Vanessa Mae Lee Sy

Vanessa Sy is an abusive sociopath who lies to and manipulates those around her. We bring you a story from a defendant who fought off false police reports from Vanessa Sy after a slew of abusive behaviour throughout their relationship. Prior to this partiular encounter the defendant recalls instances of abuse and neglect from Vanessa Sy.

In one recollection, the defendant became dehydrated after Vanessa Sy denied him access to drinking water despite him repeatedly pleading with Vanessa Sy to provide him with some. This took place at a local Japanese festival where Vanessa Sy was volunteering known as Kodomo No Hi. Volunteers at this festival have access to free bottles of drinking water. Peter Stone, a friend of Vanessa Sy, stated that he didn't know why she didn't want to give the defendant any water, but that, "It was weird." Other volunteers reportedly jumped in to provide the defendant with his basic human right.

A second event details a sexual assault made by Vanessa Sy towards the defendant whilst they were not in a relationship. The defendant was leaving a university class when he bumped into Vanessa Sy who promptly stopped him, approached him, and kissed him on the lips without consent. He felt disgusted that she thought she could freely violate him. He states the pair were not even remotely close at the time and the kiss was unwarranted. He continues that he did call her out in the moment and told her that he felt violated and that she had just sexually assaulted him. She only responded with, "Really?" Before walking off and never acknowledging the event again, nor apologising to the defendant.

A Friend of Vanessa Sy, Derrick Xiaobin Deng, told us of instances in which Vanessa Sy leaked information on private issues shared in confidence with Vanessa Sy throughout the course of their relationship. Derrick theorised that it was Vanessa Sy's plan to coerce the defendant's friends to turn against him from the very beginning.

Confusing and contradictory statements are not uncommon for Vanessa Sy as they are a primary weapon in any manipulator's arsenal. It shall soon be unveiled just how deep her web of lies is spun. She has not only created false police reports, which is a crime in itself, but also encouraged friends of hers to do the same (source). Exhausting all other resources, she proceeded to attempt to have her enemies expelled from university. She shows no regard for the lives of others whatsoever. When reaching out to Vanessa Sy for comment she stated, “I don’t care enough to tell you.” With that in mind, we present the following information for your review.

Let’s begin with the first major play in Vanessa Sy’s criminal deeds. It’s a false police report created to provoke and hinder an ex-boyfriend out of spite. Note that all document numbers are shown and therefore traceable.

It’s in these opening lines that we witness her first of many lies. Note that both Vanessa Sy and the defendant’s birth years are listed as 1990. This is not only incorrect, as both Vanessa Sy and the defendant’s birth years are in fact 1999, but it is believed to have been done on purpose so that the police would take her claim more seriously. Both the defendant and Vanessa Sy were university students at the time, so it's likely Vanessa Sy feared that the police would dismiss her claim as childish high school drama, hence the need to lie about their ages. Note that lying to the police is a crime, so it should be no surprise that these charges were dropped in their entirety- no court appearance and no sentence.

Naturally this outcome was of no use to Vanessa Sy, which is why she immediately turned to the next institution that might cause some disruption: the defendant’s university.

We’ll unpack this in full detail with a variety of supporting documents, though what’s of note here is the claim itself, “Stalking, harassing, intimidation.” These descriptions may seem inconsequential, though as you come to know the events more closely, you’ll begin to realise that these descriptions do not align with what Vanessa Sy claims to have happened to her. One must wonder what she told the security officers for them to document such contradictory terms on their official write-up. Observe the second page:

Notice the checkmark next to the “CCTV Image Captured” field. If we are to believe this report, no matter what she claims to have happened, it is all captured on CCTV. I now draw your attention to this line, “[She] has also produced photos showing scratch marks and red welts to her neck.” It would seem like this claim is far more serious than mere stalking and intimidation. What could have caused the discrepancy between her story and what the officers recorded? How did they get "stalking and harassment" from "aggrevated assault with photographic evidence"? Vanessa Sy then provides images of these "scratch marks and red welts":

Aside from the obvious fact that these "wounds" do not align with those you'd expect from the description of "red welts" provided, nor of the greater attempted murder she claims, draw your attention to the sunlight in the background. It looks to be early morning-midday, which is of serious consequence due to the original report being provided at 8:52 PM. It's odd that Vanessa Sy waited so long to make this report after having already taken the photograph. Vanessa Sy details to the university that they took this photograph days before reporting the matter. Furthermore, no medical records of these wounds exist. I don't know about you, but when I, "Trip and fall out of a chokehold." As is quoted from Vanessa Sy's report, my first destination would be the hospital, then the police. Instead, Vanessa Sy appears to have carried on with her life, business as usual, then woke up one day and decided to photograph her neck retroactively, yet do nothing with this photograph for some time. It's unclear whether she bothered showing this photo to the police at all.

