ARUBA - Robyn Gardner, 35, Maryland woman missing in Aruba, 2 Aug 2011 - # 4

[annalia]

I went and looked at the dates and times of the articles, and it was ABC that first reported the blood on a rock, not the Aruba Herald.

http://abcnews.go.com/search?searchtext="gary giordano"#30_date-asc

In that article:




http://abcnews.go.com/International...tors-focus-insurance-policy/story?id=14321496


Time of Aruba Herald article:

http://arubaherald.com/911/863-poss...-womans-case-condom-and-blood-on-a-stone.html


So I had it right.

HS, the point was that it was originally stated with the claim that ABC was just making things up, bad reporting and accused of not really having any sources in Aruba.

I posted an article from the AH with the same information, confirming that they were awaiting tests on blood and a condom that was found. That should have proven that it wasn't just made up or that sources couldn't have come from anyone in Aruba. None of us know whether or not the source told ABC it was found on a rock or if it was the source that had some bad information about the blood, but bottom line, Aruba reported it as well. Then TS said there was no blood and no condom?

You bolded where I said that AH "also" stated it to be true. Is that wrong? Do you also believe that AH made it all up?

Instead we will split hairs about the a few hrs that it hit the news. smh

 

[annalia]

Ah, but this may be where our collective puritanism trips us up.

We cannot see ~those~ photos because they have been deemed "pornographic". We're not supposed to "dwell" on them.

And yet, how can they be any LESS important that the photos released by the MSM of RG and GG in the bar???

ARE they take on the same day of RG's disappearance? Or earlier? That could be important.

Also, location location location: in a hotel room or outside??? Did GG prefer rocky beaches as a backdrop?

WHO owned the camera? GG or RG?

Think about how carefully posters here blew up the pics of RG in the cafe on the beach. How they tracked the time on her watch and the reflections in her glasses. Could LE not do the same with these "rogue" photos? What tiny little clues may lie within?

As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. If the investigators can't "get over" what happens to be obvious in those pictures, then new investigators are needed.

I haven't seen TS or anyone else say that they weren't still part of the investigation.

JMHO

 

[HatesSociopaths]

HS, the point was that it was originally stated with the claim that ABC was just making things up, bad reporting and accused of not really having any sources in Aruba.

I posted an article from the AH with the same information, confirming that they were awaiting tests on blood and a condom that was found. That should have proven that it wasn't just made up or that sources couldn't have come from anyone in Aruba. None of us know whether or not the source told ABC it was found on a rock or if it was the source that had some bad information about the blood, but bottom line, Aruba reported it as well. Then TS said there was no blood and no condom?

You bolded where I said that AH "also" stated it to be true. Is that wrong? Do you also believe that AH made it all up?

Instead we will split hairs about the a few hrs that it hit the news. smh

How do we know that the Aruba Herald didn't just take the information about the blood from the ABC article and report it, assuming that ABC went through the proper protocols in verifying the information? It is what that journalism article I linked is about.

What I believe is that both the AH and ABC were duped. And I have a problem with that because if they do their due diligence, that shouldn't happen.

 

[annalia]

How do we know that the Aruba Herald didn't just take the information about the blood from the ABC article and report it, assuming that ABC went through the proper protocols in verifying the information? It is what that journalism article I linked is about.

What I believe is that both the AH and ABC were duped. And I have a problem with that because if they do their due diligence, that shouldn't happen.

I have a hard time believing that the AH just copied the ABC report. Their reporting appeared to be coming from the investigation. And they give different and more information about it. If you read the article it looked like they were confirming and clarifying the information.

AH also states that it was police sources and acknowledge that information is leaking.

In the meantime police sources say that Aruban authorities are waiting for the lab results on traces of blood that were found and a condom that was taken out of the wrapper, but was not used. These two “items”, if after tests are found to be evidence in this case, might determine if Gary Giordano is found guilty of the disappearance or death of Robyn Gardner. The police are very cautious and not giving information on the investigation as to avoid any disturbance. Even so, information is leaking. The main challenge in this case is that no body has been found yet.

 

[Just-a-Guy]

By all accounts, they were both drunk. How can one drunk person be responsible for the actions of another drunk person?

While that certainly seems like a logical question, the answer is, it doesn't matter. You do not cease to be criminally responsible just because you were drunk. If he is tried on this theory, his lawyer may (or may not) be allowed to introduce evidence that he, too, was drunk. But frankly, that could backfire.

I realize it's kind of a bizarre theory. As I said, if that's all they've got, I don't think much of their case. I'm not trying to argue anyone's position here. I'm just explaining what the law is.

 

[Niner]

Respectfully snipped since I am only adressing this part.

