ARUBA - Robyn Gardner, 35, Maryland woman missing in Aruba, 2 Aug 2011 - # 9

[vlpate]

What is of interest is that Nancy Grace says on that interview that Robyn's brother can be seen.
That doesn't make sense taking into account that this woman is basically saying that he is not what they are portraying him as in the media.

Why would her brother be with a woman who is basically supporting him.

From what has been suggested in the media and by LE is that this man is the main suspect.

All these witnesses that apparently saw him although differing accounts of what they saw and then this interview where the brother is mentioned as being with this woman.

Why would her brother be associating with this woman ?

Something not quite making sense here, would yall not agree ?

Watching it again, I don't think RG's brother is with the woman - I think NG is just referencing how everyone is hiding and not wanting to be seen or identified.

I don't recall a lot of differing accounts from witnesses with the exception of the National Enquirer articles. I do know the bottom line is there are no witnesses who saw them go into the water.

 

[LolliPop]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/robyn-gardners-final-moments-reenacted-aruba-14562389

In this reenactment at the 2:07 point you can see the actor running and he appears wet. Next frame shows GG and he does not appear to be wet at all. Witnesses say his bathing suit was dry. So why would the actor still be wet and GG was already dry?? My guess is another inconsistency. jmo

These witnesses say his bathing suit was dry ?
Once again these witnesses.

I am not buying this reenactment, because that is all it is, an reenactment based on heresay and what apparently was told to the cops.

Just an observation, according to "these" witnesses he was not running but walking whereas this actor was running, all depends on the material of the swimsuit but obviously running and walking from the sea would dictate how quickly certain materials became dry taking into account Aruba is usually pretty warm.

If I were representing him in court with this type of evidence, it would be torn apart, far too much speculation by the cops and the media.

 

[LolliPop]

Watching it again, I don't think RG's brother is with the woman - I think NG is just referencing how everyone is hiding and not wanting to be seen or identified.

I don't recall a lot of differing accounts from witnesses with the exception of the National Enquirer articles. I do know the bottom line is there are no witnesses who saw them go into the water.

That is not what Nancy Grace said, sorry, she was pretty specific.

She then realised she had made a mistake and quickly changed it to sound different but she definately said it.

 

[LolliPop]

IMO, he doesn't have a business, he has a website that makes it appear he has a business. All the verbiage is plagiarized from another employment agency website that had been around for years, and it is not his. I think he sells pictures behind the scenes on his website, IMO, and/or videos. Someone here stated they called the phone number on his website and it was a recording of him. You are right, he was having financial difficulties - why is he taking cruises? Why is he making drinks in his car instead of buying drinks at the bar if he is that successful? His stay at the hotel was paid for with points.

I think the woman on the video got lucky - there was never a good time. Like you, I would love to know what sort of insurance he signed up for on these trips.

Also - when he wanted the mother/daughter to go with him - imagine that windfall scenario. Daughter chooses mother as beneficiary and mother "clicks" Giordano.

Seeing its all speculation backed by no facts, there are countless speculations one could make.

Here is just one in this regard.

Perhaps that is how he made his money, by going on cruises and picking up women to either photograph or video and then sell those ?

With regards to that mother and daughter interview, not sure if that is truth or not.

 

[vlpate]

Seeing its all speculation backed by no facts, there are countless speculations one could make.

Here is just one in this regard.

Perhaps that is how he made his money, by going on cruises and picking up women to either photograph or video and then sell those ?

With regards to that mother and daughter interview, not sure if that is truth or not.

Well there are three things that I know are facts - there are court documents and/or video to back up these facts. He is a thief, a forger, and he is a violent abuser. He's been accused by first hand witnesses of stalking. So I could easily deduce, in my opinion, from those facts that:

• He forged her name on the insurance documents, something a forger would do
• He looked at her iPad or phone when she went to the restroom and saw her email to Forrester written within an hour of them being at the restaurant, something a stalker would do
• He struck and killed her out of anger at the email - thinking her unappreciative - something an abuser would do
• He's lying to cover up the murder (I've always found thieves to be liars and sneaky by nature)

Again, bullet points are just my opinion, but an opinion based on solid facts.

 

[vlpate]

That is not what Nancy Grace said, sorry, she was pretty specific.

She then realised she had made a mistake and quickly changed it to sound different but she definately said it.

She said Robyn's brother was ..... what did she say exactly?

 

[LambChop]

These witnesses say his bathing suit was dry ?
Once again these witnesses.

I am not buying this reenactment, because that is all it is, an reenactment based on heresay and what apparently was told to the cops.

Just an observation, according to "these" witnesses he was not running but walking whereas this actor was running, all depends on the material of the swimsuit but obviously running and walking from the sea would dictate how quickly certain materials became dry taking into account Aruba is usually pretty warm.

If I were representing him in court with this type of evidence, it would be torn apart, far too much speculation by the cops and the media.

