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

[LambChop]

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

That is not true. The best snorkeling is out by the German Shipwreck and the small ships anchor up in a covelike area near the lighthouse. The crew members throw bread into the water to get the fish to come around for the snorkeler's to view and it's a short distance to the beach so anyone, anyone can swim out and snorkel. Very safe and not as rocky and much closer than Baby Beach.

There are all types of fish out by the shipwreck, beautiful fish. Other than the channel, which is very shallow, there is nothing to see where they went in, rocks, grass and some dinner fish,.....that's it. Baby Beach is a place where you could take a 2 year old into the water and not have to worry about the getting pulled under or getting bitten by a fish. jmo

 

[LolliPop]

That is not true. The best snorkeling is out by the German Shipwreck and the small ships anchor up in a covelike area near the lighthouse. The crew members throw bread into the water to get the fish to come around for the snorkeler's to view and it's a short distance to the beach so anyone, anyone can swim out and snorkel. Very safe and not as rocky and much closer than Baby Beach.

There are all types of fish out by the shipwreck, beautiful fish. Other than the channel, which is very shallow, there is nothing to see where they went in, rocks, grass and some dinner fish,.....that's it. Baby Beach is a place where you could take a 2 year old into the water and not have to worry about the getting pulled under or getting bitten by a fish. jmo

I guess it all depends on what type of snorkeling adventure you looking for.

In my experience, shallow rocky depths offer the most interesting visual snorkeling, all types of sea creatures in and around those natural pools as opposed to an artificially setup diving location.

 

[LambChop]

I guess it all depends on what type of snorkeling adventure you looking for.

In my experience, shallow rocky depths offer the most interesting visual snorkeling, all types of sea creatures in and around those natural pools as opposed to an artificially setup diving location.

It's not a set up location. It's a beach area where they have a lot of fish because it is close to the shipwreck. And where GG claims to have gone into the water no one snorkels there. Witnesses have said so. I've been there...nothing to see. He had a perfect good spot to go snorkeling if he chose to go on the beach island provided to them by the hotel. Perfect spot to go. I've been out on DePalma Island, same thing, lots of pretty fish. GG claims to have been out in water where there is a lot of grass and not much else, nothing to see.

I've ridden in one of the glass bottom boats and unless you go to a specific location you see pretty much, sand, rocks....lots of rocks and sea weed. Some star fish and once in awhile a stingray but nothing else. You can ask any Aruban where to go and they would never tell you to go out where GG claims he went out.

I've been to the Natural Pool on the eastern coast and while it's very small it's deep and you can see small fish but nothing like you would see out at the shipwreck. Where he claims they went there is nothing to look at for 1 1/2 hours, nothing. They would have been bored and left within 15 minutes.

The story GG is telling makes no sense to anyone who knows the area. jmo

 

[LolliPop]

It's not a set up location. It's a beach area where they have a lot of fish because it is close to the shipwreck. And where GG claims to have gone into the water no one snorkels there. Witnesses have said so. I've been there...nothing to see. He had a perfect good spot to go snorkeling if he chose to go on the beach island provided to them by the hotel. Perfect spot to go. I've been out on DePalma Island, same thing, lots of pretty fish. GG claims to have been out in water where there is a lot of grass and not much else, nothing to see.

I've ridden in one of the glass bottom boats and unless you go to a specific location you see pretty much, sand, rocks....lots of rocks and sea weed. Some star fish and once in awhile a stingray but nothing else. You can ask any Aruban where to go and they would never tell you to go out where GG claims he went out.

I've been to the Natural Pool on the eastern coast and while it's very small it's deep and you can see small fish but nothing like you would see out at the shipwreck. Where he claims they went there is nothing to look at for 1 1/2 hours, nothing. They would have been bored and left within 15 minutes.

The story GG is telling makes no sense to anyone who knows the area. jmo

I personally would snorkel in shallow rocky areas where there is plenty seaweed which attracts far more than just pretty fish.
Pretty fish are all over, the sea life that inhabits rocky shallow pools with seaweed is very interesting.

