You were not wrong in stating that intent is necessary. You were wrong in inferring that my statement was wrong. I stated:
You then stated:
I know that intent is necessary. I've never argued that. Nowhere in my post do I even mention intent. I simply stated that someone can be convicted without an actual burglary occurring.
By themselves they are not. But, I suspect there is more to this tale than meets the eye. Are you aware of a market for old keys? I'm not. Unless they have some historic significance, or they are sold in a dollar jar at some antique village store, there's no market for them - and no reason to be selling them online such that it would be worthwhile to meet up with someone for the exchange.
There is definitely more to the tale or no one would be wasting their time.