Wow, I get that Marriott wouldn't cooporate with efforts to recover the body because it would require excavation and this is just some random guy. I guess they're waiting on "proper authorities" to require them to and I hope they do take this seriously.
"...that's one of the areas we never searched because we assumed it's locked up and secured at all times, and they have construction workers there on site. It was something we assumed that that would never need to be searched and it wasn't. "
You never assume anything like that! A contruction yard? There is loose dirt that you could blend freshly dug soil. There is possibly digging equipment, at least shovels or pick axes laying around. Why would you just throw your shoulders up and assume it's not a place to look? If my daughter went missing in that area, damn straight every part of that area would be searched. Locked up or not, kids can climb fences and get themselves into areas where they don't belong. I can't believe they would skip that construction area.
ETA: That is of course if there was actually construction going on, we seem to have two different views on whether there was construction in the area during the search.
It's just so odd- the Marriot people say they were not doing construction but the dad says he remembers it. He was probably so distraught...I just feel so bad for them, it's been so long.
See, I'm thinking you remember every agonizing second of the frantic search for your missing daughter. If the dad says there was "definitely" construction, I believe him. Plus there's a Google earth file showing construction there.
The idea that there's security for construction areas 24/7 is a huge assumption.
Also I'm really confused about this witness. Did he not report what he saw to police? Also, when someone is digging an area big enough to bury a body (even if it's under a slab or whatever) wouldn't it take awhile? So this witness is just watching it all go down?
I feel so bad for the family. I didn't realize it's been 10 years!
He was doing some illegal things himself and didn't want the attention, but said he felt guilty about it a few years later.
I've been over invested in this case for a long time. I can't pin point exactly why, but I tend to believe this guy and find his account plausible. IMO, she was never in the water. I really think they would have found something, anything of hers if she was, with all the searches they did. And if he is telling the truth, I agree that it is an "inconvenient truth" for Aruba- especially 10 years later. Aruba always wanted this case to just go away to protect its image.