Heresay applies to court cases and not physical statements given by the last person to see RG,, which would have been GG. GG said himself he was running, no witnesses said that publically, he claims to have been running. If you have the link please provide it. If you listen to the video their suits were the exact same material down to the same type of dress RG was wearing, same body types, etc.

The reenactment was based on the information LE received from GG about what happened. Step-by-step, very detailed. The reenactment was done based on his statement......based on his statement only, not witnesses. That is what a reenactment in a criminal case involves. It is his story that did not match up to the facts as they know them. GG is locked in by his own statements not by what we on the outside preceive happened.

It's not the facts that would get torn apart it would be his statement versus what he is now coming forward to say this is what really happened. There are conflicts which would present a problem if he ever had to face trial.

If her remains eventually wash ashore, and they still could since the eastern coastal region faces South America, they will know exactly where she went into the water. Just as the debris from Japan are now washing ashore on the US coast I could see a possibility that RG's remains could end up on a beach at some point. I believe this is what they are waiting for.

A human skull was found recently on an Aruban beach that had washed ashore so it is not unusual. What is unusual is if RG drowned where GG claims she did, they would have found her because of the conditions. Her body would have surfaced pretty quickly in that heated water. jmo

FYI: One more thing. GG's lawyer took part in that reenactment to insure they went strickly by what appeared in GG's statement. So is GG's lawyer also wrong???

 

[LolliPop]

Heresay applies to court cases and not physical statements given by the last person to see RG,, which would have been GG. GG said himself he was running, no witnesses said that publically, he claims to have been running. If you have the link please provide it. If you listen to the video their suits were the exact same material down to the same type of dress RG was wearing, same body types, etc.

The reenactment was based on the information LE received from GG about what happened. Step-by-step, very detailed. The reenactment was done based on his statement......based on his statement only, not witnesses. That is what a reenactment in a criminal case involves. It is his story that did not match up to the facts as they know them. GG is locked in by his own statements not by what we on the outside preceive happened.

It's not the facts that would get torn apart it would be his statement versus what he is now coming forward to say this is what really happened. There are conflicts which would present a problem if he ever had to face trial.

If her remains eventually wash ashore, and they still could since the eastern coastal region faces South America, they will know exactly where she went into the water. Just as the debris from Japan are now washing ashore on the US coast I could see a possibility that RG's remains could end up on a beach at some point. I believe this is what they are waiting for.

A human skull was found recently on an Aruban beach that had washed ashore so it is not unusual. What is unusual is if RG drowned where GG claims she did, they would have found her because of the conditions. Her body would have surfaced pretty quickly in that heated water. jmo

FYI: One more thing. GG's lawyer took part in that reenactment to insure they went strickly by what appeared in GG's statement. So is GG's lawyer also wrong???

Which lawyer was that ?

 

[LolliPop]

Well there are three things that I know are facts - there are court documents and/or video to back up these facts. He is a thief, a forger, and he is a violent abuser. He's been accused by first hand witnesses of stalking. So I could easily deduce, in my opinion, from those facts that:

• He forged her name on the insurance documents, something a forger would do
• He looked at her iPad or phone when she went to the restroom and saw her email to Forrester written within an hour of them being at the restaurant, something a stalker would do
• He struck and killed her out of anger at the email - thinking her unappreciative - something an abuser would do
• He's lying to cover up the murder (I've always found thieves to be liars and sneaky by nature)

Again, bullet points are just my opinion, but an opinion based on solid facts.

I can't comment on your 3 facts because I don't know the facts.

What I can say is I do not understand why any man or indeed person, would want to violently abuse anyone and/or steal or forge documents.

 

[LambChop]

I can't comment on your 3 facts because I don't know the facts.

What I can say is I do not understand why any man or indeed person, would want to violently abuse anyone and/or steal or forge documents.

Maybe because they are mentally ill. It takes a really sick mind to do either or both. jmo

 

[LolliPop]

She said Robyn's brother was ..... what did she say exactly?

She talks about him being on her side or something like that.

But its clear he or this person was in the room.

 

[vlpate]

She talks about him being on her side or something like that.

But its clear he or this person was in the room.

She does make it seem like he's there with the woman, how odd....

"her brother, Robyn Gardner's brother, is standing behind, you can't see his face..."

Why would Andrew Colson be standing behind this woman while she backs up Giordano? Starts about 1:26

http://www.youtube.com/embed/W-rQ4CoHEZY

 

[LambChop]

She does make it seem like he's there with the woman, how odd....

"her brother, Robyn Gardner's brother, is standing behind, you can't see his face..."

