And if the jewelry store owner had a dedicated person on the staff whose job it is to fill out insurance reports would he tell the person to write the letter in advance (giving away that he intended to commit insurance fraud) or would he bypass the employee who now is suspicious and is a possible whistleblower?
Then is the insurance investigator in on it as well? Or why isn’t the insurance investigator suspicious that a person had a full list of the things stolen/burned immediately when it happened instead of taking the normal amount of time to process it
And finally the same point I have iterated multiple times now that you keep ignoring is WHATS THE ADVANTAGE OF DOING IT IN ADVANCE? It literally is only a chance for it to be more suspicious and makes you look suspicious.
It’s a generic letter head that was likely copy pasted from th day prior
Did you read what I read… I addressed both, it’s the same conclusion
There is no advantage to having it done in advance
Having it “ready to go” makes it suspicious
It’s a short letter to write
Even if a person did want to have it ready the more logical thing to do would be to type it up in a word doc and then copy paste the relevant part onto the report with the official letter head
I am understanding your point and refuting it. It is not that you aren’t being clear with your opinion it’s that you believe your opinion is fact and are refusing to listen to criticism. It literally feels like I am talking to a Comcast chat bot where I keep saying “problems with billing” and you keep responding with “would you like to hear about our new cell phone plan”
If you aren’t going to read what I am writing and have a conversation then just don’t respond because you have not addressed the most basic refutation to your point I have stated numerous times
And if the jewelry store owner had a dedicated person on the staff whose job it is to fill out insurance reports would he tell the person to write the letter in advance (giving away that he intended to commit insurance fraud) or would he bypass the employee who now is suspicious and is a possible whistleblower?
Then is the insurance investigator in on it as well? Or why isn’t the insurance investigator suspicious that a person had a full list of the things stolen/burned immediately when it happened instead of taking the normal amount of time to process it
And finally the same point I have iterated multiple times now that you keep ignoring is WHATS THE ADVANTAGE OF DOING IT IN ADVANCE? It literally is only a chance for it to be more suspicious and makes you look suspicious.
It’s a generic letter head that was likely copy pasted from th day prior
You are the one positing the idea the an underling clerk wrote it.
I am the one saying its possible that did not happen and it was just written by, you know, the AG, the guy whose name is on the letterhead.
The point of doing it advance is to have it ready to go when the time comes.
And sometimes, plans change a bit, and he accidentally forgot to remove his early draft.
This really isn’t that hard of a concept to grasp.
Our entire convo chain stems from me saying ‘maybe it was not a clerk that wrote it.’
You seem to be incapable of considering this, conceptually.
Did you read what I read… I addressed both, it’s the same conclusion
There is no advantage to having it done in advance
Having it “ready to go” makes it suspicious
It’s a short letter to write
Even if a person did want to have it ready the more logical thing to do would be to type it up in a word doc and then copy paste the relevant part onto the report with the official letter head
I am understanding your point and refuting it. It is not that you aren’t being clear with your opinion it’s that you believe your opinion is fact and are refusing to listen to criticism. It literally feels like I am talking to a Comcast chat bot where I keep saying “problems with billing” and you keep responding with “would you like to hear about our new cell phone plan”
If you aren’t going to read what I am writing and have a conversation then just don’t respond because you have not addressed the most basic refutation to your point I have stated numerous times