Nehemiah Nehemiah is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Southern US
Posts: 1,500
I didn't get a cell phone until a few years ago, but I had a couple of friends who had business/personal phones back in '96; nowadays, they just have one. I don't know the reasoning behind it, but they kept them separate. Just a thought about John's...

For whatever reason, having no cell phone records, and especially during Dec., is a red flag. I have always thought that the cell phone records were of prime importance, and could tell what really went down on Dec. 25/26.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-22-2005, 09:52 AM
BlueCrab BlueCrab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,053
Two points:

1. According to Patsy then, John received his new cell phone on or before December 25. No one who I know give cell phones to someone without having it activated. Therefore, John likely had a working cell phone on December 26, the day he would have made the calls we are all interested in.

2. Also, even if the old cell phone had been lost prior to December, the phone company would have sent its regular monthly statement, in this case showing no calls made or received for December. Where's that statement which proves no calls were made?

BlueCrab
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-22-2005, 09:59 AM
Jayelles's Avatar
Jayelles Jayelles is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 2,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueCrab
Two points:

1. According to Patsy then, John received his new cell phone on or before December 25. No one who I know give cell phones to someone without having it activated. Therefore, John likely had a working cell phone on December 26, the day he would have made the calls we are all interested in.

2. Also, even if the old cell phone had been lost prior to December, the phone company would have sent its regular monthly statement, in this case showing no calls made or received for December. Where's that statement which proves no calls were made?

BlueCrab
That is a valid point. Was it a missing phone record or a blank phone record?
__________________
This is only my opinion

Let the focus be on Madeleine




Together we can make a difference





Alert Viewer in Scotland

Member of Websleuths since April 2000
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-22-2005, 10:30 AM
Nuisanceposter's Avatar
Nuisanceposter Nuisanceposter is offline
Remembering Little Miss Christmas
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,402
When John Ramsey was overheard making arrangements to fly out of Boulder just half an hour after JonBenet's body was found, wasn't he using his cell phone to make that call? I thought I remembered someone saying that, but can't find it.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-22-2005, 11:14 AM
BlueCrab BlueCrab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayelles
That is a valid point. Was it a missing phone record or a blank phone record?

Jayelles,

It apparently was a missing phone record because, at least up until June of 1998, the phone records had not even been subpoenaed and the DA's office, which was taking over the case from the BPD, wasn't interested in obtaining the records. From PMPT pb, pg 674:

"Later in the afternoon, Beckner met privately with Hunter and Hofstrom to argue his position. He pointed out that it was important for the grand jury to subpoena the Ramseys' credit card and telephone records before they were interviewed. In their April (1997) interviews they had said that they had never bought duct tape or cord. Maybe the records would show otherwise. 'Get the hard evidence and confront them with it', Beckner said. Hofstrom replied that they would go ahead without the records. The interviews with the Ramseys were more important. Beckner said he would tell his officers.

"Look, we've done all we can do. It's no longer our case, Beckner told his assembled detectives an hour later. "Go back and resume your lives. Make your summer vacation plans. And don't worry about this case anymore."

BlueCrab
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-22-2005, 12:10 PM
Rupert Rupert is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueCrab
Jayelles,

It apparently was a missing phone record because, at least up until June of 1998, the phone records had not even been subpoenaed and the DA's office, which was taking over the case from the BPD, wasn't interested in obtaining the records. From PMPT pb, pg 674:

"Later in the afternoon, Beckner met privately with Hunter and Hofstrom to argue his position. He pointed out that it was important for the grand jury to subpoena the Ramseys' credit card and telephone records before they were interviewed. In their April (1997) interviews they had said that they had never bought duct tape or cord. Maybe the records would show otherwise. 'Get the hard evidence and confront them with it', Beckner said. Hofstrom replied that they would go ahead without the records. The interviews with the Ramseys were more important. Beckner said he would tell his officers.

"Look, we've done all we can do. It's no longer our case, Beckner told his assembled detectives an hour later. "Go back and resume your lives. Make your summer vacation plans. And don't worry about this case anymore."

BlueCrab
I never dug into this missing cel phone thing, but was aware of it and it tugs me back to suspicion of the R's. There is confusion about it and there shouldn't be unless its file has not been totally opened. I could never imagine anyone writing the RN after such a tragic event, let alone thinking up all those kidnap crime movie quotes. To me, it had to be someone who was immersed in the kidnap crime movies OR someone who received instructions over a cel phone. I wonder if the BPD checked out any other cel phones (or even house phones) owned by aqcuaintances or friends, eg. SS.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-22-2005, 12:18 PM
why_nutt why_nutt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayelles
Do people carry two cellphones? I suppose some may - seems a bit of an emcumbrance - especially in 1996 when phones were much larger and much more expensive than they are nowadays.

