ARUBA - Robyn Gardner, 35, Maryland woman missing in Aruba, 2 Aug 2011 - # 7

[neesaki]

We do not know if she has lost her life.

Whatever happened, it seems to be quite clear that Robyn is missing and a victim. She's the victim, not GG. JMO

 

[LolliPop]

BBM

What does it mean to be ' Pro Robyn?'

Your prior post suggests that you know what it means but I will elaborate anyway.
Just like with the Natalee Holloway case, there were and are forums that are Pro Natalee, some others are Pro the Father of Natalee, then there is another that is Pro the Mother of Natalee.
Then you have forums that are Pro Joran as well as Pro Aruba forums with regards to the Natalee Holloway case.

There appears to be really just one forum that will allow all opinions but the majority will ban you if you do not tow the line with their specific beliefs.

This case if it is not solved soon will create the very same situation as the different factions split up, already this is beginning.

 

[LolliPop]

Whatever happened, it seems to be quite clear that Robyn is missing and a victim. She's the victim, not GG. JMO

At this stage she is missing, we do not know if she is a victim yet.

 

[katydid23]

Your prior post suggests that you know what it means but I will elaborate anyway.
Just like with the Natalee Holloway case, there were and are forums that are Pro Natalee, some others are Pro the Father of Natalee, then there is another that is Pro the Mother of Natalee.
Then you have forums that are Pro Joran as well as Pro Aruba forums with regards to the Natalee Holloway case.

There appears to be really just one forum that will allow all opinions but the majority will ban you if you do not tow the line with their specific beliefs.

This case if it is not solved soon will create the very same situation as the different factions split up, already this is beginning.

But what does it mean to be pro Robyn vs Anti-Robyn? She is a missing person, presumed DEAD by some. Who would be " Anti_Robyn" and what would that even mean?

I am not being obtuse, I really do not understand what Pro-Robyn or Anti-Robyn even means.

 

[Saracen]

But what does it mean to be pro Robyn vs Anti-Robyn? She is a missing person, presumed DEAD by some. Who would be " Anti_Robyn" and what would that even mean?

I am not being obtuse, I really do not understand what Pro-Robyn or Anti-Robyn even means.

IMO I would think that the anti Robyn brigade are the people that might think that her way of life was her downfall, therefore she took risks and lost.. The pro Robyn being the majority that think that no matter what she was like, she did not deserve what may have happened to her..

 

[katydid23]

IMO I would think that the anti Robyn brigade are the people that might think that her way of life was her downfall, therefore she took risks and lost.. The pro Robyn being the majority that think that no matter what she was like, she did not deserve what may have happened to her..

So would the anti-Robyn brigade feel that she got what she deserved? And would that make them Pro-Gary G ?

 

[Saracen]

So would the anti-Robyn brigade feel that she got what she deserved? And would that make them Pro-Gary G ?

proberbly, but just because your anti the victim, does not make you pro the suspect

 

[Sapphire]

Oh, I totally agree. I'm just saying that this may be where the media picked it up....just a local rumor and we know how that can get started. It went from them possibly being spotted to him burying her alive.

But I do have a question. Didn't the dogs search that area???? Why would they bother if it were just a rumor? I remember seeing a video with the dogs but I'm not sure whether they searched that area or not. jmo

Here's a snip of an article regarding the blood and search at the cemetery:



COOPER: And there had been some questions about whether or not Robyn Gardner's blood was on a -- was found on a towel. Is that right?

SAVIDGE: Right.

COOPER: What did they find?

SAVIDGE: Well, blood's been very interesting in this case, because it's been in, and it's been out. It was in in the beginning. They said there was a bloody palm print. There was also reports of blood found on a rock. Well, authorities said no, there was no blood.

Well, in fact today at that hearing we found out what do you know? There was blood. It was blood that was found on a towel on the beach, and DNA testing shows it was Robyn Gardner's blood.

Why is it interesting? Well, if it was a drowning, like Gary says, you shouldn't have blood. The defense attorney says, "Hey, this only fits with his story." He says that Robyn stubbed her toe on a rock on the beach. That's where the blood came from.

COOPER: We don't often cite the "National Enquirer" as a source in anything. But there's a story that they wrote that's gotten a lot of traction. A lot of other news organizations have already picked it up. They ran a story yesterday, saying Aruban authorities got a tip that Gardner was buried alive in a pet cemetery on that island. You checked it out, of course. What did you find out?

SAVIDGE: Well, it's a marvelous tale. And that's what authorities say it only is. It's total fiction, they maintain. There has been no witness that came forward and says that he saw Robyn Gardner being buried at a pet cemetery.