But this is not about my likes or dislikes, its about Gary Giordano who appears to have the same snorkeling interest that I have.

 

[LambChop]

Then a large aquarium, some sand, some rocks, couple of little green plants, and a few colorless fish in his own home and GG should be all set. He could sit at home and it won't cost him a dime. Won't make any money that way though. Because that is about the size of what he could see out there...had he gone in past his ankles that is.

LE knows what is out there, knows there is nothing to see so his story really, really does not make sense to them. How do you spend an hour and a half looking at sand and rocks???? That had to have been their biggest question to him. GG would not know there was nothing out there to see because he never ventured out there. Anyone can say they like looking at seaweed, rocks, etc. but at 5pm at night you can't see anything much less small fish. So what was the point saying you went into the water when it logically it makes no sense. Reason: He did not know what he was talking about and assumed conditions were different than what they actually were and that is why he is a primary suspect. jmo

 

[SyraKelly]

was her signature compared to the one on the insurance forms?

 

[LambChop]

was her signature compared to the one on the insurance forms?

Yes, but that information has not been released, I believe. jmo

 

[Niner]

I've started a list of some inconsistencies, as I read along here; will continue list as you all post!! eace:


GG admits she took the sleeping pill and was drinking. Even if they were both drinking moderately he should have enough sense to know she never should have been in the water. He drove her there and drove her right down to the water's edge. Who in their right mind, who claims to have cared for her, would have allowed her to get into the water. Of course witnesses (more than one) claim she never got in the water, they got in their car and left.....I believe that is a serious inconsistency.
****
GG stated that Robyn had taken a sleeping pill earlier in the day and had been drinking. Does that seem consistent with someone you would take snorkeling for their first time ever?

And it was very late in the afternoon---a very silly time to try and snorkel because the water is too dark because of the angle of the sun.

And the witnesses say they saw them walking on the beach, but never entered the water. Other witnesses saw them drive off without entering the water. Those are also inconsistencies in his story.

Add to it the fact that she was dressed with her make up done, her extensions all curled and done up, and she had been leisurely drinking and eating all afternoon---what makes
her suddenly want to snorkel that day?
****
GG said he and Robyn went snorkeling, yet a witness said he never saw them go into the water during the timeline GG gave LE.
GG, according to a source, said Robyn had been drinking and took an ambien that day - then says they were a "sober couple".
The terrain GG pointed out to LE as the entry point of their snorkeling adventure, was too rocky for anyone but God to traverse barefoot
GG said the waters were rough at the time they were snorkeling, this was proved untrue
GG says there is a Dutch tourist guide for Aruba that states one should call their insurance carrier if someone goes missing during their visit - but also says his attorney told him to call. Which is it. It can't be the tourist guide because there's not one containing his referenced directive.
****
GG claims they went into the water at a specific location and LE, witnesses are saying no way that happened.
*****
Funny, too, how they never found any blood on the rocks. She cut her toe on the large rock and no blood, had to go back to where they placed the towels to stop the bleeding and no blood, anywhere, except on the towel. When you cut your toe and it's bleeding, it bleeds alot but there is no sign of blood anywhere on, near or around that area. It was dry, blood was not going anywhere had it been there. Investigators were there within 20 minutes.....so where was the blood??? It's not like GG could ditch the towel as it belongs to the hotel and you are accountable for it. Sounds as if this could be another of T. Stein's "inconsistencies".
****
Fact remains that GG gave a statement regarding where they went in. There was no mistake because there were markers on the ground. He pointed out the rock she cut her toe on. All of that was investigated prior to the reenactment. The reenactment was done because the facts did not match his story big time. He is the one who pointed everything out, he is the one who gave his statement if the facts don't match then this is why GG is their primary suspect.
****
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. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/robyn-gardners-final-moments-reenacted-aruba-14562389

 

[LambChop]

Here are a few more Niner: Thanks This is just a list so we can keep track.

