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

[Sapphire]

The Arubans are on record as searching. They also are on record stating that the body, if it were indeed where he said she disappeared should have been there. I think they would know better than anyone whether or not the body could have been swept out to sea under the conditions at the time. It has been reported that the body should have still been in that general area because the currents would be moving her into shore, not out to sea. In one of the earlier threads there was a video taken in the water at that location and you can see there is no strong current pulling anything floating in the water out. If you were to go out a little farther where the water is really deep the conditions might change but this was pretty close to shore. As in all other cases where people have drowned the body comes in, not out or floats to the surface and is recovered quickly. Her body just vanished without a trace.

If there was a crime the US cannot charge him in this country unless they can prove he pre-planned the crime before leaving. This is why they are doing the computer search. Had this happened in the US it's been reported and it is believed by GMA that there is enough probable cause to charge him with her death.

I'm curious as to who made the statement that they looked like they were into each other when that certainly isn't evidenced by the videos and pictures we have seen.

Also his history of abuse has been well documented. They don't need an arrest record for them to consider his past behavior. jmo

Regarding the bolded text above, it came from a witness at the Rum Reef Restaurant.


<snip>

Those who saw the couple at the restaurant tell ABC News they were clearly in a romantic relationship, with Gardner reportedly telling the server, at one point, she was waiting for her "husband" to order.

The server at the restaurant said Giordano "inexplicably" jumped up after the couple sat down and introduced himself, saying, "My name is Gary and this is Robyn and we're from Maryland." The server found Giordano's behavior odd and reported it to authorities.

<snip>

http://abcnews.go.com/International...ged-snorkeling/story?id=14361836#.T0MMQIdunTo

 

[Sapphire]

But then we have a couple from Ohio, who met Robyn and Gary on the beach of the Marriott Resort, saying something completely different from the witness at the restaurant regarding their observation of the relationship.

<snip>

Near dusk on July 31, an Ohio couple on a leisurely seaside stroll happened upon Robyn Gardner and Gary Giordano on a stretch of white sand near the Aruba Marriott Resort, where all four Americans were staying. Sinking into neighboring lounge chairs, the married pair fell into conversation with Gardner, 35, who said that she and Giordano, 50, had arrived from Maryland that day. The couple, who were winding down a four-day trip, eagerly shared tourist tips, among them, "Go to Baby Beach." Gardner was "outgoing [and] wanted to know more about the island," the husband recalls, but Giordano "never said a word." The husband couldn't help but notice how far apart Gardner and Giordano sat, especially since they were on an exotic holiday together. "Normally when you get there, you're kind of cozy," he says. "It didn't seem like they were together at all."

<snip>

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20523225,00.html

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

The Arubans are on record as searching. They also are on record stating that the body, if it were indeed where he said she disappeared should have been there. I think they would know better than anyone whether or not the body could have been swept out to sea under the conditions at the time. It has been reported that the body should have still been in that general area because the currents would be moving her into shore, not out to sea. In one of the earlier threads there was a video taken in the water at that location and you can see there is no strong current pulling anything floating in the water out. If you were to go out a little farther where the water is really deep the conditions might change but this was pretty close to shore. As in all other cases where people have drowned the body comes in, not out or floats to the surface and is recovered quickly. Her body just vanished without a trace.

If there was a crime the US cannot charge him in this country unless they can prove he pre-planned the crime before leaving. This is why they are doing the computer search. Had this happened in the US it's been reported and it is believed by GMA that there is enough probable cause to charge him with her death.

I'm curious as to who made the statement that they looked like they were into each other when that certainly isn't evidenced by the videos and pictures we have seen.

Also his history of abuse has been well documented. They don't need an arrest record for them to consider his past behavior. jmo

I never said there were NO searches. I said we have no information on "When" those searches began. Therefore , at least IMO, ALE being on record saying the "body should have been there" ....well what does that really mean until we know when those searches began and under what conditions those searches were conducted. NOWHERE has that been stated, and until it is IMOO that statement means very little.

I also never said GG not being arrested negated his culpability in those abuse reports.

