ARUBA - Robyn Gardner, 35, Maryland woman missing in Aruba, 2 Aug 2011 - # 8

[Nova]

I am actually not questioning Lambchops observation
I am trying to understand it

Are we talking about light on shore, getting into the water or ten to fifteen feet out?

I was responding to a discussion about how much water GG and RG could see or be seen from whether they were swimming.

The answer is they couldn't see much while swimming; their eyes would be too close to sea level. The boat full of mythical white slavers would have had better visibility because of the boat's height, but picking an individual swimmer out of many square miles of empty ocean can't be an easy task.

 

[Nova]

Okay, I can see the confusion. I think it was on GMA, GG said they were snorkeling in 10 to 15 feet of water, so according to GG they were out a distance from the shoreline. Not 10 to 15 foot from shore but he claims they were in 10 to 15 foot of water when he got into trouble. I said, at that time of the evening which would have been around 6pm because he was at the Rum Runner around 6:20, there would not have been enough light in the water to see anything in the water because the sun set at 7:02. Seems like perfect timing for being unable to find someone in the water had she gone to the bottom. If he is saying he was in 10 to 15 water how would he know how deep the water was when you could not see the bottom????

This is just another inconsistency in his story. As I mentioned before I was in the water at 5pm at one time and a school of fish went right by me as I was getting out of the water and I never saw them. jmo

I'm glad you've been here to point this out, Lamb. It didn't occur to me until you mentioned it and then I immediately recognized the truth of what you are saying. (Hell, it's true even in my swimming pool, which is only 5 feet deep!)

This is perhaps the most compelling reason to disbelieve GG's story that they went snorkeling between 5 and 6 pm. What the hell would they have been able to see? (Nothing.) But if they were just floating in the salt water, why bother with snorkels and masks?

 

[LambChop]

I'm glad you've been here to point this out, Lamb. It didn't occur to me until you mentioned it and then I immediately recognized the truth of what you are saying. (Hell, it's true even in my swimming pool, which is only 5 feet deep!)

This is perhaps the most compelling reason to disbelieve GG's story that they went snorkeling between 5 and 6 pm. What the hell would they have been able to see? (Nothing.) But if they were just floating in the salt water, why bother with snorkels and masks?

Exactly. This is why his story makes no sense to LE, not taking into consideration all the other claims he has made that make no sense. Put them all together and this is why they held him for 4 months. I think that judge wanted him out of the country and out of their hair. jmo

 

[neesaki]

My guess is the attorney did not know until after the fact. If you notice, on the policy he listed RG as his partner. She was not his partner. They were just traveling together. So would her family have had rights to that insurance claim? I'll bet that relationship question has some meaning to the insurance company and he was nervous about it. I think he went to the attorney after he made those calls because of the questions he was being asked by the insurance company. jmo

BBM. What does "partner" mean as far as the insurance company is concerned I wonder. Could the insurance company possibly claim this is fraudulent?

 

[neesaki]

So maybe the reason GG and Robyn were taking vodka with them into the restaurant instead of ordering drinks at the restaurant, was because he didn't want people to know they were drinking. Because of the insurance policy. I guess he thought no one would figure out they had been buying vodka by the bottle?

So why did he say to the server that Robyn had taken a sleeping pill? Puzzling, unless he was so intoxicated and uninhibited as a result of his alcohol intake (and maybe he was taking drugs as well, who knows), that he just blurted it out without thinking. It's a well known fact that being intoxicated causes people to say things that they later regret.

I don't know why I didn't see this before. I was struggling with this versus him just going into a rage, primarily because I couldn't resolve the alcohol and drug clause in the insurance policy. I'm really believing he planned this from the very beginning.

 

[neesaki]

I am so laughing at myself right now. I just read about Karen Swift being found under thick vines near the cemetery in Tennessee. I think maybe I heard that the other day on the radio and that's what caused me to have that dream about Robyn. It's just too coincidental, LOL.

 

[LambChop]

BBM. What does "partner" mean as far as the insurance company is concerned I wonder. Could the insurance company possibly claim this is fraudulent?

Well since he did not indicate business partner one would assume he was referring to them being live-in partners. Sharing everything in common, money, household, etc. They were friends traveling together not partners as we understand the meaning of partners.

Why he mentioned RG taking the pills is still a mystery but the server said she did appear "woosy". It could be that RG's condition was so remarkable and that may be why the server took her picture. Seems like a strange thing to do but it could have been the way GG was acting that made the server suspicious, something was just not right with this couple. But as far as him disclosing she had taken sleeping pills, I think he was trying to cover his bases in case they found her body and the pills showed up during testing. At this point he may have been thinking more about covering himself than the insurance claim.

