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

[Saracen]

LOL! Actually I don't know what I am insinuating--if anything. Just thinking out loud and asking some questions. Seems we can't find RG"s body and so many are sure GG murdered her, what would it hurt to consider GG may have disposed of her body at a "place" rather than the ocean. Thought you would be happy to see me consider GG had a part in it?

Actually I can admit I have my doubt as to what happened, unlike the certainty some have that GG is the murderer. :twocents:

The simple FACT is that you are innocent until proven guilty,and no matter how much people dislike GG, the authorities do not have enough evidence to even bring him to trial let alone enough to convince a jury to convict him.

 

[LambChop]

The simple FACT is that you are innocent until proven guilty,and no matter how much people dislike GG, the authorities do not have enough evidence to even bring him to trial let alone enough to convince a jury to convict him.

In Aruba. We don't know what the Grand Jury has gotten to consider because the investigation is still ongoing. jmo

 

[vlpate]

-bolded by me-

He said on tv, hey she was the ticket agent, as if in that position he did not owe her a full story and did not feel like telling her everything that had taken place. That is his opinion and I do not perceive that as suspicious.


Somehow I think if he had told the ticket agent that Robyn would not be traveling back to the United States, that that would be perceived as even more suspicious, since she was only missing for 2 days, there still being a chance she was found, so how was he so certain she would not be traveling back etc.
Had he told her Robyn was missing maybe the agent would have noticed an inappropriate tone of voice, as if he had hit the lottery etc.

Not trying to be cynical but I think regardless of what Giordano does or says it is looked at with suspicion, even if maybe he just did not feel like opening up to someone. IMO


Seems he did not cancel Robyn's flight btw, or else the ticket agent would not have wondered/asked if Robyn was not traveling with him.

I think he was just in a hurry and didn't want to get into a conversation or draw attention to himself. Were they not looking for Robyn at the airport? Did the agent live under one of those sharp rocks on the beach? how could she not know about the search??

 

[LambChop]

The simple FACT is that you are innocent until proven guilty,and no matter how much people dislike GG, the authorities do not have enough evidence to even bring him to trial let alone enough to convince a jury to convict him.

You are presumed innocent in a court of law until proven guilty. Obviously the State Attorney's office thinks you are guilty or they would not bring charges. And what about LE? It all starts with them. They bring the case and the evidence to the attention of SA. So public opinion is what it is. If someone lies and cannot be believed, they have a questionable background, they have a violent past when dealing with women, it does not take a video tape of the actual crime for people to believe the man is not telling the truth when he lies and what he claims is inconsistent with what the facts are.

At some point someone will decide whether there is enough evidence to arrest him and that would probably be the Grand Jury. People just like you and I, and they will go over some of things we have considered here. We are just expressing our opinions, which we are entitled to do. It was GG who chose to go on national tv and give us even more for discussion.

If he is arrested by the US he will more than likely have his day in court and we will have more to consider. Right now he is stuck with the impression he, himself....all by his little lonesome, has left with the public. Until he clears up his discrepancies the majority will think he had a hand in her disappearance. It's that simple. You get what you give. jmo

 

[LambChop]

-bolded by me-

He said on tv, hey she was the ticket agent, as if in that position he did not owe her a full story and did not feel like telling her everything that had taken place. That is his opinion and I do not perceive that as suspicious.


Somehow I think if he had told the ticket agent that Robyn would not be traveling back to the United States, that that would be perceived as even more suspicious, since she was only missing for 2 days, there still being a chance she was found, so how was he so certain she would not be traveling back etc.
Had he told her Robyn was missing maybe the agent would have noticed an inappropriate tone of voice, as if he had hit the lottery etc.

Not trying to be cynical but I think regardless of what Giordano does or says it is looked at with suspicion, even if maybe he just did not feel like opening up to someone. IMO


Seems he did not cancel Robyn's flight btw, or else the ticket agent would not have wondered/asked if Robyn was not traveling with him.

I have to disagree regarding him telling the truth. Lying to a ticket agent of a major airline is not the same as lying to a cashier at a local discount store. All airport personal are on the alert for anything unusual in appearance or action today because of Homeland Security. I think the agent would have been negligent not to have reported him knowing he lied. And that would be true of anyone. If you have to lie to an agent about something as serious as the person you are with has gone missing and probably won't be using that ticket I think there is something seriously wrong with your thinking. jmo

 

[LambChop]

One of the questions I have always wondered about. Did he stay at the restaurant waiting for police or did he run back to see if he could find her????? jmo

 

[vlpate]

You are presumed innocent in a court of law until proven guilty. Obviously the State Attorney's office thinks you are guilty or they would not bring charges. And what about LE? It all starts with them. They bring the case and the evidence to the attention of SA. So public opinion is what it is. If someone lies and cannot be believed, they have a questionable background, they have a violent past when dealing with women, it does not take a video tape of the actual crime for people to believe the man is not telling the truth when he lies and what he claims is inconsistent with what the facts are.