I realize GG can only be charged in the U.S if computer records indicate premeditation. What do you think is taking the U.S. so long anyway. Surely by now they should have some indication, don't you think?

I guess I never saw the GMA report that states there is enough probable cause to charge him here.....but then perhaps this entire case would of been handled much differently here, and dare I say better?

You are so right, Lambchop, I know better than to make a statement without backing it up. I think it was reported by the staff at Rum Reef when he was supposed to have introduced themselves to the server....but your right in questioning that ....so many things have been reported and later found to be in error. Let me say this "no one to my knowledge has reported GG exhibiting abusive behavior toward RG.

Sorry if my Post was unclear, I tend to think faster than I type, and that can be quit a mess.

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

Regarding the bolded text above, it came from a witness at the Rum Reef Restaurant.


<snip>

Those who saw the couple at the restaurant tell ABC News they were clearly in a romantic relationship, with Gardner reportedly telling the server, at one point, she was waiting for her "husband" to order.

The server at the restaurant said Giordano "inexplicably" jumped up after the couple sat down and introduced himself, saying, "My name is Gary and this is Robyn and we're from Maryland." The server found Giordano's behavior odd and reported it to authorities.

<snip>

http://abcnews.go.com/International...ged-snorkeling/story?id=14361836#.T0MMQIdunTo

Thanks Sapphire, I knew that was somewhere. I guess I was writing my comment when your post went up.

I guess my point was---GG prior abusive behavior has no bearing on this case because there was no abuse witnessed while in Aruba with RG.

 

[neesaki]

Regarding the bolded text above, it came from a witness at the Rum Reef Restaurant.


<snip>

Those who saw the couple at the restaurant tell ABC News they were clearly in a romantic relationship, with Gardner reportedly telling the server, at one point, she was waiting for her "husband" to order.

The server at the restaurant said Giordano "inexplicably" jumped up after the couple sat down and introduced himself, saying, "My name is Gary and this is Robyn and we're from Maryland." The server found Giordano's behavior odd and reported it to authorities.

<snip>

http://abcnews.go.com/International...ged-snorkeling/story?id=14361836#.T0MMQIdunTo

These two separate witness statements just don't seem to coher; they must be from two different witnesses / employees. jmo

 

[neesaki]

I never said there were NO searches. I said we have no information on "When" those searches began. Therefore , at least IMO, ALE being on record saying the "body should have been there" ....well what does that really mean until we know when those searches began and under what conditions those searches were conducted. NOWHERE has that been stated, and until it is IMOO that statement means very little.

I also never said GG not being arrested negated his culpability in those abuse reports.

I realize GG can only be charged in the U.S if computer records indicate premeditation. What do you think is taking the U.S. so long anyway. Surely by now they should have some indication, don't you think?

I guess I never saw the GMA report that states there is enough probable cause to charge him here.....but then perhaps this entire case would of been handled much differently here, and dare I say better?

You are so right, Lambchop, I know better than to make a statement without backing it up. I think it was reported by the staff at Rum Reef when he was supposed to have introduced themselves to the server....but your right in questioning that ....so many things have been reported and later found to be in error. Let me say this "no one to my knowledge has reported GG exhibiting abusive behavior toward RG.

Sorry if my Post was unclear, I tend to think faster than I type, and that can be quit a mess.

I can't say for sure, but this sounds like they are referring to the search the day she was reported missing which was Aug. 2nd. But then again, it's a little ambiguous, these darn reporters.... :dunno:

Search for Robyn Gardner Called off in Aruba
[/B]
Giordano called police in Aruba around 6:30 p.m. on Aug. 2 to say he and Gardner got separated while snorkeling and she never made it back to shore. Video and photos obtained by the AP show him assisting police in a helicopter and boat search of the Dutch island's coastline.

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/maryland/search-for-robyn-gardner-called-off-in-aruba-081111

 

[Tugela]

So you believe all these witnesses were lying? To what end. There was no reason for them to lie, there was no $1.5M policy waiting in the wings to pay them off.