The pet cemetery, though, was early, very early on, looked at as part of the investigation. They went there. They looked for disturbed earth or any signs of a fresh grave. They found none. They went back with the cadaver dogs. The dogs did have a couple of hits. They dug it up. What did they find? Dog bones. It was a pet cemetery. So authorities say no, she is not in that pet cemetery.

COOPER: And there's been no sign of any remains or anything like that? SAVIDGE: No. No sign of anything like that. And in fact, this is a case so far that the defense attorney says is only based on circumstantial evidence. Gary Giordano has maintained his innocence throughout and has always told police the same story, according to his new defense attorney. And we should point out he has a criminal defense attorney now, which is an indication of how serious it may become.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1110/28/acd.02.html

 

[gajonka]

VI
Plus, here's one... if he ran "a marathon," as he says... why would he run to a vacated area, the place where he was pounding on doors... if there are no cars...there's no people... so either:
a) He noticed the cameras before, and inserted this action into his plan, or;
b) he was trying to kill time for whatever reason;
Most likely both. They didnt have phones in the car? No communication at all? Isn;t that convenient for aguy who has a desire for death? "No, we don;t need to bring anything... nothing will heppen, we dont need phones!"

Plus, the absence of evidence does not remove from the table how suspicious and dodgy GG was acting, enough for Taco to keep him detained.

Still can't get over his explanation for how RG wanted HIM to be his benficiary.

There's good evidence to support that killers can;t say their victims' names right?
Happy Hunting... we'll get him... soon. Witnesses.

 

[LambChop]

Your prior post suggests that you know what it means but I will elaborate anyway.
Just like with the Natalee Holloway case, there were and are forums that are Pro Natalee, some others are Pro the Father of Natalee, then there is another that is Pro the Mother of Natalee.
Then you have forums that are Pro Joran as well as Pro Aruba forums with regards to the Natalee Holloway case.

There appears to be really just one forum that will allow all opinions but the majority will ban you if you do not tow the line with their specific beliefs.

This case if it is not solved soon will create the very same situation as the different factions split up, already this is beginning.

Somehow your post comes across, to me anyway, that if someone goes missing they somehow deserve it and if someone is pro-victum than they are being viewed as not deserving what has happened to them. I could be wrong but that is how I read it.

I think primarily you would get banned not for your beliefs but in the manner in which they are presented. WS is all about finding missing persons and if unfortunately they are found dead we use the sleuthing information we have access to try to find out what happened. If there is a murder we follow the trial. That is all we do. If the majority feel there is a reason to believe a person has created a crime we have the right to express our opinion whatever that is. We should not feel that if our views are different that we are pro or con either way. We are in search of the truth not winning a game. Trials are not about winning games, it's about uncovering the truth and holding the responsible party liable. The only loser is the victum in any case regardless of what their background is.

GG makes it very clear that RG disappeared under the water. She did not swim to shore. It's not a word game, it is a fact. If they were in 10 to 15 foot of water and she went under she survived 5 minutes at the most. There is no other explanation unless you are alluding to a conspiracy between RG and GG to create insurance fraud. That would be the only other explanation that I can think of. Either way....it all falls back on GG doesn't now. jmo

 

[LambChop]

VI
Plus, here's one... if he ran "a marathon," as he says... why would he run to a vacated area, the place where he was pounding on doors... if there are no cars...there's no people... so either:
a) He noticed the cameras before, and inserted this action into his plan, or;
b) he was trying to kill time for whatever reason;
Most likely both. They didnt have phones in the car? No communication at all? Isn;t that convenient for aguy who has a desire for death? "No, we don;t need to bring anything... nothing will heppen, we dont need phones!"

Plus, the absence of evidence does not remove from the table how suspicious and dodgy GG was acting, enough for Taco to keep him detained.

Still can't get over his explanation for how RG wanted HIM to be his benficiary.

There's good evidence to support that killers can;t say their victims' names right?
Happy Hunting... we'll get him... soon. Witnesses.

You really have brought up some good points. He knew they were closed because they had stopped at the bar the day before to check the hours.

If he travels and is a businessman, of course his phone works in Aruba. If you can make international calls on your phone you can call from Aruba. And to say he did not know the number for 911. That floored me. 911 is 911...the numbers are the same on all the phones in Aruba. I have my phone with me at all times. I just use the condo phone when making reservations.