So far we have the following information: She claims to have been assaulted and her "proof" is in the form of "struggle marks". Combined with the CCTV footage that the security office has confirmed they have, how on earth did both the police and the university let this one go? Considering all that she provided this should be an open-and-shut case. The obvious answer is that there’s more to this story than she is letting on. When we asked Vanessa Sy, “Do you think the police let him go knowing that he had committed those crimes?” She simply responded with, “Yes.” Yet, as you're about to find out, this was certainly not the case.

Her story first started to come apart when we spoke to the defendant. He claims that he was told by police that she had refused to sign her witness statement, meaning that her written testimony of the events could not be used in court. Now, after going through all of this, why would someone in her position refuse to sign? The answer is surprisingly simple. Had she of signed it, she would have been held legally accountable to those words. When the truth came out in court, she could have been arrested for creating false police reports. In short, she knew what she was doing, and there was clear malicious intent.

While talking to the defendant they pointed out that the original charge that Vanessa Sy raised against him was known in Australia as the “strangulation” charge. It’s worth noting because strangulation is its own category, separate from standard assault charges. Unlike aggrevated assault, strangulation does not offer bail. Vanessa Sy’s plan was to have the defendant charged and indicted with strangulation, which would not afford him bail nor time to process the situation. He would have been arrested, sent to court the next day, and promptly sent to prison if found guilty. So why didn’t this happen? To explain why, we first need to understand how this specific strangulation charge works, or rather, worked, since it has since been reformed in an attempt to prevent false charges like Vanessa Sy’s, after it was found that just 1.9% of charges resulted in conviction (source). To be charged with strangulation, the incident had to have been between two people in some form of domestic relationship. In other words, not a causal university crush. At the time of this incident, Vanessa Sy and the defendant had broken up multiple days prior, after only 2 months of casual dating. The reason why Vanessa Sy lied to the police about both of their birth years starts to make a decent amount of sense now. She aged the two up and claimed they were in a domestic relationship in attempt to destroy the young man’s life for personal pleasure. The defendant notes that all he had to do to get out on bail was point out that they were not in a domestic relationship at the time. Upon hearing this, the charge was immediately reduced to standard assault, and he was let out on bail. In the time between that night and the arranged court date, the police had reviewed the CCTV footage, found out the full extent of her lies, and dropped all charges completely. The court date was cancelled, and the DVO revoked.

And just for those interested in the semantics of all these legal charges, let’s look at some examples from real victims of strangulation, taken directly from the “Sentencing For Non-Fatal Strangulation – Research Paper 5” published in May of 2021 by the Sentencing Advisory Council.

Not only are the wounds pictured here not at all similar to the wounds Vanessa Sy displayed, being that hers were scratches and these are bruises, it’s an outright mockery for Vanessa Sy to compare herself to true victims of domestic violence at all. Doing so only takes power away from real victims. If you think these images were cherry-picked, we urge you to review the paper for yourself.

With both the police and university security officers quickly turning against her, Vanessa Sy became furious. She emailed the university’s behavioural and conduct board directly in an attempt to bypass their standard processes. A trick she likely learnt from her mother, who worked at the university in an office opposite to the security office. First, let’s look at the email itself.

This is the first we see of Vanessa Sy’s sister, Sofia Sy, but it certainly won’t be the last. The important thing to understand about Sofia Sy is that at this time she had just graduated with a law degree from this very same university. It’s likely, given her involvement, that she was the one who advised Vanessa Sy on exactly what to say to the police to cause the defendant to be incorrectly charged with strangulation. Also note that in this email they reference the incident as an “aggravated assault”. This email was sent after the charge of strangulation was dropped by the police, so it’s interesting to see them adapt their story to the changing landscape. First it was strangulation, then stalking, then harassment, then intimidation, now aggravated assault. Which one is the truth, if any? It would have helped if this law student got her story straight from the beginning. It comes as no surprise that to this day she is not practicing law (source).