Eye witness accounts are notoriously faulty. People often think they saw something when they either did not, saw something else or misunderstood what they saw. And even when people do see something, the details are allmost allways distorted and inaccurate unless what they were observing was highly unusual.

People will say and do anything to get on TV as well, or to get attention as part of the story. And what makes you think that these people were not paid for their interviews and/or for acting as "sources"? That is common practice in tabloid journalism and most of the stories we are reading come from tabloid style news sources.

Ask yourself this, if this was an average day, and someone saw a stranger in passing, why would they remember the details of an unremarkable and mundane event of no immediate interest to them days or weeks later? Do you? Can you describe in detail the couple who passed you in the supermarket last week and what they were doing? Seriously.

 

[LambChop]

Eye witness accounts are notoriously faulty. People often think they saw something when they either did not, saw something else or misunderstood what they saw. And even when people do see something, the details are allmost allways distorted and inaccurate unless what they were observing was highly unusual.

People will say and do anything to get on TV as well, or to get attention as part of the story. And what makes you think that these people were not paid for their interviews and/or for acting as "sources"? That is common practice in tabloid journalism and most of the stories we are reading come from tabloid style news sources.

Ask yourself this, if this was an average day, and someone saw a stranger in passing, why would they remember the details of an unremarkable and mundane event of no immediate interest to them days or weeks later? Do you? Can you describe in detail the couple who passed you in the supermarket last week and what they were doing? Seriously.

LE never discounts a statement from witnesses when they all state the same thing, which is the case here. We know there were multible statements that were basically the same. Only one person was interviewed, Mr. Silva by the media, the others were not. And we really do not know how many witnesses LE had, all totalled because that was never disclosed.

Now, ask yourself this.....how many small towns are overrun with tourists and foreigners. There are many reasons why Arubans pay attention to people on their island. In this case GG and RG were walking in an area that most tourists do not visit and RG was dressed for dinner with her high wedged heels walking in a very rocky area would probably draw our attention, too, had we been there. The fishermen may fish at this location all the time and never see anyone walking along that area of the jetty. Mr. Silva said GG drew his attention by the erratic way he was driving his car and that he approached the jetty from the wrong direction. He also described that they walked along the jetty for a short period and then left in the car, same as all the other witnesses. They were fishing, standing there waiting for a fish to bite on their lines. It's not as if they were phyiscally doing a job such has cleaning the restaurant and did not have time to notice. When people act normally you do not notice them but obviously from all the statements people did notice them and we can see from the still photos of them at the beach party the night before that GG liked to draw attention to himself.

Not sure why anyone would believe that many witness statements would not be credible but that GG's accounting might be when his statement does not match with the facts. jmo

 

[Dushi]

I don't know how reliable the witnesses were in this case, but in many cases, it has been proven that eye witness reports are unreliable


But it is not just the thorny issue of recognising a face that confuses witnesses. Witnesses' recollection of every aspect of an incident can be contaminated by what they hear from other people.

It can be hard to distinguish between what you saw, and another source of information.

Even when given a "source monitoring test", where the participants are asked to highlight what they saw and what might have come from other sources, 50% will report an item from their discussions with other people as their own.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4177082.stm


It was posted up thread that Robyns friend was told that Silva had the dates wrong
I have no idea whether that is accurate or not, but given the fact that GG and RG were at the same location twice at the same time and Rg was wearing the same dress, it is something to consider, JMO

 

[Dushi]

LE never discounts a statement from witnesses when they all state the same thing, which is the case here. We know there were multible statements that were basically the same. Only one person was interviewed, Mr. Silva by the media, the others were not. And we really do not know how many witnesses LE had, all totalled because that was never disclosed.

Now, ask yourself this.....how many small towns are overrun with tourists and foreigners. There are many reasons why Arubans pay attention to people on their island. In this case GG and RG were walking in an area that most tourists do not visit and RG was dressed for dinner with her high wedged heels walking in a very rocky area would probably draw our attention, too, had we been there. The fishermen may fish at this location all the time and never see anyone walking along that area of the jetty. Mr. Silva said GG drew his attention by the erratic way he was driving his car and that he approached the jetty from the wrong direction. He also described that they walked along the jetty for a short period and then left in the car, same as all the other witnesses. They were fishing, standing there waiting for a fish to bite on their lines. It's not as if they were phyiscally doing a job such has cleaning the restaurant and did not have time to notice. When people act normally you do not notice them but obviously from all the statements people did notice them and we can see from the still photos of them at the beach party the night before that GG liked to draw attention to himself.

