ARUBA - Robyn Gardner, 35, Maryland woman missing in Aruba, 2 Aug 2011 - # 3

[HatesSociopaths]

Good lawyer? With the fraudulent law suit, he withdrew, I believe. And didn't he blackmail one woman with pornographic pics to get her to drop charges as well?

Yes and that was a sexual assault/rape charge ON VIDEO.

Could that video be used as evidence of his character in this murder trial?

 

[Just-a-Guy]

And again, how does the beneficiary PROVE accident when he has no body? The beneficiary has a two hour time frame with no witnesses AFTER a one hour timeframe of them imbibing unknown substances from the car.... and ON HIS WORD--the beneficiary's word-- they were snorkling, she was struggling, and now she's 'missing'.

If I were a betting woman (and had the money to back it!) I'd bet 1.5 million dollars AMEX will not be paying this claim.

I don't think anyone believes AmEx is going to be paying this claim. I think the question, really the only question, is whether the existence of the policy was part of the reason she was killed (assuming she was).

That said, I think a lot of people don't know much about how insurance works. Carriers have little choice in paying out claims when the facts support the claim, even where it really doesn't meet the smell test. I have one case where we strongly believe arson occurred in a building owned by my client, and there is strong circumstantial evidence of that and little to support any other theory. Yet, the carrier has to pay, because of presumptions in the law. GG will be presumed innocent until/unless convicted. That presumption, combined with the policy (a binding contract), could be enough.

But again, I don't think it's going there. GG is too stupid. Something will break.

 

[Just-a-Guy]

Yes and that was a sexual assault/rape charge ON VIDEO.

Could that video be used as evidence of his character in this murder trial?

It was a sexual assault/rape accusation. Not a charge. He was not charged with the crime(s). (Although clearly he should have been.)

And no, I think it is very very unlikely that video would be admitted into evidence in an unrelated case (this one).

 

[HatesSociopaths]

Found a brief summary of a court case that is similar.

Kellman v. Massachusetts Indemnity and Life Insurance Company, United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Case No. CV LV 82617: Obtained defense verdict in lawsuit involving death claim by beneficiary of a mortgage accidental death policy in which the jury found that the insured’s death while swimming in Lake Mead was due to a heart attack rather than drowning. United States District Judge Howard McKibben. Opposing counsel: Daniel Marks, Las Vegas, Nevada (unable to locate).

http://www.manatt.com/MargaretLevy.aspx

 

[HatesSociopaths]

It was a sexual assault/rape accusation. Not a charge. He was not charged with the crime(s). (Although clearly he should have been.)

And no, I think it is very very unlikely that video would be admitted into evidence in an unrelated case (this one).

There was never a criminal case brought forward you are correct. It is my understanding she was pursuing a civil case and then no longer wished to pursue it, so it was dropped. It is unclear to me why the State Attorney did not pursue criminal charges initially. They did obtain a search warrant at that time and got the video evidence of the incident.

 

[Magdalyn]

BBM~

Okay, I am confused by this. Are you saying that he planned to murder her for the insurance money at some OTHER time during the trip, but when he saw what she texted to RF he went crazy and just killed her then instead? With no preparation?:waitasec:

That's what I'm implying, yes. It's just a theory but right now it's where I'm leaning. I think he's in financial straights, has tried a fraudulent lawsuit last year for 5 mil ... and failed. He allegedly tried to get RG to go on a cruise earlier this year and according to her friend he got very angry when she backed out. I'm now wondering if he would have insured her for the cruise as well and if she would have mysteriously fallen overboard. Probably much easier way to dispose of the body/kill her and quicker to declare dead. Not on ship? Must be overboard (fallen from conveyance), drowned...here's your accidental death check!

I think GG's problem is, when we consider people who coldly, calculatedly 'off' people for money, I think most set up a quick scenerio--like Pam Smart--get in, get out. Hire someone, or do it yourself, but get in, get out. GG wanted to also take care of his male ego, (and his male parts) I think. Pretty girl who's agreed to have sex with me .... I can pretend she's really into me for a week, people will envy me, I get hot sex...ohhh, masturbation pictures....then...THEN she'll drown.

