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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
AngelFish said:
I believe the shark feeding area is Andicouri Bay which is shown on your map, just below the A. It might equate to a 1 or 2 mile drive.
Click to expand...


Something to note here... IF I am correct that Andicouri Bay is the shark feeding area ( I'm pretty sure I am)... it is very close to the Natural Bridge. I'm not sure if the terrain near andicouri bay is the same as at the Natural Bridge, but his rental vehicle would likely not have made it to the Natural Bridge - it is very difficult and dangerous terrain. It is recommended to go with a paid guide, so the terrain at Andicouri Bay is something to look into further.
 
concentric said:
I thought the words were "did not appear to be under duress"

That's different from: "did not appear to be coerced."
Click to expand...


Correct. It's even milder. "Duress" is considerably short of "coerced". If they weren't even "under duress", they certainly were not "coerced".

<modsnip>? They have photos. The photos depict sex acts. The local LE who have the photos say, one way or another, that the sex acts appear to be voluntary. Why is that so hard to believe? What's getting in the way of accepting that as true? A desire to see Robyn as somehow as innocent as Natalee? It shouldn't make any difference, <modsnip>". IMO, of course.
 
If the pictures were that bad, surely LE would have charged him already, it looks to me as if they don't have a lot to go on.
 
annalia said:
I didn't distort, here's what you posted, you didn't say nude photgraphy.

"To such (naive) people, graphic shots of sex acts, genitalia, male or female orgasms, even mild sadomasochism would seem absolutely shocking. And the world of *advertiser censored* today goes well beyond all of that as a routine matter. My guess is, the photos were run of the mill cheap amateur *advertiser censored* shots. Stuff Robyn had probable done plenty of times before, along with countless thousands of other women (and the younger generations are far more open to such things than many people think)."

I had already posted in my earlier post that she may have agreed to pose nude and said in this day and age that's that's not real shocking. So we seem to have a miscommunication and should probably end this.
Click to expand...


Perhaps better to simply try for understanding instead of misunderstanding?

Yes, I said she had "probably" done cheap, amateur, run-of-the-mill *advertiser censored* shots before. Lord knows, half the women I know have (and they don't have modelmayhem profiles saying they are open to all kinds of shoots). Your response was to ask if I had any "links" to the "*advertiser censored* that she's done plenty of times before." No. I don't have any links. Nor do I have any links to the "*advertiser censored*" that women I know have done plenty of times before. The vast majority of such stuff never gets beyond private consumption. I just thought that was kind of a disingenuous question, more of a rhetorical question. And rhetoric generally derives from ideology (or beliefs of some sort).

I apologize if I misunderstood you.
 
Just-a-Guy said:
Correct. It's even milder. "Duress" is considerably short of "coerced". If they weren't even "under duress", they certainly were no "coerced".

This is kind of silly, though, don't you think? Arguing over such things? They have photos. The photos depict sex acts. The local LE who have the photos say, one way or another, that the sex acts appear to be voluntary. Why is that so hard to believe? What's getting in the way of accepting that as true? A desire to see Robyn as somehow as innocent as Natalee? It shouldn't make any difference, and ignoring the apparent facts is certainly fair from "sleuthing". IMO, of course.
Click to expand...

No it isn't silly. The fact is that JR reports that the photos only show organs, you can't tell if she's awake, and some others show her posing naked. That's a fact. Taco Stein states he didn't see the photos.

Please explain how one can determine from photos where only organs are shown whether or not the person was under duress? That's what's being questioned.

I couldn't care less if she had sex, she's an adult. Point is it's being thrown out there that she went to do *advertiser censored*. THAT isn't a fact. Not yet anyway. If it turns out to be a fact so be it.
 
annalia said:
Please explain how one can determine from photos where only organs are shown whether or not the person was under duress? That's what's being questioned.
P
Click to expand...


I don't know. All I know is what they said. Perhaps the best answer is something like what Justice Powell once said about obscenity -- I believe, when asked to define it, he said simply, "I know it when I see it."

I agree, let's end this. It's pointless.
 
Redgoblin said:
If the pictures were that bad, surely LE would have charged him already, it looks to me as if they don't have a lot to go on.
Click to expand...


Why? If it is two consenting adults, neither of whom appear to be 'under duress". What is criminal about that? Perhaps there is some mild bondage or chocking (seems to be his thing) and this is why they are described as beyond pornographic.
 
annalia said:
No it isn't silly. The fact is that JR reports that the photos only show organs, you can't tell if she's awake, and some others show her posing naked. That's a fact. Taco Stein states he didn't see the photos.

Please explain how one can determine from photos where only organs are shown whether or not the person was under duress? That's what's being questioned.

I couldn't care less if she had sex, she's an adult. Point is it's being thrown out there that she went to do *advertiser censored*. THAT isn't a fact. Not yet anyway. If it turns out to be a fact so be it.
Click to expand...


Did JR report that she did indeed see the photo's or is she merely paraphrasing what she heard Stein say? JR is a reporter, correct? I would think that the only people who have actually seen the photos are LE, but I could be wrong.
 
AngelFish said:
Why? If it is two consenting adults, neither of whom appear to be 'under duress". What is criminal about that? Perhaps there is some mild bondage or chocking (seems to be his thing) and this is why they are described as beyond pornographic.
Click to expand...

