'The key to unlocking' the secret of the mysterious case of Phuong Nga - Toan My

The mysterious case of Phuong Nga - Toan My is attracting great public attention with consecutive unexpected developments updated during the proceedings.

The problem here in the most basic litigation activity of "determining the truth of the case" according to Article 10 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is in a mess of mixed true and false information reflecting the content of the case, what is the truth? Note, all documents and statements are also created by humans, therefore, statements as well as other documents, are just information reflecting the case, which can be true or fake, to deceive others.

Phuong Nga in court. Photo: VOV

Therefore, determining the truth of a case must follow the logical laws of nature. When piecing together information to reconstruct the truth of the case, only where the information reflects a logical sequence of nature, that place reflects the truth. If in any place the information is illogical, that place does not reflect the truth.

Considering all the information reflecting on the content of the case, the developments are as follows:

First of all, the US voluntarily giving 16 billion VND to Russia to receive is not prohibited by law. If the US wants to reclaim this 16 billion VND, it must have documents proving that the 16 billion VND was lent by the US to Russia. While the US admitted in court that this was the first time it accused Russia of borrowing money and not paying it back, there were no accompanying documents to prove it. Therefore, logically, if the US only accused Russia of borrowing money and not paying it back, the US could not reclaim this 16 billion VND, because there were no documents showing that Russia borrowed from the US. Therefore, when Russia avoided the US from reclaiming the money, there was no basis to determine that Russia had acted fraudulently to abuse trust to appropriate 16 billion VND.

This is appropriate to explain why the US initially accused Russia of not paying back the loan, but then switched to accusing Russia of defrauding the US of buying a house to appropriate 16 billion. Because Russia did not know that the US had changed its accusation, it still only knew that the US initially accused Russia of not paying back the loan, so Russia forged documents to pay back all the money to the US to avoid having to pay back the money.

To accuse Nga of fraudulently buying a house and appropriating money, there must be evidence to prove that Nga has fraudulently purchased a house to appropriate this 16 billion. Therefore, it is necessary to have documents for the house purchase that Nga forged.

So, if the US wants to get back 16 billion from Russia by filing a complaint about fraudulent house purchase, Russia must be "suddenly" foolish enough to create fake house purchase documents. And of course, for Russia to be "suddenly" foolish enough to bring disaster upon itself, someone must "foolishly" incite Russia to do this.

It is also important to note that Russia's act of creating fake documents to pay off all debts to the US, forging the US's signature and then submitting them to the police in order to deceive the police is an absurd and foolish act. Therefore, this is logical to explain why Russia did not know that the US had changed the accusation to accusing Russia of fraud in buying and selling houses, but Russia "suddenly" foolishly created a fake house sale contract to prove that the US was right in accusing Russia of fraud in buying and selling houses.

So, of course, it is illogical for Russia to suddenly and foolishly do such falsified things to prove its own dishonesty. Therefore, logically, there must be someone who plays the role of “advisor” to help Russia solve the problem but in fact is pushing Russia to “death”.

This is consistent with why in court, Nga and Dung accused a person who claimed to be an "advisor" to help Nga escape legal involvement, but in fact, he foolishly encouraged Nga to create evidence to prove that the US's accusations against Nga for fraud in buying and selling houses were correct.

Normally, of course, Ms. Mai Phuong denies the role of "inciting" as Nga and Dung declared, because there is no objective evidence to prove her role of "inciting". Therefore, if only Ms. Mai Phuong is allowed to confront in court, because she insists on denying, it is still not possible to open the door containing the secret truth of this case. Thus, we must find the latch of that door to remove and open the secrets of the case.

So the key to keeping the case secret here is the fake house purchase contract that Nga hired Mr. Yen to create to prove that Nga had bought the house. If it is true that Mr. My accused Nga of defrauding him into buying a house to appropriate 16 billion, then this fake house purchase contract must have been created by Nga before Mr. My filed the complaint, that is, it must have been created at least before April 2014. But according to the testimony of Mr. Yen, the person who created this fake contract with Nga, it was created in 2015, right before March 19, the day Nga was arrested.

Thus, the time the signature ink in this fake document was exposed to the environment must have been at least 3 years since 2014 if it is true according to Mr. My's accusation that Nga cheated him into buying a house. If it is true according to Mr. Yen's statement that he was the one who created it, the signature ink was only exposed to the environment for 2 years since 2015.

So with the difference in the time between the signatures being exactly 1 year according to the two statements of Mr. My and Mr. Yen, if this fake signed contract is brought to the Institute of Forensic Science and Technology for appraisal, it will be clear. From there, it can be determined whether Mr. My's accusation is correct or Mr. Yen's statement is correct, which means Nga - Dung's statement is correct.

From the results of the time of signature identification, it is possible to determine whether or not Ms. Mai Phuong and other related people directed the case.

According to Kiemsat.vn