Amy Bradley, 23, Disappeared from cruise ship en route to Curaçao, 24 March 1998 #4

[Tssiemer]

I’m confused. We’re talking about the grand jury NOT indicting Yellow right? Or the cruise line?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JSolt1210]

I’m completely confused why people are confused.

Jashrema posted: “She testified before a grand jury also. The last person to see her was not her dad...it was "E" and Yellow.
Let us not forget that David Carmichael positively identified Yellow as one of the men with Amy on the beach 5 months after she disappeared. He too..testified”


These eyewitnesses testified before a grand jury and were clearly not believable. It is significant that a federal grand jury failed to return an indictment. That only happens 0.0067901 of the time. Again, this is SIGNIFICANT that these eye witnesses couldn’t produce a verifiable story or one factual enough to trigger an indictment,

The FBI doesn’t mention these eyewitnesses in their updates.

I’m betting Douglas had alibis that were solid like he was at work on a ship when people supposedly saw him as a handler.


My questions about the grand jury still stand.

Maybe the indictment failed because the sightings appeared as inconsistent before the grand jury as they do to us today. The "deck/elevator" sighting was either by "a witness, Crystal Roberts," according to Unsolved Mysteries, "two college-age girls" on Vanished, or even "several people" on Disappeared. As for the "dark-colored liquid" sighting, I don't think I've ever heard it mentioned on TV, and I wasn't able to find much of it online.

As for the "island" sightings, those *are* more consistent, and I don't doubt that the eyewitnesses had this experience. But the passage of time, in my opinion, does cast doubt on them—especially when the sightings closer in time to the event aren't consistent.

This is probably why the FBI appears to choose their words very carefully on their website. She was "last seen while on a cruise," which is vague enough not to confirm or rule out anything, not even the most agreed-upon and credible "balcony" sighting.

 

[Fukiyama]

What is this grand jury?

In what jurisdiction was it sitting?

Who was the defendant?

Is it possible it wasn't really a grand jury but rather something to do with the civil lawsuit with RS that has been misconstrued over the years as being a criminal grand jury?

Please link or quote, thank you.

 

[Hiandmighty]

I’m confused. We’re talking about the grand jury NOT indicting Yellow right? Or the cruise line?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m honestly not sure, only that “witnesses testified before a grand jury” has been repeated as fact here in a sort of way to legitimize the eyewitness sightings.

I suppose it doesn’t matter if it was about Douglas himself or the cruise line (though I would like to know more).

The valuable news isn’t that the eye witnesses testified in front of a grand jury.

The valuable news is that about 18 members* of this grand jury didn’t feel the eyewitness stories were valid or strong enough to “indict a ham sandwich”.

We know for a fact that no indictments were ever handed down.

*there are between 16 and 23 members of a grand jury. So I throw out the number 18 as a median point


As a reasoned point, I wonder if Douglas had a strong alibi (like he was on a different cruise line ship on the dates of the beach sighting) that invalidated that particular sighting.

We do know the FBI in the updates do not mention any eye witness sightings and have placed Amy back on the ship for her last known place. They obviously have access to grand jury testimonies, so this leads me to believe that these eyewitness sightings were speculative at best with no facts to back them up.

It is huge that no indictments were handed down after the one or more grand jurys were convened regarding Amy Bradley’s disappearance. That is a fact.

Grand juries have such a low threshold for indictments, and the eyewitness testimonies couldn’t even reach that low threshold.

This is important to know.

 

[Hiandmighty]

What is this grand jury?

In what jurisdiction was it sitting?

Who was the defendant?

Is it possible it wasn't really a grand jury but rather something to do with the civil lawsuit with RS that has been misconstrued over the years as being a criminal grand jury?

Please link or quote, thank you.

I have no links. It has been thrown around as a fact since thread #1 that these eyewitnesses were so spot on that they even “testified” in front of a “grand jury”.