At some point someone will decide whether there is enough evidence to arrest him and that would probably be the Grand Jury. People just like you and I, and they will go over some of things we have considered here. We are just expressing our opinions, which we are entitled to do. It was GG who chose to go on national tv and give us even more for discussion.

If he is arrested by the US he will more than likely have his day in court and we will have more to consider. Right now he is stuck with the impression he, himself....all by his little lonesome, has left with the public. Until he clears up his discrepancies the majority will think he had a hand in her disappearance. It's that simple. You get what you give. jmo

Excellent points....and if I may make one more, Joran Vandersloot.

 

[LambChop]

Excellent points....and if I may make one more, Joran Vandersloot.

If we permit it, history will repeat itself. jmo

 

[neesaki]

Robyn Gardner was groggy from sleeping pills, vodka and a meal when she went into the water in Aruba where she quickly cut her toe, forcing her out of the water, a source told ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/International...s-clash-hours/comments?type=story&id=14370011


Her meal consisted of a salad which she did not eat

So it does say here also, that she cut her toe causing her to come out of the ocean, yet she then went back in. Still, this is difficult for me to believe. Oh well, I guess it makes no difference as I find all of GG's story unbelievable anyway.

I don't know. It seems that these reports, whether by MSM or whoever, are for the most part written and reported to sound like some kind of mystery or suspense story. Are these reporters more concerned about how their story "sounds" than they are in seeking out and reporting the facts? I am just a little fed up with all of them right now.

 

[neesaki]

The couple allegedly walked behind the restaurant to a jetty over a rocky beach, where Giordano claimed Robyn had cut her bare foot on the rocks.

http://www.examiner.com/news-analys...to-recreate-final-hours-life-of-robyn-gardner

Quote from article: It is known that both had been drinking at the Rum Reef Bar & Grill, situated close to the water, and that after they left that establishment at about 4:12 p.m. local time, they were photographed by an employee who was interested in recording Mr. Gardner's many tattoos.

So here it is reported that they are both known to have been drinking, yet GG claims they were just drinking "juice". So which is it? :maddening:

And the photos did not show Robyn's tattoo's. So that theory, imo, is not why the photos were taken. Again, JMO.

 

[Dushi]

So it does say here also, that she cut her toe causing her to come out of the ocean, yet she then went back in. Still, this is difficult for me to believe. Oh well, I guess it makes no difference as I find all of GG's story unbelievable anyway.

I don't know. It seems that these reports, whether by MSM or whoever, are for the most part written and reported to sound like some kind of mystery or suspense story. Are these reporters more concerned about how their story "sounds" than they are in seeking out and reporting the facts? I am just a little fed up with all of them right now.

BINGO!!!!

It certainly seems that many are written and reported with ratings in mind

 

[Dushi]

Quote from article: It is known that both had been drinking at the Rum Reef Bar & Grill, situated close to the water, and that after they left that establishment at about 4:12 p.m. local time, they were photographed by an employee who was interested in recording Mr. Gardner's many tattoos.

So here it is reported that they are both known to have been drinking, yet GG claims they were just drinking "juice". So which is it? :maddening:

And the photos did not show Robyn's tattoo's. So that theory, imo, is not why the photos were taken. Again, JMO.

I agree
They are barely visible in the photos

 

[Dushi]

I know it is very hard to visualize GG going into the water with all those rocks but apparently this is what he told investigators. Having been there myself I know how difficult those rocks are. I wore sandals once out near the cliffs and almost broke my ankle.

If he did go into the water himself I doubt if he got very far not being able to see all those rocks in the water. With the sun overhead you can see them but late in the day I doubt it. That might account for his bathing suit looking as if it were dry. It's possible he could only get out far enough to get only his feet wet. It seems possible and the odd statement he made to RG's mother, "I got my sneakers and socks wet looking for your daughter." He told LE he got his shoes wet because he was snorkeling in them.

Plus if they checked out the area the day before at the same time of day he may not have realized that the water was so rocky and thought it was a sandy bottom like the beach behind him. That would be a major flaw in his story and lead the investigators to believe she never went into the water at that location.

If GG put her in the water, say up by the eastern side of the coastline her body/remains will probably end up on a SA beach somewhere. That could be what they are waiting for. If this happened they would know exactly where she went into the water and his goose is cooked for sure. I think that is why they let him go. They know RG did not go into the water where he said she did. It's just a waiting game and hopefully they will find her in the near future. jmo

Just one question about the rocks and the water...

Has LE ever stated (and I am aware they don't need to tell anything) that during the re enactment, that the actors could not get in the water?

 

[Dushi]

Quote from article: It is known that both had been drinking at the Rum Reef Bar & Grill, situated close to the water, and that after they left that establishment at about 4:12 p.m. local time, they were photographed by an employee who was interested in recording Mr. Gardner's many tattoos.

