> Then, I read the article, with a particular attention to the paragraph quoted above. I felt that several elements of this paragraph were inconsistent with the standard practice of banking.
The quoted paragraph that he refers to:
> When I reached the bank, I told the guard I needed to make a large cash withdrawal and she sent me upstairs. Michael [a member of the scamming team] was on speakerphone in my pocket. I asked the teller for $50,000. The woman behind the thick glass window raised her eyebrows, disappeared into a back room, came back with a large metal box of $100 bills, and counted them out with a machine. Then she pushed the stacks of bills through the slot along with a sheet of paper warning me against scams. I thanked her and left.
How does "The Bank of America branch that she named by address (in the police report) has a second-floor teller window" a meaningful verification of the NYMag's problematic paragraph? Unless you think that literally the main problem with the NYMag graf is the first sentence: I told the guard I needed to make a large cash withdrawal and she sent me upstairs
> The story having (verifiable) details that would be unlikely to exist if someone fabricated it
She knows there's a Bank of America on 1 Flatbush Avenue. You really think that someone who spent months writing and working with an editor to publish a massive fabrication is too lazy to actually visit that actual location, especially when it's a short subway stop from her home?
1. The discovery of new facts that explain why a bank that won't let the average person take out $50k in cash would still plausibly let this person take out $50k in cash
2. The story having (verifiable) details that would be unlikely to exist if someone fabricated it, unless they went through a massive effort to fabricate a perfect story. While it is possible to fabricate a story that would pass thorough scrutiny, most fabricated stories would show inconsistencies or otherwise fall apart if looked at this closely.