MD MD ARUBA - Robyn Gardner, 35, Maryland woman missing in Aruba, 2 Aug 2011 - #10

[neesaki]

Too bad GG didn't get the sentence he deserved. At 15 years max for each count and there were several counts, he would be in prison and Robyn would still be here today.

Man arrested for shoplifting in Germantown

May 7, 2003

"If convicted, Giordano could face a fine of up to $1,000 and 15 years in jail for each count, Utter said."

http://ww2.gazette.net/gazette_archi.../157064-1.html

[LambChop]

Originally Posted by Tugela

There is also the question of the snorkling gear. We know he had it with him. We also know that she was staying with him. So, if he had all this gear with him, and brought it with him, she would have known, and she would be expecting him to go snorkling. The idea that they were just props to disguise some other preconcieved plan is ridiculous, since she would surely have wanted to know why he was bringing that stuff with him if they were just going for drinks.

In other words she would have been expecting to go snorkling. What would be the point of going to the snorkeling spot, not go snorkeling and say that you did? Especially when there is evidence that she was there, in the form of the towel and clothes. We know that the witness claimed the vehicle left and did not return, so those items must have been left there. Did she leave naked? I don't think so.

That leads me to believe that the witnesses saw them arrive sometime (being unremarkable, they wouldnt have noted the exact time), then later saw a vehicle leave (again, being unremarkable, no exact time). During that time RG and GG went snorkeling, she got swept out to sea by currents/drowned. Then he gets to land, wanders around a while looking for her, then gets in the car to try to get help. All of this we know has a hard time period constraint of less than 2 hours. Including travel times and fluffing around, time spent on the beach probably didn't exceed much more than an hour.

If the witnesses did in fact see anything, IMO they did not have a clear idea of times, and simply saw a vehicle arrive, then leave. Only it left somewhat later than what they think it did. Unless there was something particularly remarkable about the vehicle, a casual observer might remember it arriving and leaving, but it is highly unlikely that they would have an accurate idea of how long that took.

The witnesses times match up with the video time and all the witnesses confirm the approximate time they were seen leaving. No one got the exact time correct but they all were consistent that it was between 4 and 4:30. They all saw them leave. GG jogged and did not drive to the restaurant. The car was parked. What was remarkable was that it was out on the jetty where no one goes, even the dive shop owner said he thought it odd to see someone out there. So GG did draw attention to himself because it's a very narrow strip of land, it is very rocky and not a place where tourists would normally go when there is a beautiful beach enclosed in the cove. Mr. Silva said he noticed GG because of the way he was driving.

The witness statements seem to be consistent while GG's statement to police is not and that is why he remains a suspect. One of his statements about them sitting on towels on the ground seems really odd because there isn't a lot of sand out there on the jetty it is mostly rocks. What sand that is there is only a couple of inches and covers rocks and sharp coral so it is hard to see them sitting on this hard ground for a long period of time.

We usually leave the snorkeling gear in the trunk of the car when we are down there. GG claims he had fins in the car for himself only. If GG brought gear only for himself I'm not sure why RG would question that. The area he claims they went into the water is too rocky with sharp rocks and he had to go into the water with sneakers on and did not use his fins. If he brought equipment for both of them there would have been two sets of fins in the car. GG claims RG went into the water barefoot after cutting her toe on a rock. There is no proof he had more than one set of equipment other than the one set of fins that he could not use.

They never planned to go to the restaurant for drinks. GG had their drinks in the car and refilled a cup while at the restaurant right before they left. RG ordered a salad which the server said she barely touched. In GG's statement to police he claimed they never ordered drinks in the restaurant. jmo

[LambChop]

Originally Posted by neesaki

Too bad GG didn't get the sentence he deserved. At 15 years max for each count and there were several counts, he would be in prison and Robyn would still be here today.

