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

[Saracen]

M'mm ok I get the picture, best of luck everone!!

 

[neesaki]

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.

I was referring to the initial search by the crew,who knows the ship better than they do, and they seemed to be dragging their feet, imo. Then, when they did search the ship, they didn't do a thorough search - IIRC, they didn't search the rooms at all, only the common areas. That's what I mean by delayed search.

What if Amy was being held in a room, they may have found her. As far as the FBI, they weren't allowed to come on until a day or two later. I don't know if there was a real delay there, other than the logistics. But the initial, immediate search was the most important, imo, because they may possibly have found Amy before she was moved or removed from the ship. JMO

 

[neesaki]

All B&SBM:

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.

I think most of us here do, I know I have for years.
<snipped>

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.

I never heard it could be the entire crew, maybe I just missed it. That would be absurd.

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 FBI is allowed, but has no jurisdiction in international waters. And according to everything I have read, yes they were allowed to investigate, but had to be granted permission to board the ship and conduct it's own investigation.

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.

I'll concede that there was a search of sorts, but without a thorough search, is it really a "search" - and what good is that ?

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.

I agree with that they were found randomly, and weren't put there to "bait" the family. I do believe that Amy was kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery, though.
I also am quite positive that the FBI has already investigated the pics thoroughly.

<snipped>

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.

ITA with this as well. Good points, and I certainly don't blame you for venting.

 

[Chorley8]

I was referring to the initial search by the crew,who knows the ship better than they do, and they seemed to be dragging their feet, imo. Then, when they did search the ship, they didn't do a thorough search - IIRC, they didn't search the rooms at all, only the common areas. That's what I mean by delayed search.

What if Amy was being held in a room, they may have found her. As far as the FBI, they weren't allowed to come on until a day or two later. I don't know if there was a real delay there, other than the logistics. But the initial, immediate search was the most important, imo, because they may possibly have found Amy before she was moved or removed from the ship. JMO

It is actually very interesting that the FBI responded so quickly actually almost instantly. Because no doubt there were other possibilities as to what had happened in those early hours.

 

[neesaki]

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.

Ok, is it my turn to vent now?.... Good.... :scream:

Now, that's better, LOL!

Of course every tiny detail is important. The fact is though, no one knows if Amy was wearing shoes or not. Or at least there's never been any proof of such. Yes, this was constantly harped on and repeated like a mantra earlier in the thread, but still no evidence or anything to convince me, especially when it seemed to be being used to discount a possible legitimate sighting, in which the Bradley's used as the basis for their lawsuit against RC.

Maybe my mistake was in calling it a "detail" when maybe I should have said
"unknown assumption"... The Bradley's admitted they didn't even know how many pairs of shoes Amy had with her or which ones, so didn't know what if anything was missing.

I personally don't see how an assumption such as this could be used to exclude/eliminate a possible sighting. And even if she were barefoot, maybe the taxi driver or this witness you refer to didn't notice or see her feet.

Ok, I'm going to take a really deep breath now. :sigh:

 

[neesaki]

It is actually very interesting that the FBI responded so quickly actually almost instantly. Because no doubt there were other possibilities as to what had happened in those early hours.

Amy disappeared on Tuesday. According to this information, and this is what I've read elsewhere as well, it was Thursday, at least 48 hours before the FBI started their investigation aboard the boat.
Maybe that is as fast as things happen in cases such as this, as I said before, logistics?

At 6 a.m. on Wednesday, 24 hours after Amy disappeared, authorities on Curacao began the first full day of sea-and-air searches for Amy. Three helicopters, a British warship, a low-flying radar plane and numerous cargo ships, tugboats and fishing boats scoured the sea and coast for the next two days, finding no sign of her.

With the help of Iva's brother John, who had contacted the FBI, and McCord, who chartered a plane, the Bradleys flew to St. Martin to intercept the Rhapsody of the Seas at its next port of call. At 7:30 a.m. on Thursday, before the first passengers left the Rhapsody, the Bradleys boarded a ferry and demanded a meeting with the captain.

Upon their return to the Rhapsody, the Bradleys and McCord met in a conference room with the captain, the chief security officer, and other Royal Caribbean officials. As it turns out, 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.

"My personal feeling is they felt they'd never see us again and we were the last people they wanted to see," Iva says.

The cruise ship officers agreed to let two FBI agents, casually dressed in jeans and golf shirts, onboard to investigate. The agents first interviewed each of the Bradleys separately and asked what happened.

Part III
Amy Interrupted http://www.styleweekly.com/richmond/part-iii/Content?oid=1383740

 

[pdxmama]

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.

I've run around outside plenty without shoes on. Don't think we can make that assumption at all.

 

[pdxmama]

Ok, is it my turn to vent now?.... Good.... :scream:

Now, that's better, LOL!