Not sure why anyone would believe that many witness statements would not be credible but that GG's accounting might be when his statement does not match with the facts. jmo

How do you approach the jetty from the wrong direction?

 

[LambChop]

I never said there were NO searches. I said we have no information on "When" those searches began. Therefore , at least IMO, ALE being on record saying the "body should have been there" ....well what does that really mean until we know when those searches began and under what conditions those searches were conducted. NOWHERE has that been stated, and until it is IMOO that statement means very little.

I also never said GG not being arrested negated his culpability in those abuse reports.

I realize GG can only be charged in the U.S if computer records indicate premeditation. What do you think is taking the U.S. so long anyway. Surely by now they should have some indication, don't you think?

I guess I never saw the GMA report that states there is enough probable cause to charge him here.....but then perhaps this entire case would of been handled much differently here, and dare I say better?

You are so right, Lambchop, I know better than to make a statement without backing it up. I think it was reported by the staff at Rum Reef when he was supposed to have introduced themselves to the server....but your right in questioning that ....so many things have been reported and later found to be in error. Let me say this "no one to my knowledge has reported GG exhibiting abusive behavior toward RG.

Sorry if my Post was unclear, I tend to think faster than I type, and that can be quit a mess.

Well from what has been reported it could take a long time to search his computer records. There is no statute of limitations on murder so the US just has to find that link. Aren't we all wondering why Josh Powell was not arrested sooner??? Some crimes need that one piece of evidence to "seal the deal" and I don't think this case is any different.

I don't think he is a danger to any women in the future if they all stay away from him knowing what type of person he is. One can only hope. I don't think GG abuses in public. He likes to do it with no witnesses so all we have are prior statements from those he has abused. Unless, of course, people discount witness statements because they feel they are unreliable but if this is true why would anyone believe GG when apparently he can't rely what happened at the very moment he "became distressed" and swam into shore without checking to see if GG was behind him. At the very least she could have helped him as they weren't that far offshore. An experienced diver leaving their partner behind to drown now where have we heard that before.

Well, we know there was enough daylight to start a search (at least a close to the surface search) because pictures were taken of GG on the beach in his suit pointing in the direction of where they were swimming. I know the helicopters could get there in minutes and LE did say they started searching right away and continued for a couple of days until GG's story started falling apart and those witness statements became more and more consistent that were counter to GG's version of what happened. But as I said I will ask around when I get down there in a couple of months and see when they started.

One thing I can tell you is that the Aruban fishermen and LE's rescue personnel know how those currents run along the island. They know how to search and they have been very successful in recovering bodies of those who have drowned offshore. I asked once, awhile back when NH disappeared, how many people drown here and was told a couple a year and they are recovered. So the belief by the local Arubans, at that time, was that NH did not just wander into the water and drown because her body would have come ashore. This was within a two week period of her going missing. So Arubans are quite aware of what is normal and what is not. jmo

 

[LambChop]

How do you approach the jetty from the wrong direction?

That was his description, not mine. lol Maybe Mr. Silva meant that he should have never been out there with the car. You've been there. Does it make sense to drive out there on that jetty??? I don't know. jmo

 

[LambChop]

I don't know how reliable the witnesses were in this case, but in many cases, it has been proven that eye witness reports are unreliable


But it is not just the thorny issue of recognising a face that confuses witnesses. Witnesses' recollection of every aspect of an incident can be contaminated by what they hear from other people.

It can be hard to distinguish between what you saw, and another source of information.

