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

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
From Thread #1, Post #228:

"I will try to fill you in as much as possible on Alister Douglas "Yellow".
I personally believe that Alister Douglas and possibly a Portuguese waiter were paid to drug Amy and deliver her.



Alister Douglas was the bass player in a band called "Blue Orchid" on Rhapsody of the Seas. After the first day of the cruise, there were several crew members who were overly attentive to Amy. Even Iva commented the first day about how turned off she was by Alister's behavior. He was obnoxious. The waiter was also overly attentive.

The day that the ship docked in Aruba, the Bradley family rented a jeep and toured the island. When they returned, the waiter asked if Amy would go with them after dinner to a bar called Carlos and Charlies. This is the same location where Natalee Holloway disappeared, seven years later. I personally believe that Amy was supposed to disappear that night in Aruba. It would have been much easier than trying to take her off of the ship in Curacao. Amy told her parents that she wouldn't go anywhere with those waiters because she thought they were creepy. Amy stayed on the ship with her family. She and Brad won a limbo contest and then headed for the disco. This is where Amy ran into Alister Douglas, again. Chris Fenwick has the video of Amy dancing with Alister Douglas in the disco.

Amy and Brad returned to the family's room. The door logs show that they both entered the cabin. At 5:30, Ron Bradley awoke and saw Amy on the lounge chair on the balcony. I posted floor plans and photos of this arrangement, several pages back. Ron awoke again at 6:00 and Amy was gone. She did not have shoes and she only had her Marlboro cigarettes with her. By 7:00 the Bradleys were looking for Amy and they had reported her missing to Royal Caribbean. The family assumes that Amy went in search of coffee. At about this time, one of the waiters approached Amy's brother, Brad, and told him how sorry he was that his sister was missing. It was impossible for the crew members to have known that Amy was missing at this point in time.

In the meantime, there was a female passenger I will refer to as "E". "E" became ill a few days before the cruise and she was on heavy antibiotics. She couldn't go into the sun. She discovered that if she spent her time in the disco area, she could see a lot of what was happening on the ship. She was awake early because she wanted to disembark into Curacao. She had gone to the disco to wait until she could leave. While she was sitting there, she saw Alister Douglas and Amy get off of the large glass elevators and walk to the bar in the disco. Alister Douglas turned up the music in the disco. "E" then saw Alister bring Amy a drink containing a dark liquid. It appeared to be coke or coffee. "E" left because the passengers were preparing to disembark. Amy was never seen again, although Douglas was seen in the glass elevator by himself. "E"'s statements have been verified. She passed a polygraph and she did testify before a Grand Jury. One report indicates that Alister was later found asleep in his room. I personally believe that Amy was passed off to another crew member before she was removed from the ship. An important piece of information is that there is also a staff elevator that leads from the disco. Two college coeds also saw Alister Douglas in the glass elevators.

Alister Douglas was questioned by the FBI. His polygraph was inconclusive. He maintains that he doesn't know what happened to Amy. He claims that Amy had a drink in the disco with the band at about 1:00 AM and he didn't see her after that time. He claims that Royal Caribbean searched his room and found nothing. There was no evidence that Amy had been with him and the FBI never charged him with anything. After the cruise, Royal Caribbean fired Alister Douglas for fraternizing with a passenger.

In August of 1998 (six months later) an engineer from Canada and his friend were diving at the beach in Porto Marie, Curacao. His name is David Carmichael and he was shown on the Vanished program. David has been a wonderful help to the Bradleys. He has passed polygraphs and appeared for interviews. David was organizing his equipment, on the beach, when he noticed a woman and two men walking toward him. The woman had a horrified expression on her face. She appeared frightened. David began to respond to her, but one of the men with her ran between them. David said the man gave him a threatening look. David and his friend were later on the deck of the outdoor bar. They were sitting close to Amy and these two "handlers". David had full view of tattoos and other distinguishing things about Amy. David didn't know who Amy was until he returned to Canada and he saw her featured on a program. He immediately contacted the Bradleys and the FBI. Royal Caribbean sent their attorneys to David's home in an attempt to intimidate him, but he has absolutely maintained that the man with Amy was Alister Douglas.