GG tells RG's mother that he got his sneakers wet while searching for her daughter. He claims he was snorkeling with his shoes on so why would he say he "got is sneakers wet" when they were supposed to already be wet from snorkeling????

GG telling the agent RG was going to take another flight??

ML, GG's first attorney will not confirm or deny any statements GG has made only stating that ML is ethically bound, as any defense attorney, not to discuss his case without permission. What ML did say was that GG knows what we discussed. GG can give his attorney permission to back up his story which he obviously has not done.

RG was not physically prepared to go snorkeling. We see her enter the bathroom and return and she has not changed into her bathing suit. Where they were suppose to be snorkeling was only 100 yards from the restaurant where she could have changed and she did not do so. She was there the day before so she was quite aware there was no place to change on the beach.

GG had to wear sneakers (he admits) into the water but claims RG went in barefoot even after severely cutting her toe enough to leave blood on a towel.

She appears to be wearing one dress for two days and yet her dress was found tossed over onto the rocks quite a distance from the towels. The car was right there so why wouldn't she put it in the car rather than risk it being torn by the jagged rocks??? And where were her shoes???? If they were in the car why wouldn't her dress be in there also?

 

[LambChop]

do you believe RG is in the ocean or buried somewhere on the island?

The island is volcanic rock with most areas covered with a couple of inches of sand. All the graves are above ground and I'm told you can only lease a space for 5 years. There is really no place to bury someone unless you tried putting someone in the sand dunes but they are up at the lighthouse end of the island. Plus the sand blows from place to place. He really did not have time to find a place to try and bury her. It sounds as if he expected her body to surface in the water and she would be found so he could collect that insurance right away. So, yes, I think she went into the water. jmo

 

[SyraKelly]

Thanks LC-I have learned a lot about Aruba from you reading your posts..very impressed with them.

 

[LambChop]

Thanks LC-I have learned a lot about Aruba from you reading your post..very impressed with them.

You know, I have been going there many years and while I may not agree with them requiring a "smoking gun" I do have to respect that this is the way they run their legal system. While we may feel they should be harder on these suspects they don't use the jury system so they want to make sure someone is guilty before putting them on trial. If I were a defendant I'd be grateful for that. Joran and GG left Aruba free men because they are so cautious.

Many were critical, and still are today, about how they handled Joran because they believed his father was calling the shots. With GG we can see that this is just how they run their judicial system. US may look to them and say they are lax, Aruban's would disagree and say they just require more evidence. They just do things differently, same as the rest of the world. The world does not revolve around the US and are under no obligation to follow our rules. jmo

 

[SyraKelly]

do you think they will get GG?

 

[LambChop]

do you think they will get GG?

You know, I don't know. But I would hope all the publicity will keep another woman from being harmed. jmo

 

[redheadedgal]

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

That is not true.

LC-- i googled "recommended snorkeling aruba" and you are correct. not one site -- including 1) travel guides like frommer's, fodor's, lonely planet 2) sites specific to aruba travel/tourism 3) discussion forums for water sports 4) snorkel sites etc -- mentions this particular location as a place to snorkel much less a "best" place to snorkel in aruba. of course, i didn't get to search the entire internet so...

LP-- maybe a source that backs up your assertion could be linked? thanks.


niner-- another inconsistency: the fact GG stated RG was planning on having her hair extensions re-done when she returned home; her friend and hairdresser refuted this saying she just had them done and there was no plan to do them any time soon (paraphrased).

 

[LambChop]

LC-- i googled "recommended snorkeling aruba" and you are correct. not one site -- including 1) travel guides like frommer's, fodor's, lonely planet 2) sites specific to aruba travel/tourism 3) discussion forums for water sports 4) snorkel sites etc -- mentions this particular location as a place to snorkel much less a "best" place to snorkel in aruba. of course, i didn't get to search the entire internet so maybe a source that backs up this assertion could be linked? thanks.


niner-- another inconsistency: the fact GG stated RG was planning on having her hair extensions re-done when she returned home; her friend and hairdresser refuted this saying she just had them done and there was no plan to do them any time soon (paraphrased).

