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

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.

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

   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.

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.

Hoda...