Plus at the time they were in the bar he assumed they were going into the water right behind the bar. I don't think RG would agree to doing that so they left. Wherever she did eventually go into the water there may not have been any beach to claim they had been snorkeling so he returned to Baby Beach.

It's ironic in a way because if they did drive up the eastern coast and he had found one of the little beach areas, put their towels down, he would have had no problem convincing anyone she drowned on her own because the water is very rough in this location and you could easily be pulled out to sea by riptides.

Another thing that is ironic. Had JB not gotten involved and because Aruban authorities don't give out much information to the public if he had waited until they finally released him this case might have been put on the back burner by now. jmo

 

[Dushi]

companion
noun
1. friend, partner, ally, colleague, associate, mate (informal), gossip (archaic), buddy (informal), comrade, accomplice, crony, confederate, consort, main man (slang, chiefly U.S.), homeboy (slang, chiefly U.S.), cobber (Austral. or old-fashioned N.Z. informal) He has been her constant companion for the last six years.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/companion



Companion would probably have been a better choice but I don't think there would be any problem with the word partner

 

[Dushi]

the Mother daughter team discussed up thread...

Is this the couple that Nancy Grace was conned by?

The mother who allowed her fourteen year old to pose on a site for over eighteen?

 

[LambChop]

companion
noun
1. friend, partner, ally, colleague, associate, mate (informal), gossip (archaic), buddy (informal), comrade, accomplice, crony, confederate, consort, main man (slang, chiefly U.S.), homeboy (slang, chiefly U.S.), cobber (Austral. or old-fashioned N.Z. informal) He has been her constant companion for the last six years.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/companion



Companion would probably have been a better choice but I don't think there would be any problem with the word partner

I'm not sure why he would use the term "partner" when he knows full well she was not his companion or partner. I think he was trying to give the insurance company the idea they were in some type of living arrangement and that is why he was paying for the policy. Obviously if you are just traveling with a friend they take out their own insurance and name their own beneficiary. It is very odd that he would name himself as beneficiary when he claims they were just "friends". Could have been just an innocent slip but he seems to be piling them up here by the boat load. jmo

 

[Dushi]

I'm not sure why he would use the term "partner" when he knows full well she was not his companion or partner. I think he was trying to give the insurance company the idea they were in some type of living arrangement and that is why he was paying for the policy. Obviously if you are just traveling with a friend they take out their own insurance and name their own beneficiary. It is very odd that he would name himself as beneficiary when he claims they were just "friends". Could have been just an innocent slip but he seems to be piling them up here by the boat load. jmo

My own personal opinion is they had an ongoing relationship of some kind
May not have been traditional in your eyes

They were travelling companions, travelling partners

He never said they were domestic partners
He did not have to live with her to insure her and he did not have to explain that to them

 

[Dushi]

So little involving this case is obvious to me
The insurance policy, it is one of the big things that make gary look guilty of a crime, it is a motive.

But I try to keep in mind that he paid for the trip, Robyn was unemployed
Its not unusual to me that he paid for the insurance as well.

The beneficiary on her policy also makes him look guilty
We do not know how she felt about that.
She may have been fully aware and in total agreement

I expect though may be wrong, that if the signature had been forged, he would be arrested by now for insurance fraud

 

[LambChop]

My own personal opinion is they had an ongoing relationship of some kind
May not have been traditional in your eyes

They were travelling companions, travelling partners

He never said they were domestic partners
He did not have to live with her to insure her and he did not have to explain that to them

It just seems like an odd description to put down unless you wanted the insurance company to think you were "partners" and entitled to make a claim. Usually beneficiaries are family members, spouses or domestic partners who stand to lose that income to their household and therefore the reason you buy insurance. GG was not morally or physically responsible should something have happened to her if she required medical attention or even if she had passed in an accident and had to be transported home. That would have been the responsibility of her family. If they had found her body, GG was under no obligation to bring her body back to the US.

So to me the partner's description sends up a red flag whether GG did it intentionally or whether it was done without much thought. She was no more of a partner than if the mother and daughter had gone with him who he originally asked. To me it just does not fit. His body language towards her shows nothing of a caring relationship to me. When I leave a restaurant with my friends I walk with them not ahead of them.

