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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
FA made a post and i don't recall any ensuing convo in that regard:


[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8324543&postcount=42"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Media/Timeline VA - Amy Bradley, NO DISCUSSION **READ FIRST POST**[/ame]


If the family thinks Amy was not abducted for the sex trade, is it possible the angle they are pursuing is that of cocaine mule? Would her public persona be such that she would appear to be above reproach, therefore not drawing heat? Would putting her pics out there be to project that she is involved in the sex trade .. a red herring?
 
One other thing, in the photos that aren't blocking out the explicit images, the person in the photo appears endowed, the pictures of Amy on the ship certainly doesn't look like that. I'm not saying they could have had them enhanced. Just thinking out loud

This also confuses me. Being enhanced doesn't give you this kind of hang so soon either. Would be more likely to happen naturally or after a child.
 
Not impossible WHATSOEVER.

We had a WebSleuths verified poster. That isn't someone who is "pretending" to be associated with the case. There are steps to verifying someone before making them an official poster.

Websleuths has a process that people have to go through to become verified. This photo can be confirmed by the FBI and American intelligence with no problem. Impossible it is not.

Unless the moderators withdraw the status of a poster , or make a statement -- I see there posts as verified and I believe with 100% confidence that the photograph is Amy.

The FBI would not fly to Margarita Island , if they "couldn't tell". We have experts in out LE , and they flew down to the brothel.

The woman "jas" has never been identified , and the websites owners told the FBI they didn't know who the photo was only that it came from curaçao.

The photo is amy , and it's been confirmed .



No, it has not been 'confirmed'.

That is a very strong statement and cannot be backed up, with all due respect.

Yes, we had a verified insider on this case. She also contradicted facts publicly stated BY Amy's family, i.e whether it was Alister Douglas or a waiter who spoke to Brad and expressed sorrow over Amy BEFORE anyone other than the family and ship captain knew she was missing.

Even the FBI cannot 'confirm' the picture is Amy.

They can, of course, state that they believe it is her - but they cannot 'confirm' it.
 
This is earily similar and I don't believe I've seen this posted on WS anywhere.

http://www.internationalcruisevictims.org/LatestMemberStories/Angelo_Faliva.html

If it has been please accept my apologies in advance! I'm beginning to think the entire Cruise Ship Organization is organized crime! Geesh!

Wow, not only that case, but from the same link it seems a female dancer has disappeared this past Oct. 5 2012! They say it was very windy , but I think dancers have a pretty good sense of their footing and balance.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/mystery-over-vanished-dancer-1.1396093#.UHBTlkLA6QK
 
There have been multiple sightings

- San Francisco
- Barbados
- curaçao

And , let's not forget ... The FBI's website has a sketch of Amy that is identical to "Jas".

I'm just sayin ....

It's your opinion that the FBI sketch is "identical" to jas. many would say they would look similar but not identical and arguably not the same person or possibly the same. The FBI sketch is Amy seen in Barbados. I think it makes the witness more credible that it was Amy she saw. Not that it makes the jas pic more credible to be Amy as many woman could potentially look similar to the sketch since it is just a sketch, like my aunt for example. The sketch shouldn't be used out of context IMO.
 
Not impossible WHATSOEVER.

We had a WebSleuths verified poster. That isn't someone who is "pretending" to be associated with the case. There are steps to verifying someone before making them an official poster.

Websleuths has a process that people have to go through to become verified. This photo can be confirmed by the FBI and American intelligence with no problem. Impossible it is not.

Unless the moderators withdraw the status of a poster , or make a statement -- I see there posts as verified and I believe with 100% confidence that the photograph is Amy.

The FBI would not fly to Margarita Island , if they "couldn't tell". We have experts in out LE , and they flew down to the brothel.

The woman "jas" has never been identified , and the websites owners told the FBI they didn't know who the photo was only that it came from curaçao.

The photo is amy , and it's been confirmed .

Actually it has never been confirmed. Multiple resources have said indeterminable. Only the verified insider has said the family and the FBI believe it could be Amy and the family definitely believes it to be.

A verified insider in a case doesn't mean they are always correct or they know FBI information. They could just be a family member or spokesperson. They are so very valuable but very post shouldn't be taken with 100%certainty as you say. Especially due to all the mistakes and discrepancies we've seen in this case. JMO
 
And please guys don't take my last post as offensive. I was under the assumption organized crime is not involved (FA stated this) ...

Not many things will stop my research , but organized crime is definitely one of them. I hope Amy is okay and is found alive and safe.

