VA - Amy Bradley, 23, Petersburg, 24 March 1998 - #2 - ***READ FIRST POST***

[Chorley8]

Can we say the following, just treating the important, but unverified sightings??

The Puerto Rico sighting and the "taxi Curacao green eyes" sighting cannot possibly both be valid? (Barring some REALLY bizarre transportation of Amy island to island). So both may be invalid but one of them pretty well has to be?

 

[Saracen]

Can we say the following, just treating the important, but unverified sightings??

The Puerto Rico sighting and the "taxi Curacao green eyes" sighting cannot possibly both be valid? (Barring some REALLY bizarre transportation of Amy island to island). So both may be invalid but one of them pretty well has to be?

So many contridictions its crazy...:banghead:

 

[Sillybilly]

Just stumbled across this little tidbit about ship's captain Kjetil Gjerstad while i was searching for something else:

from:
[ame="http://cruiseforums.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=715919"]What can you tell me about Capt Kjetil Gjerstad[Cpt on LOTS!]? - Cruise Critic Message Boards[/ame]

We had Gjerstad on Vision at Christmas in 2006 and he was invisible, never saw him mingling witht the pax. No humor in his announcements. I asked him when we got our formal pic taken with him if he had ever been on Rhapsody of the Seas and he said no. But according to the above Behind the Name Tag info, he supervised her construction!! I didn't like him, but that's just me

<bbm>

Hmmm

 

[Sillybilly]

I wonder if Aruba is a normal stop on Day 3 of the Rhapsody of the Seas (ROS) cruises (as per the passenger journal of their cruise just a couple of weeks after Amy's disappearance. FWIW, Blue Orchid was still part of the entertainment):

from:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/rec.travel.cruises/8gy4qNHu9gc

DAY THREE - MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1998 - ARUBA
The ROS arrived in Oranjaestad, Aruba at 8:00 AM.

 

[Saracen]

I wonder if Aruba is a normal stop on Day 3 of the Rhapsody of the Seas (ROS) cruises (as per the passenger journal of their cruise just a couple of weeks after Amy's disappearance. FWIW, Blue Orchid was still part of the entertainment):

from:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/rec.travel.cruises/8gy4qNHu9gc

And what difference would stopping in Aruba make in this case in your opinion?..

If as is suspected it could be an infiltrated crew that are responsable for Amy's abuction the number of stops would make no difference.. IMO

 

[Cazzie]

just stumbled across this little tidbit about ship's captain kjetil gjerstad while i was searching for something else:

From:
what can you tell me about capt kjetil gjerstad[cpt on lots!]? - cruise critic message boards

quote:
We had gjerstad on vision at christmas in 2006 and he was invisible, never saw him mingling witht the pax. No humor in his announcements. I asked him when we got our formal pic taken with him if he had ever been on rhapsody of the seas and he said no.but according to the above behind the name tag info, he supervised her construction!! I didn't like him, but that's just me

<bbm>

hmmm

ubbm. Bbm.

 

[Chorley8]

And what difference would stopping in Aruba make in this case in your opinion?..

If as is suspected it could be an infiltrated crew that are responsable for Amy's abuction the number of stops would make no difference.. IMO

Why are they so interested in Amy? There are lots of young girls on the boat. Amy doesn't seem to have any unusual training other than sports. Amy is fairly well protected, has her family with her who are bound to make a fuss, the crew and band can see that the group they are with is fairly connected.

Why take this risk? I can't quit figure things out if there is as you say an infiltrated crew. To what end? Think of all the spring breaks etc. so much easier. And if Amy has been "ordered" why treat her so shabbily?

Also couldn't the boat Captain actually have forbidden the FBI to come aboard? Yes I am beating my head against the wall on this as well.

 

[dotr]

Did Amy have the misfortune to look, act, or have tattoos of someone who needed to be replaced or duplicated for some reason? Does Amy have a "doppelganger"?

 

[Chorley8]

Did Amy have the misfortune to look, act, or have tattoos of someone who needed to be replaced or duplicated for some reason? Does Amy have a "doppelganger"?

Very wild and original idea.

 

[~n/t~]

Did Amy have the misfortune to look, act, or have tattoos of someone who needed to be replaced or duplicated for some reason? Does Amy have a "doppelganger"?

Wow. Never thought of that. Good thinking outside the box!! Ironically, I was looking at the TAZ tattoos this afternoon wondering who else has one just like Amy's!!!

 

[JaimeSommers]

Apologies if someone already reposted this, but I just came across this while looking for something else -- from verified insider on this thread, post #46:

Originally Posted by Teche
Was the only reason the sighting in San Juan not validated was due to bare feet/shoes?

Originally Posted by FindAmy
No, but I can't explain further.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8324657"]VA - Amy Bradley, 23, Petersburg, 24 March 1998, #2 ***READ FIRST POST*** - Page 2 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[JaimeSommers]

Have been trying to find this all week. I must have scrolled past it a million times. :sigh: (BBM)

Iva and Ron made statements and revealed information about pre 2005 sightings. Some of this included conversations and certain details. I am absolutely opposed to some of what was done and what was revealed. The Vanished documentary also released what I believe is information that could be damaging to the investigation and dangerous to Amy. I personally feel that the producers were reckless and irresponsible. Sensitve information has been released to the media in the past. The information that is out there can't be taken back at this point. I can't do anything to make it go away and I certainly know that you are in no way responsible for anything that is out there. All that I can do is to personally not continue repeating the already released details and make certain that newer details remain confidential.