Even when given a "source monitoring test", where the participants are asked to highlight what they saw and what might have come from other sources, 50% will report an item from their discussions with other people as their own.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4177082.stm


It was posted up thread that Robyns friend was told that Silva had the dates wrong
I have no idea whether that is accurate or not, but given the fact that GG and RG were at the same location twice at the same time and Rg was wearing the same dress, it is something to consider, JMO

Mr. Silva claims to have been over at the rock where GG was sitting and GG appeared to be drunk and he had a discussion with a police officer. I don't think that sounds as if he had the wrong day.

Also witnesses do get the details different such as type of clothing, hair color and sometimes your preception of what is happening is different. In this case the only difference is the amount of time they spent walking before getting into the car. Some thought it was a few minutes, other's said it was more like 15 minutes, which would be common among witnesses because who watches the time and it is usually a guess. All the other information that was provided to LE is consistent with statements from all of the witnesses. They all agree GG and RG got into the car and left and no one saw them in the water. This is the only piece of information that matters because GG claims they NEVER left the area. These are fishermen who are watching for movements in the water.

When witness statements differ they are deemed inconsistent and unreliable by LE. When witness statements are detailed and consistently the same they are considered by LE to be accurate and reliable. Their statements certainly are more consistent than GG's who was their only major source of information. jmo

 

[Dushi]

That was his description, not mine. lol Maybe Mr. Silva meant that he should have never been out there with the car. You've been there. Does it make sense to drive out there on that jetty??? I don't know. jmo

To me , no, it makes no sense, to me, many things about this make no sense

IIRC, There is only one way to go on the jetty
I wasn't asking how much sense it made to drive there, I was asking what you meant when you posted Silvas statement about going the wrong way on the jetty

If the jetty is the rocky point, there is only one way to go, so forgive me, If am confused by the statement

 

[Dushi]

Mr. Silva claims to have been over at the rock where GG was sitting and GG appeared to be drunk and he had a discussion with a police officer. I don't think that sounds as if he had the wrong day.

Also witnesses do get the details different such as type of clothing, hair color and sometimes your preception of what is happening is different. In this case the only difference is the amount of time they spent walking before getting into the car. Some thought it was a few minutes, other's said it was more like 15 minutes, which would be common among witnesses because who watches the time and it is usually a guess. All the other information that was provided to LE is consistent with statements from all of the witnesses. They all agree GG and RG got into the car and left and no one saw them in the water. This is the only piece of information that matters because GG claims they NEVER left the area. These are fishermen who are watching for movements in the water.

When witness statements differ they are deemed inconsistent and unreliable by LE. When witness statements are detailed and consistently the same they are considered by LE to be accurate and reliable. Their statements certainly are more consistent than GG's who was their only major source of information. jmo

That we have been made aware of

Having only seen bits and pieces of witness statements, its hard to determine if there were inconsistantcies

GG says they never left the area. Local fishermen say they saw them drive away. Away.

Nobody saw him or them return, nobody knows when he or they returned

 

[Dushi]

Mr. Silva claims to have been over at the rock where GG was sitting and GG appeared to be drunk and he had a discussion with a police officer. I don't think that sounds as if he had the wrong day

.

Also witnesses do get the details different such as type of clothing, hair color and sometimes your preception of what is happening is different. In this case the only difference is the amount of time they spent walking before getting into the car. Some thought it was a few minutes, other's said it was more like 15 minutes, which would be common among witnesses because who watches the time and it is usually a guess. All the other information that was provided to LE is consistent with statements from all of the witnesses. They all agree GG and RG got into the car and left and no one saw them in the water. This is the only piece of information that matters because GG claims they NEVER left the area. These are fishermen who are watching for movements in the water.

When witness statements differ they are deemed inconsistent and unreliable by LE. When witness statements are detailed and consistently the same they are considered by LE to be accurate and reliable. Their statements certainly are more consistent than GG's who was their only major source of information. jmo

It wasn't my statement, it was Christinas



Even when given a "source monitoring test", where the participants are asked to highlight what they saw and what might have come from other sources, 50% will report an item from their discussions with other people as their own.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4177082.stm

 

[LambChop]

It wasn't my statement, it was Christinas



Even when given a "source monitoring test", where the participants are asked to highlight what they saw and what might have come from other sources, 50% will report an item from their discussions with other people as their own.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4177082.stm

Patrol officers, first responders usually take the initial statements and turn them over to the investigators. The investigators, seasoned detectives who are experienced at taking statements then take their own statements and notice any descrepancies in their initial statements. If they are consistent with their original statements they usually consider their statements reliable. When you are recalling a story from memory and not from what you discussed with others it will be consistent. Recalling what you have seen and relaying that information determines whether or not you are telling the truth. Even GG could not get his story straight and he had a personal interest to do so. These witnesses were just normal people going about their daily lives and have only related what they observed.

