Identifying Scammers

[El Diablo]

A brand new member to our board, on his very first series of posts, revealed the name and photo of a young lady from Cali who he has accused of being a scammer.  The only evidence he himself offers of her wrong doing is his claim that she takes gullable grigos for "mucho dinero".  A few guys including myself, give first hand accounts of her indicating that we don't particularly like her but we offer no hard evidence to suggest that she's a real out and out scammer.  

Today, this gentlemen offers us in a reply to Patrick (further down the board) a bit more information, he tells us she didn't take him for anything of much value, a dinner perhaps, but an "extremely reliable source" was taken for thousands.  Does he reveal the sources name, NO, but says "although I can speak for myself, I am not at liberty to reveal someone elses name".   (Possible Translation: I'll trash the girls name but my gullable friend's name is off limits.) Does anyone else see the contradiction and irony of these words?  

To date, the gentleman has not provided any details of her accused crimes.  In fact, he believes details are of little value as illustrated by his remarks here:

"I also think it was of value to specifically point out the picture of this one Lady instead of describing her modus operandi because she is so unusual it is not that much value to describe what she does. She just has to be identified by her picture so men can avoid her."

I'm sorry but I have a real problem with this gentleman's reasoning and I'm hoping others here do also.  It's as if he's saying the ends justify the means and things like fair play and burden of proof are of no import when he is identifying someone he believes to be a scammer.  Note that while her photo is displayed for all to see, he hides behind the anonymity of Digital1942 with no real name, no email address, and no explanation of his relationship to the accused.

For me this is not about whether this particular young lady is a scammer, maybe she is, maybe she isn't.  For me this about honor, fair play and about how we will be identifying others in the future. I believe it is possible to identify scammers here but at a minimum it only seems right that we first identify ourself, our relationship to the accused and all details of the story. Hearsay should be held to even a higher standard, as it's not first hand knowledge.  It seems only fair that if we are not willing to give these details than we should quite simply not make the accusation.  This my fellow board members is how honorable people act!!

El Diablo

[Ralph]

... in response to Identifying Scammers, posted by El Diablo on Dec 17, 2001

Everyone that has met her admits she has a Colombian boyfriend. I would classify joining marriage agencies while you already have a boyfriend as shady at best, scamming at worst.

[pack]

... in response to huh?, posted by Ralph on Dec 20, 2001

you are right!

[El Diablo]

... in response to huh?, posted by Ralph on Dec 20, 2001

Ralph,

You are reading this post with the knowledge of the information that he only revealed later.  At the time of this thread he had not given any of the details of his encounter with her yet he had posted her name and a URL to her photo.  If I follow your logic, we should have just accepted his claim and left it that, no details no nothing.  You only know the information about his date with her and the boyfriend interpreter because a few people applied pressure and he finally provided it.  Even then, he only really provided details of his encounter.  The big accusation he made was that she took a gringo for thousands, we've yet to hear these details.

I don't want to beat this to death. It looks like the board is divided on this issue but I'm personally going to always ask for details when someone is accused of being a scammer.  If a person speaks in general about a scamming incident that's one thing but when they are singled out by name and photo that's another.  

El Diablo

[Ralph]

... in response to You need to follow the time line..., posted by El Diablo on Dec 21, 2001

I remember checking in a few days back, and reading his post. I take most posts with a grain of salt. I do remember some guys jumping down his throat. I also remember more than one guy corroborating the fact that the girl was "dating" the interpreter. That alone in my book, is reason enough to warn guys to avoid her. Many guys have a problem seeing red flags, and without speaking spanish would be slow to pick up on the fact that they were the "thir wheel" on these "dates".

Most horror stories most likely start off with similar behavior. I wouldn't want to wait till a guy was soaked for a few grand to hear about a woman pulling the stunts this one does. I do not think a single guy here would want to meet her.

[digital1942]

... in response to Identifying Scammers, posted by El Diablo on Dec 17, 2001

I don't know what you are making such a big fuss about.  You even backed up my story.  The simple fact is this woman is an old-timer at taking men, has a boyfriend, and absolutely no interest in marrying an American man.  She is a bad apple.  This is really a slam dunk case and if there was any ambiguity or if I thought there were any shades of gray I would not have said anything.  I have no future plans of identifying anyone else.  This woman is highly unusual and not the typical case.  So why let her continue unhindered without warning men to simply avoid her?  Your sense of "fair play" in which you allow another human being to hurt another human being without saying anything is really beyond me.  If I see a dangerous rock in the ocean, my natural inclination is to be the lighthouse and warn the oncoming ships.  Those are my values and our senses of "fair play" are quite different.  Enough said.

[Landover]

... in response to Re: Identifying Scammers, posted by digital1942 on Dec 18, 2001

Digital: Just wondering what this girl's intitials are. You can email me if you prefer.

[Michael B]

... in response to Re: Re: Identifying Scammers, posted by Landover on Dec 22, 2001

Look about 3 or 4 posts back and you will see that he gives her full name and 2 or 3 links to see her posted profiles. This in fact (unless I'm mistaken) was El D's orginal complaint. i.e. You told us who SHE is (and she isn't here to defend herself) yet you refuse to tell us who YOU are.