Agree, extremely frightening :(
 
From what I recall reading on the Hyscience site, the gentleman who found the picture of the girl on the bed, actively visits questionable sites purely TO try and identify women who are abduction victims/under duress, etc.

This means that he approaches the pictures with bias.

It's not as though he just happened to see a picture of that girl and was struck by a resemblance to Amy. He went TO the site with the aim of finding women who were being held captive.

I think we do need to bear this in mind.

JERSEY GIRL mentioned I think that SO SUE ME has been told that the pics are 'verified' as being Amy...? Am I allowed to ask for more details about this...? Who 'verified' this, because sorry to repeat it but again: I do not understand how ANYONE can state as a fact that the pictures are Amy.
 
From what I recall reading on the Hyscience site, the gentleman who found the picture of the girl on the bed, actively visits questionable sites purely TO try and identify women who are abduction victims/under duress, etc.

This means that he approaches the pictures with bias.

It's not as though he just happened to see a picture of that girl and was struck by a resemblance to Amy. He went TO the site with the aim of finding women who were being held captive.

I think we do need to bear this in mind.

JERSEY GIRL mentioned I think that SO SUE ME has been told that the pics are 'verified' as being Amy...? Am I allowed to ask for more details about this...? Who 'verified' this, because sorry to repeat it but again: I do not understand how ANYONE can state as a fact that the pictures are Amy.

I would assume from the verified insider? I agree that I've never seen a photo in missing person case be verified without something that stands out like a tattoo etc and even then they still say "appears to be".
 
An American citizen, Sarah Tessier Powell, 70, was last seen onboard the Holland America ship Veendam on 30 September 2012. She is believed to have disembarked at either Sydney or Halifax, Nova Scotia. The ship docked in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island on 2 October; Sydney, NS on 3 October; and Halifax, NS on 4 October.

What's noteworthy here is that Powell is thought to have simply walked off the ship without being checked by security. No word on why they think she disembarked in Sydney or Halifax but not Charlottetown, or why she was last seen on 30 September but the ship did not dock until 2 October at the earliest.

Powell has a WS thread [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187230"]here[/ame] and the Halifax Regional Police have released a statement here.
 
The verified sightings could be a way to break her down, to show her that she has no way out. That, of course, means I think it's organized crime or the sex trade and I don't.

When any one goes missing and can't be found it's human nature to jump to the a few conclusions; 1) the person is deceased 2) the person was abducted for sex trade or organized crime. The reality is usually something simpler and far less sinister.

Amy's disappearance is personal, I don't think the Bradleys would have any grudge with or by Organized Crime or the Sex Trade

I agree, I brought the point up before that maybe there was a possibility that this was a sort of "test". For Amy to prove to her captors that she won't run. Because of the risk for her family, and then of course, for herself. I believe without a doubt that she would fear for her family's safety. Which could explain why the men took the the photos of the Bradley's, to put the fear in Amy for her family's safety.
If this is true, she has possibly resigned herself to living this life. :(
 
This also confuses me. Being enhanced doesn't give you this kind of hang so soon either. Would be more likely to happen naturally or after a child.

It's all about the bra if one is to get the impression she was "small", imo. I also don't consider this photo of Amy, if it is her, to be one who is endowed. Just look at some of the other photos of the women are truly "endowed" with silicone.

This woman's breasts actually look natural compared to the others, and of average size. She is leaning over which causes them to appear larger, imo.
 
From what I recall reading on the Hyscience site, the gentleman who found the picture of the girl on the bed, actively visits questionable sites purely TO try and identify women who are abduction victims/under duress, etc.

This means that he approaches the pictures with bias.

It's not as though he just happened to see a picture of that girl and was struck by a resemblance to Amy. He went TO the site with the aim of finding women who were being held captive.

I think we do need to bear this in mind.

JERSEY GIRL mentioned I think that SO SUE ME has been told that the pics are 'verified' as being Amy...? Am I allowed to ask for more details about this...? Who 'verified' this, because sorry to repeat it but again: I do not understand how ANYONE can state as a fact that the pictures are Amy.

She posted on here that the Bradley's had professionals go over this picture professionally and that they do believe it is Amy and that's why the pictures are being used in this case. The sightings of Amy were verified for worthiness by giving polys. The tattoos seen by the witnesses on the female were identical to Any's & in the same places.
 
