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

[neesaki]

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

Originally Posted by FindAmy
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.

Hmmmm. So this person doesn't approve of the information that the Bradley's disclosed? Interesting, considering they are supposedly representing the Bradley's in the search for Amy. Either way, I'll have to ponder this one a bit.....

 

[JaimeSommers]

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?

All I can really say, Chorley, is to spend some time going back and rereading the last maybe ten pages of Thread 1. There were posters (who seem to no longer post, unfortunately) who were digging.

 

[neesaki]

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.

I could comment on much of this, but at this point it seems too daunting a task, LOL....
Regarding that in bold, maybe they could forbid the FBI to come aboard, but I can't see how that could ever be a wise decision at all. Surely not a politically sound one, imo. Would only have stirred up more questions, suspicions, and dissension, plus could have caused complications with tourism and politically speaking as well. I don't really know of course, IJMO.

 

[neesaki]

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:

Quote:
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.

VA - Amy Bradley, 23, Petersburg, 24 March 1998, #2 ***READ FIRST POST*** - Page 2 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Well that sounds like an easy non-answer, "No, but I can't explain further." But the fact is, there's just no validation there, or am I missing something.

What about the lawsuit by the Bradley's that explicitly details that Amy was removed from the ship in Puerto Rico? JMO

 

[amazing-sea-monkey]

I have been reading religiously, although I have no real sleuthing skills.

We all need to take a deep breath and it's sad to see everyone so frustrated!

There's still a family in need of any and all help they can get.

You guys are awesome!

Proud to be a long time Websleuths lurker!

 

[Chorley8]

All I can really say, Chorley, is to spend some time going back and rereading the last maybe ten pages of Thread 1. There were posters (who seem to no longer post, unfortunately) who were digging.

Thanks for the suggestion J.S. Re-reading, I only find the pictures that the original sleuther (not on WS) discovered and gave to the FBI and then some use of the Way Back Machine.

For those who didn't look into the Luka Magnotta case I believe people were looking at this fabled "Deep Web" for evidence of "live" snuff films that LM or others might have made. I mention it because although I have not looked at that thread for months I believe there were "instructions" or suggestions as how to access just in case anyone thought it relevant here.

Can anyone run by in detail or point to a good description of how the Bradley's were photographed or stalked at their residence? I have only got that in bits and pieces it's important.

 

[Chorley8]

I could comment on much of this, but at this point it seems too daunting a task, LOL....
Regarding that in bold, maybe they could forbid the FBI to come aboard, but I can't see how that could ever be a wise decision at all. Surely not a politically sound one, imo. Would only have stirred up more questions, suspicions, and dissension, plus could have caused complications with tourism and politically speaking as well. I don't really know of course, IJMO.

Yes you're right - I was just thinking through IF Amy was on board at that point and I was the Captain would I take the risk to let the FBI on the boat. I guess yes if she was really well hidden.

It would be great to know about the service elevator that JS (but maybe someone originally I don't remember) suggested could have been used to take Amy from the bar where the girl or two girls saw Amy go with Y around 5:45. Where did it go what are the possibilities there it would be great to talk to someone who worked on that ship.

 

[JaimeSommers]

<modsnip>

We were once fortunate enough to have a verified insider to clarify misconceptions and to save us from wasting valuable time chasing leads that had long been disproven. I chose to believe when s/he said there were things that couldn't be shared because it's an open investigation. When the thread was reopened in mid-September, the mods clearly stated to follow in the direction set forth by the insider -- that's all I have tried to do. Perhaps I will someday come to find that I was duped in my faith that the insider was telling the truth.

Am I privy to information? I'm privy to the same information everyone else has at their disposal in threads 1 and 2. Again, though, there seems to be suspicion about my motives.

Sleuth on. The thread is yours. I genuinely wish you good fortune. Amy deserves to be found.

 

[neesaki]

Yes you're right - I was just thinking through IF Amy was on board at that point and I was the Captain would I take the risk to let the FBI on the boat. I guess yes if she was really well hidden.

But was Amy still on the boat by the time the FBI brought in the dogs? By all reports and appearances, it does seem at least that the captain stalled the search as long as he could before the FBI gained access to the boat.

Also Amy was very possibly off the boat already, for sure if she was off at Curacao or before San Juan, possibly even if she was taken off in San Juan. The dogs were brought in a day after the FBI did their initial investigation/search, from what I could discern. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the 28th I think ? Amy disappeared on the 24th.

I did do sort of a brief timeline a few pages back... though some of it could be off and certainly open for correction.