Let’s now view the document that was written by Vanessa Sy’s sister, Sofia Sy, and submitted to the university on 18/09/2019.

This is the opening statement of the document. It confirms information already provided to us, such as the relationship only lasting 2 months. However, the third point is another drop in the bucket of lies spun by Vanessa Sy. Let’s look at the document that the defendant submitted to the university in response to these incident reports.

He continues:

So the defendant claims that Sofia Sy got the date and location of the breakup wrong, which would be quite problematic for the rest of their story as pointed out by the defendant in their next paragraph.

This is quite self-explanatory, so instead I’ll draw your attention to the mentioning of one “Mr Pritchard” in the first paragraph. It’s been noted that Vanessa Sy had herself expressed feelings for a man called Joseph Pritchard during the 2 months that the defendant was dating her. The reason for their breakup is theorised by the defendant to be the result of a text he saw on Vanessa Sy’s lock-screen which was from her best friend, Samantha Pineda. Samantha Pineda was attempting to hook Vanessa Sy and Joseph Pritchard up together, with the text reading, “You should speak to Joe, he’s worried about you.” This was after ongoing discussions about Joseph Pritchard between all parties. The defendant notes that Samantha Pineda once sat down with him privately and upon hearing his anonymous comments about Vanessa Sy’s interest in another man, Samantha Pineda immediately and correctly name-dropped Joseph Pritchard, much to the surprise of the defendant. He details that the fact she knew who he had been talking about from inconsequential descriptions of the situation spoke volumes, and when he saw Samantha Pineda sending Vanessa Sy that text, it all but confirmed his suspicions. When we asked Vanessa Sy for comment on what she claims was the cause of the breakup, she stated it was because, “He tried to kill me.” However, all the information we have from the documents relating to this case indicate that the assault Vanessa Sy claims happened between herself and the defendant occured after the breakup, not before. Even Sofia Sy’s incorrect date presented inside of Vanessa Sy's report to the university agrees with this. We don't know why Vanessa Sy lied when answering our question, though it's likely because she was unaware of the fact that we had the documents available to us, and had we not known better as any of her friends wouldn't, masking the true reason for their breakup by blaming it on the charges she pressed after the fact absolves her of any wrongdoing and prevents any further questioning.

This is the complete report that Sofia Sy provided for the first of two incidents detailed in this document. We’ll discuss this in detail after reviewing the statement provided by the defendant in his response to the university.

Vanessa Sy appears to have been baiting the defendant into continuing to meet up with her so that she could spin a story of him "stalking" her post-breakup. Not only did Sofia Sy lie about the 14th being the definitive end of their relationship, when asked for comment, Vanessa Sy once again stated, “I don’t care enough to tell you.” By making it out like they broke up on the 14th, they were able to corroborate a more severe story against the defendant by labelling subsequent organised and mutually agreed upon meetups as unsolicited stalking. If we give Sofia Sy the benefit of the doubt, it could be said that she was genuinely unaware of the true date of the breakup. She may have been told by Vanessa Sy that it was the 14th because Vanessa Sy was attempting to cover up her affair, scared of whatever punishment might have entailed from her family if they found out. Make no mistake, this is does not excuse Sofia Sy's criminal behaviour, as it was her responsibility to ensure she knew the full truth from hearing both sides of the story before she got herself involved and began making false allegations. One thing is certain through all of this: Sofia Sy’s report is not factual, and the defendant picks this apart in his reply.

What determines how you view this is whether you believe Vanessa Sy is the sole orchestrator of this act of evil, or whether you believe Sofia Sy was in on it. We already know Vanessa Sy's friend Samantha Pineda was scheming against the defendant, so it's unlikely that Sofia Sy was completely oblivious to the truth. What may give us more clarity on this issue is what the defendant wrote next in his response to the university.

We’ll talk about these “direct messages” between the defendant and Sofia Sy shortly, though for now let’s look at incident 2.