Man arrested for shoplifting in Germantown

May 7, 2003

"If convicted, Giordano could face a fine of up to $1,000 and 15 years in jail for each count, Utter said."

http://ww2.gazette.net/gazette_archi.../157064-1.html

Yes, it does seem they dropped the ball a number of times with this guy. jmo

[Dushi]

Originally Posted by LambChop

The witnesses times match up with the video time and all the witnesses confirm the approximate time they were seen leaving. No one got the exact time correct but they all were consistent that it was between 4 and 4:30. They all saw them leave. GG jogged and did not drive to the restaurant. The car was parked. What was remarkable was that it was out on the jetty where no one goes, even the dive shop owner said he thought it odd to see someone out there. So GG did draw attention to himself because it's a very narrow strip of land, it is very rocky and not a place where tourists would normally go when there is a beautiful beach enclosed in the cove. Mr. Silva said he noticed GG because of the way he was driving.

The witness statements seem to be consistent while GG's statement to police is not and that is why he remains a suspect. One of his statements about them sitting on towels on the ground seems really odd because there isn't a lot of sand out there on the jetty it is mostly rocks. What sand that is there is only a couple of inches and covers rocks and sharp coral so it is hard to see them sitting on this hard ground for a long period of time.

We usually leave the snorkeling gear in the trunk of the car when we are down there. GG claims he had fins in the car for himself only. If GG brought gear only for himself I'm not sure why RG would question that. The area he claims they went into the water is too rocky with sharp rocks and he had to go into the water with sneakers on and did not use his fins. If he brought equipment for both of them there would have been two sets of fins in the car. GG claims RG went into the water barefoot after cutting her toe on a rock. There is no proof he had more than one set of equipment other than the one set of fins that he could not use.

They never planned to go to the restaurant for drinks. GG had their drinks in the car and refilled a cup while at the restaurant right before they left. RG ordered a salad which the server said she barely touched. In GG's statement to police he claimed they never ordered drinks in the restaurant. jmo

Do you recall where GG said they were sitting on a towel?

[Dushi]

I am not suggesting that this is why RG and GG were on the jetty but, its quite a pretty spot to watch the ocean break , so they may not have been there for that reason, but I certainly can see others doing that. Its not that farfetched

[LambChop]

Originally Posted by Dushi

I am not suggesting that this is why RG and GG were on the jetty but, its quite a pretty spot to watch the ocean break , so they may not have been there for that reason, but I certainly can see others doing that. Its not that farfetched

That is true. Baby Beach is a very inviting beach and the jetty enclosing it could draw the attention of someone who wanted to walk out onto it. I could see someone walking out there just to check it out. jmo

[LambChop]

Originally Posted by Dushi

Do you recall where GG said they were sitting on a towel?

Not specifically. It may have been a GMA video where they were going over his statement. jmo

[Dushi]

The insurance policy on Gardner is dated July 27, and was initialed and signed by the now-missing Maryland woman. However, the beneficiary information is in Giordano's handwriting, and Giordano listed his mother as his beneficiary on the forms.


http://www.radaronline.com/exclusive...surance-policy


He filled it in and she signed it according to this JMO

[neesaki]

Originally Posted by Tugela

Only if it was the same camera. If the two sets of footage were from different cameras, but apparently showed the same thing on two different days, then one of the cameras likely had the incorrect date set. You can set the date and time on a camera, and that is what will show on the time stamp. If you set it incorrectly, say the 4th instead of the 5th, it would seem like a different day even though it wasn't.

So the question is, did the footage come from the same camera? It doesn't sound like it did.

I would surely hope that Aruba investigators would have already verified the dates and times on all the videos. I'm curious as to why you think that if it isn't the same camera, the date would be wrong on one camera versus the other?

[LambChop]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...tory?id=143315

"Gary Giordano, the only suspect in the disappearance of Robyn Gardner in Aruba, tried to redeem an insurance policy on Gardner that could be worth up to $1.5 million, according to a report.

Giordano moved to collect on the policy, which named him as beneficiary, within two days of reporting Gardner missing, the Associated Press reported."

[LambChop]

Originally Posted by neesaki

I would surely hope that Aruba investigators would have already verified the dates and times on all the videos. I'm curious as to why you think that if it isn't the same camera, the date would be wrong on one camera versus the other?