Alister eventually returned to his native Grenada. He has reportedly found religion and he has been part of a band. He has had some other small business ventures. Douglas is married and he has at least one child. When the producers of Vanished were preparing to film the show, they contacted Douglas. They offered Douglas an opportunity to publicly give his version of the events. Alister Douglas refused to have any interaction with the program. After Amy's Vanished episode aired, Douglas contacted the producers and complained that he was innocent and that he was unfairly represented in the film."
 
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."

As I said, I think these witnesses testified under oath to a grand jury as part of the Bradley's vs RCC case. JMO
 
As I said, I think these witnesses testified under oath to a grand jury as part of the Bradley's vs RCC case.

That is what it is sounding like, exactly
 
MOO
How would a grand jury be related to a civil lawsuit though?

In other words, we know that lawsuit went badly for the Bradleys and was dismissed with prejudice meaning they couldn’t ever bring it up again.

It seems the eyewitness testimony had no bearing on an ending: meaning maybe their testimony was not believable.

So to bring it up as: “they even testified in front of a grand jury” but leaving out the rest of it: and then nothing happened.... is sort of misleading. MOO


I point it out because today a poster stated it like a fact MOO of some importance that is an illusion of making the eyewitness seem more believable MOO:

“They even testified in front of a grand jury...”

And then posters fill in the blanks with “oh, that’s important and so it (the sighting) must be true.”

MOO I find that manipulative where the first part is stated leaving the rest as a guess when in the end it is a big old nothingburger.
(Manipulative in general, not directed to the person today who posted it)..

So what, they testified in front of a grand jury and then nothing happened, no one was named a person of interest, no one was indicted, the family was found to be untruthful and fined, the case was dismissed with prejudice and...

20 years later, Amy is nowhere and the case is back on the ship as where she as last seen.

It’s a clarification that is interesting and possibly important. It is important in my mind that nothing happened after they testified in front of a grand jury. (For whatever the grand jury was in relation to... that the FBI seems to have been involved with)

MOO
 
How would a grand jury be related to a civil lawsuit though?

In other words, we know that lawsuit went badly for the Bradleys and was dismissed with prejudice meaning they couldn’t ever bring it up again.

It seems the eyewitness testimony had no bearing on an ending: meaning maybe their testimony was not believable.

So to bring it up as: “they even testified in front of a grand jury” but leaving out the rest of it: and then nothing happened.... is sort of misleading.

Well I don't know, but maybe they testified for the Bradleys. In favour of their case
If so, and it was dismissed., nothing would come of it

and that is JMO
 
Side note: I find it interesting that in Thread #1, Post #228, Alistair Douglas' polygraph results are said to have been "inconclusive," whereas pretty much everywhere else, it's said that he passed—hence the reported smile and the thumbs-up. Is it possible Douglas was *told* he passed, just to see what his reaction was? Is it possible that the poster was mistaken?
 
Side note: I find it interesting that in Thread #1, Post #228, Alistair Douglas' polygraph results are said to have been "inconclusive," whereas pretty much everywhere else, it's said that he passed—hence the reported smile and the thumbs-up. Is it possible Douglas was *told* he passed, just to see what his reaction was? Is it possible that the poster was mistaken?

Yes, and yes, IMO.
 
Well I don't know, but maybe they testified for the Bradleys. In favour of their case
If so, and it was dismissed., nothing would come of it

and that is JMO


Just letting you know I edited and added more before I read your post.

We just don’t know. It is repeated as fact and we just don’t know.

MOO I am throwing up a caution flag to read it with skepticism whenever it shows up here. MOO
 
Side note: I find it interesting that in Thread #1, Post #228, Alistair Douglas' polygraph results are said to have been "inconclusive," whereas pretty much everywhere else, it's said that he passed—hence the reported smile and the thumbs-up. Is it possible Douglas was *told* he passed, just to see what his reaction was? Is it possible that the poster was mistaken?

If I was from a third world country and had a rich American family who has a missing daughter making me take a polygraph, I probably would be physically very relieved to have that over with, IF the smile and thumbs up even happened.