If Sofia Sy didn't make her claims confusing enough, she's now added the theft of a pair of glasses to the list of crimes allegedly committed by the defendant. For some reason, theft was not on the original incident report, nor was it reported to the police. Note the language used, "[Vanessa Sy] told me that she also told [the defendant] multiple times to give her her glasses back and he did not." Given that she at no point states that the glasses were returned, we assume that the pair of glasses are still missing. When asking the defendant about it, he said, "I didn't steal anything. Her sister told me in text messages that it was my responsiblity to ensure she was not late for her curfew. I met up with Vanessa that night because she told me she wanted to talk about her decision. When I got there, she had changed her mind. I asked her if she'd like me to leave, but to my surprise she begged to stay. I asked her multiple times throughout my stay if she'd like me to leave, and every time she returned the same, 'No.' When it got close to the time that I knew she had to meet with her mother, I began to pack up her belongings for her as instructed by her sister Sofia Sy. By the time we departed from each other on North Terrace she had already received those belongings back."

The defendant claims he didn't steal her glasses, and also mentioned that Vanessa Sy was begging him to stay with her. It would be interesting to hear from Vanessa Sy what she thinks happened to her glasses, and whether his claims of her pleading are true. Of course, she did not wish to answer these questions when asked. The theft of Vanessa Sy's glasses is quite a bizarre thing for Sofia Sy to claim since not only should it have been easily provable, but later in her report she states that "Vanessa cannot see without her glasses." So, even if we play devil's advocate and assume that they really were stolen, why did no one question Vanessay Sy on what had happened to them upon seeing her return without them? If she couldn't see, how did Vanessa Sy navigate back to her family's car by herself at all? And if the glasses were initially taken, but later returned, why did Sofia Sy omit that from her report, stating only that the glasses were stolen and never returned? Of course, these details are purposefully omitted from Sofia Sy's report so as to make the defendant appear guilty. You may have picked up on the reference to some direct messages between Sofia Sy and the defendant that allegedly directed the defendant to act in the manner he did. That would seem to imply that he was set up by both Sofia and Vanessa Sy. We will show you the messages in a moment so that you can decide for yourself.

Sofia Sy also remits information about why the defendant, “Entered her class.” Which would make sense, because the defendant claims he did so on Vanessa Sy’s orders because she, “Regretted her decision.” If we once again assume that Sofia Sy did not know this, it makes sense why she didn’t detail it in her report. Once again, she should have made sure she knew the truth before making allegations on Vanessa Sy's behalf. One might also question how the defendant, “Would not let [her] go despite being repeatedly asked to.” When previously Sofia Sy mentioned that Vanessa Sy, “Wished to stay in the computer lab longer because she had work to finish.” Quite the contradiction. Did she want to leave, or not? What's also unclear is whether Vanessa Sy was late in meeting her mother due to the defendant, or due to her own negligence. If Sofia Sy claims that Vanessa Sy was late because the defendant was holding her up, yet that the defendant was the one who initiated them leaving the classroom by packing up her belongings, is the implication that Vanessa Sy would have arrived at the rendezvous with her mother late regardless of whether or not the defendant intervened? If so, Sofia Sy is attempting to pin a fault made by Vanessa Sy onto the defendant to embellish their story. This will become a little more clear once we see the direct messages between Sofia Sy and the defendant, but first, let’s look at what the defendant’s response was in his report to the university.

The defendant references some supporting points that are presented much later in Sofia Sy’s document, so let’s take a look at those.

It is indeed interesting that no one noticed the scratches on Vanessa Sy’s neck until multiple days after Vanessa Sy had told them about her experience. Consider the photo of the wounds provided previously. They are not bruises, but tiny scratches. Certainly not what you would expect from what she calls a strangulation attempt based on the images seen in the aforementioned report. Small cuts like the ones she displayed are easy to emulate with a razor blade, whereas bruises from bludgeoning aren’t. It should be no surprise that there's no medical records of these "injuries". Vanessa Sy is far too obsessed with prosecuting innocent men than she is about her own health, which is why she was willing to go so far. If we believe Vanessa Sy that this was a vicious murder attempt, and those wounds are real, it’s bizarre to think that she got away at all, let alone with such little abrasions. We bring this up because it’s detailed by the defendant that the night of this alleged altercation was in fact Vanessa Sy’s mother’s birthday. How could it be that on such a central occasion not one member of Vanessa Sy's extended family cared to notice, nor bothered to bring up the bright red, fresh, bloody scratches across Vanessa Sy’s neck? How could it be that they did not show up in photographs when looking back at the evening? Did no one notice the rattled and distant attributes Vanessa Sy would have displayed after going through such a traumatic event?