The woman on the beach did not really say they were not having a good time, she posted on Help Find Robyn FB how she met Robyn and GG, the message is no longer there, but the text was:


I met Robyn and Gary on the beach in front of the Marriott Stellaris Hotel on Sunday, July 31. They had arrived on that day. My husband and I sat and spoke with them for awhile. They asked my husband and I about activities on the island.... Was shocked to see that this had happened, since we just spoke with them last Sunday, late afternoon. I am sure it was Robyn because I commented on her tatoo, indicating that I liked it. Didn't think they went together as a couple, as he was much older. She was also sitting kind of far away from him on the beach chair. She was nice. We were actually discussing the Natalee Holloway case. I will pray for her return.

IMO this woman does not say anything negative about the atmosphere between Robyn and GG, she only mentiones Robyn was sitting kind of far away from GG, but that could be for example due to Robyn wanting to sit in the shade under a palapa, and GG wanting to sit in the sun.

Thanks Micheline - I've updated my copy of the TimeLine!!

 

[otto]

I have a hard time believing that the AH just copied the ABC report. Their reporting appeared to be coming from the investigation. And they give different and more information about it. If you read the article it looked like they were confirming and clarifying the information.

AH also states that it was police sources and acknowledge that information is leaking.

Maybe the information is leaking from the FBI.

 

[otto]

I haven't seen TS or anyone else say that they weren't still part of the investigation.

JMHO

Quite true, but he has said that the photos are not the focus of the investigation.

 

[annalia]

Maybe the information is leaking from the FBI.

Let's look at that. If it came from the FBI, that means that the information was in the police files. Does that make TS a liar? Did the FBI leak it all to the ArubaHerald? Or will the FBI now be accused of just making it all up?

Was it the FBI that showed Julia the pictures?

Sorry but I don't find anything coming from Glenda credible.

JMHO

 

[otto]

While that certainly seems like a logical question, the answer is, it doesn't matter. You do not cease to be criminally responsible just because you were drunk. If he is tried on this theory, his lawyer may (or may not) be allowed to introduce evidence that he, too, was drunk. But frankly, that could backfire.

I realize it's kind of a bizarre theory. As I said, if that's all they've got, I don't think much of their case. I'm not trying to argue anyone's position here. I'm just explaining what the law is.

I appreciate the legal insights. Still, laws in Aruba are different from laws in many other countries. Regardless of the jurisdiction, I don't think it would be all that difficult to argue that two drunk people were seen ducking out to the car throughout a late lunch to top up their blue cups with vodka. They appeared to be voluntarily topping up their drinks and getting drunk. Within the next two hours, one of those two drunk people disappeared - supposedly while they were both snorkelling. If the benefit of the doubt and presumption of innocence is granted, then I'm not seeing fault. Since Robyn is a 35 year old woman with some history of alcohol abuse (police involvement in drunken arguments: Feb, July), could it really be argued that her 50 year old companion is responsible for her drunkenness and subsequent decisions? It seems to me that it wouldn't take much to find witnesses claiming that when she was drinking, she was wilful.

 

[HatesSociopaths]

Let's look at that. If it came from the FBI, that means that the information was in the police files. Does that make TS a liar? Did the FBI leak it all to the ArubaHerald? Or will the FBI now be accused of just making it all up?

Was it the FBI that showed Julia the pictures?

Sorry but I don't find anything coming from Glenda credible.

JMHO

The information that was "leaked" is bogus, however. I don't see how it is plausible that the FBI would seek to leak false information into the media. Unless I put a tin foil hat on.

 

[otto]

Let's look at that. If it came from the FBI, that means that the information was in the police files. Does that make TS a liar? Did the FBI leak it all to the ArubaHerald? Or will the FBI now be accused of just making it all up?

Was it the FBI that showed Julia the pictures?

Sorry but I don't find anything coming from Glenda credible.

JMHO

I'm not sure what the point of this debate is. Is it to somehow prove that Aruban authorities are incompetent and dishonest? That seems to be the standard argument when an American is involved in a crime in a foreign country. In what way are Aruban authorities doing the wrong thing in this investigation? Is it unreasonable for the family or investigators to remain silent, or question media reporting, in order to preserve the integrity of the investigation?

Julia, the reporter that tried very hard to assist the Holloway/Twitty family, was obviously told that there were pornographic images on the cameras. There is no reason to assume that she has seen the photos. There is no reason to assume that the FBI has access to the investigative files. The FBI have been asked to assist with the invstigation by providing information to Aruban authorities. They would have access to affidavits justifying the requests for information. Hopefully, per requests, they are providing cell phone records and insurance documents to the Arubans and not trying to take over the investigation or releasing bits of information to ABC news.

Who is Glenda?

