ARUBA - Robyn Gardner, 35, Maryland woman missing in Aruba, 2 Aug 2011 - #10

[Dushi]

I do not think she will be washing up if she was/is in the water.

I think the possibility of that happening at this time is nil.

I would like to know how "we" know that she had hair extensions in. Other then RF saying it I am having a hard time thinking that she willing went to aruba with a "friend" knowing that he had snorkeling gear he brought with him mind you for them to snorkel. Yet we are to believe the person that she lied to about her where abouts.

Well Elley Mae

Not only did RF mention it , but her good friend, who also happenes to be her hairdresser
So I feel its safe to say RG wore hair extensions

 

[Blueskies]

So many lies and liars in this case it's hard to know what is fact. What I can tell you is ALL the National Enquirer articles are totally bogus as well as most of what Carla Baron reported in her blog. Someone very high up in the LE told me there was NO hand off of thousands of dollars to Richard Forester at the airport. There is no cctv footage of this exchange of money and no proof whatsoever Robyn was a paid escort.

You can come to your own conclusions why Taco Stein lied on national tv about there being no blood evidence in this case. Just weeks later blood samples found on a towel and Robyns Ipad were sent to the NFI in Holland for testing according to ABC and other media. According to those article's it was two months later because of budget cuts.

Truth is dogs and a professional search team was ready to be deployed to Aruba very early in the case at not cost to Aruba and it was denied. It wasn't until 2 months later that a Dutch team with dogs were deployed and sadly it was far too late to find Robyns scent or any clues. Taco Stein was quoted as saying the Dutch team had left the island after a few days of searching but if you read the personal blog of the Dutch search team they stayed two days after this conducting searches. Either way not allowing bloodhounds by the FBI or scent/cadaver dogs from the US in the very beginning is inconceivable.

Only one report came from a supposed witness that Robyns dress was found..She claimed she found it odd as it was far away from the two towels. Sorry,I dont have a link I believe it was ABC news.

 

[LambChop]

So many lies and liars in this case it's hard to know what is fact. What I can tell you is ALL the National Enquirer articles are totally bogus as well as most of what Carla Baron reported in her blog. Someone very high up in the LE told me there was NO hand off of thousands of dollars to Richard Forester at the airport. There is no cctv footage of this exchange of money and no proof whatsoever Robyn was a paid escort.

You can come to your own conclusions why Taco Stein lied on national tv about there being no blood evidence in this case. Just weeks later blood samples found on a towel and Robyns Ipad were sent to the NFI in Holland for testing according to ABC and other media. According to those article's it was two months later because of budget cuts.

Truth is dogs and a professional search team was ready to be deployed to Aruba very early in the case at not cost to Aruba and it was denied. It wasn't until 2 months later that a Dutch team with dogs were deployed and sadly it was far too late to find Robyns scent or any clues. Taco Stein was quoted as saying the Dutch team had left the island after a few days of searching but if you read the personal blog of the Dutch search team they stayed two days after this conducting searches. Either way not allowing bloodhounds by the FBI or scent/cadaver dogs from the US in the very beginning is inconceivable.

Only one report came from a supposed witness that Robyns dress was found..She claimed she found it odd as it was far away from the two towels. Sorry,I dont have a link I believe it was ABC news.

What was sent out to the lab was not going to change. The blood sample could still be tested as well as the computer. The dogs used in the search were cadaver dogs and they were looking for a body on land not a live person. And aren't bloodhounds used for searching for a person who is alive, or was alive at the time. According to GG's story he placed her at Baby Beach and their search area was right there. Investigations take time and given the fact the GG claimed she drowned I'm sure they were waiting for that body to come into shore.

And, yes, they do have remains washing ashore from those who have drowned. Presuming she went into the water from the coastal area her body should have returned by now. A few months before RG went missing someone found a human skull on the beach in Aruba. So remains do wash ashore.

LOL....criminals very rarely ever tell the truth. jmo

 

[Dushi]

Great posts Lambchop

 

[katydid23]

I do not think she will be washing up if she was/is in the water.

I think the possibility of that happening at this time is nil.

I would like to know how "we" know that she had hair extensions in. Other then RF saying it I am having a hard time thinking that she willing went to aruba with a "friend" knowing that he had snorkeling gear he brought with him mind you for them to snorkel. Yet we are to believe the person that she lied to about her where abouts.

Her friend who was a hairdresser told us about the extensions. She did an interview where she said they were put in right before the trip and cost a lot of money because they were the expensive type that are hand glued to the hair shaft.
I will look for the link.

