If he was planning to drown her as you claim, he would have sounded out the plan to go swimming, so there is absolutely no question whatsoever that he would have known about them if it was an issue.
After all, he had essentially the same thing and faced the same issues (whatever those might be). Now, I don't know much about hair extensions (my limited research shows that they either clip in or are bonded to the real hair, after which they can be treated like real hair - is that correct?), but it seems to me that unless she was planning on not washing her hair at all (unlikely) then she would have had some method to deal with them and water. In any case, what makes you think she had them on? Based on the word of some guy who wasn't even there and thought she was somewhere else?
This is what CJ said: "The latest People magazine quotes Gardner's roommate, a hairdresser who put in the hair extensions that she said Gardner was careful about getting wet, as saying the 35-year-old is not one to snorkel as Giordano says she did.
"Women that spend $1,000 (per treatment) on hair extensions don't go in the ocean, because it destroys them," roommate Christina Jones told the magazine."
http://travel.usatoday.com/destinat...obyn-gardner-on-aruba-comes-up-empty/416348/1
Regarding GG getting in the water, he has an EBay acct that shows he likes to scuba dive, and per reports, he brought snorkeling gear to Aruba. Whatever the situation is with his hair piece, he apparently has a solution for it. With RG, there is no indication she has such a solution.
I think it is possible that GG did not know RG had extensions, simply because she never told him and he never detected them.
Your argument about her being on land still doesnt hold water (excuse the pun). If he said she was lost at sea and she is found on land he is fried. Why on earth would anyone in their right mind take that risk?
Because he knew he would be fried if the body was found. The theory is that he strangled her, which is detectable by forensics.
But if she was lost at sea and he says so, then she will be found there (if she is found) and his story is sound.
Not if the body shows she died by strangulation and not drowning. The body had to be hidden. Putting her body in the water is a crap shoot on whether it floats back to shore or not.
And if she was lost on land then he would say that too, because if she was on land the chances are that she would be found quickly. He is not familiar enough with the island to know where to hide her so she wouldn't be found. Remember, for your theory to be correct, all of this would have to have happened in probably not more than an hour. That is kind of a tight schedule to be so unprepared and to take such a risk.
If she is on land his cover story would include that, because she would be found and his story would at least possibly be plausible.
Again, my theory rests on the idea that the cause of death was strangulation and would be detectable by forensics, thus the body needed to be hidden and a story would have to be concocted to make it appear RG was lost at sea so the body was not searched for on land. There is vast desert area in south Aruba, lots of places to put a body that no one would come across unless part of a search team.
Fit's the profile of a sexual murderer? Since when? That is wishful thinking on your part.
According to the book by the best in the business, former FBI Robert Ressler,
Sexual Homicide - Patterns and Motives, on page 70 he says the critical personal traits of a sexual murderer are:
Social Isolation
Preference for autoerotic activities
Fetishes
Rebellious
Aggressive
Lying
Entitlement
On the same page, he says their actions towards others include:
Assaultive behaviors
Burglary
Abduction
Rape
There is evidence of such behavior in GG's past that has come out.
On one hand you propose that he is doing this for financial reasons, then you throw the "sexual murderer" part in, apparently because he is allegedly involved in the swinger scene (not sure how that makes him a "sexual murderer", but it's your theory, not mine). So which is it? It can't be both.
The motive to go to Aruba with RG was to murder her, make it look like an accidental death, and collect the 1.5 million. However, the job was "given" (by GG himself) to a heavy drinker boozed up and not able to control the situation to carry out the plan of drowning her in the water (mainly because RG didn't want to.) It was also given to a man who had fantasies about the victim, and who wanted a piece of her before killing her. He got to take pornographic photos of her, got to have sex with her, and he was ready to execute the kill. He got drunk to build up enough nerve to do it, and then the plan fizzled when she didn't want to go in the water. Angry and frustrated, they drove away from the beach. A heated argument ensued, he got violent, choked her and had his way with her. Now he had a problem - the body shows a cause of death that isn't drowning.
The fisherman. Well, ok, how about this then. You say that this fisherman saw both of them drive away. Why on earth would he remember details like that? Do you remember the finer points of someone you saw in passing, of no apparent interest, a couple of days later? Who does that? Was there something particularly remarkable about them? You would think that he would be paying attention to whatever fishing he was doing, not paying close attention to the activities of all the tourists who wander by. And if he just had a vague recollection of someone being there, and then later someone driving away, what he saw could have been just about anything.
The camera that shows the Hyundai probably shows GG's vehicle at other times in those 2 hours. Otherwise, why search Seroe Colorado? We don't have all the details of this investigation by a long ways. And apparently there is more than one witness who saw them drive away. One fisherman said they drove the wrong direction on the road, which would be memorable.
What is your theory? I enjoy the dialogue. This theory of mine is simply that - a theory based on what is known. I have a hard time believing RG was ever in the water. This is how I explain what may have happened. It could be wrong. The main value in this kind of speculation is that it offers the possibility that she could be on land, and that a thorough search should be done. Whether or not he knew about the extensions, or whether or not he raped her, really doesn't matter. What matters is that it appears he is responsible for her death and that the body should be located.