That camera location caught them on both days. The camera was in the front with the other two we've seen videos of. If the camera were running all day it is easy to verify they were two different days and whether the dates and times are correct. Your right, it would have been very easy for them to verify the camera dates were correct. I have not seen anything reported that claimed any of the cameras were wrong. Plus I believe in the video from Monday, RG was not holding that blue drink cup. jmo

[Dushi]

Originally Posted by LambChop

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...tory?id=143315

"Gary Giordano, the only suspect in the disappearance of Robyn Gardner in Aruba, tried to redeem an insurance policy on Gardner that could be worth up to $1.5 million, according to a report.

Giordano moved to collect on the policy, which named him as beneficiary, within two days of reporting Gardner missing, the Associated Press reported."

It has been stated that he would only be charged if he tried to collect
So either, this information is incorrect or the signature is definately hers, JMO

[annalia]

If GG filled out the form and only had RG sign it, I can easily see him lying to her about what she was signing. I can easily see him giving her a number of papers to sign telling her they were just standard travel papers that he needed, or telling her it was just for small basic insurance if they lost their luggage etc.

I don't know if he would be that stupid to forge her full signature.

[LambChop]

If, in fact, it was determined to be a forged signature they could only arrest him after he put in a claim and received the money. If he never officially puts in a claim there would be no arrest. The crime is collecting the money on a forged signature.

I think it is her signature, too. The fact that he put himself down as beneficiary and it is his handwriting it is a possibility he put that information in after she signed the form. He claimed it was a typed form and he could not change it but we can see from the form that the beneficiary information was handwritten and not typed. jmo

[Dushi]

Originally Posted by LambChop

If, in fact, it was determined to be a forged signature they could only arrest him after he put in a claim and received the money

Originally Posted by LambChop

. If he never officially puts in a claim there would be no arrest. The crime is collecting the money on a forged signature.

I think it is her signature, too. The fact that he put himself down as beneficiary and it is his handwriting it is a possibility he put that information in after she signed the form. He claimed it was a typed form and he could not change it but we can see from the form that the beneficiary information was handwritten and not typed. jmo

If one tries to collect on a policy and the signature is forged...

You are telling me he would be given the money before charges are laid?

[katydid23]

Originally Posted by Tugela

Only if it was the same camera. If the two sets of footage were from different cameras, but apparently showed the same thing on two different days, then one of the cameras likely had the incorrect date set. You can set the date and time on a camera, and that is what will show on the time stamp. If you set it incorrectly, say the 4th instead of the 5th, it would seem like a different day even though it wasn't.

So the question is, did the footage come from the same camera? It doesn't sound like it did.

I think that if the security footage had two cameras right next to each other, and one of them was date stamped ONE DAY OFF, they would have known that by now. That would have been obvious to the investigators and to the owners of the property.

[LambChop]

Originally Posted by Dushi

[b]

If one tries to collect on a policy and the signature is forged...

You are telling me he would be given the money before charges are laid?

If the insurance company determines the signature is a forgery when GG filed an "official" claim he could be arrested if the insurance company reported it to police. The insurance companies do not have to physically hand over the money. To date he has just made inquiries about the process of collecting on a claim and has not filed official paperwork.

In all honesty, I do think it looks like her signature. But it is interesting that GG has not tried to put in an official claim. My guess is he knows it would do no good because he is still a primary suspect in her disappearance. jmo

[Dushi]

Originally Posted by LambChop

If the insurance company determines the signature is a forgery when GG filed an "official" claim he could be arrested if the insurance company reported it to police. The insurance companies do not have to physically hand over the money. To date he has just made inquiries about the process of collecting on a claim and has not filed official paperwork.

In all honesty, I do think it looks like her signature. But it is interesting that GG has not tried to put in an official claim. My guess is he knows it would do no good because he is still a primary suspect in her disappearance. jmo

So the crime is forgery or fraud, not collecting the money

Originally Posted by LambChop
If, in fact, it was determined to be a forged signature they could only arrest him after he put in a claim and received the money

[katydid23]

Originally Posted by Tugela

There is also the question of the snorkling gear. We know he had it with him. We also know that she was staying with him. So, if he had all this gear with him, and brought it with him, she would have known, and she would be expecting him to go snorkling. The idea that they were just props to disguise some other preconcieved plan is ridiculous, since she would surely have wanted to know why he was bringing that stuff with him if they were just going for drinks.

