- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 94,530
- Reaction score
- 322,526
Inconsistencies... (so far!)
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
*****
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?
****
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).
****
As for GG laying down the towels it appears they were on part of the road area. Not the best to sit or lie down on to get a tan (another inconsistency I'm guessing).
****
Another inconsistency, is GG claiming on GMA that his attorney was the one who told him to call the insurance company and report her missing. So he would lead us to believe he contacted the attorney to get advice about the insurance company which would have cost him a couple of dollars. JB then interrupts GG and claims that ML wanted GG to sign an agreement for 1/3 of the insurance money. The fee for a personal injury lawsuit is 1/3 of monies you receive as a settlement. So who was suing GG, or was it who GG feared might be suing him for that money. GG was clearly the beneficiary in the policy and certainly didn't have to ask an attorney for advice on whether or not to call the insurance company. He could call the insurance company and get that advice for free. Also, GG claims he has always purchased insurance when traveling and it appears he has traveled quite a bit so I would think he had read his policy and would already know that detail.
Then you have the media reporting that GG told ML he was no longer permitted to speak to the media which leads us to believe ML was relaying information that may have conflicted with what he had told LE or others. ML now claims after GG's interview with GMA that he can't speak because of the attorney/client privilege other than to say that GG knows what we discussed.
****
inconsistencies. Such as JB claiming on national TV that GG didn't need 1.5 million dollars. Ha! He's so clueless he doesn't even know how ridiculous he sounds.
Suspect in Aruba claimed money woes
"A January filing says that when his child support was set in 2009, Mr. Giordanos monthly income in 2009 was $4,827 or about $58,000 annually. At that time, he was paying $616 per month.
Since that order, there has been a material change in circumstances, the court filing says.
It asks a judge to reconsider the child-support amount Mr. Giordano paid based on 2010 financial records that indicated his earnings were significantly lower than the figure used for calculating support at the last hearing. BBM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...disqus_thread6
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
*****
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?
****
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).
****
As for GG laying down the towels it appears they were on part of the road area. Not the best to sit or lie down on to get a tan (another inconsistency I'm guessing).
****
Another inconsistency, is GG claiming on GMA that his attorney was the one who told him to call the insurance company and report her missing. So he would lead us to believe he contacted the attorney to get advice about the insurance company which would have cost him a couple of dollars. JB then interrupts GG and claims that ML wanted GG to sign an agreement for 1/3 of the insurance money. The fee for a personal injury lawsuit is 1/3 of monies you receive as a settlement. So who was suing GG, or was it who GG feared might be suing him for that money. GG was clearly the beneficiary in the policy and certainly didn't have to ask an attorney for advice on whether or not to call the insurance company. He could call the insurance company and get that advice for free. Also, GG claims he has always purchased insurance when traveling and it appears he has traveled quite a bit so I would think he had read his policy and would already know that detail.
Then you have the media reporting that GG told ML he was no longer permitted to speak to the media which leads us to believe ML was relaying information that may have conflicted with what he had told LE or others. ML now claims after GG's interview with GMA that he can't speak because of the attorney/client privilege other than to say that GG knows what we discussed.
****
inconsistencies. Such as JB claiming on national TV that GG didn't need 1.5 million dollars. Ha! He's so clueless he doesn't even know how ridiculous he sounds.
Suspect in Aruba claimed money woes
"A January filing says that when his child support was set in 2009, Mr. Giordanos monthly income in 2009 was $4,827 or about $58,000 annually. At that time, he was paying $616 per month.
Since that order, there has been a material change in circumstances, the court filing says.
It asks a judge to reconsider the child-support amount Mr. Giordano paid based on 2010 financial records that indicated his earnings were significantly lower than the figure used for calculating support at the last hearing. BBM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...disqus_thread6