It is also strange that despite the entire purpose of this incident report being the alleged assault resulting in scratches on Vanessa Sy’s neck, that the event is not even detailed at all in Sofia Sy’s report. That’s quite the important part to leave out. Vanessa Sy and Sofia Sy have appeared to try to prove assault by relaying hearsay stories about two unrelated events, neither of which include details on the alleged assault itself, and both of which were ultimately disproven by factual records and CCTV. It seems that the alleged assault was either tacked on to the second incident to give cause, or that a severe number of details have been omitted on purpose to cloud the truth in hopes that a guilty verdict would be delivered on hearsay.

Draw your attention to the last point. Sofia Sy claimed to have been, “Made aware that V told a female friend that J was choking her.” How exactly was she made aware? If Vanessa Sy had been the one to tell her this, she would have said so. The phrasing makes it seem like Sofia Sy was contacted by this “friend” directly and heard the story from them. Why Sofia Sy wouldn't confirm the story before getting gung ho is beyond us, though negligence seems to be a common trait seen in Sofia Sy's actions. As for the friend, it’s no question that this is the previously mentioned Samantha Pineda. If you recall, she pressured Vanessa Sy into dumping the defendant for another man, and likely saw an opportunity to inflict further damage to the defendant once Vanessa Sy shared her scheme with her. The question you may have upon hearing this is, “Why?” If it wasn’t already clear that Samantha Pineda did not particularly like the defendant, as she was actively trying to encourage Vanessa Sy to break up with him, the defendant also noted that Samantha Pineda openly expressed her hatred towards the defendant to anyone that would listen. A mutual friend, Peter Stone, informed the defendant that Samantha Pineda had been talking negatively about him behind his back. More specifically, Samantha Pineda felt that she, "Didn't get enough time with Vanessa now that she has a boyfriend." It seems like greed, jealousy, and narcissism are recurring themes within this story. When the defendant confronted Samantha Pineda about what she'd been saying, she quickly became angered. This confrontation took place on the same day that the aforementioned text was seen on Vanessa Sy’s lockscreen. It’s beginning to seem like this was not just some small-time girl, desperate for attention, and more so an orchestrated warfront by three individuals: Vanessa Sy, Sofia Sy, and Samantha Pineda.

There’s one last detail we found important from these documents.

This relates back to those direct messages which we have in full and will present to you now.

The defendant adds:

These messages are quite damning for Sofia Sy, as they all but guarantee that she not only abuses Vanessa Sy along with their mother, but was also a part of the planning for this devilish scheme against the defendant. There is but one piece of evidence left unchecked: the CCTV footage. We asked Vanessa Sy about it, to which she stated that, “There was no CCTV.” This was odd to hear, because we can clearly see on the incident report that security officers verified that they had CCTV footage of some description. Furthermore, all the events that both parties have discussed occurred in public spaces, being the university and central shopping areas. Was there really no CCTV? We have here the official notice of referral from the university student misconduct tribunal to put this confusion to bed:

Which states quite a few interesting details. Namely:

This document undeniably confirms that CCTV does exist of this altercation. The defendant commented on the footage, stating that he was afforded the opportunity to view the CCTV footage himself as part of his defence, and had this to say:

He added that he believed Vanessa was assaulting him in an attempt to provoke him into fighting back so that she would have a stronger case. Why did Vanessa Sy lie about the lack of existence of CCTV? Undoubtedly because she knew it would make her look bad if people knew it existed, and she was likely hoping that there were no traces of the CCTV footage's existance when she stated that.

Currently our timeline looks as follows: Vanessa Sy changed her mind early in her relationship with the defendant and decided to instead pursue Joseph Pritchard. She confided in her best friend who encouraged the transition. Wanting to hide it from her family, she baited the defendant into seeing her post-breakup where she staged an assault that allowed her to shift eyes onto the defendant, meaning she was free to do as she wished with her new love interest.

Despite her repulsive actions, one can't help but pity her. From the way her sister talked about her in those direct messages, she's clearly been neglected and abused her whole childhood by her close family. It's in some ways only natural for her to turn out this way. Her friends have seen this and taken advantage of her, rather than try to help. We can deduce from her tumblr page, where she's posted many pro-communist (source !NOTE! Vanessay Sy has since deleted her reblog of this post.) and anti-men (source1, source2 !NOTE! Vanessay Sy has since deleted her reblog of this post.) sentiments, that she spends most of her days watching anime and has generally been a loner for most of her life (source1, source2, source3). It's likely that this was the first time she'd felt any sort of acknowledgement from those around her, and has enjoyed their false sympathies a little too much, which has only caused her to double down on the accusations and will likely result in many more stories to come from those who involve themselves with Vanessa Sy in the future. It's a shame that the defendant got caught up in all this, as from the direct messages with Sofia Sy it seemed like he was trying to help Vanessa Sy navigate through those toxic waters. Her family likey saw those messages as a threat and began plotting to get rid of him from that moment onwards.

