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

[vlpate]

This is just my opinion only but I'm just a sock puppet so what do I know.

I don't see anything wrong with posting a video even if the comments to the video are someone's opinion. We do that here. Post a link and an opinion. Opposing views give us something to think about and often spark possibilities we had not thought about. Since there are not many facts for us to consider we are left pretty much with speculation as to what happened to Robyn. From what I can see we have all brought up some good points as to why WE think GG should remain a suspect in RG's disappearance.

I don't take this case personally as we are trying to find out what actually happened to this poor woman. Some may because they can relate to someone like GG who has been in their life in the past. People have different lifestyles and that is not the issue here, it's about what happened to RG and I feel we owe it to her to keep trying without attempting to victumize her twice.

I agree with your post but feel as long as a link has some valuable information in it we should be permitted to post it. Whatever comments are included with the link are just that comments we can ignore if we choose to do so. jmo

I wasn't talking about the comments on the site, I didn't even read the comments - the article is by what is called a "complainer", not a reporter, and definitely not MSM. I wasn't aware that opinion pieces/blogs, were allowed to be discussed as fact. It's difficult enough to find facts in MSM pieces

Since the referenced blog accused these two women of being cons, I simply wanted a more reliable link or source than just someone's opinion. YNWIM?

 

[vlpate]

It would be US because he initiated his plan in the US. This is why Aruba has included the FBI regarding the handwriting, IMO. If the Grand Jury feels there is enough information to try him, he can be tried here in Federal Court I would think because he started the crime here (applying for insurance on a person he has no presumption of loss with and possibly forging her signature) and the crime was committed in another country. So I think that falls under Federal. My guess is he will not cash in that policy. Sort of like leaving a basket with the electronics behind while you hightail it out of Target with security in hot pursuit. lol jmo

I agree - and as far as his Target heist, just unbelievable. I have yet to figure out where he makes his money. I wonder if his websites, new ones about every other year from what I can see, are fronts for trafficking. I mean, what else had he planned to do with the pictures he takes and why does he frequent the model sites (if that's true).

I took a look at the modelmayhem site, and I can't help but wonder if he is not the one who put her pictures and the profile up. Wasn't it started about the time they met on match.com?

 

[LambChop]

I wasn't talking about the comments on the site, I didn't even read the comments - the article is by what is called a "complainer", not a reporter, and definitely not MSM. I wasn't aware that opinion pieces/blogs, were allowed to be discussed as fact. It's difficult enough to find facts in MSM pieces

Since the referenced blog accused these two women of being cons, I simply wanted a more reliable link or source than just someone's opinion. YNWIM?

No, I agree with you. I think the intent was the video and not the comments. I found the video very interesting. I don't know what this mother was thinking exposing her daughter to these type of people but at least she had enough sense not to trust GG. He's a pip if what she said is true. jmo

 

[LambChop]

I agree - and as far as his Target heist, just unbelievable. I have yet to figure out where he makes his money. I wonder if his websites, new ones about every other year from what I can see, are fronts for trafficking. I mean, what else had he planned to do with the pictures he takes and why does he frequent the model sites (if that's true).

I took a look at the modelmayhem site, and I can't help but wonder if he is not the one who put her pictures and the profile up. Wasn't it started about the time they met on match.com?

Good point. Let's hope the FBI looks into this very closely. If his computer was in fact wiped clean who knows what they might be able to find. I do not think they are through with him. Not by a long shot. jmo

 

[vlpate]

The problem I see is you "don't" drink, therefore you cannot possibly understand the relationship between "people" when both have been drinking, and may even have a Need to drink as part of their life.

<respectfully snipped>
This is off topic, but a child of alcoholic parents would beg to differ with this statement. Alcoholism is not a club whose membership is exclusive to drinkers, not by any means - many are forced to join.

 

[vlpate]

No, I agree with you. I think the intent was the video and not the comments. I found the video very interesting. I don't know what this mother was thinking exposing her daughter to these type of people but at least she had enough sense not to trust GG. He's a pip if what she said is true. jmo

OK, I am totally lost, what video are you talking about? Imma have to scroll all the way back to the original post. I was referring to an article calling them cons....brb

 

[rossva]

Are you saying some one that drinks moderately couldn't get drunk doing so?

So if he is claiming to have been drinking moderately and he was not responsible because he was drunk, he lied. It can't be one or the other.

 

[LambChop]

Are you saying some one that drinks moderately couldn't get drunk doing so?

No. I know it sounds a little weird, doesn't it. lol

He claims he was drinking moderately. In his defense others may claim he was drunk. If he was drinking moderately, as he now claims, he knew she was in no condition to go into the water. If he was drunk and some say "not responsible" he was still responsible because he chose to drink too much. Either way he was responsible because he admitted he knew she had too much to drink and took sleeping pills (the explanation for the woosieness). He can't have it both ways. Either he had too much to drink and did not realize she should not have been in the water or he was drinking moderately and knew she was in no condition to be in the water. He was driving, he pulled the car up alongside the water. He could have just as easily turned around and left, brought her back to the hotel and let her sleep it off. He's smart enough to know if she was woosie she had no business in the water. It's common sense. Drinking does not mean you loose all your common sense. At some point you sober up and know you did something you were not suppose to do.

