ARUBA - Robyn Gardner, 35, Maryland woman missing in Aruba, 2 Aug 2011 - #11

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Elley Mae said:
I would think if "identified" means human then it would have been tested and proven to be robyn's or not, seems it was not or we would have heard. jmo
Click to expand...


I interpret it to mean DNA on the the blood tested was "identified" as Robyn's.
 
Elley Mae said:
I would think if "identified" means human then it would have been tested and proven to be robyn's or not, seems it was not or we would have heard. jmo
Click to expand...

Elley Mae said:
But Aruba Solicitor General Taco Stein said in an interview Saturday night: "The detail about the hand print and blood is not true."

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusiv...ba-disappearance-no-bloody-handprint-evidence
Click to expand...


So then maybe the DNA of blood linked to Robyn was was found on the towel??

In any event, based on Taco Stein's comment in that video, there is confirmed evidence of Robyn's blood found at the initial location.
 
Sapphire said:
So then maybe the DNA of blood linked to Robyn was was found on the towel??

In any event, based on Taco Stein's comment in that video, there is confirmed evidence of Robyn's blood found at the initial location.
Click to expand...

That is not true.

I want a link to that statement please
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/29/robyn-gardner-blood-towel_n_1065041.html

"Lejuez said that during the hearing prosecutors disclosed that a DNA test confirmed that blood found on a towel came from Gardner. But the attorney said that Giordano has maintained that she cut her toe on a rock while they were on a beach and used the towel to stop the bleeding."

Was there ever any doubt the blood belonged to RG? GG admitted to LE it was her blood. I think they tested the blood to verify it was actually her blood and not his. jmo
 
Elley Mae said:
That is not true.

I want a link to that statement please
Click to expand...

Stein's statement re: the blood evidence is in the fourth column, fourth paragraph down:

Official Statement regarding the release of Gary Giordano from Chief Prosecutor Taco Stein

" DNA testing from blood found on the scene where he claims they entered the water has proved to be Robyn's; however he claims she cut her toe when initially entering the water."

http://issuu.com/themorningnews/doc...yout=http://skin.issuu.com/v/light/layout.xml
 
I have been thinking about these witnesses who claimed to have seen GG and RG arrive at the beach and then leave. Witness's are mistaken all the time, dont actually see what they claimed to have seen, misinterpreted things etc etc. But, we should be able to test whatever they claim against any physical evidence that exists. The physical evidence is irrefutable, so if their testimony does not match, it is either distorted or wrong.

We know from video evidence the RG/GG left the restuarant at ~4PM, and that GG arrived back at 6Pm. That leaves two hours to account for.

We know that GG had been swiming in those two hours because (A) a witness claims to have seen his shoes wet; and (B) it is obvious from TV footage of the search that he had been wet and had not combed his hair before it dried.

People claimed to have seen them on the beach.

Now, if this was true, and they just came there, stood a round, and then drove off never to return, then there should be no physical evidence on the beach.

There should be no towel, no shoes, no dress, no blood.

If any of those things were on the beach, then the witness must be mistaken.
 
One more thought, the allegations that they were at the same restuarant on two successive days with her in the same clothes. How sure are we of this? I only recall seeing video from the day she went missing. Is there any other?

In the previous thread someone said that the date stamps were different. Is it possible that the footage was from different cameras of the same day, but the date set incorrectly on one of the cameras? That would make it appear that they had been there on different days when it was the same day.
 
neesaki said:
Stein's statement re: the blood evidence is in the fourth column, fourth paragraph down:

Official Statement regarding the release of Gary Giordano from Chief Prosecutor Taco Stein

" DNA testing from blood found on the scene where he claims they entered the water has proved to be Robyn's; however he claims she cut her toe when initially entering the water."

http://issuu.com/themorningnews/doc...yout=http://skin.issuu.com/v/light/layout.xml
Click to expand...

One thing of interst in that article: they have sent the signatures on the travel insurance documents for a second opinion after getting the FBI's analysis results. Could that mean that whatever the FBI concluded was not in agreement with their expectations?
 
Tugela said:
One thing of interst in that article: they have sent the signatures on the travel insurance documents for a second opinion after getting the FBI's analysis results. Could that mean that whatever the FBI concluded was not in agreement with their expectations?
Click to expand...

Could be and the FBI could not confirm 100% that it was false. Or it could be the FBI concluded that it was, in fact, a forgery and Aruba wanted their own people to verify it. Problem is unless he puts in for a claim with the insurance company they won't charge him, I believe. And I don't believe these policies were notarized, were they? jmo
 
Tugela said:
One more thought, the allegations that they were at the same restuarant on two successive days with her in the same clothes. How sure are we of this? I only recall seeing video from the day she went missing. Is there any other?