I suppose it's possible. I don't recall reading anywhere that the Ramseys had collections of cell phones for different purposes.
Quote:
TOM HANEY: Let me back you up again. We talked about that phone, possible phone lines. Did you folks at that time have any other phones, any cell phones, cellular--

PATSY RAMSEY: John had a cell phone. And I had just gotten a cell phone at Christmas, little teeny one.

TOM HANEY: Was it activated?

PATSY RAMSEY: I think it's activated when you buy it.

TOM HANEY: It's not much of a present if it doesn't work?

PATSY RAMSEY: Yes, I think it was activated.

TOM HANEY: Probably. Do you recall the phone number?

PATSY RAMSEY: No.

TOM HANEY: How about John's cell phone, do you recall that number?

PATSY RAMSEY: No.

TOM HANEY: Did he have just the one, was that a personal one?

PATSY RAMSEY: He had had one and he lost it. See, I had gotten him one years ago, and he -- I think he lost and then -- anyway, I had gotten this little teeny Panasonic one at, what's that store -- that music video store near the Boulder. Sound Tracks, one of those, Sound Advice or -- and I had it -- I had it sitting on the window ledge charging and he walked in and found it, I said okay fine, I will just take this one. And I think meanwhile, Denise, his secretary had ordered him a new phone.

TOM HANEY: Okay, was that an Access Graphics phone?

PATSY RAMSEY: Access Graphics, yes. I mean there were a couple of phones and they were both relatively new and I don't know what the number was.

TOM HANEY: And where were they normally kept?

PATSY RAMSEY: I don't remember.

TOM HANEY: His--

PATSY RAMSEY: His was usually charging somewhere, probably in his briefcase or something.

TOM HANEY: Did he have a charger set up somewhere though or--

PATSY RAMSEY: Um, I don't remember.

TOM HANEY: Okay. And between the time that you folks had returned from the Whites on Christmas night, and this call to the Boulder police in the morning, on the 26th, had you made or received any phone calls on any of those lines?

PATSY RAMSEY: Not that I recall, no.
Okay, so Patsy is charging a phone that she bought for herself ("he walked in and found it, I said okay fine, I will just take this one.") She does not put those words in John's mouth. She was, instead, busted! I, Patsy, buy a phone and do not tell you, John, who will not know that there will be a bill for it because I, Patsy,will pay the bill out of the household allowance you give me and thus hide it from you, but you, John, having discovered this phone, know that I will be committed to a contract for at least a year or two, and you therefore know that some of the money you allow to me will be going for this phone, so I will admit that I bought it, or, in other words, "I will just take this one."

Meanwhile, John has his own phones through Access Graphics. ("Access Graphics, yes. I mean there were a couple of phones and they were both relatively new and I don't know what the number was.")

We can infer certain reasonable facts from all this. John had a couple of new-ish cellphones as part of his job with Access. These phones would have been paid for by Lockheed-Martin. His secretary Denise, in her capacity as an employee of Lockheed-Martin, recently got him one of these new ones, which makes sense, because Lockheed-Martin would have wanted John, as a fairly important employee of theirs, to be accessible on-the-go. In 1996, the communication protocols by which cellphones technically worked were not unified across America and Europe, there were several different kinds (GSM, CDMA, etc.), and John traveled often to foreign countries, so he needed Lockheed to pay for a phone that worked domestically, and one that worked overseas. Patsy, separately, bought John a cellphone years before 1996, and at some unspecified time, John lost Patsy's gift to him.

In sum: In December of 1996, John had at least two phones, and Patsy had a new one, a Panasonic.

Edited to add: Of course, this all begs the question of whether warrants were obtained to get the Access Graphics cellphone records. If John made calls on his Access phone on the morning of the 26th, BPD could have asked all day long for the Ramsey records and would find no calls made.
__________________
"That is my theory, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too." -- Anne Elk
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-22-2005, 03:04 PM
UKGuy UKGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,391
Telephone Records

As per previous info:

In October, 1997, the Boulder police department, through D.A. Hofstrom, asked for written consent for all telephone records. At first attorneys for the Ramseys agreed to provide the records, but refused to sign a consent for the police department to obtain the records themselves. The following November, they did finally sign the consent forms.