 

[dotr]

Places of Interest in the Southern Caribbean

Back to the start..Places, handlers,heart-shaped bed rail and of course Amy, who needs to go home.

 

[dotr]

http://www.internationalcruisevictims.org/LatestMemberStories/Amy_Lynn_Bradley.html
"Since the time of her disappearance, we have continued to search for our daughter and seek answers for finding her. It is believed that there are certain individuals in the Caribbean, and possibly even in South America, who have knowledge of Amy&#8217;s disappearance. All we want is the safe return of our daughter. We continue to plead with anyone who may have knowledge of her whereabouts.



Please help us find our beautiful and loving daughter, Amy! If you have or know someone who may have any information (as minor as it may seem), PLEASE, PLEASE contact us!"

 

[Chorley8]

But was Amy still on the boat by the time the FBI brought in the dogs? By all reports and appearances, it does seem at least that the captain stalled the search as long as he could before the FBI gained access to the boat.

Also Amy was very possibly off the boat already, for sure if she was off at Curacao or before San Juan, possibly even if she was taken off in San Juan. The dogs were brought in a day after the FBI did their initial investigation/search, from what I could discern. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the 28th I think ? Amy disappeared on the 24th.

I did do sort of a brief timeline a few pages back... though some of it could be off and certainly open for correction.

Yes I do agree probably Curacao almost certainly but not absolutely certainly if hidden but I agree Curacao is still the place to focus.

If you can bring forward that timeline again or I can look for it - as with Dotrs map and reminder of purpose good to go back to some basic facts - though it is interesting actually the thing that comes to the fore is the difficulty in deciding and agreeing on what a "fact" is.

 

[neesaki]

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.

I have had concerns with this line of reasoning, that is, sleuthing these people as mentioned above. This is why:

According to our verified insider, whoever took Amy and has control of her reads here on this forum.

The verified insider also has been quite clear that they don't want us to discuss anything that he/she believes could jeopardize the investigation or Amy's or the Bradley's welfare. That includes anything that hasn't been publicized in the MSM.

I interpret that as meaning everything else should be done under the radar so as not to compromise the integrity of the investigation.

Also, haven't all these people already been investigated by the FBI?

So if these people, AZ, PB, etc.... are really important keys to the investigation, and they actually do read here, then why are we being encouraged to go down this path of sleuthing them, while all along, they are reading and watching all that's going on? Isn't that also compromising the integrity of the investigation?

It just doesn't make any sense to me. JMO

 

[neesaki]

Yes I do agree probably Curacao almost certainly but not absolutely certainly if hidden but I agree Curacao is still the place to focus.

If you can bring forward that timeline again or I can look for it - as with Dotrs map and reminder of purpose good to go back to some basic facts - though it is interesting actually the thing that comes to the fore is the difficulty in deciding and agreeing on what a "fact" is.

Sure, here it is. I'm really not sure if it's all that accurate. Any corrections are appreciated.

All information from Part III Amy Interrupted
http://www.styleweekly.com/richmond/...nt?oid=1383740

Tues. March 24th - Amy disappeared

Wed. March 25h -Curacao began the first full day of sea-and-air searches for Amy.

Thurs. March 26th - the Bradleys flew to St. Martin to intercept the Rhapsody of the Seas.... the ship was in foreign waters and chartered in another nation, so the family had to ask permission for the FBI to be allowed to investigate.

Fri. March 27th - Royal Caribbean employees began distributing Amy's photo, while still allowing passengers on and off the boat. The Bradleys asked that guards be posted on the pool deck to look for her but they allege it wasn't done.

Sat. March 28th - Search conducted by FBI with dogs. Bradleys leave to return home.

I think I got this down right. Feel free to correct me anyone. TIA

 

[chicagofa13]

I see I'm not alone in feeling I should just step back. When I was reading and casually posting in the early quiet days I was very intrigued and trying to get my mind to generate new ideas. Then I went away into a limited internet zone and the thread blew up in the spotlight. I basically missed it all, but I know there were clearly hard feelings and difficult times with how the thread was being directed.

It almost seems like Amy's case isn't 'right' for WS. After all, WS is full of kind, diligent, creative, compassionate, dedicated (I could go on and on, yes?) Sleuthers who like space to run with ideas. I think it is very clear everyone here wants Amy found and found safely. I know no one wants to damage those chances. But then what are we looking for on our own? The FBI and US gov have some of the most, if not the most, intrepid websleuths anywhere. All tools at their disposal. I don't know what I can find.

