Because if you did, that is total BS, as I know for a fact your ability does not allow you to do that.
Should've withheld this and caught him on the lie. Interesting if true anyways. Perhaps Gazza is a Barksdale and gave us Escath to earn our trust. GIMH could thus be a Stanfield and attempting to do the same?
Yeah, I should have done, but after another hour or so I'm not likely to be online much for the next few days, so thought the best option would be to blow the load early. Furball can cook up some inventive response, no doubt, but there's more than enough evidence for a lynch here. He's been shifty all game, and now has now, without prompt, come out with some nonsense about watching uppercut. Maybe nobody did visit Uppercut, but the only way Furball could possibly know this if is he's in contact with someone else. Like I said earlier, he does not have the ability to watch people.
Sledger would no doubt have accused me of lying whatever I said. If you're so certain I can't watch people, then what can I do?
Wtf Furball. Uppercut died so at least one person visited him. Youre either lying or your ability failed
Your only other contribution before this was to defend Escath, so I'm skeptical about any substance to this as of this moment.
Hold up. Blunder's admitted he visited Uppercut. What we're you doing and how did you manage to do so without being seen?
2 people admit to visiting uppercut, seems pretty likely that one of them the killer? I guess uppercut was likely to attract some attention last night but the odds would suggest there's a high chance of maf in blunder/furball
I didn't visit Uppercut, I watched him. So if Gazza (who I saw visit) isn't the killer, it means that whoever killed him isn't traceable. I reckon Blunder knows this.