 

[CoolJ]

We don’t the even know what the grand jury was for!
So to make conclusions that the witnesses weren’t believable because there was no indictment is disengenous at best.

The point being made is that these witnesses signed affidavits and/or testified under oath. They weren’t just making false claims to win a popularity contest as some would want us to believe.

The witnesses are legit.

 

[Dushi]

We don’t the even know what the grand jury was for!
So to make conclusions that the witnesses weren’t believable because there was no indictment is disengenous at best.

The point being made is that these witnesses signed affidavits and/or testified under oath. They weren’t just making false claims to win a popularity contest as some would want us to believe.

The witnesses are legit.

well I am confused
Where did the information come from that there was a GJ?
Is there no link to back up this information?

 

[CoolJ]

well I am confused
Where did the information come from that there was a GJ?
Is there no link to back up this information?

It came from the VI who was verified here as a spokesperson for the Bradley family.

 

[Dushi]

It came from the VI who was verified here as a spokesperson for the Bradley family.

ahhh, I see

 

[Fukiyama]

It came from the VI who was verified here as a spokesperson for the Bradley family.

Do you have a link back to the specific post? Has that post been removed? I remember the VI. I remember the revelations about Amy being seen in SF. I remember the long debates on why her captors would bring Amy back to the US. But I don't recall there being any talk of a "grand jury."

 

[Hiandmighty]

I’m still waiting for more grand jury information. Thanks to anyone who can help.

 

[Dushi]

I’m still waiting for more grand jury information. Thanks to anyone who can help.

I would like to learn more about that also.

 

[Mica]

I would like to learn more about that also.

I’m thinking the witnesses may have been called to testify in front of a federal grand jury involving the case between the Bradleys vs RCC?

 

[Hiandmighty]

I’m honestly not sure, only that “witnesses testified before a grand jury” has been repeated as fact here in a sort of way to legitimize the eyewitness sightings.

I suppose it doesn’t matter if it was about Douglas himself or the cruise line (though I would like to know more).

The valuable news isn’t that the eye witnesses testified in front of a grand jury.

The valuable news is that about 18 members* of this grand jury didn’t feel the eyewitness stories were valid or strong enough to “indict a ham sandwich”.

We know for a fact that no indictments were ever handed down.

*there are between 16 and 23 members of a grand jury. So I throw out the number 18 as a median point


As a reasoned point, I wonder if Douglas had a strong alibi (like he was on a different cruise line ship on the dates of the beach sighting) that invalidated that particular sighting.

We do know the FBI in the updates do not mention any eye witness sightings and have placed Amy back on the ship for her last known place. They obviously have access to grand jury testimonies, so this leads me to believe that these eyewitness sightings were speculative at best with no facts to back them up.

It is huge that no indictments were handed down after the one or more grand jurys were convened regarding Amy Bradley’s disappearance. That is a fact.

Grand juries have such a low threshold for indictments, and the eyewitness testimonies couldn’t even reach that low threshold.

This is important to know.

I have only found hearsay about the supposed grand jury, which apparently happened after the lawsuit where the family sued RC, so I tend to believe this GJ is a supposed separate incident where eyewitnesses were the focus.

 

[Dushi]

I’m thinking the witnesses may have been called to testify in front of a federal grand jury involving the case between the Bradleys vs RCC?

Ok
So what you are saying is that there are no links or MSM about a GJ?
Just thoughts or opinions?

I realize that someone up thread suggested it came to the forum through a VI, but I am rather amazed that I haven't seen anything about it
It seems that it would be big

 

[Mica]

Ok
So what you are saying is that there are no links or MSM about a GJ?
Just thoughts or opinions?

I realize that someone up thread suggested it came to the forum through a VI, but I am rather amazed that I haven't seen anything about it
It seems that it would be big

I’ve seen it discussed here by the VI and in other places we can’t link here. Many old MSM links have disappeared.

 

[Dushi]

I’ve seen it discussed here by the VI and in other places we can’t link here. Many old MSM links have disappeared.