Stop putting words in my mouth that is not what I meant. I did not imply they were bad, and I certainly didn't imply there was anything criminal in taking photos, the media has by saying they were 'beyond *advertiser censored*'
 
AngelFish said:
Did JR report that she did indeed see the photo's or is she merely paraphrasing what she heard Stein say? JR is a reporter, correct? I would think that the only people who have actually seen the photos are LE, but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

JR gives very descriptive specific details, only someone who saw the pics would know, Stein never gave any details about them. She wouldn't be paraphrasing she heard him say, when she gave much more information than Stein ever did. Someone leaked the info, that seems pretty obvious.

Again, here is what JR said.


&#8220;You only see organs,&#8221; Julia Renfro, the editor-in-chief of Aruba Today said, explaining that it was unclear if the acts were consensual. &#8220;You don&#8217;t know if she is awake. There are other pictures where she is posing naked.&#8221;

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusive...digital-camera
 
Redgoblin said:
Stop putting words in my mouth that is not what I meant. I did not imply they were bad, the media has.
Click to expand...

I responded to what you wrote. I do not believe I put words in your mouth.

What you wrote was:

If the pictures were that bad, surely LE would have charged him already, it looks to me as if they don't have a lot to go on.
__________________


LE said they were beyond pornographic and that she did not appear to be under duress. At no point did LE indicate the photos were of a criminal nature, hence my reply was as it was.
 
annalia said:
JR gives very descriptive specific details, only someone who saw the pics would know, Stein never gave any details about them. She wouldn't be paraphrasing when she gave much more information than Stein did. Someone leaked the info, that seems pretty obvious.

Again, here is what JR said.


“You only see organs,” Julia Renfro, the editor-in-chief of Aruba Today said, explaining that it was unclear if the acts were consensual. “You don’t know if she is awake. There are other pictures where she is posing naked.”

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusive...digital-camera
Click to expand...

JR appears to have an inside connection like she did with the NH case.
 
I stick by what I said, if the pictures were that bad - AS REPORTED BY THE MEDIA AS BEYOND *advertiser censored* - surely LE would have charged him already, it looks to me as if they don't have a lot to go on.

That better for you?
 
Maybe we can all agree that she was no Mary Poppins.
Maybe we can agree that the photos are never going to be put in a family album.
Maybe we can agree that LE, at this time doesn't have enough evidence to arrest him for murder, if in fact that is what we have here.
 
annalia said:
JR gives very descriptive specific details, only someone who saw the pics would know, Stein never gave any details about them. She wouldn't be paraphrasing she heard him say, when she gave much more information than Stein ever did. Someone leaked the info, that seems pretty obvious.

Again, here is what JR said.


“You only see organs,” Julia Renfro, the editor-in-chief of Aruba Today said, explaining that it was unclear if the acts were consensual. “You don’t know if she is awake. There are other pictures where she is posing naked.”

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusive...digital-camera
Click to expand...



Could it be there was more than one photography session? As if it is just one session, JR contradicts herself. It can't be unclear if RG is awake but clear that she is posing at the same time - it's one or the other OR more than one shoot.
 
Just ready an article that the mother and daughter team that was on NG this week saying that GG wanted to take them to Aruba may have been fabricating the story to further their own modeling careers. The article stated that the mother gave her daughter permission to pose half nude at the age of 14 and had photos of the mother posing for a modeling agency.

What would make a mother act this way?

That woman ought to realize that that story, being heard by the family members of this missing woman, would add to their worry and distress.

What a piece of work!
 
HatesSociopaths said:
I'll tell you. I want to find a motive like seeing the Facebook message but it feels weak. The insurance theory is also full of holes and I discarded that as well.

I think one of the biggest facts to consider about everything is that there was another 3 days on the island of paradise with this blonde. Why kill her?
Click to expand...

The biggest question I have and the most troubling to me would be why did this man tell the customs officer, right before he was arrested and trying to leave the country, that his "friend" would be taking another flight, when the customs officer asked him where she was. That is a blatant lie. If he had nothing to hide, he would not have had to lie about that.
 
Redgoblin said:
I stick by what I said, if the pictures were that bad - AS REPORTED BY THE MEDIA AS BEYOND *advertiser censored* - surely LE would have charged him already, it looks to me as if they don't have a lot to go on.

That better for you?
Click to expand...

I didn't have an issue with what you wrote. Either wording is fine. Either way, unless there was something criminal in the photos, no matter how "BAD" they are, I can't see a reason to charge him based on the photos. I agree with you that it appears they don't have much to go on; at the moment anyway.

Truce?
 
suniskye said:
The biggest question I have and the most troubling to me would be why did this man tell the customs officer, right before he was arrested and trying to leave the country, that his "friend" would be taking another flight, when the customs officer asked him where she was. That is a blatant lie. If he had nothing to hide, he would not have had to lie about that.
Click to expand...

If you didn't want to explain everything again to someone who is probably unaware of what had transpired on the island, you might want to avoid the situation by lying, I've mentioned this before. It doesn't necessarily mean he is a killer?
 
HatesSociopaths said:
JR appears to have an inside connection like she did with the NH case.
Click to expand...

Obviously there has been someone or more than one leaking information, it started with the insurance info that came from somewhere inside the police dept.

Interestingly enough, there was an article in amigoe, where Taco Stein is not happy about the leaks. I tried to bring it here but it won't work. I hope it's ok to post the link to where it was posted at another site.

ETA:

Found the english version, a little less detailed but gives the same basic info as the original article;

http://www.amigoe.com/english/81172-explicit-pictures-of-gardner-on-giordanos-camera
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 232 more.
Total: 3,631 (members: 233, guests: 3,398)

Online statistics

Members online
233
Guests online
3,398
Total visitors
3,631
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,546
Messages
17,954,574
Members
228,530
Latest member
kac313
Back
Top