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

I think the focus of the investigation is to find Robyn, not explore reasons why she might have had a disagreement that may have led to murder. Once she is found, cause of death can be examined and then, if it is deemed to be a murder, motive can be explored. However, if she does not appear to be under duress in the photos and if she has a documented history of agreeing to model under all conditions (per her mayhem profile),en the photos prove nothing

Got it! Thanks.:seeya:

 

[annalia]

I'm not sure what the point of this debate is. Is it to somehow prove that Aruban authorities are incompetent and dishonest? That seems to be the standard argument when an American is involved in a crime in a foreign country. In what way are Aruban authorities doing the wrong thing in this investigation? Is it unreasonable for the family or investigators to remain silent, or question media reporting, in order to preserve the integrity of the investigation?

Julia, the reporter that tried very hard to assist the Holloway/Twitty family, was obviously told that there were pornographic images on the cameras. There is no reason to assume that she has seen the photos. There is no reason to assume that the FBI has access to the investigative files. The FBI have been asked to assist with the invstigation by providing information to Aruban authorities. They would have access to affidavits justifying the requests for information. Hopefully, per requests, they are providing cell phone records and insurance documents to the Arubans and not trying to take over the investigation or releasing bits of information to ABC news.

Who is Glenda?

My boldings


I don't know where you get the bolded when it is exact opposite as to what has been happening, blaming the US, accusing the US of making things up when it's shown that leaks have also been coming from Aruba as well.

The only point of the debate was showing that it may not have been all just made up, that there were sources in Aruba giving out information. The attempts to circumvent that, to ignore that is what's puzzling. Leaks come from police depts worldwide, why try so hard to deny it? No one has said a word about police incompetence, i question the motives in even saying that. I'm of the opinion that TS is doing what he can to solve it, totally different people in charge than in 2005.

Here again is her quote, please tell me exactly how she would know this? I haven't seen it reported by TS, have you? Let's not split hairs, even if they weren't technically "shown", someone had to leak it.

“You only see organs,” Julia Renfro, the editor-in-chief of Aruba Today said, explaining that it was unclear if the acts were consensual. “You don’t know if she is awake. There are other pictures where she is posing naked.”

You brought the FBI into the discussion? Was that just something that popped into your head otto? Are you saying the FBI is leaking bogus information?

I won't even entertain the last bolded otto. How sad

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

You are misunderstanding the point. .

I started wondering about that when I read Stein's comment about negligent homicide. The theory is much like standard tort/negligence law (civil law) in the US -- it's an issue proximate cause. That is, did GG's conduct in effect cause her death, in the sense that absent his conduct she would not have died?

Please don't think me "dense":
Issue Proximate Cause---"That is, did GG's conduct cause her death in the sense that, ABSENT his conduct she would not have died".
The part that bothers me is the use of the word "conduct"

What was the conduct GG used to cause her death?
He was apparently as drunk as she--wasn't that just a very bad "choice" on both their parts. How about if Robyn did not want to go snorkeling and decided to leave GG. Now he drowned would Robyn's, "Conduct" have caused his death?
Sorry JAG, don't mean to be difficult, but I just don't understand that line of thinking....but "whatever", don't have to spend any more time on this. LOL!

 

[i.b.nora]

Even Martin Savidge, in that much linked to Jane Velez-Mitchell interview of August 18th said when asked about blood on a rock:

SAVIDGE: OK, a lot of questions there. So let`s begin with the blood. Today, authorities are denying there was any blood. Yesterday they said they could not confirm or deny. Today they say there never was any blood. The same is true they say of that used condom. They say that isn't true as well. So they are totally nixing what appeared to be very strong evidence there that could have led somewhere.

In addition to which, Savidge in that same interview says that Taco Stein admitted to him at that time that he himself had not seen the photos on the phone.

FROM THE VELEZ-MITCHELL INTERVIEW:

Here is what Aruba`s solicitor general had to say about these photos on NBC`s "Today" show.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TACO STEIN, ARUBAN SOLICITOR GENERAL: What Ive heard about is that there is no indication that there is talk of duress in the pictures, but I can`t dwell upon what's in the camera, what kind of pictures they are.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... SNIP...
Straight out to CNN`s Martin Savidge, who is on the ground in Aruba near Baby Beach, which is near the area where Robyn Gardner supposedly vanished.

Martin, have to start with this very disturbing report. What are you hearing about those naked pornographic photos of Robyn found on Gary's camera?

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jane, you`ll remember, we reported about that camera, that it was belonging to Gary and that it had been discovered by authorities some days ago. We knew at that time that there were photographs there.

In fact, we know that he had been questioned about those photographs. But as you say, People magazine now saying that these are beyond pornographic. Here is how authorities classify it, when I put it directly to Taco Stein, he described them as explicit. He wouldn't say that they were explicit in a sexual nature or some other way. He just said they were explicit.