Different cultures and experiences, IMO could be a part of this
 
Again, whether or not anything came of the grand jury is insignificant.

Whether or not it was actually a “grand jury” rather than testifying in a civil court proceeding is also insignificant. We could be just arguing semantics.

What is significant is that these witnesses are so sure that it was Amy that they saw and TALKED TO, that they were willing to do it under oath.

Point blank, there are witnesses who believe they saw Amy. And they are willing to share that, under the penalty of perjury.

These are not haphazard “maybe it was her” witness sightings. They are legit.
 
Yes, and yes, IMO.

If I was from a third world country and had a rich American family who has a missing daughter making me take a polygraph, I probably would be physically very relieved to have that over with, IF the smile and thumbs up even happened.

Different cultures and experiences, IMO could be a part of this

I suppose it would Douglas' word against Ron's if the thumbs-up and smile happened. And I'm not questioning his relief, if it happened. I'm just trying to see where it would come from.

Was Douglas told he passed the test because he actually passed the test? If so, FindAmy from the post above in thread #1 would be mistaken in saying the results were inconclusive.

Was Douglas told he passed the test as a tactic to gauge his reaction, when in reality the results were inconclusive as FindAmy reported?

To me, this is important because FindAmy also stated that "E" passed the polygraph, and she had reported seeing Amy with Douglas. I assume during his polygraph, Douglas would've been asked if he had been with Amy during that time, and he would've said no, he wasn't. If Douglas passed, then it's his word against E's. If his results were inconclusive, then that definitely adds more weight to E's testimony—whoever it was given to.
 
I suppose it would Douglas' word against Ron's if the thumbs-up and smile happened. And I'm not questioning his relief, if it happened. I'm just trying to see where it would come from.

Was Douglas told he passed the test because he actually passed the test? If so, FindAmy from the post above in thread #1 would be mistaken in saying the results were inconclusive.

Was Douglas told he passed the test as a tactic to gauge his reaction, when in reality the results were inconclusive as FindAmy reported?

To me, this is important because FindAmy also stated that "E" passed the polygraph, and she had reported seeing Amy with Douglas. I assume during his polygraph, Douglas would've been asked if he had been with Amy during that time, and he would've said no, he wasn't. If Douglas passed, then it's his word against E's. If his results were inconclusive, then that definitely adds more weight to E's testimony—whoever it was given to.

What I keep coming back to is how many brunettes on the ship in 1998 had that short haircut like Amy had. Hundreds? E didn’t know Amy. Maybe it was someone else who was with him, that is if he wasn’t in fact sleeping as he said he was.

How do we know it wasn’t any Caribbean man with a Russian brunette? How do we know the woman was a passenger and not crew?

There is so much left to chance in this eyewitness account.

What kind of cup was it? A mug or a glass? If a mug, how did she see inside to see what color the drink was and if a glass where she could see, how could it hold coffee?

Does anyone here have a habit of checking out random people’s beverages?
 
FWIW:

“As an investigator, you must remember, the examinee knows whether or not they were involved in case that is under investigation. It is us who are not sure of their potential involvement. It is the examiner who conducted the test who is “Inconclusive”

There are several factors that could cause the results of a polygraph examination to be rendered as “Inconclusive”. Some of these factors include improper question formulation based on bad case facts. The lack of fear by the examinee of getting caught in a lie is sometimes a reason for this result. The issue of little or no consequences is another contributing factor that has to be addressed. It is the job of the examiner to establish the proper psychological set for the polygraph examination. It is also the job of the examiner to determine what the best questions for that particular test are. Questions that are compound or ambiguous often create confusion in the mind of the examinee as to which part of that question pose the most danger to their overall well being. ”

http://patc.com/weeklyarticles/polygraph.shtml

So according to that, the examiner calls it inconclusive based on possible a) bad case facts b) technical issues with the structure of the question c) the examiner’s qualifications or lack there of




Interesting short article... examiner still can tell deception indicated or not indicated in 90% of inconclusive tests.

MOO I would think that would be plastered all over the internet if his polygraph indicated deception.