[El Diablo]

... in response to Re: Identifying Scammers, posted by digital1942 on Dec 18, 2001

I didn't think my two stories necessarily backed yours up.  I admitted I didn't like her and that her and her sister got a free meal and a tank load of gas when a group of five of us went out to dinner.  I have my own opinion of her based on first hand experiences, not hearsay.  While I'm not planning on looking her up when I return to Cali I'm not prepared to call her a scammer either.  I haven't heard any credible evidence to date that would lead me to believe she is.  Any opinion I might have at this point would be based soley on speculation.

Maybe she is a scammer, maybe she isn't.  If it's the slam dunk case of the century that you say it is, give us some details so we can make some informed opinions ourselves.  Why should the unsubstantiated accusations of an anonymious person be given any credibility.

Come on Digital, tell us the story, give us some real facts.

El Diablo

[Patrick]

... in response to Re: Identifying Scammers, posted by digital1942 on Dec 18, 2001

Let's hear the details on how she took someone for thousands of dollars.  That doesn't require a name, only how she did it.  Did she steal cash from him?  Did she ask him for several thousand for medical bills?  Was she engaged to a guy who supported her (with thousands of dollars)?  Or did a guy spend thousands of dollars on a trip to Colombia only to find out she wasn't interested in him?  I've personally heard guys claim they were scammed by a lady because they spent the money to visit and she didn't want to marry them.  You seem to be strongly opposed to providing any details.  Why is that?

Maybe this lady is a scammer.  If so, why not tell us how she scammed this guy?  I don't care about names, but I do care about details.  Provide them, or leave please.

[digital1942]

... in response to Respond with details, or leave, posted by Patrick on Dec 18, 2001

Here are more details because it might be of some help to identify her technique.  I had a date with this Lady wherein I paid for a night on the town plus the gas money for her and her "boyfriend".  She specially told me this man was her interpreter and no other relation and it would be fair for me to pay the gas money because he was doing the interpretation.  Thus, as I found out later she lied to me because he was her boyfriend.  During the date she asked me questions showing she was interested in my house, financial situation, and where I lived.  She asked me for pictures.  When I said I had none, she then asked if I could show her pictures of where I lived on the Internet.  At this point I new I had been had and never called her back even though she gave me her phone number.  As for the thousands of dollars, I have no further detail because the friend who I highly trust was just warning me and did not go into particulars.

   I didn't give you further details because of the remote possibility of going back (which I doubt).  And my story was backed up by several subsequent posters who identified her technique and that she had been kicked out of other agencies.  This seems sufficient.  I would like you to consider the possibility that Colombia is a dangerous place and by requiring men to identify themselves with excessive details you may be putting their lives at risk.  If this is the price, then its not worth pointing out a scammer.  I have no doubt that this Lady and/or her boyfriend have access to the Internet and are laughing now when they see the victim attacked and subjected to high standard of proof and they are given ever benefit of a doubt.   They are further emboldened.  Obviously, its not worth it and the board will be left to the goody-two shoe optimists possessing little sense who lead men to a false sense of security.  Perhaps, you can think of some intermediate form of disclosure which rings true but doesn't require a detailed diary chronology.

   As for the men defending these people, I hope they are happy at what they are defending (God knows why).  They will have to live with it.

[El Diablo]

... in response to Re: MORE DETAILS AND REQUEST FOR CONSIDE..., posted by digital1942 on Dec 18, 2001

Digital, I wasn't defending her at all but rather a principle.  The principle is that if you accuse someone of a serious accusation in a public arena, at least give some details so tht people can form their own opinion.  This isn't some abstract notion of fair play, it's just common sense.

By the way, is this the "smoking gun" we've been waiting for?

El Diablo

[Patrick]

... in response to Re: MORE DETAILS AND REQUEST FOR CONSIDE..., posted by digital1942 on Dec 18, 2001

I'm not asking for proof, nor am I defending her.  I'm asking for details on the scam that took a gringo for thousands of dollars, which you have not provided, even in your latest post.  Sounds like this lady is to be avoided from what you, and others have said, but we still have no information on how she took your trusted friend for thousands.

I guess the highly trusted friend's life would be put in danger by posting how she got the money from him, so I'll lay off.  Her boyfriend and his mafia cohorts are reading this board and could infer his identity apparently if any details were posted.  We wouldn't want to get someone killed afterall even if might help others avoid a similar scam.  We've got to be careful, they're watching us and the death squads are waiting!

I think your paranoia is getting the best of you.

[Ralph]

... in response to What details?, posted by Patrick on Feb 18, 2001

Am I missing something here? Everyone admits she has a boyfriend. Lying to Gringos, and dating them while already having a boyfriend  seems like enough reason to warn guys about her.

[Hoda]

... in response to What details?, posted by Patrick on Feb 18, 2001


being a "Godfather, with goon squads waiting for us po little gringos to land in Colombia, to rob us. Fellas, watch out, cuz the Colombian boogie man is watching our every keystroke...ROTFLMAO! Listen up, y'all know I hate scammers as much as ho-strollers. There have been some serious tragedies on both sides of the equation. Part of our reason for being here, is to "try" and seperate fact from fiction....

Hoda...