So if I take some time and go back through the old thread, there should be some information that I can follow.
Because I am very interested in why the GJ convened
I am also interest in why its been discussed but nobody knows what it was all about.
Surely there is info on what a GJ was deciding

 

[Hiandmighty]

I’m completely confused why people are confused.

Jashrema posted: “She testified before a grand jury also. The last person to see her was not her dad...it was "E" and Yellow.
Let us not forget that David Carmichael positively identified Yellow as one of the men with Amy on the beach 5 months after she disappeared. He too..testified”


These eyewitnesses testified before a grand jury and were clearly not believable. It is significant that a federal grand jury failed to return an indictment. That only happens 0.0067901 of the time. Again, this is SIGNIFICANT that these eye witnesses couldn’t produce a verifiable story or one factual enough to trigger an indictment,

The FBI doesn’t mention these eyewitnesses in their updates.

I’m betting Douglas had alibis that were solid like he was at work on a ship when people supposedly saw him as a handler.


My questions about the grand jury still stand.

I found some posts in thread #1 and #2 by googling the former VI name (plus sign) + Amy Bradley grand jury.

That should take you straight to those posts here.

 

[Hiandmighty]

I’m honestly not sure, only that “witnesses testified before a grand jury” has been repeated as fact here in a sort of way to legitimize the eyewitness sightings.

I suppose it doesn’t matter if it was about Douglas himself or the cruise line (though I would like to know more).

The valuable news isn’t that the eye witnesses testified in front of a grand jury.

The valuable news is that about 18 members* of this grand jury didn’t feel the eyewitness stories were valid or strong enough to “indict a ham sandwich”.

We know for a fact that no indictments were ever handed down.

*there are between 16 and 23 members of a grand jury. So I throw out the number 18 as a median point


As a reasoned point, I wonder if Douglas had a strong alibi (like he was on a different cruise line ship on the dates of the beach sighting) that invalidated that particular sighting.

We do know the FBI in the updates do not mention any eye witness sightings and have placed Amy back on the ship for her last known place. They obviously have access to grand jury testimonies, so this leads me to believe that these eyewitness sightings were speculative at best with no facts to back them up.

It is huge that no indictments were handed down after the one or more grand jurys were convened regarding Amy Bradley’s disappearance. That is a fact.

Grand juries have such a low threshold for indictments, and the eyewitness testimonies couldn’t even reach that low threshold.

This is important to know.

Try thread # 1 around post 320 give or take a few.

 

[JSolt1210]

From Thread #2, Post #1067:

"This is what the verified insider previously posted about David Carmichael, the Canadian who saw Amy on the beach in Curacao:

David Carmichael has been an extremely valuable witness for the Bradleys. He and his dive partner were able to describe Amy in very specific detail. They described her various tattoos that weren't public knowledge at the time. They saw her on the beach and they sat near Amy and her "handlers", in an outdoor bar area of Porto Marie. David worked very closely with the FBI and a Grand Jury once he realized that he had seen Amy in Curacao. Royal Caribbean attorneys went to great lengths in an attempt to discredit David's identification of Alister Douglas as one of Amy's handlers."


From Thread #1, Post #326:

"I have no idea what is being reported on documentaries, but I will give you information directly from the source.

The ship was not between islands. It was docking at the cruise terminal in Curacao. The photo is below.

Ron Bradley was not the last person to see Amy. Numerous people testified before a Grand Jury and Court that they had seen Amy in the elevator and the disco after 6:00 AM. By 7:00AM, people were preparing to disembark into Curacao.

I do not know why Ron Bradley didn't hear Amy leave the room. If you look at the floor plan of the family suite, she probably left quietly through the sitting area. The floor plan is below.

There have been numerous verified sightings of Amy Bradley. There have been witnesses who have spoken to her. She has identified herself to American witnesses who afterwards passed FBI polygraphs."