 

[Tugela]

I believe they can't find the rental car in the video because you can't see the marker number and there is no identification visible to tell what rental agency it belonged to. I'm sure they hoped someone would come forward but not everyone is following this case and a tourist may not have any idea the police are interested in speaking with them.

So human trafficing in Aruba....one attractive blond woman every seven years. Now that's an interesting concept. A real money maker I'm sure. Since GG called the insurance company four times I think he was more interested in collecting the 1.5 million because he knows she died in the water.

GG is free because there is no body. No proof she is actually dead. If her remains eventually come ashore, I think they will charge him with her death. Here in the US we don't need a body to charge someone with a crime, but in Aruba obviously they do.

And does it not stand to reason that any country that depends on tourism would be concerned about this type of trafficing activity if it were happening. The Arubans have beautiful young children who I'm sure they would not want subjected to this type of criminal behavior just as we would not tolerate in our own neighborhood. In fact open up your local daily newspaper and see what type of criminal activity is going on in your neighborhood. Shocking, isn't it. jmo

They don't need a body, but they do need evidence of a crime. Apparently they don't have that, it is just a suspicion, and that is not enough, even in the US (for the most part).

When LE starts to try to make the evidence fit their theory of the crime, rather than the other way around, that is when you start to have a high risk of a miscarriage of justice and a false conviction. A perfect example of that would be the Amanda Knox case. In can happen in any country, with or without a body, when the local law enforcement officials lose sight of their role in justice.

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

:waitasec:

Edited to add: I was actually replying to a post that stated they have the dress, as if it were fact - so I should have said, that is not a fact, they have never revealed that they have her dress

I am not sure I am understanding this:waitasec:
Who is THEY--ALE?

Don't you think if they had found her dress we would know about it?

NO--ALE has not confirmed much, least of all her belongings being found.

I'm sure, with the witness statement, regardless of how credible, they have to assume it blew into the water. Not finding her dress would not equate to no snorkeling or murder.

So you think they can explain NO Dress by ASSUMING it blew in the water? I find this remarkable considering how many minuet inconsistencies constitute guilt in your mind, but not finding her belongings isn't one of them.

We know about the towel with blood on it, why wouldn't they tell the public if the dress had been found?

Maybe ALE only tell us the pieces of evidence that cause them concern i.e., things that make him appear guilty. Finding RG's belongings would be consistent with GG's account of them going in the water. You don't go swimming with your dress and shoes on (well , only if they are heavy sneakers)
AND just how much blood are we talking about--a drop from a cut on her toe?

They did hold GG, for three months - not finding the dress could have been part of it, we don't know.

....and now the dress is important enough to "hold" GG in Aruba?:waitasec:

 

[LambChop]

They don't need a body, but they do need evidence of a crime. Apparently they don't have that, it is just a suspicion, and that is not enough, even in the US (for the most part).

When LE starts to try to make the evidence fit their theory of the crime, rather than the other way around, that is when you start to have a high risk of a miscarriage of justice and a false conviction. A perfect example of that would be the Amanda Knox case. In can happen in any country, with or without a body, when the local law enforcement officials lose sight of their role in justice.

Arubans are the one's that said there is no body. I realize they would not need a body if they were certain she was dead. They are not. For all they know it could be an elaborate plan by both GG and RG to collect insurance money and she ended up dead but not by GG's hands (highly doubtful at this stage). So, I think that is their issue. Until they have some type of remains to prove she is, in fact, deceased and not hiding somewhere or dead by someone else's hands they are still investigating.

You'd be surprised at what lands on the beach coming in from the ocean. I always take a trip on the eastern coast while I'm down there. Have not missed a year and it is amazing what you find on those small beach areas that have little to no traffic on them. There has been less and less trash lately since they clamped down on the cruise ships dumping trash at sea but trash still washes up. They do clean up those spots but every once in awhile something washes up while you are there. So it is possible something of RG's could still wash up. jmo

 

[Saracen]

:waitasec:[/B]
....and now the dress is important enough to "hold" GG in Aruba?:waitasec:

And all that would prove by DNA would be that there was a link between GG and RG, and somehow i think that has already been established:crazy:

 

[Dushi]

:waitasec:[/B]
....and now the dress is important enough to "hold" GG in Aruba?:waitasec:

There is a video up thread saying a witness saw the dress on the beach, with, but away from the towel

From that (if you choose to believe the witness) we know that whatever happened to RG, she was not wearing the dress

What happened to it after that, i surely don't know, but it was accounted for at one point

 

[vlpate]

:waitasec:[/B]
....and now the dress is important enough to "hold" GG in Aruba?:waitasec:

LOL, I don't know, you are the one who suggested it would be:

Don't you think if they did not recover her dress that might be grounds for holding GG , perhaps charging him? I mean that would sure make ME suspect he disposed of Robyn with her dress on, therefore NO SNORKELING!!