In the previous thread someone said that the date stamps were different. Is it possible that the footage was from different cameras of the same day, but the date set incorrectly on one of the cameras? That would make it appear that they had been there on different days when it was the same day.
Click to expand...


This video shows their rental car passing by the restaurant a little after 3 pm on August 1st, the day before Robyn disappeared, then a little later catches them walking passed the closed gates.

Was there a trial run? Shocking video footage shows murder suspect Gary Giordano taking Robyn Gardner to the place where she would disappear a day later CCTV footage shows Girodano taking Robyn to the stretch of beach where she vanished the next day

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...o-taking-Robyn-beach-disappear-day-later.html
 
Tugela said:
One thing of interst in that article: they have sent the signatures on the travel insurance documents for a second opinion after getting the FBI's analysis results. Could that mean that whatever the FBI concluded was not in agreement with their expectations?
Click to expand...

The FBI or Aruba have yet to release a statement re: the insurance documents and signatures. Maybe Robyn did sign it, nothing would really surprise me at this point.
 
Tugela said:
I have been thinking about these witnesses who claimed to have seen GG and RG arrive at the beach and then leave. Witness's are mistaken all the time, dont actually see what they claimed to have seen, misinterpreted things etc etc. But, we should be able to test whatever they claim against any physical evidence that exists. The physical evidence is irrefutable, so if their testimony does not match, it is either distorted or wrong.

We know from video evidence the RG/GG left the restuarant at ~4PM, and that GG arrived back at 6Pm. That leaves two hours to account for.

We know that GG had been swiming in those two hours because (A) a witness claims to have seen his shoes wet; and (B) it is obvious from TV footage of the search that he had been wet and had not combed his hair before it dried.

People claimed to have seen them on the beach.

Now, if this was true, and they just came there, stood a round, and then drove off never to return, then there should be no physical evidence on the beach.

There should be no towel, no shoes, no dress, no blood.

If any of those things were on the beach, then the witness must be mistaken.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I think you are incorrect in that conclusion. IF GG was trying to stage a scene then there WOULD be a reason for the towel and the dress to be there. He could have driven off, disposed of her, then planted those things while he pretended to look for her.
 
Tugela said:
I have been thinking about these witnesses who claimed to have seen GG and RG arrive at the beach and then leave. Witness's are mistaken all the time, dont actually see what they claimed to have seen, misinterpreted things etc etc. But, we should be able to test whatever they claim against any physical evidence that exists. The physical evidence is irrefutable, so if their testimony does not match, it is either distorted or wrong.

We know from video evidence the RG/GG left the restuarant at ~4PM, and that GG arrived back at 6Pm. That leaves two hours to account for.

We know that GG had been swiming in those two hours because (A) a witness claims to have seen his shoes wet; and (B) it is obvious from TV footage of the search that he had been wet and had not combed his hair before it dried.

People claimed to have seen them on the beach.

Now, if this was true, and they just came there, stood a round, and then drove off never to return, then there should be no physical evidence on the beach.

There should be no towel, no shoes, no dress, no blood.

If any of those things were on the beach, then the witness must be mistaken.
Click to expand...

I guess there were numerous witnesses that came forward and they were all consistent in their statements to LE enough so that they keep them as evidence. It appears LE did test GG's story and it just does not add up with the facts as they know them so they are counting the witnesses statements. Statements that they were seen leaving is just another inconsistent statement they received from GG.

People claimed to see them walking and then they get into their rental car and leave. No one has come forward that I'm aware of to state they saw them in the water or that RG had changed into her bathing suit. She did not do so at the restaurant because we see her leaving fully dressed with her wedge-heeled sandals at about 4:13pm. Witnesses claim they walked on the beach for about 10 to 15 minutes and then left in their rental car.

GG's story was that they were on the beach and in the water during those two hours. He was not aware that witnesses saw them leaving so the towels would have been on the ground to show they were there the whole time. Witnesses also claim GG's suit was dry but his shoes were soaking wet and this was within minutes of him getting out of the water. As for his hair, Aruba is very, very windy even on a calm day there is some wind. Plus if he had gotten into a struggle with RG, and he did have a fresh cut that ran from his chin to his neck, I would expect his hair would have been messy because sometimes people grab the other person's hair when they struggle with them. RG could have even pulled it off, that could have caused a conflict in itself. Who knows but it is possible.