Steve Thomas was handed a 'Consent To Release of Telephone Records' signed by John Ramsey and Peter Hofstrom.

This released the Ramsey's home and cellular telephone records between December 1st and 27th, 1996.

This did not include company phones, telephone cards, or calls made prior to or after December.

AirTouch was the cell phone company. The records show regular usage in the months upto December, but for December itself, zero usage, e.g. empty!

Steve Thomas states that the lieutenant governor of the State of Colorado, Gail Schoetler was a repeat caller to John Ramsey's private office line in the days after the death of JonBenet!

No mention is made of any other callers to this particular line.

Also for the record, all calls made on a cellular phone are logged irrespective of whether someone answers or not. The bill you receive is only for what they are asking you to pay for, so not all your usage is logged on your bill.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-22-2005, 08:10 PM
Voice of Reason Voice of Reason is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 343
well, one thing is clear here...jameson's tale about john losing his cell phone and patsy buying him a new one for xmas does not seem to be correct. jameson claims to have this information from police interviews. in reading the interview, what does it say...?

Quote:
TOM HANEY: Did he have just the one, was that a personal one?

PATSY RAMSEY: He had had one and he lost it. See, I had gotten him one years ago, and he -- I think he lost and then -- anyway, I had gotten this little teeny Panasonic one at, what's that store -- that music video store near the Boulder. Sound Tracks, one of those, Sound Advice or -- and I had it -- I had it sitting on the window ledge charging and he walked in and found it, I said okay fine, I will just take this one. And I think meanwhile, Denise, his secretary had ordered him a new phone.
so JR lost his phone, but his secretary bought him a new one. am i missing something? is there a second phone that PR surprised JR with at xmas?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-23-2005, 01:03 AM
BlueCrab BlueCrab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voice of Reason
so JR lost his phone, but his secretary bought him a new one. am i missing something? is there a second phone that PR surprised JR with at xmas?
VOR,

Here's the way I read this cell phone thing:

John had been using an older phone, but eventually lost it. So Patsy bought John a new phone and was going to give it to John as a surprise. But as she had it on the window charging it, John walked in. That ruined the surprise so she kept the new phone for herself. In the meantime John's secretary had bought John a new company cell phone to go along with a company phone he already had.

The score on December 26: one cell phone in the possession of Patsy (which she had just purchased for John but gave to herself as a present from John and which had no calls on it); two cell phones in the possession of John (both of them company phones and likely loaded with December calls, including calls made on the 26th).

It appears the cops may not have obtained the cell phone records of one or both of the Access Graphics phones that John had been using. If this is correct, then IMO the solution to the JonBenet murder and coverup may be in those Access Grahics cell phone records for December 26.

BlueCrab
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-23-2005, 02:17 AM
Rupert Rupert is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueCrab
IMO the solution to the JonBenet murder and coverup may be in those Access Grahics cell phone records for December 26.
I recall Steve Thomas complained that the DA was not supporting his request for the cel phone records. Finally, almost a year later in October 1997, the DA supports the BPD request for the cel phone records, but alas not the company ones. Why would anyone be defensive about their company cel phone records for just that ONE particular night? That is one thing that always bothered me.

It's almost 10 years now. Any chance the BPD could check out records of their friends?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-04-2008, 07:29 AM
UKGuy UKGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
As per previous info:

In October, 1997, the Boulder police department, through D.A. Hofstrom, asked for written consent for all telephone records. At first attorneys for the Ramseys agreed to provide the records, but refused to sign a consent for the police department to obtain the records themselves. The following November, they did finally sign the consent forms.

Steve Thomas was handed a 'Consent To Release of Telephone Records' signed by John Ramsey and Peter Hofstrom.

This released the Ramsey's home and cellular telephone records between December 1st and 27th, 1996.

This did not include company phones, telephone cards, or calls made prior to or after December.

AirTouch was the cell phone company. The records show regular usage in the months upto December, but for December itself, zero usage, e.g. empty!

Steve Thomas states that the lieutenant governor of the State of Colorado, Gail Schoetler was a repeat caller to John Ramsey's private office line in the days after the death of JonBenet!

No mention is made of any other callers to this particular line.

Also for the record, all calls made on a cellular phone are logged irrespective of whether someone answers or not. The bill you receive is only for what they are asking you to pay for, so not all your usage is logged on your bill.