We have laws about being under the influence because choosing to do so severely impairs your ability to make decisions and react which could cause another person to die. The act of drinking carries with it serious consequences and requires people to do so responsibility. If the don't, they are irresponsible and their poor judgment way have cost the life of another. jmo

 

[LambChop]

OK, I am totally lost, what video are you talking about? Imma have to scroll all the way back to the original post. I was referring to an article calling them cons....brb

Yes, that is the one. The video on top of the article is what I viewed. I'm pretty sure it was the one that the authored called them cons. jmo

 

[vlpate]

Do you think you could ask a mod to fix this quote - it looks as if you are quoting me. Thanks!

 

[katydid23]

I have a friend who went with my husband and I to Aruba years ago. She was not a drinker but wanted to go on one of those "booze cruises". We don't drink either but we went along with her for company. She had been dancing and having a great time and we were just socializing with other friends. When we were ready to leave I noticed she was a bit tipsy. I asked her how much she had to drink and she said not much but when my husband tasted her drink it was full of rum. lol Anyway the point of my story is when we got back to the condo she wanted to go down the the beach (she said just to sit) and we told her no, she needed to go to bed. She started to insist and we told her she may not think she had too much to drink but her last drink was obviously overpoured and she needed to sleep it off. She went to bed. Friends do not let friends who have been drinking get into the water. It's just common sense and a responsible thing to do morally and ethically when you care about someone's well being. I do not see that with GG. I see a very irresponsible, selfish person if what he claims happened is true. jmo

Of course you kept your drunk friend from going alone in the water, but then again you did not have a million and a half bucks to gain if she went missing. :crazy:

 

[LambChop]

Of course you kept your drunk friend from going alone in the water, but then again you did not have a million and a half bucks to gain if she went missing. :crazy:

Her friendship alone was worth a million bucks, plus......lol. Funny thing is she got up bright and early the next morning and cooked breakfast for everyone. I said, "don't you have a headache???" She said no I feel great. She may not have had that much, I don't know and was not babysitting her but she acted as if she had just a tad bit too much and considering she was not a drinker we played it safe. jmo

 

[vlpate]

Really? He said he would support them for the rest of their lives??? I never heard that before.

'He said that “if you ever let your daughter sleep with me too, I'll take care of both of ya'll for the rest of your lives financially."'

Mrs. Emerson said this on several talk shows - MSNBC/ABC etc. This quote was found here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2026344/Robyn-Gardner-case-Information-Gary-Giordanos-shady-propositions-learned-women-come-forward.html

 

[Tugela]

No. I know it sounds a little weird, doesn't it. lol

He claims he was drinking moderately. In his defense others may claim he was drunk. If he was drinking moderately, as he now claims, he knew she was in no condition to go into the water. If he was drunk and some say "not responsible" he was still responsible because he chose to drink too much. Either way he was responsible because he admitted he knew she had too much to drink and took sleeping pills (the explanation for the woosieness). He can't have it both ways. Either he had too much to drink and did not realize she should not have been in the water or he was drinking moderately and knew she was in no condition to be in the water. He was driving, he pulled the car up alongside the water. He could have just as easily turned around and left, brought her back to the hotel and let her sleep it off. He's smart enough to know if she was woosie she had no business in the water. It's common sense. Drinking does not mean you loose all your common sense. At some point you sober up and know you did something you were not suppose to do.

We have laws about being under the influence because choosing to do so severely impairs your ability to make decisions and react which could cause another person to die. The act of drinking carries with it serious consequences and requires people to do so responsibility. If the don't, they are irresponsible and their poor judgment way have cost the life of another. jmo

That only applies if you have an actual legal responsibility, such as being the operator of some sort of machine or having a professional obligation (such as being a doctor or a guide). If you don't have anything like that you are not responsible for that persons actions.

For example, if you witness a crime or someone in distress, generally you have no legal obligation to intervene. In fact, by intervening you assume legal obligations, so in many cases it is not actually in people's best interests to do so because they might end up being liable for something as a result.

In the scenario being presented in this case GG had no obligation of oversight. RG was a responsible adult and she is the only one who can be held accountable for the consequences of her actions.

 

[vlpate]

Yes, that is the one. The video on top of the article is what I viewed. I'm pretty sure it was the one that the authored called them cons. jmo

Ok, finally found it. That video was from MSNBC, and the title of the post was Nancy Grace conned...etc., which is not in the video. The article referred to the con, among many other outright absurdities. I can find no other reference to these women being cons, except this opinion blog. I have no issue with the video - and thus, I suppose, the confusion. You would have to read the piece to know what got me fired up in the first place...and I WAS fired up by the hateful and insipid article.