I mean absolutely no disrespect to FA, the other sleuths, and above all Amy's family. I really hope and pray for a successful resolution.

 

[danzn16]

Yeah but its rather unlikely Findamy would tell us a different thing if something was put out to protect the investigation don't you think?

Sometimes things get messed up in print

Except some of this information is from video recordings of the family speaking. Hard to mess that up??

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

 

[masootz]

But was Amy still on the boat by the time the FBI brought in the dogs? By all reports and appearances, it does seem at least that the captain stalled the search as long as he could before the FBI gained access to the boat.

respectfully snipped - by what reports did the captain delay the search? according to the article i've linked twice as well as the vanished episode, the boat was searched as soon as the fbi was able to get to it.

 

[masootz]

i'm with the others who are getting really frustrated with where this is going. everyone is free to come up with scenarios and theories but come on, if you're going to post in this thread at least read the articles and watch the videos associated with the case. some of these theories are not only beyond comprehension but are also contradicted by the basic information of the case.

<venting (not at anyone, just at the tone of this thread)>

the idea that the entire crew of this ship was secretly in on plans to kidnap americans is ridiculous. the idea that the captain is secretly an agent of dark forces who kidnap americans is ridiculous. there may well have been four, five, or ten crewmembers who were in on her disappearance, but there are hundreds of crewmembers on this ship.

the idea that the fbi isn't allowed to investigate in foreign countries is ridiculous and contradicted by the evidence presented in all of the articles and videos available for this case.

the idea that there weren't searches done immediately is false. there were air and land searches as well as a search of the boat. at the time (if you read articles from 1998) there was a belief that she may have fallen or jumped. these ships deal with that kind of thing on an unfortunately regular basis which is the most plausible reason the captain didn't stop folks from getting off the ship and didn't wake everyone up at 6:00AM. i get that hindsight is 20/20 but you have to put yourself in the situation to get why people don't always react the way you might think.

the pictures that showed up of the woman who looks like amy were found by some random guy. they weren't put on the internet on purpose to bait her family. they were on some poorly designed amateurish adult site for a year or more before anyone noticed them. i think if we at ws want to know more about the pics then finding the site designer would be the best way to do that. that said, i'm almost positive the fbi has already done that and it probably leads nowhere.

we aren't privy to any information in this case past 2005. that's seven years. it's absolutely true that the fbi and other agencies involved have better tools, expertise and time than we do but guess what - fourteen years later they haven't found her. in a perfect world at some point they'd release information hoping that something would click with someone and help them figure out where she is but we don't live in a perfect world. instead we take a bit of free time going over what we know and what we think we know in an effort to drum up leads for the bradleys and le. maybe we'll never come up with anything good, but maybe we'll come up with something that manages to get to the right person that will help bring this girl home.

as others smarter than me have said, to truly solve this case you'd have to be in curacao and you'd have to work the local angle. you'd also have to be incredibly lucky. i'm sure the bradley family has done more than we'd ever know to bring their daughter/sister home.

</venting>

 

[dotr]

From what I have been told, these artist sketches are very good representations of the "handlers" who have been seen with Amy.

The man on the left was seen in the Barbados bathroom. He is thin with dark hair. He was very well dressed and his appearance was meticulous. He was aggressive and rude. The witness described him as someone who could have been from the Mediterranean. He would be in his mid to late 40s.

The man in the center was seen with Amy in San Francisco. He seemed to be the handler in charge of her. He is tall and very heavy. His appearance was sloppy. His balding hair is red and his beard is red. He is probably in his late 40s.

The man on the right was seen with Amy in San Francisco. He is thin with dark hair. The witnesses described him as looking like someone who could be from Colombia. He was also described as wearing really cheap sunglasses. He is probably in his mid to late 40s.

Although we may/may not be encouraged to sleuth some players in this strange tale,( the composites of) these individuals, are openly declared as poi.

 

[EXIA15145]

I agree. Why take that one, tiny detail and use it to eliminate the possibility of a legitimate sighting? It's not like shoes are part of her body and aren't easily changed, removed, replaced. It has never made sense to me.

If I understand you correctly, you think that one tiny detail is irrelevant, is that the case? IIRC, it has to do with the shoes?
Because if that's correct, you are mistaken if you think one, tiny detail makes no difference in the case. When the guy said he saw Amy running around all over the parking lot, the fact that she had no shoes on is significant because she couldn't have been running around like that in bare feet.
One itsy, bitsy, teeny, weeny, little tiny thing can be an indicator that can take an investigation in an opposite direction. Details are important.