I will assume it indicated no deception. This guy could very well be telling the truth and very well could be innocent of the accusations that have been thrown around on the internet since 1998.

MOO
 
FWIW:

“As an investigator, you must remember, the examinee knows whether or not they were involved in case that is under investigation. It is us who are not sure of their potential involvement. It is the examiner who conducted the test who is “Inconclusive”

There are several factors that could cause the results of a polygraph examination to be rendered as “Inconclusive”. Some of these factors include improper question formulation based on bad case facts. The lack of fear by the examinee of getting caught in a lie is sometimes a reason for this result. The issue of little or no consequences is another contributing factor that has to be addressed. It is the job of the examiner to establish the proper psychological set for the polygraph examination. It is also the job of the examiner to determine what the best questions for that particular test are. Questions that are compound or ambiguous often create confusion in the mind of the examinee as to which part of that question pose the most danger to their overall well being. ”

http://patc.com/weeklyarticles/polygraph.shtml

So according to that, the examiner calls it inconclusive based on possible a) bad case facts b) technical issues with the structure of the question c) the examiner’s qualifications or lack there of




Interesting short article... examiner still can tell deception indicated or not indicated in 90% of inconclusive tests.

MOO I would think that would be plastered all over the internet if his polygraph indicated deception.

I will assume it indicated no deception. This guy could very well be telling the truth and very well could be innocent of the accustations that have been thrown around on the internet since 1998.

MOO

Yeah I can definitely agree with that. I think it would’ve been a totally different investigation, had Douglas’ test returned less than “passed,” so I lean towards the “inconclusive” as being an error. Otherwise I feel like the narrative in most sources would definitively say Douglas and Amy were together around 6am.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I tend to believe a verified insider over a potential suspect. I tend to believe Amy’s parents when they say their daughter was kidnapped. I tend to believe the eyewitnesses who saw Amy alive after her disappearance. I tend to believe the forensic artist who compared the Jas photos with Amy and bet his career on them being a match to Amy. I tend to believe the FBI publicly took interest in Amy’s case again when they did, because of information they may have received from those promoting prostitution in NY to their sex resort in the DR. I tend to believe there is a reason the FBI recently created age progression photos.

<modsnip>
 
  • Like
Reactions: smr
Yeah I can definitely agree with that. I think it would&#8217;ve been a totally different investigation, had Douglas&#8217; test returned less than &#8220;passed,&#8221; so I lean towards the &#8220;inconclusive&#8221; as being an error. Otherwise I feel like the narrative in most sources would definitively say Douglas and Amy were together around 6am.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree too, obviously. There seems to be a result that I will call &#8220;technical inconclusive but no deception indicated&#8221; and that seems to be where his falls... MOO

I would be more interested in a theory other than suicide, accidental fall and murdered/thrown overboard if an alternate theory was presented that made sense. I have yet to come across one.

I still can&#8217;t really wrap my head about how a murder thrown overboard could happen that quickly so I haven&#8217;t presented any ideas on that one yet. Still thinking....
 
I followed Amy's case long before becoming a member of WS.

I was active over the years on her case here at WS.

Would someone be so kind as to explain why the thread has been opened up again, is there activity in her case?

New developments?
 
I followed Amy's case long before becoming a member of WS.

I was active over the years on her case here at WS.

Would someone be so kind as to explain why the thread has been opened up again, is there activity in her case?

New developments?

Disappeared did an episode on her a few weeks ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I followed Amy's case long before becoming a member of WS.

I was active over the years on her case here at WS.

Would someone be so kind as to explain why the thread has been opened up again, is there activity in her case?

New developments?


Amy’s info has been added back to the FBI’s Kidnapped/Missing Person’s Page after being removed for a few years. New age progression photos created.


https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/kidnap/amy-lynn-bradley

https://www.fbi.gov/audio-repository/wanted-podcast-amy-bradley-20th-anniversary-032318.mp3/view
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
143
Guests online
1,310
Total visitors
1,453

Forum statistics

Threads
605,770
Messages
18,191,885
Members
233,534
Latest member
ResortedOnce
Back
Top