But he didn't calculate his own disposition. That he's a jealous, insecure guy who has a history of acting out violently in a rage, and even if he was gonna kill her gently at the end of the trip, SHE screwed it up! How DARE she text a guy that she loves him while being on vacation with me/sleeping with me! I paid for the trip! We just had sex two hours ago! Check please!

Keep in mind, this is my theory today. It could change tomorrow! :crazy:

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

There are two different types. One just for the flight related stuff, and then another for accidents that happen after the destination is reached.

I can't see the insurance company paying under these sketchy circumstances. First off, if she is declared dead without a body then it would still have to be ruled an accident. And to qualify as an accident under the terms of this insurance, she would have had to have been sober at the time, if I am understanding it correctly.

JMO. :twocents:

So which one are we talking about? I'm confused because the Policy posted by HatesSociopaths, #628 refers to "Provisions Applicable to Travel Accidental Protection"------This would relate to the "accidental death" resulting from the "carrier", right?

So are we talking about 'Life Insurance"?

 

[annalia]

There was never a criminal case brought forward you are correct. It is my understanding she was pursuing a civil case and then no longer wished to pursue it, so it was dropped. It is unclear to me why the State Attorney did not pursue criminal charges initially. They did obtain a search warrant at that time and got the video evidence of the incident.

My bolding

I'm just guessing, but they were personally involved with each other at the time of her complaint against him. The video showed a then couple having what could be seen as rough sex. Without her complaint, that's all he would have to say, it was consensual, and that's all they would have. It would be different if it was a video of two strangers. How would police prove for sure, without her testimony, that it wasn't consensual and she just later regretted it?

We see now what he's capable of when we add in all of the things he's done to different women, but then it was just those two people.

 

[Magdalyn]

I don't think anyone believes AmEx is going to be paying this claim. I think the question, really the only question, is whether the existence of the policy was part of the reason she was killed (assuming she was).

That said, I think a lot of people don't know much about how insurance works. Carriers have little choice in paying out claims when the facts support the claim, even where it really doesn't meet the smell test. I have one case where we strongly believe arson occurred in a building owned by my client, and there is strong circumstantial evidence of that and little to support any other theory. Yet, the carrier has to pay, because of presumptions in the law. GG will be presumed innocent until/unless convicted. That presumption, combined with the policy (a binding contract), could be enough. But again, I don't think it's going there. GG is too stupid. Something will break.

In this case, the Slayer Rule comes into play, so no conviction of GG is necessary. Just a preponderence of evidence. And as far as the contract goes, they have witnesses at the restaurant who say they were imbibing on drinks from GGs car, she appeared woozy and chose to go snorkling (avoidable combo of events here, IMO).... and to qualify as an 'accident', they don't have a 'single identifiable time' just a two hour window when he says it happened and no witnesses of the accident...except the beneficiary.

 

[HatesSociopaths]

Accidental Death
Accident and Sickness Proof of Loss Claim Form is to be used.
Documents to enclose (all certified true copy)

official police report and other related report (i.e. inter-office accident report,
newspaper clippings, etc.)

duly registered death certificate

autopsy report/medico-legal statement

affidavit of witness

available photos taken at incident scene

proof of relationship of the beneficiary (such as marriage contract, birth
certificate, baptismal and passport)

birth certificate of Insured Person

http://amex.bdo.com.ph/AMEX/PDF/B1 Ace Insurance Claim Form.pdf

 

[webrocket]

one interesting twist on the life insurance and any future suit to collect it.

whose law applies to what parts of the contract?

is proof of death satisfied by the law of the place of death (or presumed death), i.e. Aruba?