I lock everything in the car when going to a "remote" location to swim and put the car key on a lanyard or in my shoe. Men usually have pockets in their bathing suits and my husband use to put the key in his pocket. When you travel you learn what to do. He sounds like this was his first time leaving the State of Maryland.

jmo

 

[gajonka]

Does anyone find it difficult to believe that he would venture beyond six feet in his reebocks? One cannot swim with shoes on... its next to impossible. So we are to believe that she was the adventurous one... I bet he basjed her over the head with a rock... just for good measure.

Anyone, and will assert this, anyone who wears that type of rug is schooled in deception... it is deception we are dealing with.

Somehow your post comes across, to me anyway, that if someone goes missing they somehow deserve it and if someone is pro-victum than they are being viewed as not deserving what has happened to them. I could be wrong but that is how I read it.

I think primarily you would get banned not for your beliefs but in the manner in which they are presented. WS is all about finding missing persons and if unfortunately they are found dead we use the sleuthing information we have access to try to find out what happened. If there is a murder we follow the trial. That is all we do. If the majority feel there is a reason to believe a person has created a crime we have the right to express our opinion whatever that is. We should not feel that if our views are different that we are pro or con either way. We are in search of the truth not winning a game. Trials are not about winning games, it's about uncovering the truth and holding the responsible party liable. The only loser is the victum in any case regardless of what their background is.

GG makes it very clear that RG disappeared under the water. She did not swim to shore. It's not a word game, it is a fact. If they were in 10 to 15 foot of water and she went under she survived 5 minutes at the most. There is no other explanation unless you are alluding to a conspiracy between RG and GG to create insurance fraud. That would be the only other explanation that I can think of. Either way....it all falls back on GG doesn't now. jmo

 

[LolliPop]

Somehow your post comes across, to me anyway, that if someone goes missing they somehow deserve it and if someone is pro-victum than they are being viewed as not deserving what has happened to them. I could be wrong but that is how I read it.

I think primarily you would get banned not for your beliefs but in the manner in which they are presented. WS is all about finding missing persons and if unfortunately they are found dead we use the sleuthing information we have access to try to find out what happened. If there is a murder we follow the trial. That is all we do. If the majority feel there is a reason to believe a person has created a crime we have the right to express our opinion whatever that is. We should not feel that if our views are different that we are pro or con either way. We are in search of the truth not winning a game. Trials are not about winning games, it's about uncovering the truth and holding the responsible party liable. The only loser is the victum in any case regardless of what their background is.

GG makes it very clear that RG disappeared under the water. She did not swim to shore. It's not a word game, it is a fact. If they were in 10 to 15 foot of water and she went under she survived 5 minutes at the most. There is no other explanation unless you are alluding to a conspiracy between RG and GG to create insurance fraud. That would be the only other explanation that I can think of. Either way....it all falls back on GG doesn't now. jmo

Somehow my post comes across to you as me saying or believing that if someone goes missing or is murdered, then they deserve it?

Please be so kind as to point out where exactly in my post that you quoted where that is what I am suggesting ?

You also say I am alluding in that post that I am suggesting a conspiracy between RG and GG to create insurance fraud, once again please point out where this alludment in the quoted post points you in such a direction ?

 

[LambChop]

Does anyone find it difficult to believe that he would venture beyond six feet in his reebocks? One cannot swim with shoes on... its next to impossible. So we are to believe that she was the adventurous one... I bet he basjed her over the head with a rock... just for good measure.

Anyone, and will assert this, anyone who wears that type of rug is schooled in deception... it is deception we are dealing with.

BBM: LOL.. That is something to think about, hiding the truth. I color my hair so I guess I'm doing the same. Oh, wait...I'm not trying to fool anyone because they can tell my hair is colored. You bring up some excellent thoughts for us all to think about. Thanks for sharing. jmo

 

[RR0004]

The rumors are not just local Aruban rumors, it would appear that the majority of these rumors are eminating stateside and fueled by the media eager to create stories for ratings and then picked up by the forums and embellished.

Considering this is another American woman missing in Aruba, I think the media coverage has been pretty mild...at least in the Metro area I live in which is all of 3-31/2 hours from where the victim lived. I've seen more (local) news about Lauren S. than I have of RG. The only reason it's been hyped on national shows is because GG's attorney made sure that it was, IMO.

 

[vlpate]

It is not just the National Enquirer, most of the media are using this story to boost their ratings and are adding their own little spicy titbits.

Selected titbits are then taken by the different forums/blogs etc that suit a specifuc forum's mindset depending of whether that forum is pro Robyn or pro whoever else.

BEM: Is there a forum that is not pro Robyn?

