I now realise was such an obvious con.
Let's be honest - no it wasn't obvious, and he was very good at what he was doing.
I had him labelled as an unwanted and obtrusive self appointed investigator and policeman, and objected to that activity - one or more people supporting his "work" shot me down for that. But, I didn't see him as a conman.
Other people admired what he appeared to be doing, and were taken in to a greater or lesser extent.
It was the lady we've already mentioned, and her son, who identified him as a conman, and started the process which has led to his conviction and imprisonment. None of the rest of us spotted him for what he really was. Full marks to them, but they'd been taken in first too. Credit also to those who once this was pointed out to them, looked at the evidence, realised that this was true, and acted well to try and get him shut down.
Criticism now is due in certain quarters - not for being taken in: he was a conman going about his business competently. But for aggressively supporting a private individual acting as a self appointed policeman, unauthorised release of privileged information, for penalising those who just objected to what he was doing, for protecting him (presumably as a side effect of covering their own backsides) once his nature was actually known, and for failing to repair damage done. Criticism is due for those things.
But, up to a point, every damned one of us was taken in, and the con was not obvious. There is no point in beating ourselves or anybody else up about that aspect.
G