Original post begins here:
On September 21, 2005 Hyscience received information from a reader, Allan K, about images he had found that looked like Amy Bradley.
We subsequently placed the images that we received from Allan, in a side by side comparison (above) with images from her web site, along with other images that we enlarged from comparison to her known features (see below). We then spoke with Ron Bradley, Amy's father, and emailed him the images (one of which was shown on the Dr. Phil Show tonight).
Ron Bradley then told us that he thought it was Amy and asked us NOT to post on the information or the images in order that whoever had Amy would not be "spooked," and that they, the parents, could get the information to the FBI. Ron told us on the phone, that the FBI had previously had difficulties when contacting either the owners or the people that knew where the girls were, and would probably prefer that we held back the information (We did not speak directly to the FBI ourselves since we thought the family was the ones to deal with the situation).
WE AGREED. But tonight we were surprised to see one of the images that we sent the Bradleys, show up on Dr Phil.
So since the "cat is out of the bag," we feel that we are no longer under any obligation to hold back information and other images(but would if asked to do so by the family).
Update: Here is the file for the site that was taken down, where "Amy's" pictures first appeared. Notice that it has "Aruba's Only Adult Tour (Caution, sexually explicit language)." We are not saying that any of these sites are "illegitimate businesses." Only that girls like Amy Bradley, and others, can end up there. They either get there voluntarily, or someone takes them there, and then for whatever reason, they don't leave.
Update 2 (relating to the above paragraph, only): We have received information today that calls into question whether or not Amy's picture was ever at the above mentioned site. We cannot confirm or deny, that her image was indeed on that particular site. What we do know is that since Natalee Holloway disappeared, virtually all of such sites relating to Aruba have been taken down - making it impossible to recheck our original information. The above mentioned site was operated by an operator that we chose not to identify at this time. - end item.




I went back to the original Hyscience article to re-read the explanation of how these pictures were found and noticed an update 2 which states that they received information that calls into question whether these pictures were ever even on the site. Does anyone have information on this?
 
...


I went back to the original Hyscience article to re-read the explanation of how these pictures were found and noticed an update 2 which states that they received information that calls into question whether these pictures were ever even on the site. Does anyone have information on this?

How do they explain that the Wayback contains the images in 2002 and 2004, prior to Allan K discovering them. Why would Allan K go to Hyscience and not the Bradley's or the FBI?

PS: I personally have not seen the pics on Wayback in 2002 and am relying on provided earlier in the thread (by FA??)
 
How do they explain that the Wayback contains the images in 2002 and 2004, prior to Allan K discovering them. Why would Allan K go to Hyscience and not the Bradley's or the FBI?

PS: I personally have not seen the pics on Wayback in 2002 and am relying on provided earlier in the thread (by FA??)

I'll look. I remember seeing it as well, not just from FindAmy, so I agree with FA on this one. I also remember it was on a link inside of a page that showed up according to the time capture, not on the first screen itself. You can click on the links within the wayback archived site bc they don't just capture the first page, they capture most of the site if not all of it. You'll still be viewing those links within wayback & from that date in time, not the present time, so it's safe.
 
I'd still like to know where that 3rd pic of Amy came from that is NOT on the AAV site. I don't believe we have seen it anywhere without the blockouts, so ... it could be that the original without the blockouts is showing the gecko tatt at her navel, and that is how the pic was verified.
 
Dr Phil obtained those images & hired professionals to forensically dissect them. This was done after Hyscience posted about those pictures. Hyscience was mad bc they didn't make it all well known about those pics out of courtesy to the Bradleys. They were a little ticked that Dr Phil's show & the Bradleys didn't give Hyscience the credit for breaking that news, bringing it to the attention of the Bradleys. The picture was on the AAV site & then disappeared from it. If they'd have used waybackmachine, they'd have seen it was still there. The person that found it found it in real time, not in wayback archives. So if its there one day & gone the next, then they couldn't find traces of it in footprints online bc maybe they didn't screen capture it with the http but rather right clicked & saved pic to file, then maybe they second guessed theirself...idk just speculating there. I suspect the FBI removed those pictures from all net/web searches, however its still on wayback bc on e its captured there it remains there. There's 2 other sites like wayback but IMO wayback is better.

Riehl (another blogged site but the guy is accredited in the media) wrote some pretty ominous & disparaging things about Amy not wanting to be found yada yada. He never proved that yet still typed that & put it out in the net world. Again, he never proved it. How can he get away with that? It's ignorant imo. Yet several other sites quoted this Riehl guy, I think something about it was posted on Hyscience but I'm not sure, & I never understood it. If the dude couldn't prove it then why was he being quoted?

This is the exact reason why blogs & other forums can't be quoted her...bc the don't have the same level of authentication as msm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
83
Guests online
1,271
Total visitors
1,354

Forum statistics

Threads
602,170
Messages
18,135,972
Members
231,261
Latest member
birdistheword14
Back
Top