Why would Andrew Colson be standing behind this woman while she backs up Giordano? Starts about 1:26

http://www.youtube.com/embed/W-rQ4CoHEZY

NG is talking about her brother standing behind the camera so you could not see his face. Not that he was with this woman. Nancy states why is everyone afraid to show their face. Both Nicole and RG's brother did not want to show there face on camera. There is no implication that RG's brother is standing behind her or is with this woman. That is what I understood her to say. jmo

 

[LolliPop]

NG is talking about her brother standing behind the camera so you could not see his face. Not that he was with this woman. Nancy states why is everyone afraid to show their face. Both Nicole and RG's brother did not want to show there face on camera. There is no implication that RG's brother is standing behind her or is with this woman. That is what I understood her to say. jmo

If one looks closely at NG, it is clear she is talking about a live situation with the way that she gestures and is asking a direct live question to the woman.

It is not an implication that he is standing behind her, it is a fluid situation.

 

[vlpate]

NG is talking about her brother standing behind the camera so you could not see his face. Not that he was with this woman. Nancy states why is everyone afraid to show their face. Both Nicole and RG's brother did not want to show there face on camera. There is no implication that RG's brother is standing behind her or is with this woman. That is what I understood her to say. jmo

That's what I thought too. Did NG interview him? If so, I'd love to find the interview...

 

[Chewy]

How is it that on websleuths people are posting National Enquirer information?

I watched the Dateline story and there was no mention of anyone seeing her be beat up. If he hit her in the car that badly there would have been blood or hairs or something in the car. They got the blood off the rocks. I actually believed him in the interview, I don't think he intended to kill her or that he took out the insurance policy. From what he stated he said that he had to insure both of them, he always got insurance and he couldn't not insure her and just himself.

That said, something doesn't add up. Where is her body? Surely it would have surfaced by now? But then again Natalee Holoway was never found right?

It doesn't seem planned because if it was planned I think he would have acted better, he would have run in the video clips of him looking for help.

If a shark got her then there might not be a body? But there would likely be parts of a body or something.

Very strange all around.

The view of the factories would completely put me off of swimming in that location, as well as the rocks.

 

[LambChop]

How is it that on websleuths people are posting National Enquirer information?

I watched the Dateline story and there was no mention of anyone seeing her be beat up. If he hit her in the car that badly there would have been blood or hairs or something in the car. They got the blood off the rocks. I actually believed him in the interview, I don't think he intended to kill her or that he took out the insurance policy. From what he stated he said that he had to insure both of them, he always got insurance and he couldn't not insure her and just himself.

That said, something doesn't add up. Where is her body? Surely it would have surfaced by now? But then again Natalee Holoway was never found right?

It doesn't seem planned because if it was planned I think he would have acted better, he would have run in the video clips of him looking for help.

If a shark got her then there might not be a body? But there would likely be parts of a body or something.

Very strange all around.

The view of the factories would completely put me off of swimming in that location, as well as the rocks.

When NE information is posted, it's posted as NE information to be taken with a grain of salt knowing that it is, in fact, the NE. LE claims there was no blood on the rock, none on the ground leading over to where the towels were laid out. Strange...because she had to have been bleeding to know she needed to get the towel to stop the bleeding, but no blood was found other than on the towel.

GG was under no obligation to buy her insurance. She paid for her own ticket.

They were out looking for her body and expected it to surface after a couple of days. They also had divers in the water, if there were sharks feeding there would be lots of them and the divers would know immediately. LE helicopters fly over areas of Aruba all the time. It's pretty shallow in that area so they would be able see sharks or a body easily.

Where they were staying has a beautiful private beach with snorkeling, food, drinks, etc. You are right why pick this location two days in a row....makes no sense. jmo

 

[LambChop]

That's what I thought too. Did NG interview him? If so, I'd love to find the interview...

I could not find anything with NG having the brother on her show but did find references to him being on GMA. So, IMO, NG was referring to his appearance there and that he would not show his face??? jmo

 

[LolliPop]

When NE information is posted, it's posted as NE information to be taken with a grain of salt knowing that it is, in fact, the NE. LE claims there was no blood on the rock, none on the ground leading over to where the towels were laid out. Strange...because she had to have been bleeding to know she needed to get the towel to stop the bleeding, but no blood was found other than on the towel.

GG was under no obligation to buy her insurance. She paid for her own ticket.

They were out looking for her body and expected it to surface after a couple of days. They also had divers in the water, if there were sharks feeding there would be lots of them and the divers would know immediately. LE helicopters fly over areas of Aruba all the time. It's pretty shallow in that area so they would be able see sharks or a body easily.

Where they were staying has a beautiful private beach with snorkeling, food, drinks, etc. You are right why pick this location two days in a row....makes no sense. jmo

Because that location offers the best in rocky snorkeling which it by far the most interesting.

 

[LolliPop]

That's what I thought too. Did NG interview him? If so, I'd love to find the interview...

Hardly likely that she did such an interview, she is clearly referring to the interview she was conducting with that woman at that specific time, it is what is referred to as a "fluid" situation.