Of course every tiny detail is important. The fact is though, no one knows if Amy was wearing shoes or not. Or at least there's never been any proof of such. Yes, this was constantly harped on and repeated like a mantra earlier in the thread, but still no evidence or anything to convince me, especially when it seemed to be being used to discount a possible legitimate sighting, in which the Bradley's used as the basis for their lawsuit against RC.

Maybe my mistake was in calling it a "detail" when maybe I should have said
"unknown assumption"... The Bradley's admitted they didn't even know how many pairs of shoes Amy had with her or which ones, so didn't know what if anything was missing.

I personally don't see how an assumption such as this could be used to exclude/eliminate a possible sighting. And even if she were barefoot, maybe the taxi driver or this witness you refer to didn't notice or see her feet.

Ok, I'm going to take a really deep breath now. :sigh:

This is a great post. Yes, I've never understood how "She took at lest 10 pairs of shoes and we don't know if any are missing" has turned into "She was barefoot when she left the room and her lack of shoes proves certain things didn't happen."

Breathing deeply with you over here.

 

[neesaki]

I've run around outside plenty without shoes on. Don't think we can make that assumption at all.

Good point, pdxmama... Another thought, is it possible she had on flesh colored shoes that look kind of like feet, maybe even with toes painted on ? :floorlaugh:

Oh brother, I must be losing it....

 

[neesaki]

This is a great post. Yes, I've never understood how "She took at lest 10 pairs of shoes and we don't know if any are missing" has turned into "She was barefoot when she left the room and her lack of shoes proves certain things didn't happen."

Breathing deeply with you over here.

Thanks! Hope you hang in there, I don't give up easily so I think there's gonna be a lot of that deep breathing going on... :yes:

 

[masootz]

also, for better or worse i always take the le comments about not releasing new information with a grain of salt. if after fourteen years you haven't found this girl i don't buy that releasing new information would compromise your investigation. how could it compromise not finding her except by finding her? i think it usually means they don't have much information but hope to make the bad guys think they do. just my 2 cents.

 

[Sillybilly]

WRT the ongoing convo about whether or not Amy was or was not wearing shoes, it has been pointed out previously that FA indicated that it was not the sole (pardon the pun) reason the sighting was discounted:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8374721&postcount=1272"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - VA - Amy Bradley, 23, Petersburg, 24 March 1998, #2 ***READ FIRST POST***[/ame]


I guess we have to believe there is a reason the "other reason" is not being disclosed. Make sense?

FWIW, I will continue sleuthing behind the scenes, and I suppose if anything significant turns up as a result, I will send the info directly to teamamy or the FBI rather than post on the board. If I'm understanding this process incorrectly, could someone please let me know. Mmmwahhh :blowkiss:

 

[Sillybilly]

Had a big post and lost it and now can't remember what it was all about (damnicus phonicus interruptus). So, will try again:

Beautiful, sophisticated, wholesome-looking blonde girls. Missing Canadian girl Jessie Foster, last known to be with Peter Todd whose last known addy was Vegas (the A-club advertises one of their numbers in Vegas). IMO, the blonde gal in Jaime's post:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8320377&postcount=918"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - SPOTLIGHT CASE VA - Amy Bradley, 23, Petersburg, 24 March 1998[/ame]


looks a lot like Jessie. She has never been found, and is believed to be a victim of human trafficking. A couple of years ago, I found another pic of a Jessie look-alike on the net and sent it to Jessie's mom Glendene, but she ultimately decided it was not Jessie. I'm not savvy enough to cut/paste/put all this stuff together all side-by-each, but here's the blonde girl from Jaime's post here at WS:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8320377&postcount=918"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - SPOTLIGHT CASE VA - Amy Bradley, 23, Petersburg, 24 March 1998[/ame]


here's Jessie from various pics on the web:

I know there was more to my poofed post, but will think of it later i hope.

sb

 

[Sillybilly]

OK, 3 in a row, but what the heck Let's all try to remember:

"Hard to remember when you're up to your a$$ in alligators, that your prime objective was just to clean the swamp".

Don't know who the wise guy was that coined it, but yep ... gotta clean the swamp, gotta clean the swamp

 

[dotr]

Deals with kidnapping in Sao Paulo, includes video and transcript.
http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8528686

"STORY &#8211; ALLISON LANGDON: Dawn on the outskirts of Brazil&#8217;s largest city, Sao Paolo, and the elite anti-kidnapping squad is closing in one of the city&#8217;s most notorious criminals - gang leader Livio Bruno, who&#8217;s kidnapped more than 100 people. These frontline officers are the only defence against a wave of abductions that is all but crippling this city. Who do they target, these gangs?

JORGE: Anybody. I had cousins being kidnapped, friends being kidnapped during the day.

ALLISON LANGDON: So you&#8217;re always looking over your shoulder?

JORGE: Always, always.

