Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark17
Let's parse this to see if it makes any sense...
"I trusted him because his bag was in the booth."
This implies Giddings thinks the bag of money was sufficient security for the $80,000 (or whatever) of cards.
We had no idea how much money was in the bag; it’s not my job to do that.
This says Giddings had no idea whether or not the bag of money was adequate collateral for the cards.
Contradictory statements back to back, it seems to me.
Furthermore, if the bag of money had $100k in it, and the cards were priced something less than that, why not just use some of the money from the box and complete the transaction?
|
How many buyers would offer a seller a bag of cash to safeguard while they looked at the seller's cards? That should be a red flag right there. And how many sellers would even think of accepting a bag purported to hold 100K in cash? The only truth, it seems, in the story is that Giddings was at the National.
My wish for the day is that Giddings (and 3 of his alternate ids) come on here and posts like the purple sticker guy did when he claimed he was stolen from.