Everything I've read states the "witness saw" the dress in the distance, not, "authorities found the dress" laying on the beach. The "witness saw" the towels and the "authorities found" the towel.

 

[vlpate]

So you think they can explain NO Dress by ASSUMING it blew in the water? I find this remarkable considering how many minuet inconsistencies constitute guilt in your mind, but not finding her belongings isn't one of them.

If they don't have the dress (which would mean the didn't find it on GG or in the room), but it was there within feet of the towels (according to a witness), they would:

a. have to assume it blew off the rocks and into the sea
b. have to believe that the witness was mistaken
c. deduce Robyn put it back on, went back into the sea, and drowned in it.
d. suspect GG destroyed or hid it
e. suspect that a dingo took it.

I've stated many times I would like to know where her dress, her sunglasses, her panties and bra, and the jewelry she was wearing that day were. If LE has all these things, where did they find them?

BTW, post not poster IYDM

 

[vlpate]

And all that would prove by DNA would be that there was a link between GG and RG, and somehow i think that has already been established:crazy:

If there was blood on the dress, it would be meaningful - any soil or sand would be important - where they found it would also be very important.

 

[neesaki]

So are you saying LE does not have the dress? That would make sense because I would think they might have given the dress back to GG to put with her belongings that first night. I was hoping they would have tested the dress to see if there were traces of blood on it. Not that it would prove anything. jmo

ETA: Hey, we just got moved up to the top of the page.

Would ALE not have taken the dress into evidence once they arrested GG? A little late of course. The think is, if there were blood evidence GG wouldn't have left it laying on the rocks would he? :waitasec:

Come to think of it, do we know when Robyn's mother left Aruba? Did she take Robyn's belongings with her or did LE in fact keep them?

 

[Saracen]

Would ALE not have taken the dress into evidence once they arrested GG? A little late of course. The think is, if there were blood evidence GG wouldn't have left it laying on the rocks would he? :waitasec:

Come to think of it, do we know when Robyn's mother left Aruba? Did she take Robyn's belongings with her or did LE in fact keep them?

Maybe any blood evidence could be so minute to the naked eye, that forensic tests could have been carried out. But personal effects such as her rings or purse should have been passed on to her family.IMO

 

[redheadedgal]

re: NH and RG and human trafficking theory


clint van zandt --US army intelligence and 20 yr career with FBI including being a profiler who correctly profiled timothy mcveigh and the unibomber--does not believe either woman was trafficked.

fwiw.


http://www.wtop.com/?nid=41&sid=2657078
http://www.cbn.com/700club/guests/bios/ClintvanZandt110206.aspx

 

[LambChop]

Plus from what we know of GG, he's not about to give away what he can't have. It's his MO. If he can't have her, no one will and he'll make a couple of bucks on the side. It's who he is, as we can see has been proven time and time again in his relationships with women. jmo

 

[thumbtack]

Why is this thread a "sticky" now?

 

[TheWNP]

While searching for some other related information, I came across this link which has a few statements from his ex-wife and other detailed comments about his behavior that I hadn't seen before:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/08/13/shirt-in-aruba-mine-not-linked-to-us-woman/

 

[Dushi]

A little information on some of her belongings...

"They said they have her computer, her iPad and I asked them a couple of hours ago when I was talking to them, have you gotten into it yet and they told me they're working on it," explained Forester.

Forester, who had fought with Gardner about her trip with Giordano before she departed, says the last words they exchanged were "I love you." Now they're words he hopes to hear once again.

"They told me they were sending the BlackBerry to the Netherlands because they were more capable of getting into it there," explained Forester. "They told me that the FBI is involved, the Interpol is involved and I said you know I want that BlackBerry put in the FBI's hands."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4408277...land-woman-missing-aruba-travel-partner-held/



From time line

3:10pm - Robyn sends RF a Facebook message 'Don't worry. I care about you I love you we'll talk and sort things out when I got back,' Reportedly went to bathroom after entering restaurant.

Wednesday, August 4th – throughout the day per RF – RG’s gmail chat function – turned green (active), orange (idle) and gray (signed off) on Wednesday and Thursday.




Was Robyn using her ipad To send messages on August 2?