 

[Dushi]

It just seems like an odd description to put down unless you wanted the insurance company to think you were "partners" and entitled to make a claim. Usually beneficiaries are family members, spouses or domestic partners who stand to lose that income to their household and therefore the reason you buy insurance. GG was not morally or physically responsible should something have happened to her if she required medical attention or even if she had passed in an accident and had to be transported home. That would have been the responsibility of her family. If they had found her body, GG was under no obligation to bring her body back to the US.

So to me the partner's description sends up a red flag whether GG did it intentionally or whether it was done without much thought. She was no more of a partner than if the mother and daughter had gone with him who he originally asked. To me it just does not fit. His body language towards her shows nothing of a caring relationship to me. When I leave a restaurant with my friends I walk with them not ahead of them.

Oh my, I guess to me the word partner does not lead me to assume anything other than they were together
I might add, I travelled to Europe with a partner, not a spouse, a friend
I guess Thats just how I see the word used
No worries.

I don't think the relationship they shared was about caring either, it was entirely something else.
I think it was mutually beneficial

 

[LambChop]

My own personal opinion is they had an ongoing relationship of some kind
May not have been traditional in your eyes

They were travelling companions, travelling partners

He never said they were domestic partners
He did not have to live with her to insure her and he did not have to explain that to them

It just seems like an odd description to put down unless you wanted the insurance company to think you were "partners" and entitled to make a claim. Usually beneficiaries are family members, spouses or domestic partners who stand to lose that income to their household and therefore the reason you buy insurance. GG was not morally or physically responsible should something have happened to her if she required medical attention or even if she had passed in an accident and had to be transported home. That would have been the responsibility of her family. If they had found her body, GG was under no obligation to bring her body back to the US. The life portion of the policy puts him under no obligation to pay for any of her expenses.

So to me the partner's description sends up a red flag whether GG did it intentionally or whether it was done without much thought. She was no more of a partner than if the mother and daughter had gone with him who he originally asked. To me it just does not fit. His body language towards her shows nothing of a caring relationship to me. When I leave a restaurant with my friends I walk with them not ahead of them. You can lie and be very convincing (which we have already seen) but your body language reflects what the truth is.

I think, too, if you don't want to call attention to yourself while collecting on that claim you would have put partners and not a friend which would have been closer to the truth. But had he put "friend" it would have caused the agent to question the claim. jmo

 

[LambChop]

So little involving this case is obvious to me
The insurance policy, it is one of the big things that make gary look guilty of a crime, it is a motive.

But I try to keep in mind that he paid for the trip, Robyn was unemployed
Its not unusual to me that he paid for the insurance as well.

The beneficiary on her policy also makes him look guilty
We do not know how she felt about that.
She may have been fully aware and in total agreement

I expect though may be wrong, that if the signature had been forged, he would be arrested by now for insurance fraud

It's when he tries to collect that they would go after him if the signature was forged. jmo

 

[Dushi]

[/B]

It's when he tries to collect that they would go after him if the signature was forged. jmo

OK

I don't have a great understand of insurance policies and the law

So its not illegal to forge a signature on an insurance policy
It only becomes illegal if you make a claim?

 

[LambChop]

OK

I don't have a great understand of insurance policies and the law

So its not illegal to forge a signature on an insurance policy
It only becomes illegal if you make a claim?

I think the bigger crime is getting money when you forged someone's signature. If he never makes a claim I doubt if anyone would go after him. If he tried to cash it in and he forged her signature I believe it's uttering. He would be presenting the document to the insurance company as if she had signed it. If she didn't sign it, it's forgery. jmo

 

[MaryAnn]

the Mother daughter team discussed up thread...

Is this the couple that Nancy Grace was conned by?

The mother who allowed her fourteen year old to pose on a site for over eighteen?

Why do you say Nancy was conned? I don't think the Mother allowed her Daughter to do that, that is why she intercepted the call, took over and nipped it in the bud. She did not want her Daughter to have anything to do with GG or any other Man for that matter. She seemed like a very caring Mother to me and knew to stop her Daughter from meeting men online.

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

Why do you say Nancy was conned? I don't think the Mother allowed her Daughter to do that, that is why she intercepted the call, took over and nipped it in the bud. She did not want her Daughter to have anything to do with GG or any other Man for that matter. She seemed like a very caring Mother to me and knew to stop her Daughter from meeting men online.

:floorlaugh: That is all I can say about the above comment since we are not supposed to discuss anyone other than the suspect and victim. My opinion ONLY !