Now that we’ve heard both sides of the story, why don't we hear from an independent body that has investigated the matter and come to a conclusion; AKA the University of Adelaide, where most of these documents originated.

While we have heard two wildly different recounts of the same events, it’s impossible to deny that two independent bodies, namely SAPOL and the UOA, with access to the full length of these documents, and access to the raw CCTV footage as captured, after observing Vanessa Sy’s mannerisms and wounds in person, and whom have viewed these types of cases hundreds of times in the past, have deemed this young man innocent. Note that two of the three members of the student tribunal who decided the defendant's fate at the University of Adelaide were women, as was the police officer in charge of his case at SAPOL. The writing on the wall is clear. Vanessa Sy is a menace to society and a disgusting human being. She lacks accountability for her actions and does not understand the meaning nor impact her words and actions carry onto herself and those around her. It would not be surprising if upon proper interview all sources close to this story, namely Vanessa Sy, Sofia Sy, Samatha Pineda, and Joseph Pritchard, each gave subtly different recounts. Vanessa Sy undoubtedly distributes slightly different pieces of information to everyone she recounts her version of events to, to muddy the waters and obscure the truth from getting out. There is a reason she did not want to comment further towards any of our questions. Perhaps she has become so deluded by the lies that she no longer remembers the truth herself, and was therefore scared to make comment.

The defendant was particularly lucky that he had strong and supportive structures in place at both the police and the university to have due diligence done and the truth prevail over Vanessa Sy’s injustice. There are thousands of men every year that go through similar ordeals and are not so lucky. Crying wolf is a serious plague that we urge everyone to swiftly report to the correct authorities. It is not just a crime that hurts innocent lives, but also the lives of real victims. It not only takes resources away from their cases but removes support from those suffering real atrocities as people find it harder to trust which crimes are real, and which are fake.

Be very cautious when dealing with Vanessa Mae Lee Sy and her family. The best advice is to stay far away. There are many other incidents involving their family that have not received as much attention as this.

Vanessa Sy has not yet taken down her Facebook relationship status with the defendant. It's believed that this is because she enjoys the attention it brings her, as it makes her seem desired. It also allows her to bait sympathy from people when they see the post and promptly ask about him. The fact she's kept this up after so many years gives us insight into the type of person she is, and also those around her. Notice how two-faced and cringey Joseph Pritchard's reply to the post seems, knowing his true feelings.

Vanessa Sy is seen smiling ear to ear with no visible wounding on her neck in this profile picture update, taken just days after she submitted her false assault claims to both SAPOL and the University of Adelaide. Clearly what she alleges happened to her did not affect her as much as she claims it did. She later realised this photo was a bad look, and has since deleted it from her public profile, unlike the previous relationship status, which remains up for the aforementioned reasons.

Vanessa Sy and Samantha Pineda making a mockery of Vanessa Sy's claims as they cosplay two victims of a brutal and fatal assault from the film The Shining. The tone-deaf nature of this need not be stated. Imagine a Jew cosplaying in striped pajamas, or an African-American in ball and chain. Vanessa Sy clearly doesn't take her own claims too seriously, yet will demand sympathy be paid out in full. One cannot be expected to have their cake and to eat it too. In our experience, real victims don't want to be victims and will take any opportunity to resolve past wounds. As seen from Vanessa Sy's responses to our questioning, as well as included photographs like these, Vanessa Sy's pattern of behaviour is that of the abuser, not the abused.

A photo taken from Samantha Pineda's instagram showcasing a scene in which a hoard of friends, including Vanessa Sy on the left, do Samantha Pineda's narcissistic bidding.

!NOTE! Vanessa Sy and Samantha Pineda have both scrubbed every picture of them with Joseph Pritchard from their public social media accounts in either an attempt to further obfuscate the truth, or as the result of a break-up. Both possible outcomes cement the story proposed by the defendant.

Joseph Pritchard has since fled to the UK. You can read more about him at this website.