ALLISON LANGDON: Sao Paolo is a city of extremes, where multi-million-dollar mansions press against huge favelas - makeshift suburbs that seem to stretch on forever. And it&#8217;s because of this clash of poverty and prosperity that 200 people are abducted every month, according to local businessman-turned-film-maker, Jorge Atalla"

 

[ChateauMarmont]

Ugh , I'm done with this one as well ...

IMHO it's hard to sleuthe (let alone solve a case with close to zero proven & non contradicting facts to go on ... I highlighted the bolds which jmo makes this case impossible to sleuthe because of the contradictions and unknown/undisputed facts.

I saw this and it's prob. been posted but IMHO it's worth a read just because of the last few replys on here*

(snipped from : http://www.internationalcruisevictims.org/LatestMemberStories/Amy_Lynn_Bradley.html )

My husband, son, Amy and I were leisurely traveling as a family during the time of her disappearance. The cruise ship was in the docking procedure in the port of Curacao, Netherlands Antilles.

didnt their lawsuit claim PR?

There are many, many unanswered questions surrounding Amy&#8217;s disappearance... Who was she meeting at this early hour? *Why would she take her cigarettes and lighter? *Neither the cruise line nor government authorities have provided any answers. *At this time, neither of these entities has made or is making proactive efforts of inquiries regarding our daughter&#8217;s mysterious disappearance.



That same evening, March 23rd (Monday), while docked in Aruba, all four of us attended a party on the upper deck, where the band was playing. We noticed a group of individuals, standing alongside the railing who had boarded the ship with a dance troupe, and who also were not passengers. *They were not a part of the cruise! *I wondered, &#8220;How could they be allowed to board a ship and just stand around watching the performance with paying passengers??&#8221; *Looking back now, it seems even more dangerous to us.

what does?

Knowing the ship had not been entirely searched; we flew from Curacao, met the ship in St. Maarten and re-boarded on Thursday (March 26th). We demanded a meeting with the Captain and Chief of Security. *Both had the look of a deer in the headlights, probably assuming they would never see us again. *By this time, the cruise line had sent their &#8216;risk management&#8217; agent to the ship. *Later, we learned that the individual, who identified himself as merely &#8216;risk management&#8217;, was actually an attorney, who represented the cruise line .

Around lunchtime, the Captain of the cruise ship told us that he would not make an announcement that she was missing or post a photo for others passengers to view, as this would disturb the other guests. He told us that every nook and cranny of the ship had been searched for Amy.

The following day, while we were in a hotel in Curacao, the F.B.I. informed us that the search only included the common areas and restrooms.

The only known facts that we have are: *My husband and I took a cruise with our two children and returned home WITHOUT our daughter, Amy&#8230;Her brother, Brad, returned home to Virginia WITHOUT his sister.

The F.B.I. has done an extensive investigation into Amy&#8217;s background&#8230;Her friends were interviewed&#8230; our neighbors were interviewed&#8230;her co-workers and friends were interviewed. &#8230;her college coaches were also interviewed. *My husband, Ron, Brad and I took polygraph tests.

 

[ChateauMarmont]

http://www.amw.com/missing_persons/case.cfm?id=24282

Possible Location(s):
Chesterfield , VA

 

[danzn16]

Sad to see so many people giving up although I understand completely the frustrations of contradictions and little facts. I hope Amy makes her way home one day. Is there an amy bradley task force? Many missing persons cases have these and will tell you they do have them. I haven't heard of one for amy, doesn't mean there isn't though.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ChateauMarmont]

"For people that don't have any idea what it's like to be in a Third World country, and under (someone else's) control due to fear, it's not so easy just to go to a phone," Iva Bradley said. "We feel like she's either in human trafficking, or some type of gun trafficking, or the two involved."

Source :
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/...of-missing-chesterfield-woman-skep-ar-750815/


January 4th , 2011 ?!?!?!?!?!

The parents make this statement ? I haven't heard of this on here and I think it's pretty interesting considering the parents made this statement and not a 3rd party.

Again , this case is beyond bizzar to the point where it's not seuthable (in my honest opinion).

 

[neesaki]

Source :
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/...of-missing-chesterfield-woman-skep-ar-750815/


January 4th , 2011 ?!?!?!?!?!

The parents make this statement ? I haven't heard of this on here and I think it's pretty interesting considering the parents made this statement and not a 3rd party.

Again , this case is beyond bizzar to the point where it's not seuthable (in my honest opinion).

Amazing, How come I've never come across this before?! The weapons trafficking has been in the back of my mind, maybe mentioned here, not sure/don't remember, but I never really knew if it was a possibility, not really, as it was never mentioned IIRC by our verified insider. Wouldn't she/he have known of this report? Puzzling.... :waitasec:
BTW, Great sleuthing, Chateau!

"For people that don't have any idea what it's like to be in a Third World country, and under (someone else's) control due to fear, it's not so easy just to go to a phone," Iva Bradley said. "We feel like she's either in human trafficking, or some type of gun trafficking, or the two involved."