If the beneficiary files suit to collect, under these circumstances there is good reason to believe the insured is dead. usually if the insurance carrier want to avoid paying, it would have to prove to the satisfaction of a jury that the beneficiary caused the death. generally speaking, insurance carriers have the burden of proving an exclusion.

 

[HatesSociopaths]

Eyewitness News obtained a copy of the Cornelius police report detailing the incident in February 2007. It indicates Klein called 911 after Giordano became drunk and disruptive and threw some items inside their home.

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/28838996/detail.html


This is not new info but I wanted to bring up the fact he was drunk per that report. We know he was drinking vodka that day Robyn disappeared. He was also drinking the night of the alleged sexual assault.

I prepared to leave after speaking with my daughter. Gary was angry and ordered me to stay. We drank wine and by 8 p.m., we argued about his past sexual lifestyle as a swinger. I prepared to leave again, but he pushed me into his bed where I stood near the footboard. My clothes were on and I had my period, which I told Gary. He pushed my dress up and pulled out my tampon, throwing it on the floor. We began to have sex. I couldn't look at him, so I turned over. He tried to have anal sex, but I protested. Then, he started to bite me - on my face, neck and breast and buttocks. I turned over to face him and he started to choke me with his bare hands. He then shoved his fingers down my throat. I was struggling and gagging. He then pushed my head onto his (?). I sat quietly and was crying. I told him that I wanted to go home. He protested, then told me to stop being a victim. He got angrier as I got my clothes on, so I huddled on the floor and kept quiet. Moments later, when he went to the bathroom, I ran out and drove home. On 4-16-10 I filled a police report in Montogomery Co. On 4-20-10 I filed assault...

 

[Just-a-Guy]

one interesting twist on the life insurance and any future suit to collect it.

whose law applies to what parts of the contract?

is proof of death satisfied by the law of the place of death (or presumed death), i.e. Aruba?

If the beneficiary files suit to collect, under these circumstances there is good reason to believe the insured is dead. usually if the insurance carrier want to avoid paying, it would have to prove to the satisfaction of a jury that the beneficiary caused the death. generally speaking, insurance carriers have the burden of proving an exclusion.

Very good questions. I'm sure the policy has venue and choice of law provisions. My guess is those are binding. But it may be that the choice of law analysis leads to a conclusion that some other jurisdiction's law should apply (I assume you're a lawyer and know what I mean by that).

There are also various principles requiring the recognition of foreign judgments or decisions. IOW, if Aruba determines that she is dead, I suspect that would be recognized in most US jurisdictions.

I'm also guessing that if he is not convicted (or even charged) in Aruba, it will be difficult for the carrier to meet its burden in avoiding the policy (kind of what I was saying in the above post about the contractual obligations).

Then there is the "practical reality" of it. AmEx will almost certainly refuse to pay it out, and force him to bring a lawsuit. He can't afford good counsel for that litigation. So he will likely be left looking for a contingency lawyer. I'm sure he'll find someone hungry enough to take it...but in my experience it's fairly easy to wear such a lawyer down if you have a deep pocket client on the other side. And AmEx will have a field day in discovery. As I think about it, that case would be quite a circus, potentially....

 

[Magdalyn]

Very good questions. I'm sure the policy has venue and choice of law provisions. My guess is those are binding. But it may be that the choice of law analysis leads to a conclusion that some other jurisdiction's law should apply (I assume you're a lawyer and know what I mean by that).

There are also various principles requiring the recognition of foreign judgments or decisions. IOW, if Aruba determines that she is dead, I suspect that would be recognized in most US jurisdictions.

I'm also guessing that if he is not convicted (or even charged) in Aruba, it will be difficult for the carrier to meet its burden in avoiding the policy (kind of what I was saying in the above post about the contractual obligations).

Then there is the "practical reality" of it. AmEx will almost certainly refuse to pay it out, and force him to bring a lawsuit. He can't afford good counsel for that litigation. So he will likely be left looking for a contingency lawyer. I'm sure he'll find someone hungry enough to take it...but in my experience it's fairly easy to wear such a lawyer down if you have a deep pocket client on the other side. And AmEx will have a field day in discovery. As I think about it, that case would be quite a circus, potentially....