In other words she would have been expecting to go snorkling. What would be the point of going to the snorkeling spot, not go snorkeling and say that you did? Especially when there is evidence that she was there, in the form of the towel and clothes. We know that the witness claimed the vehicle left and did not return, so those items must have been left there. Did she leave naked? I don't think so.

That leads me to believe that the witnesses saw them arrive sometime (being unremarkable, they wouldnt have noted the exact time), then later saw a vehicle leave (again, being unremarkable, no exact time). During that time RG and GG went snorkeling, she got swept out to sea by currents/drowned. Then he gets to land, wanders around a while looking for her, then gets in the car to try to get help. All of this we know has a hard time period constraint of less than 2 hours. Including travel times and fluffing around, time spent on the beach probably didn't exceed much more than an hour.

If the witnesses did in fact see anything, IMO they did not have a clear idea of times, and simply saw a vehicle arrive, then leave. Only it left somewhat later than what they think it did. Unless there was something particularly remarkable about the vehicle, a casual observer might remember it arriving and leaving, but it is highly unlikely that they would have an accurate idea of how long that took.

If she was expecting to go snorkeling all along, then why did she put on all of that make-up, curl her hair, and take a sleeping pill in the middle of the day?

Why did they go snorkeling at a time of day that they would NOT have been able to see anything? That late in the day the sun is not penetrating deep into the water, like it is when it is overhead.

As for his gear, we never see him carrying it in the video. We see him carrying his cup of vodka, but no mask or fins.

As for being 'swept out to sea' by the currents, there were reportedly no currents that would have swept her out in that direction at the time. The rescuers know where her body should have been located IF she was where he said they were snorkeling.

[Elley Mae]

"The truth is, as I showed the judges today, there is no evidence whatsoever against him, nothing, zero," he said. "So, I don't think this case will go to court."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/11...#ixzz1ovWYoKEG

[LambChop]

Originally Posted by Elley Mae

"The truth is, as I showed the judges today, there is no evidence whatsoever against him, nothing, zero," he said. "So, I don't think this case will go to court."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/11...#ixzz1ovWYoKEG

And isn't that a standard statement made by all defense attorneys? LOL GG still remains a primary suspect in RG's disappearance. jmo

[Dushi]

Originally Posted by LambChop

And isn't that a standard statement made by all defense attorneys? LOL GG still remains a primary suspect in RG's disappearance. jmo

Yes, I believe it is
Bottom line, whether guilty or innocent, there is not enough evidence to move forward at this time

It doesn't matter much what our opinions on the matter of guilt or innocence are
The judge saw it as not enough evidence to hold GG further without charges
LE knew they did not have enough evidence to bring charges

[Sapphire]

Off hand, I can think of three people who went missing in Aruba under suspicious circumstances, Max DeVries, Natalee Holloway and Robyn Gardner. There were no charges in any of these cases. Were the perpetrators that good at getting away with murder or were the authorities that inept in making a case? Aruba is getting the reputation of being a no body, no case island. IMO

[R.U.Kidding!]

Originally Posted by LambChop

If, in fact, it was determined to be a forged signature they could only arrest him after he put in a claim and received the money. If he never officially puts in a claim there would be no arrest. The crime is collecting the money on a forged signature.

I think it is her signature, too. The fact that he put himself down as beneficiary and it is his handwriting it is a possibility he put that information in after she signed the form. He claimed it was a typed form and he could not change it but we can see from the form that the beneficiary information was handwritten and not typed. jmo

It has been reported that the signature is in fact Robyn's (as per the Rader on Line report.) So if the sig was not forged then he will be able to collect on it once RG has been declared dead? If beneficiary information was filled in after RG signed it, How would that be proven?

[Tugela]

Originally Posted by LambChop

Yes, it does seem they dropped the ball a number of times with this guy. jmo

Noone gets 15 years for shoplifting.