GG claims RG went missing at 6pm and by the time he jogged down to the restaurant it was shortly after 6pm. So according to witnesses he was gone 1 1/2 hours.

The big problem is that what GG claims happened does not mesh with what LE knows as fact. When LE pointed to the inconsistencies and the witnesses appeared GG stopped cooperating. There could always be some consistencies but not a mountain of them we have seen in this case. jmo
 
neesaki said:
The FBI or Aruba have yet to release a statement re: the insurance documents and signatures. Maybe Robyn did sign it, nothing would really surprise me at this point.
Click to expand...

Yes, she could have. He's an expert at deception so he could have filled in the beneficiary information after she signed. Unless she initialed where the beneficiary was listed he could have easily given her the form and told her it was travel insurance and she signed it. Who wouldn't? Does not mean she knew how much it was for or even what the terms of the policy were. If it was not notarized and witnessed there is just no way to tell. jmo
 
katydid23 said:
Sorry, but I think you are incorrect in that conclusion. IF GG was trying to stage a scene then there WOULD be a reason for the towel and the dress to be there. He could have driven off, disposed of her, then planted those things while he pretended to look for her.
Click to expand...

ITA, may explain why her dress was so carelessly tossed on the rocks. It's already been proven it's no place to snorkel, too rocky and too rough, no place to sun bathe on the rocks either, plus it was too late in the day to start snorkeling and it was too late to get a tan.
Robyn's body wasn't found there either, which leads to the likely conclusion that it was a hurriedly staged scene. :twocents:
 
Elley Mae said:
That is not true.

I want a link to that statement please
Click to expand...



What statement do you want a link to?

Here's a link to Giordano's attorney, Chris Lejuez, stating the prosecutor disclosed blood found on a towel was Gardners.

<snip>

Lejuez said that during the hearing prosecutors disclosed that a DNA test confirmed that blood found on a towel came from Gardner. But the attorney said that Giordano has maintained that she cut her toe on a rock while they were on a beach and used the towel to stop the bleeding.

<snip>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...l?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk3|108468




The other statement by Taco Stein confirming DNA evidence was from a video at a link I previously posted here. Go to 5:55 on the timestamp and hear Stein's words below. I interpret his words as a confirmation.



Video: Public Prosecutor's spokesman Taco Stein elaborates on Gary Giordano's release from jail
Tuesday, 29 November 2011 21:36


5:55 on timestamp

<snip>

"The Dutch National Crime Lab has analyzed small blood traces that were found at the initial location for DNA and it was established that they could be identified with Robyn."

<snip>

http://arubaherald.com/court/1738-vi...from-jail.html
 
Wasn't it the day before that they were seen, by surveillance cameras, walking on the beach and leaving?

LambChop said:
I guess there were numerous witnesses that came forward and they were all consistent in their statements to LE enough so that they keep them as evidence. It appears LE did test GG's story and it just does not add up with the facts as they know them so they are counting the witnesses statements. Statements that they were seen leaving is just another inconsistent statement they received from GG.

People claimed to see them walking and then they get into their rental car and leave. No one has come forward that I'm aware of to state they saw them in the water or that RG had changed into her bathing suit. She did not do so at the restaurant because we see her leaving fully dressed with her wedge-heeled sandals at about 4:13pm. Witnesses claim they walked on the beach for about 10 to 15 minutes and then left in their rental car.

GG's story was that they were on the beach and in the water during those two hours. He was not aware that witnesses saw them leaving so the towels would have been on the ground to show they were there the whole time. Witnesses also claim GG's suit was dry but his shoes were soaking wet and this was within minutes of him getting out of the water. As for his hair, Aruba is very, very windy even on a calm day there is some wind. Plus if he had gotten into a struggle with RG, and he did have a fresh cut that ran from his chin to his neck, I would expect his hair would have been messy because sometimes people grab the other person's hair when they struggle with them. RG could have even pulled it off, that could have caused a conflict in itself. Who knows but it is possible.

GG claims RG went missing at 6pm and by the time he jogged down to the restaurant it was shortly after 6pm. So according to witnesses he was gone 1 1/2 hours.

The big problem is that what GG claims happened does not mesh with what LE knows as fact. When LE pointed to the inconsistencies and the witnesses appeared GG stopped cooperating. There could always be some consistencies but not a mountain of them we have seen in this case. jmo
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 193 more.
Total: 3,947 (members: 194, guests: 3,753)

Online statistics

Members online
194
Guests online
3,753
Total visitors
3,947
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,534
Messages
17,954,155
Members
228,524
Latest member
archangel78100
Back
Top