I think I just read recently Natalee Holloway has still not been declared dead. Different case, I know, and no one trying to collect accidental death insurance on her, but you just reminded me of what I saw when we were discussing declaring a missing person dead.

I believe for AMEX's purposes, it's 52 weeks. So, if I understood it correctly, if her body isn't found, he still has 52 weeks to wait before he can call her dead for AMEX's purposes.

 

[kimmera]

That's what I'm implying, yes. It's just a theory but right now it's where I'm leaning. I think he's in financial straights, has tried a fraudulent lawsuit last year for 5 mil ... and failed. He allegedly tried to get RG to go on a cruise earlier this year and according to her friend he got very angry when she backed out. I'm now wondering if he would have insured her for the cruise as well and if she would have mysteriously fallen overboard. Probably much easier way to dispose of the body/kill her and quicker to declare dead. Not on ship? Must be overboard (fallen from conveyance), drowned...here's your accidental death check!

I think GG's problem is, when we consider people who coldly, calculatedly 'off' people for money, I think most set up a quick scenerio--like Pam Smart--get in, get out. Hire someone, or do it yourself, but get in, get out. GG wanted to also take care of his male ego, (and his male parts) I think. Pretty girl who's agreed to have sex with me .... I can pretend she's really into me for a week, people will envy me, I get hot sex...ohhh, masturbation pictures....then...THEN she'll drown.

But he didn't calculate his own disposition. That he's a jealous, insecure guy who has a history of acting out violently in a rage, and even if he was gonna kill her gently at the end of the trip, SHE screwed it up! How DARE she text a guy that she loves him while being on vacation with me/sleeping with me! I paid for the trip! We just had sex two hours ago! Check please!

Keep in mind, this is my theory today. It could change tomorrow! :crazy:

LOL...glad I'm not the only one! My thoughts change from day to day, and then sometimes things just don't feel right in my gut, no matter what the evidence says. I would make a terrible detective. :fence:

I think your theory is as good as any, considering what we know to be true at this point. :seeya:

 

[OneLove]

I agree with you here, but if this is the case then he knew exactly what
he was up against. Why then keep her around in a miserable relationship? >> snipped<<
KWIM?

Why keep her around in a miserable relationship? I'm guessing that most of us know at least 5 couples we could ask the same of. Publicly, we could ask why Sherri Coleman stayed with Chris, Michelle Young with Jason, Nancy Cooper with Brad, Rachel Entwistle with Neil, Laci Peterson with Scott, Janet Abaroa with Raven, Logan McQuery with Elizabeth, Billie Dunn with Shawn, Darin Routier with Darlie, my stepdaughter with her husband, and me with my narcissistic sociopathic husband for 20 years.

All but the last two ended in death to innocent lives because they thought they could figure out how to make it work, make better people of their seriously flawed partners, felt somewhat responsible for having gotten into their situations, and saw just enough positive in the person to want things to work out.

I finally realized I could not FIX the relationship OR the sociopathy and escaped with my life and psyche intact, but many people end up dying before they realize this. I fear this for my stepdaughter, who has already been threatened and whose husband will not take his meds.

It is also common to try to convince oneself that the other person isn't as bad as all that, would never harm, or isn't "really" lying.

Such MIGHT have been the case with Robyn's bf. He may have only accepted how flawed she really was upon finding out on the national news that she was in Aruba with a man she had been seeing regularly for several years. Knowing what I know now from twenty years of my life wasted with a sociopathic bum, if it was me, I would write her off at that point, whether she was dead, alive, or missing. It's just NOT HIS PROBLEM!

And if he made some cash doing media spots to recoup money he may now think he was foolishly conned out of by her these last few years, more power to him. I hope it helps him become a healthier, less vulnerable victim in the future (although I would have preferred he just walk quietly away into the sunset).