Good catch redheadedgal: I forgot about that one. I'm sure there are more. Thanks

 

[LolliPop]

At this stage, nobody has been charged with a crime and even less convicted of one.
In a modern society that dictates moral fibre, it is important to have enough evidence to even charge a person.
Trial by the media over time and even in more recent times because of the WWW and other technical advances has proven to be not only inconclusive but lacks moral backbone and structure that most modern countries hold dear.

To merely convict someone in this way merely serves to fulfill a basic instinct that is inconsistant with modern times and the values that are so easily undermined by a pack instinct.

 

[redheadedgal]

You must be watching us on the webcam. I just made DH and I some brandy and egg nog, heated up, as we finish wrapping the last presents. LOL

lol-- too funny!!




:seeya:

 

[LambChop]

At this stage, nobody has been charged with a crime and even less convicted of one.
In a modern society that dictates moral fibre, it is important to have enough evidence to even charge a person.
Trial by the media over time and even in more recent times because of the WWW and other technical advances has proven to be not only inconclusive but lacks moral backbone and structure that most modern countries hold dear.

To merely convict someone in this way merely serves to fulfill a basic instinct that is inconsistant with modern times and the values that are so easily undermined by a pack instinct.

Juries convict people or trial by judge, not the media. One must always remember that two of the most valuable rights that we all share is the right to invoke the 5th Amendment and freedom of the press. GG had no problem, no problem getting on national tv and.....(as JB put it, give too much detail). Plus people usually convict themselves, the media has nothing to do with it. Most stories die down as long as their attorneys aren't out there making media deals. Now there is an example of a moral fibre problem right there.

Even posters have a right to express their views which includes all of us. Plus GG is not a good example of "moral fibre", not by a long shot.

I find it odd that people complain about media/forums/blogs and then turn around and use the same outlets to air their views. Two sides are always productive, hiding the truth, inconsistencies in statements, lying by a suspect is not. When there is a victum there is always a reason for their injuries or death and the public has a right to know, to discuss it and to watch whatever is presented by the media and form their own opinion. That is what our modern society requires of us. Trial procedures in the future will have to change to keep up with the times. Juries of the future are not going to be able to bury their heads in the sand because they will be informed.

Not sure what you are referring to as "pack instinct"????? jmo

 

[LolliPop]

Juries convict people or trial by judge, not the media. One must always remember that two of the most valuable rights that we all share is the right to invoke the 5th Amendment and freedom of the press. GG had no problem, no problem getting on national tv and.....(as JB put it, give too much detail). Plus people usually convict themselves, the media has nothing to do with it. Most stories die down as long as their attorneys aren't out there making media deals. Now there is an example of a moral fibre problem right there.

Even posters have a right to express their views which includes all of us. Plus GG is not a good example of "moral fibre", not by a long shot.

I find it odd that people complain about media/forums/blogs and then turn around and use the same outlets to air their views. Two sides are always productive, hiding the truth, inconsistencies in statements, lying by a suspect is not. When there is a victum there is always a reason for their injuries or death and the public has a right to know, to discuss it and to watch whatever is presented by the media and form their own opinion. That is what our modern society requires of us. Trial procedures in the future will have to change to keep up with the times. Juries of the future are not going to be able to bury their heads in the sand because they will be informed.

Not sure what you are referring to as "pack instinct"????? jmo

5th Amendment ?

Aruba has such a law ?

The majority of the planet called earth has a right to plead this 5th Amendment ?

And the public has a right to know the truth, not truth as put out by the media in order to boost their ratings.

Or to inflame people via the WWW in order to solicit a pack driven instinct to convict irrespective of lack of evidence to do so.