As for media using the story to boost their ratings - I've only seen GG on three talk shows, I can't find coverage anywhere else. I watched GMA this morning and they didn't even mention Robyn, sadly.

This is not about "spicy tidbits", it's about a woman who is missing - if a form like this keeps the story alive, so be it. I'd hope for the same if my daughter was missing.

 

[LambChop]

Somehow my post comes across to you as me saying or believing that if someone goes missing or is murdered, then they deserve it?

Please be so kind as to point out where exactly in my post that you quoted where that is what I am suggesting ?

You also say I am alluding in that post that I am suggesting a conspiracy between RG and GG to create insurance fraud, once again please point out where this alludment in the quoted post points you in such a direction ?

The phrase Pro-victum leads anyone to believe that a post is on the victum's side, supporting their position when the very phrase is offensive to me. This is a victum's forum. We all believe that in absence of a live victum there are only those who are willing to ask those hard questions that SA can't because there are so many protections for the defendant. A victum of a crime is just that, a victum and anyone who supports the right to find the truth about what happened to that person would find it offensive to be referred to as being pro-victum. You said pro-victum and I was reading that these were your words not another's. So that is where I am coming from and just trying to figure why anyone would use that term. I really am interested in what you feel defines someone who is "pro-victum" because maybe we are misunderstanding what you have written. That is all there is to it.

I never said you alluded to a suggestion that there was a conspiracy. I said that is the only other explanation I would accept that she did not, in fact, drown based on GG's testimony. There are no trees for her to get caught up into in the area. If she did not drown what other possibilities are there. Not the trafficing unless GG were involved in that, too.

From other posters posting I think we all came to pretty much the same conclusion so maybe we are misunderstanding your post. But this is a forum for victums and all theories are welcome if not to test the information we have available to us. We do consider it all but if no merit is found in what a POI is saying we will all express our opinions, good or bad. jmo

 

[stilettos]

The phrase Pro-victum leads anyone to believe that a post is on the victum's side, supporting their position when the very phrase is offensive to me. This is a victum's forum. We all believe that in absence of a live victum there are only those who are willing to ask those hard questions that SA can't because there are so many protections for the defendant. A victum of a crime is just that, a victum and anyone who supports the right to find the truth about what happened to that person would find it offensive to be referred to as being pro-victum. You said pro-victum and I was reading that these were your words not another's. So that is where I am coming from and just trying to figure why anyone would use that term. I really am interested in what you feel defines someone who is "pro-victum" because maybe we are misunderstanding what you have written. That is all there is to it.

I never said you alluded to a suggestion that there was a conspiracy. I said that is the only other explanation I would accept that she did not, in fact, drown based on GG's testimony. There are no trees for her to get caught up into in the area. If she did not drown what other possibilities are there. Not the trafficing unless GG were involved in that, too.

From other posters posting I think we all came to pretty much the same conclusion so maybe we are misunderstanding your post. But this is a forum for victums and all theories are welcome if not to test the information we have available to us. We do consider it all but if no merit is found in what a POI is saying we will all express our opinions, good or bad. jmo

Lambchop, I am pro-victim. I am pro-Robyn....I believe she is the only victim in this case. That is why I am here in a victim-friendly site. I am unclear why anyone would question whether we are pro-victim....would we be pro-perp? Nah, not logical. I agree with you!

 

[vlpate]

VI
Plus, here's one... if he ran "a marathon," as he says... why would he run to a vacated area, the place where he was pounding on doors... if there are no cars...there's no people... so either:
a) He noticed the cameras before, and inserted this action into his plan, or;
b) he was trying to kill time for whatever reason;
Most likely both. They didnt have phones in the car? No communication at all? Isn;t that convenient for aguy who has a desire for death? "No, we don;t need to bring anything... nothing will heppen, we dont need phones!"

Plus, the absence of evidence does not remove from the table how suspicious and dodgy GG was acting, enough for Taco to keep him detained.

Still can't get over his explanation for how RG wanted HIM to be his benficiary.

There's good evidence to support that killers can;t say their victims' names right?
Happy Hunting... we'll get him... soon. Witnesses.

Exactly what I've been asking all along - where were their phones?? Why didn't any of the talking heads ask GG this? Were they in the car?

 

[RR0004]

So, if it was said in the Geraldo interview that GG and RG were feeding fish as I know I heard, but apparently no one has super secret access to that particular broadcast---was it bread/rolls from the restaurant, or what? I know ducks like bread, turtles and sometimes fish will go for it also.

I don't have the stomach to watch another GG interview. Did he really say they were feeding fish? Where were they doing this? While out snorkeling??