Just thought I might add that in Steve Thomas' book where Pam Paugh's crime-scene raid is recounted, one of the items stated to have been removed was a cellphone. I wonder to whom this one belonged?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-04-2008, 10:11 PM
DeeDee249 DeeDee249 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In the Federal Witness Protection Program
Posts: 7,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
Just thought I might add that in Steve Thomas' book where Pam Paugh's crime-scene raid is recounted, one of the items stated to have been removed was a cellphone. I wonder to whom this one belonged?
I knew about the "missing" or empty month of December- I just cannot believe no one made a fuss about it at the time.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-05-2008, 01:12 AM
Ames's Avatar
Ames Ames is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Somewhere In Time
Posts: 5,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
I knew about the "missing" or empty month of December- I just cannot believe no one made a fuss about it at the time.
I bet that is because John made all of his phone calls to his lawyers on the 26th, with that cell phone.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-05-2008, 06:03 AM
UKGuy UKGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ames View Post
I bet that is because John made all of his phone calls to his lawyers on the 26th, with that cell phone.
Ames,
Thats what I reckon happened too. Which is why I timeline events like this:

1. Homicide
2. Staging
3. Conspiracy

Event 3. is the part where John phoned his contacts sought advice, then later all the lawyers, attorneys, DA's etc, spoke with each other at informal dinner party's, and the deal was to short-cicuit the legal process, so to avoid a trial!


.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-05-2008, 06:45 AM
JMO8778's Avatar
JMO8778 JMO8778 is offline
..at the beach!
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,555
I also think he made calls on it prior to the 911 call...that would be the sure-fire giveaway.The 911 call came in rather late in accordance w. their prior plans,and I can picture them using it to contact attorneys and anyone that could help or give advice.And the lawyers said,'get some friends around you to buffer you from LE and to use as witnesses...and call 911 on YOUR HOME PHONE.Just NOT from the same phone you are calling me from now'.Obviously if they were phone calls not to be known about,they would have used a cell.
Now IF it had been a real KN...the reverse would have been done.Secret phone calls would have been made on a cell,IF they were made at all...but I suspect the concentration would have been on just getting JB back,and figuring out how to get the ppl who did it later.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-05-2008, 07:02 AM
UKGuy UKGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMO8778 View Post
I also think he made calls on it prior to the 911 call...that would be the sure-fire giveaway.The 911 call came in rather late in accordance w. their prior plans,and I can picture them using it to contact attorneys and anyone that could help or give advice.And the lawyers said,'get some friends around you to buffer you from LE and to use as witnesses...and call 911 on YOUR HOME PHONE.Just NOT from the same phone you are calling me from now'.Obviously if they were phone calls not to be known about,they would have used a cell.
Now IF it had been a real KN...the reverse would have been done.Secret phone calls would have been made on a cell,IF they were made at all...but I suspect the concentration would have been on just getting JB back,and figuring out how to get the ppl who did it later.
JMO8778,
I agree, the evidence suggesting a conspiracy is largely circumstantial, but compelling enough to be credible.

.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-05-2008, 12:28 PM
JMO8778's Avatar
JMO8778 JMO8778 is offline
..at the beach!
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
JMO8778,
I agree, the evidence suggesting a conspiracy is largely circumstantial, but compelling enough to be credible.

.
missing phone records for the entire month of Dec. are quite compelling,I agree !
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-05-2008, 04:36 PM
Ames's Avatar
Ames Ames is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Somewhere In Time
Posts: 5,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
Ames,
Thats what I reckon happened too. Which is why I timeline events like this:

1. Homicide
2. Staging
3. Conspiracy

Event 3. is the part where John phoned his contacts sought advice, then later all the lawyers, attorneys, DA's etc, spoke with each other at informal dinner party's, and the deal was to short-cicuit the legal process, so to avoid a trial!


.
I totally agree with you!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-05-2008, 04:37 PM
Ames's Avatar
Ames Ames is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Somewhere In Time
Posts: 5,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMO8778 View Post
missing phone records for the entire month of Dec. are quite compelling,I agree !
Yeah, funny how that month was entirely missing...and that is the month that their daughter was killed. "Ironic", isn't it??
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-05-2008, 09:58 PM
JMO8778's Avatar
JMO8778 JMO8778 is offline
..at the beach!
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ames View Post
Yeah, funny how that month was entirely missing...and that is the month that their daughter was killed. "Ironic", isn't it??

totally..next we'll be hearing that foreigners did it.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-05-2008, 10:32 PM
DeeDee249 DeeDee249 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In the Federal Witness Protection Program
Posts: 7,453
Don't you know? ...no foreigners make calls in December.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump


© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 New To Site? Need Help?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:11 AM.

Advertisements

Pre-Order Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony today!