Did anyone catch the significance of the interview with the realtor?

Did anyone understand the significance of the realtors statement in Tuesdays post?  In case you missed it, we had tracked down and spoken to the realtor who represented Maxine Andrews (the little old widow) in the sale of the home located at 3390 Oak Avenue to John Arthur Romney who later used the home as the vehicle with which to defraud Citi Mortgage for nearly $400,000.  In her discussions with Mr. Romney, he advised that he wanted to buy more homes in the area and that he was trying to buy the home across the street from Maxine's.  So what's the deal with the home across the street from Maxine's?  Could he have been referring to 3379 Oak Avenue?

Or maybe he was referring to 3375 Oak Avenue?

Both located across the street, both involved in massive mortgage fraud schemes and consequently both are currently in foreclosure.  Coincidence?  Maybe.  But what about that other statement about "wanting to buy more homes in the area"?  Could he have been referring to the other homes in west Coconut Grove that were involved in millions of dollars worth of mortgage fraud?  Maybe like the ones that we discussed in the past (here, here and here)?  


So what do we got?  Was this conversation between the realtor and Mr. Romney just an instance of Mr. Romney running his mouth or a Freudian slip admitting to other mortgage frauds that he and or his associates were involved in?  While we have no proof of Mr. Romney being directly involved in these other mortgage frauds, by his own admission he certainly had knowledge of them and who was behind them, more on that later.  In the mean time, we'll be discussing another botched mortgage fraud case courtesy of ASA Bill Kostrzewski and we'll discuss the worlds worst forged check case.