But then I asked him, I said, have you seen the photos, did you look at them? And he said -- he admitted that, no, he had not seen the photos himself, he had heard about them. So the comment that he made that it didn`t appear that she was under duress, that was coming as a result of what he had heard from investigators.

 

[otto]

My boldings


I don't know where you get the bolded when it is exact opposite as to what has been happening, blaming the US, accusing the US of making things up when it's shown that leaks have also been coming from Aruba as well.

The only point of the debate was showing that it may not have been all just made up, that there were sources in Aruba giving out information. The attempts to circumvent that, to ignore that is what's puzzling. Leaks come from police depts worldwide, why try so hard to deny it? No one has said a word about police incompetence, i question the motives in even saying that. I'm of the opinion that TS is doing what he can to solve it, totally different people in charge than in 2005.

Here again is her quote, please tell me exactly how she would know this? I haven't seen it reported by TS, have you? Let's not split hairs, even if they weren't technically "shown", someone had to leak it.



You brought the FBI into the discussion? Was that just something that popped into your head otto? Are you saying the FBI is leaking bogus information?

I won't even entertain the last bolded otto. How sad

Julia is a reporter so if she reports on the content of the photos, it's most likely that she got this information from investigators. If the media reports that Robyn has disappeared, I can't assume that they saw this happen. Instead, I will assume that they got the information from investigators. Similarly, there is no reason to assume that Julia has viewed the evidence gathered in the investigation.

Taco Stein has said that any information about blood on rocks did not come from the investigation. I suppose we will all decide for ourselves whether he is telling the truth, whether the translation of his comments is accurate and whether there was blood on the rocks. Per Taco Stein, ABC, and not investigators, are responsible for the information about blood on the rocks next to the ocean. If it didn't come from Aruban investigators, then perhaps it came from local gossip, perhaps from the FBI and perhaps ABC simply made it up to grab headlines.

It not unusual for investigators, like the FBI, to leak false information in order to generate leads. Since a recent article suggests that they want more control over the investigation, it wouldn't surprise me if they are leaking information to gain a little more control. It's hard to say where ABC is getting their information and why they are not verifying that the information is correct.

 

[HatesSociopaths]

My boldings


I don't know where you get the bolded when it is exact opposite as to what has been happening, blaming the US, accusing the US of making things up when it's shown that leaks have also been coming from Aruba as well.

The only point of the debate was showing that it may not have been all just made up, that there were sources in Aruba giving out information. The attempts to circumvent that, to ignore that is what's puzzling. Leaks come from police depts worldwide, why try so hard to deny it? No one has said a word about police incompetence, i question the motives in even saying that. I'm of the opinion that TS is doing what he can to solve it, totally different people in charge than in 2005.

Here again is her quote, please tell me exactly how she would know this? I haven't seen it reported by TS, have you? Let's not split hairs, even if they weren't technically "shown", someone had to leak it.



You brought the FBI into the discussion? Was that just something that popped into your head otto? Are you saying the FBI is leaking bogus information?

I won't even entertain the last bolded otto. How sad

If that is the point of your debate - to show that ABC wasn't making it up, that there were sources - we really are in agreement about that. I don't feel ABC made it up; that is not the likely scenario here.

What is likely is that their sources were not held up to any standard of accepted journalism, and they ran with a story that has been exposed as bogus.

Whenever possible, we pursue information on the record. When a source insists on background of off-the-record ground rules, we must adhere to a strict set of guidelines. Under AP’s rules material from anonymous sources may be used only if: [a] The material is information and is not opinion or speculation, and is vital to the news report. The information is not available except under the conditions of anonymity imposed by the source. [c] The source is reliable, and in a position to have accurate information. Reporters who intend to use material from anonymous sources must get approval from their news managers. Explain in the story why the sources requested anonymity. And, when it’s relevant, describe the source’s motive for disclosing the information. The story also must provide attribution that establishes the source’s credibility; simply quoting “a source” is not allowed. Be as descriptive as possible.

http://www.anonymoussources.org/?p=37

My speculation is that the extra steps needed to verify the source were not thoroughly done, otherwise, the source would have shaken out to not be reliable.

 

[wfgodot]

One would think that, post-Natale Holloway, the news organizations should still have links to knowledgeable sources.

 

[otto]

One would think that, post-Natale Holloway, the news organizations should still have links to knowledgeable sources.

There were nothing but wild goose chases reported in the disappearance of Ms Holloway ... like the dead donkey carcass that was posted all over the news as a valid lead, or the abandoned building. The media seemed to be running in circles throughout the investigation ... skulls on the beach, possible bodies in shallow waters near sunken ships ... never-ending unverified information.