The link I was referring to which was posted originally by Dushi:
http://www.issues.cc/complaints/nan...s-conned-by-mother-daughter-duo-gary-giordano

 

[vlpate]

That only applies if you have an actual legal responsibility, such as being the operator of some sort of machine or having a professional obligation (such as being a doctor or a guide). If you don't have anything like that you are not responsible for that persons actions.

For example, if you witness a crime or someone in distress, generally you have no legal obligation to intervene. In fact, by intervening you assume legal obligations, so in many cases it is not actually in people's best interests to do so because they might end up being liable for something as a result.

In the scenario being presented in this case GG had no obligation of oversight. RG was a responsible adult and she is the only one who can be held accountable for the consequences of her actions.

Jesus, if she, as he stated, took a strong prescription sleeping pill and was drinking.. he had a moral responsibility as an adult human being to take her and tuck her into bed instead of out into the ocean in deep water to snorkel. Who cares if he had a legal, blah blah blah responsibility??? It is not my legal responsibility to take pills away from someone threatening to commit suicide either, but I would.

 

[neesaki]

I agree. RF had no idea where Robyn was, what she was doing, or who she was with. She lied to him about her relationship with GG. From all appearances, some might think she was using both RF and GG. They were two guys she met online and she was seeing both of them, but she was living with a friend. For all we know, she was dating other guys at the same time.

Nonetheless, is RF not the one that Robyn sent the text to that said "don't worry, I love you, we'll sort this out when I get back"? This indicates to me that they had some kind of a significant relationship. She also confided in him through her text "this sucks", concerning her time with GG. This, to me, indicates she did not really know GG very well at all, and did not realize what she was getting into by coming with him on this trip.

There are a lot of people, women and men, who have love relationships but are afraid of being hurt, so run from a total committment. Maybe Robyn was this type of person. We just don't know enough about her to know. Also, I don't think she was all that close to her family. If she had issues with them and didn't let them into her personal life that much, maybe she kept her relationships private. I mean, her and RF weren't engaged or anything. JMO

 

[LambChop]

That only applies if you have an actual legal responsibility, such as being the operator of some sort of machine or having a professional obligation (such as being a doctor or a guide). If you don't have anything like that you are not responsible for that persons actions.

For example, if you witness a crime or someone in distress, generally you have no legal obligation to intervene. In fact, by intervening you assume legal obligations, so in many cases it is not actually in people's best interests to do so because they might end up being liable for something as a result.

In the scenario being presented in this case GG had no obligation of oversight. RG was a responsible adult and she is the only one who can be held accountable for the consequences of her actions.

I'm not talkng about police walking up and slapping cuffs on him. I'm talking about his moral responsibility to her as an adult. If he knew the difference to tell the server and LE that she had been drinking and had taken sleeping pills in the middle of the day to sit by and encourage her to go out into the water knowing she was not responsible, that is irresponsible on his part. It's as if he is telling the world....I knew she was drunk and drugged but what the hey I'd had a $1.5M policy on her so I had no worries for me. But, we don't think she went into the water there. Witnesses who were on the beach at the time said they did not go into the water at that time and that they left in their car.

GG is trying to present himself as a victum. He is not a victum as I see it but in some way, shape or form responsible for RG's death. jmo

 

[LambChop]

Nonetheless, is RF not the one that Robyn sent the text to that said "don't worry, I love you, we'll sort this out when I get back"? This indicates to me that they had some kind of a significant relationship. She also confided in him through her text "this sucks", concerning her time with GG. This, to me, indicates she did not really know GG very well at all, and did not realize what she was getting into by coming with him on this trip.

There are a lot of people, women and men, who have love relationships but are afraid of being hurt, so run from a total committment. Maybe Robyn was this type of person. We just don't know enough about her to know. Also, I don't think she was all that close to her family. If she had issues with them and didn't let them into her personal life that much, maybe she kept her relationships private. I mean, her and RF weren't engaged or anything. JMO

Not directed at your post but I find this interesting. Let's face it some men enjoy dating lots of women. Nothing wrong with it and no one seems to think there is anything wrong with it. So why is it different when it comes to women? RF may think he was her boyfriend but she may not have felt the same way. She may have viewed him as a close personal friend. She certainly did not text RF and ask...."get me out of here". jmo

 

[vlpate]

Not directed at your post but I find this interesting. Let's face it some men enjoy dating lots of women. Nothing wrong with it and no one seems to think there is anything wrong with it. So why is it different when it comes to women? RF may think he was her boyfriend but she may not have felt the same way. She may have viewed him as a close personal friend. She certainly did not text RF and ask...."get me out of here". jmo

I can't figure out where this information came from, besides a psychic who was sort of quoted in the Herald. Did GG tell the psychic or the media, or what? I thought it was an email... there's not a quote or source for this as far origin of the information - if there is, please tell me where to find it because I will drive myself crazy trying to find it. Seems like her friend said Robyn sent a text or email to that effect to get out of an unpleasant situation with friends...I just don't recall where I heard or read this.