If LE used their statements they believe they are accurate. The fact that they are all pretty consistent would leave you to believe what they are saying did actually happen. Sometimes witnesses don't get a statement that a suspect said exactly word for word. But when a person visually sees others leave in a car around the same time it's pretty reliable information.

So you have numerous witnesses who have consistent statements about an event they observed and you have a suspect who is inconsistent with his statement about what actually happened. Now who would you believe???? The Aruban's certainly do not believe GG's story because he is still a suspect. jmo

 

[Dushi]

Patrol officers, first responders usually take the initial statements and turn them over to the investigators. The investigators, seasoned detectives who are experienced at taking statements then take their own statements and notice any descrepancies in their initial statements. If they are consistent with their original statements they usually consider their statements reliable. When you are recalling a story from memory and not from what you discussed with others it will be consistent. Recalling what you have seen and relaying that information determines whether or not you are telling the truth. Even GG could not get his story straight and he had a personal interest to do so. These witnesses were just normal people going about their daily lives and have only related what they observed.

If LE used their statements they believe they are accurate. The fact that they are all pretty consistent would leave you to believe what they are saying did actually happen. Sometimes witnesses don't get a statement that a suspect said exactly word for word. But when a person visually sees others leave in a car around the same time it's pretty reliable information.

So you have numerous witnesses who have consistent statements about an event they observed and you have a suspect who is inconsistent with his statement about what actually happened. Now who would you believe???? The Aruban's certainly do not believe GG's story because he is still a suspect. jmo

Well, perhaps the research I quoted is inaccurate.
And its quite obvious that these witness statements were not enough to bring any charges
Its a shame there are no witnesses to his return which IMO, would also have been unusual, you know,parking a car , placing a dress and a towel, racing up the beach..

 

[Dushi]

Later that evening, Silva says Giordano looked like he was drunk while he was speaking with police on the beach during the initial search for the missing tourist.

"Cops were all over him, trying to talk to him, and he would just mumble -- nobody could understand what he was saying," the eyewitness told "Good Morning America."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/26/robyn-gardner-fisherman_n_938285.html




Do you think this statement is accurate?
I ask because if it is, it is unlikely to me that Giordano helped with a search that night JMO

When was Silva interviewed by LE?

 

[Elley Mae]

Patrol officers, first responders usually take the initial statements and turn them over to the investigators. The investigators, seasoned detectives who are experienced at taking statements then take their own statements and notice any descrepancies in their initial statements. If they are consistent with their original statements they usually consider their statements reliable. When you are recalling a story from memory and not from what you discussed with others it will be consistent. Recalling what you have seen and relaying that information determines whether or not you are telling the truth. Even GG could not get his story straight and he had a personal interest to do so. These witnesses were just normal people going about their daily lives and have only related what they observed.

If LE used their statements they believe they are accurate. The fact that they are all pretty consistent would leave you to believe what they are saying did actually happen. Sometimes witnesses don't get a statement that a suspect said exactly word for word. But when a person visually sees others leave in a car around the same time it's pretty reliable information.

So you have numerous witnesses who have consistent statements about an event they observed and you have a suspect who is inconsistent with his statement about what actually happened. Now who would you believe???? The Aruban's certainly do not believe GG's story because he is still a suspect. jmo

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm

Memory is affected by retelling, and we rarely tell a story in a neutral fashion

As shown by recent studies, this weight must be balanced by an awareness that it is not necessary for a witness to lie or be coaxed by prosecutorial error to inaccurately state the facts—the mere fault of being human results in distorted memory and inaccurate testimony.