So here it is reported that they are both known to have been drinking, yet GG claims they were just drinking "juice". So which is it? :maddening:
And the photos did not show Robyn's tattoo's. So that theory, imo, is not why the photos were taken. Again, JMO.

I would assume that LE has looked at restaurant receipts and knows if any drinks were purchased at the restaurant.
As far as what was in the cups they were carrying and Gary refilled, no way to know

 

[LambChop]

I would assume that LE has looked at restaurant receipts and knows if any drinks were purchased at the restaurant.
As far as what was in the cups they were carrying and Gary refilled, no way to know

The ones with all the answers other than GG would be the Aruban authorities. They did not say anything about the reenactment to my knowledge.

Gary himself admitted, I believe it was on GR program, that he was drinking moderately. So my guess is LE knew exactly what was in that cup. Plus if he had vodka and juice in the car, they would have seen it and that may be why they said he appeared drunk. jmo

 

[Dushi]

The ones with all the answers other than GG would be the Aruban authorities. They did not say anything about the reenactment to my knowledge.

Gary himself admitted, I believe it was on GR program, that he was drinking moderately. So my guess is LE knew exactly what was in that cup. Plus if he had vodka and juice in the car, they would have seen it and that may be why they said he appeared drunk. jmo

Other than Garys word, how would they know?
Do you believe they searched the car?
At that time, it was not considered a crime, imo

 

[LambChop]

[/B]


Other than Garys word, how would they know?
Do you believe they searched the car?
At that time, it was not considered a crime, imo

They may have. He changed his clothes at one point after dark so someone may have gone with him to the car. If they thought he was drunk and claimed to LE to have not purchased drinks at the bar I suspect they thought he had been drinking so someone may have checked the car. Perhaps they asked for her purse for ID. They still had to make out report so I don't see anything unusual about them asking for some type of identification which she may have had in her purse.

Police officers are very good at picking up on body language. They often depend on that ability in order to save their lives. Some things they typically may have picked up on right away, such as the location he claims they went into the water.

It would be interesting to hear what the locals have to say. Many rumors, I'm sure but I have found a lot of truth in what some of the Arubans have had to say. They often times can separate the rumors from the truth. Forget about LE though because they aren't talking. lol jmo

 

[Dushi]

They may have. He changed his clothes at one point after dark so someone may have gone with him to the car. If they thought he was drunk and claimed to LE to have not purchased drinks at the bar I suspect they thought he had been drinking so someone may have checked the car. Perhaps they asked for her purse for ID. They still had to make out report so I don't see anything unusual about them asking for some type of identification which she may have had in her purse.

Police officers are very good at picking up on body language. They often depend on that ability in order to save their lives. Some things they typically may have picked up on right away, such as the location he claims they went into the water.

It would be interesting to hear what the locals have to say. Many rumors, I'm sure but I have found a lot of truth in what some of the Arubans have had to say. They often times can separate the rumors from the truth. Forget about LE though because they aren't talking. lol jmo

Well I suppose any of the above could have happened
maybe thats why nothing has been said about her shoes and bag, maybe LE saw them when they asked for her ID

I guess if they had a look at the car, they saw nothing unusual about it as it was given back to the rental company



Locals probably don't know too much more than anyone else
I expect a lot of rumours going around but unless they were present, its really just hearsay

 

[neesaki]

Well I suppose any of the above could have happened
maybe thats why nothing has been said about her shoes and bag, maybe LE saw them when they asked for her ID

I guess if they had a look at the car, they saw nothing unusual about it as it was given back to the rental company

locals probably don't know too much more than anyone else
I expect a lot of rumours going around but unless they were present, its really just hearsay

It seems that ALE's hinkymeter didn't go off at all initially, or why wouldn't they have impounded the car as evidence of a possible crime. So they had no suspicions until they found out about the insurance policy? Why let GG leave with the car?

They talked to witnesses that same evening didn't they, who reported GG's suspicious behavior, scratches, dry swim shorts, etc. So why weren't they suspicious enough from that alone to take the car? Now I'm more puzzled than ever.

 

[LambChop]

It seems that ALE's hinkymeter didn't go off at all initially, or why wouldn't they have impounded the car as evidence of a possible crime. So they had no suspicions until they found out about the insurance policy? Why let GG leave with the car?

They talked to witnesses that same evening didn't they, who reported GG's suspicious behavior, scratches, dry swim shorts, etc. So why weren't they suspicious enough from that alone to take the car? Now I'm more puzzled than ever.

I don't think they were suspicious of the car because GG said she was in the water. They were waiting until they found her body or it surfaced. The fact she did not surface in calm seas told them she may not have gone into the water there or something else happened to her. From ALE's reports they expected to find her if it happened as GG described. jmo