I know that I am frustrating to sleuthers because I insist on working only with facts. I have seen missing persons cases become a circus with wild assumptions, diversions, unproven information, and crazy accusations. Unproven connections quickly develop a life of their own. I will not allow that to happen with Amy's case. I will not allow innocent people to be dragged into a kidnapping and I will not allow Amy or her parents to become victims of attacks on their character or behavior. I don't want people believing information that is not fact. I don't want the unfounded rumors about children, the mob, prostitution, etc, etc to become part of Amy's case and I will fight to keep all of it out.

Amy's captors will be in handcuffs. This case will be solved with facts, not craziness.

 

[88keys]

One of the sightings of Amy is at the Otrobanda Hotel.

Amy's parents stayed at that hotel in Curacao when they left the boat. That struck me as a bit odd if correct since it is a moderately priced mildly run down hotel and if they were trying to get in touch with authorities which they were it would be best to be at an American hotel with lots of staff and good communication.

Where did you get the info that her parents stayed at that hotel? Not saying your wrong; I just don't remember that.

 

[~n/t~]

I think I'll slowly step away from this case. :whiteflag:

Hope the Bradleys find the answers they're looking for and Amy will be found safe. :rose:

 

[pdxmama]

I think I'll slowly step away from this case. :whiteflag:

Hope the Bradleys find the answers they're looking for and Amy will be found safe. :rose:

Thanks, n/t for all of your hard work! I understand how you feel. I'm frustrated at the limits put on our sleuthing. While I don't want to do anything that may put Amy in any more danger, I can't help but think that we are kind of just spinning our wheels. It's totally feasible that we could go very far in the wrong direction because we don't have one little piece of information, not the most efficient way to sleuth. Anyway, I'll stick it out a little longer and hope for the best but I'm feeling pretty useless.

 

[Chorley8]

When I begin to type amy bradley (anything) into google the second possibility it offers is me is "found" linking to this page Cruise Ship Law the real context being that she would have been found etc. etc.

Someone has found fit to do this to highlight that word and have it appear in google rankings.

Another taunt?

Here is the link which is worth having someone has probably already linked it as some point I don't recall.

http://www.cruiselawnews.com/2011/0...an-passenger-amy-bradley-returns-to-the-news/

I may be making too much of nothing or of little.

 

[JaimeSommers]

<modsnip>

We did have that direction from the insider, silly, and it was to find the men who posted those photos on their escort site. I don't mean go rogue and literally find them; rather, find an electronic trail or a verified photo that could be sent to the teamamy address and/or the FBI agent in charge.

One of the challenges with this, as others have pointed out previously, is that not everyone's computers have the security systems required to dig deeply into some of those dark places on the Web. Not everyone is comfortable going there, even with the security, which is understandable.

The insider kept trying to keep new folks focused in a direction. Everyone sleuths in their own way, though, and that strategy didn't work for everyone, imo. Wasn't right, wasn't wrong -- it just was.

 

[Chorley8]

We did have that direction from the insider, silly, and it was to find the men who posted those photos on their escort site. I don't mean go rogue and literally find them; rather, find an electronic trail or a verified photo that could be sent to the teamamy address and/or the FBI agent in charge.

One of the challenges with this, as others have pointed out previously, is that not everyone's computers have the security systems required to dig deeply into some of those dark places on the Web. Not everyone is comfortable going there, even with the security, which is understandable.

The insider kept trying to keep new folks focused in a direction. Everyone sleuths in their own way, though, and that strategy didn't work for everyone, imo. Wasn't right, wasn't wrong -- it just was.

Actually this is the first time that I have heard it stated that it would be a good idea for someone to "dig deeply into some of those dark places on the Web". Maybe I am dense I don't know. Interesting because this came up quite easily on the Luka Magnotta thread and there were people claiming at least to have done this. You are now getting me interested in this idea, which as I say, I have never heard stated here as being a goal or a strategy. Is this what FA wanted without explicitly asking?

I would be worried about someone monitoring my computer usage and then intimating I am into all kinds of unimaginable gore and *advertiser censored*. How do you search the fabled deep web without being in danger of having a flag on your profile next time you cross to New York? It is fine if you are a registered psychologist in deviance or a PI no doubt fine but for the rest of us?

 

[Dushi]

I think I'll slowly step away from this case. :whiteflag:

Hope the Bradleys find the answers they're looking for and Amy will be found safe. :rose:

Think i am going to join you

and i also hope for the best possible outcome

 

[Dushi]

Thanks, n/t for all of your hard work! I understand how you feel. I'm frustrated at the limits put on our sleuthing. While I don't want to do anything that may put Amy in any more danger, I can't help but think that we are kind of just spinning our wheels. It's totally feasible that we could go very far in the wrong direction because we don't have one little piece of information, not the most efficient way to sleuth. Anyway, I'll stick it out a little longer and hope for the best but I'm feeling pretty useless.

Great post and wishing you the best of luck