|
Post by tboor74 on Jul 11, 2021 8:51:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by leeb on Jul 11, 2021 15:06:33 GMT -5
I've read an article from the salt lake herald that states BTK received scars from burns at the age of 10 from an accident with acid. If there's any truth in that newspaper article then brushy cannot be BTK. Interesting, does it say where on the body the scars was? Could you post a link to the article? Your conclusion there I think is questionable, do you know for a fact Brushy did not have scars? I'm not saying brushy didn't have 'scars '. If something like that happened to you at a young age you'd never forget. If that article is correct then brushy is a fraud, he never mentioned anything about it.
|
|
|
Post by chivato88 on Jul 11, 2021 15:33:17 GMT -5
Interesting, does it say where on the body the scars was? Could you post a link to the article? Your conclusion there I think is questionable, do you know for a fact Brushy did not have scars? I'm not saying brushy didn't have 'scars '. If something like that happened to you at a young age you'd never forget. If that article is correct then brushy is a fraud, he never mentioned anything about it. Really? Because he never mentioned it, he's a fraud? Come on, dont be so desperate. And almost all of your posts have the words "Brushy is fraud" or " the fraudster" in it, its getting tiresome.
|
|
|
Post by leeb on Jul 11, 2021 15:51:51 GMT -5
I'm not saying brushy didn't have 'scars '. If something like that happened to you at a young age you'd never forget. If that article is correct then brushy is a fraud, he never mentioned anything about it. Really? Because he never mentioned it, he's a fraud? Come on, dont be so desperate. And almost all of your posts have the words "Brushy is fraud" or " the fraudster" in it, its getting tiresome. truth hurts don't it little wayne.
|
|
|
Post by RonBk on Jul 11, 2021 17:25:05 GMT -5
Ah Leeb you aint got nothing to show for. Nothing that mounts to anything at all. There is no proof that the person who had those burn scars was Billy and there is no information of value in the article to disprove Brushy. But still you come out with your usual bull**** conclusions and comments that "the truth hurts" and so forth. Laughable!
|
|
|
Post by chivato88 on Jul 11, 2021 18:30:57 GMT -5
Really? Because he never mentioned it, he's a fraud? Come on, dont be so desperate. And almost all of your posts have the words "Brushy is fraud" or " the fraudster" in it, its getting tiresome. truth hurts don't it little wayne. Not at all mate, Ive got nothing to say really, Ron already said enough, and calling me little Wayne I take it as a compliment thank you
|
|
|
Post by DanJohno on Jul 11, 2021 18:49:49 GMT -5
It's actually Leeb and TTT's constant commitment to Brushy bashing that has me convinced Brushy was Billy. So much effort for someone who was just a fraud?
|
|
|
Post by cassandra jane on Jul 11, 2021 19:27:01 GMT -5
It's actually Leeb and TTT's constant commitment to Brushy bashing that has me convinced Brushy was Billy. So much effort for someone who was just a fraud? A lot of work for a man with a death sentence still pending 🤷‍♀️
|
|
|
Post by MissyS on Jul 11, 2021 21:43:15 GMT -5
I believe that article may be a shortened version of this one below www.newspapers.com/clip/27577546/the-las-vegas-gazette/It was posted on the thread “Did Billy the Kid commit a crime in New Mexico” I started the thread and it was pretty much proven discussing it that it was the wrong McCarty or McCarthy because someone had posted on the thread that the real man had been apprehended in 1877 in New York , so Officer Dwyer must of had him and Billy the Kid confused, so if the man with the acid burns was the one apprehended in 1877 then it wasn’t Billy?
|
|
|
Post by leeb on Jul 12, 2021 14:02:34 GMT -5
Ah Leeb you aint got nothing to show for. Nothing that mounts to anything at all. There is no proof that the person who had those burn scars was Billy and there is no information of value in the article to disprove Brushy. But still you come out with your usual bull**** conclusions and comments that "the truth hurts" and so forth. Laughable! And there is no proof anywhere that you can provide that brushy was the kid. If you've got it, post it. No dropping the shoulder.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jul 12, 2021 19:27:11 GMT -5
OK Leeb, this is your final warning. No name calling on here! You need to apologize for the name calling. I value your input for the most part but your sarcastic attitude is tiresome and uncalled for.
|
|
|
Post by leeb on Jul 12, 2021 23:09:09 GMT -5
truth hurts don't it little wayne. Not at all mate, Ive got nothing to say really, Ron already said enough, and calling me little Wayne I take it as a compliment thank you no offence intended, apologies
|
|
|
Post by RonBk on Jul 13, 2021 2:18:44 GMT -5
I have noticed there is a pattern, not just on this board but also on the various facebook groups, that a lot of anti brushy commentators come out as extremely sarcastic, self-righteous and offensive. Why is that?
|
|
|
Post by cassandra jane on Jul 13, 2021 3:48:14 GMT -5
I have noticed there is a pattern, not just on this board but also on the various facebook groups, that a lot of anti brushy commentators come out as extremely sarcastic, self-righteous and offensive. Why is that? Because they’re insecure and know that the other side’s arguments in favour of have more merit than they’d like them to. It’s bordering on gaslighting territory in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by chivato88 on Jul 13, 2021 4:16:26 GMT -5
Not at all mate, Ive got nothing to say really, Ron already said enough, and calling me little Wayne I take it as a compliment thank you no offence intended, apologies Thank you Leeb, none taken.
|
|