Nonsense. Based on the story, it was the intent of the other party to separate the OP from their money, and the other party apparently acted deliberately in ways intended to gain the OP's trust. Misplaced trust does not make someone responsible for the damage another person does to them, and naivety is what a grifter preys upon.
This seems accurate. Looking back, he was adept at making unverifiable yet somewhat credible claims. I never asked for some substance, which is what I should have.
Comments
Nonsense. Based on the story, it was the intent of the other party to separate the OP from their money, and the other party apparently acted deliberately in ways intended to gain the OP's trust. Misplaced trust does not make someone responsible for the damage another person does to them, and naivety is what a grifter preys upon.
This seems accurate. Looking back, he was adept at making unverifiable yet somewhat credible claims. I never asked for some substance, which is what I should have.