 

[annalia]

Why keep her around in a miserable relationship? I'm guessing that most of us know at least 5 couples we could ask the same of. Publicly, we could ask why Sherri Coleman stayed with Chris, Michelle Young with Jason, Nancy Cooper with Brad, Rachel Entwistle with Neil, Laci Peterson with Scott, Janet Abaroa with Raven, Logan McQuery with Elizabeth, Billie Dunn with Shawn, Darin Routier with Darlie, my stepdaughter with her husband, and me with my narcissistic sociopathic husband for 20 years.

All but the last two ended in death to innocent lives because they thought they could figure out how to make it work, make better people of their seriously flawed partners, felt somewhat responsible for having gotten into their situations, and saw just enough positive in the person to want things to work out.

I finally realized I could not FIX the relationship OR the sociopathy and escaped with my life and psyche intact, but many people end up dying before they realize this. I fear this for my stepdaughter, who has already been threatened and whose husband will not take his meds.

It is also common to try to convince oneself that the other person isn't as bad as all that, would never harm, or isn't "really" lying.

Such MIGHT have been the case with Robyn's bf. He may have only accepted how flawed she really was upon finding out on the national news that she was in Aruba with a man she had been seeing regularly for several years. Knowing what I know now from twenty years of my life wasted with a sociopathic bum, if it was me, I would write her off at that point, whether she was dead, alive, or missing. It's just NOT HIS PROBLEM!

And if he made some cash doing media spots to recoup money he may now think he was foolishly conned out of by her these last few years, more power to him. I hope it helps him become a healthier, less vulnerable victim in the future (although I would have preferred he just walk quietly away into the sunset).

How do we know that RF wasn't the one that was the problem in the relationship? How do we know that it wasn't RG who was getting fed up with him?

We don't know what they're relationship was like but if you've heard RG's friend speaking, she alludes to there being problems and that it wasn't Robyn.

 

[kimmera]

Well, something must have happened for him to chose not to purse working with her. With what she is saying about him and outing the photos of RG, RF is showing A LOT of class with the response to HatesSociopaths.

It looks like CB was fixing to go down a very salacious route with this, judging by the pics that she chose to put up. Maybe RF just wasn't willing to go there. He clearly loves RG, and doesn't want her name to be dragged through the mud, especially if she is no longer alive. JMO.:twocents:

 

[AngelFish]

It looks like CB was fixing to go down a very salacious route with this, judging by the pics that she chose to put up. Maybe RF just wasn't willing to go there. He clearly loves RG, and doesn't want her name to be dragged through the mud, especially if she is no longer alive. JMO.:twocents:

Why would CB out the photos and talk badly about RG and RF while she is supposed to be working with RG? I think it is more the case that RF questioned her abilities and removed himself from her and she is now putting out the PR to minimize anything he might say about her.

I don't like what CB is doing. I especially don't like the text of the article with the MM photos of RG.

I really didn't like that RF did not go to Aruba, nor did I like his involvement with CB. I questioned both of those things as they just didn't feel right.

Now I feel really really badly for him (I did already about RG) but even more so now.

 

[OneLove]

How do we know that RF wasn't the one that was the problem in the relationship? How do we know that it wasn't RG who was getting fed up with him?

We don't know what they're relationship was like but if you've heard RG's friend speaking, she alludes to there being problems and that it wasn't Robyn.

Yes, very true, and I am completely open to that...

And yet, it wasn't RF that flew to Aruba for an all-expense-paid vacation with another woman he had been seeing on the side regularly while lying about it to RG.

The friend's innuendos are completely vague and unspecified, therefore I can't really give much weight to them until she clarifies. At this point, she might just hold a grudge against RF for any number of reasons, not the least of which could be that RG may have lied to HER about the way "things were" the same way she lied to RF. This may have been simply to justify to her friend why she would run off on impulse with known scum-bucket to Aruba while she was still living with RF.