VA - Amy Bradley, 23, Petersburg, 24 March 1998 - #3

[Tabs1]

Actually the sightings were deemed credible by the Bradley's, so much so that they went back down to the Caribbean to follow up on the sightings. When they didn't bring these sightings up to the courts attention as being credible the cases were dismissed based on the fact they with held information. If the Bradley's believed Amy was, in fact, deceased, they wouldn't have followed up on the sightings.

All that said, RCCL, has more money that the Vatican, and can hire the best attorneys to perhaps twist words to their favor.

Yes, you are certainly right about RCCL being able to mount a good case. They probably threw money at it.

I don't know if this is accurate but I've read several times that the judge ruled against the Bradleys because they didn't reveal 'hundreds of credible sightings'.

Which begs the question: WHO are these 'hundreds' of people who were happy to swear that they had seen Amy Bradley living freely and not under duress???

 

[masootz]

Yes, you are certainly right about RCCL being able to mount a good case. They probably threw money at it.

I don't know if this is accurate but I've read several times that the judge ruled against the Bradleys because they didn't reveal 'hundreds of credible sightings'.

Which begs the question: WHO are these 'hundreds' of people who were happy to swear that they had seen Amy Bradley living freely and not under duress???

iirc - rc had a list of names willing to say they saw ab at some point. the issue the bradleys had in their case is that there have been credible sightings of amy (that they in fact have followed up on) so they can't both believe she's alive and sue a company for her death. i doubt all of the names on the list actually saw amy, but that's not what concerns the law. the rc lawyers just had to show evidence that people would testify seeing her alive after the cruise and most importantly that the bradleys in fact truly believed she was alive. i'm sure they probably twisted that into a plausible (if untrue) story about how she probably left of her own volition, started a new life, etc.

also - it wouldn't surprise me if the whole reason for the bradley's case was to try to get more info out of rc, knowing full well the case would fail. that's not a fact, just my opinion, since any decent lawyer would tell them there's no way the case would succeed, however you get a discovery period during a case like this and it might have availed them to some of rc's files on the incident that they otherwise wouldn't have had. it also would have allowed them to interview witnesses under oath, etc.

 

[PeggyAnnMcKay]

PeggyAnn, where have you been for so long? Thought you had just vanished. Good to see you posting again.

Awww thanks! This case is one that has deeply moved me and I needed to walk away for a bit. It really can get to you after awhile, can't it?

 

[PeggyAnnMcKay]

Looking for that heart-shaped bed rail everywhere, when I suddenly noticed a very close replica in fence from a scene in the movie "Nowhere Boy'!
check at 8:24
Nowhere Boy (2009) - Part 7 - YouTube

Oh bummer. I get a message that the video is blocked in my country (US) due to copyright grounds.

 

[dotr]

Here is the screenshot of the fence heart from movie, "Nowhere Boy."

 

[Cltguy49]

rsbm:
"also - it wouldn't surprise me if the whole reason for the bradley's case was to try to get more info out of rc, knowing full well the case would fail. that's not a fact, just my opinion, since any decent lawyer would tell them there's no way the case would succeed, however you get a discovery period during a case like this and it might have availed them to some of rc's files on the incident that they otherwise wouldn't have had. it also would have allowed them to interview witnesses under oath, etc.

I would tend to think you're correct on all counts. The Bradleys tried to get copies of photo's (disappeared), video (disappeared) , get accounts from ships personnel, which now they don't have to do that since this was thrown out. I did ask what "with Predjudice" means since iirc someone asked what it meant. This means that the parties cannot litigate the matter in subsequent hearings which is good for the Bradleys. If the court dismissed it WITHOUT predjudice they would have been able to file the same motion again. Personally, I'm suprised they haven't tried to file something different every time they can.

 

[Dushi]

rsbm:
"also - it wouldn't surprise me if the whole reason for the bradley's case was to try to get more info out of rc, knowing full well the case would fail. that's not a fact, just my opinion, since any decent lawyer would tell them there's no way the case would succeed, however you get a discovery period during a case like this and it might have availed them to some of rc's files on the incident that they otherwise wouldn't have had. it also would have allowed them to interview witnesses under oath, etc.

I would tend to think you're correct on all counts. The Bradleys tried to get copies of photo's (disappeared), video (disappeared) , get accounts from ships personnel, which now they don't have to do that since this was thrown out. I did ask what "with Predjudice" means since iirc someone asked what it meant. This means that the parties cannot litigate the matter in subsequent hearings which is good for the Bradleys. If the court dismissed it WITHOUT predjudice they would have been able to file the same motion again. Personally, I'm suprised they haven't tried to file something different every time they can.

The Bradleys filed this lawsuit?

Why would they want to file again if they took a shot and got what they were looking for?

How much information would RC have to give?

The list of names?

and how do the Bradleys file wrongful death when there have been sightings?

 

[Dushi]

actually, could someone explain to me how you can file a wrongful death lawsuit when there is no proof of a death or anything to prove it happened or who was to blame

 

[PeggyAnnMcKay]

Here is the screenshot of the fence heart from movie, "Nowhere Boy."

That's the closest I've seen to the headboard pattern yet! According to IMDB, the movie was filmed in the UK. In that scene of the movie, do you know what building that is in front of?

 

[Cltguy49]

iirc - rc had a list of names willing to say they saw ab at some point. the issue the bradleys had in their case is that there have been credible sightings of amy (that they in fact have followed up on) so they can't both believe she's alive and sue a company for her death. i doubt all of the names on the list actually saw amy, but that's not what concerns the law. the rc lawyers just had to show evidence that people would testify seeing her alive after the cruise and most importantly that the bradleys in fact truly believed she was alive. i'm sure they probably twisted that into a plausible (if untrue) story about how she probably left of her own volition, started a new life, etc.

also - it wouldn't surprise me if the whole reason for the bradley's case was to try to get more info out of rc, knowing full well the case would fail. that's not a fact, just my opinion, since any decent lawyer would tell them there's no way the case would succeed, however you get a discovery period during a case like this and it might have availed them to some of rc's files on the incident that they otherwise wouldn't have had. it also would have allowed them to interview witnesses under oath, etc.

The Bradleys filed this lawsuit?

Why would they want to file again if they took a shot and got what they were looking for?

How much information would RC have to give?

The list of names?

and how do the Bradleys file wrongful death when there have been sightings?

If you go to Miami Dade Clerk of Courts and search the cases you will see there were several cases filed by the Bradleys. Some are dismissed with prejudice and some are without.

CMIIW but I believe after 7 years the Bradley's couldhave Amy declared deceased but if they do that, I believe, that would shut the door on an ongoing investigation into her disappearance and would probably put it in a cold case file.

If a Judge found that Bradley's claim valid then anything the Bradley's attorneys request that RCCL give them would legally be required to be surrendered, if, for some reason, they aren't able to surrender that specific info the Judge could rule in the Bradley's favor and force RCCL to pay damages. They actually did this TO the Bradley's and required them to pay RCCL over $6000 for taxes, I could be mistaken about the amount.

Anyway there are SEVERAL cases listed and each are worthy of reading

 

[Dushi]

If you go to Miami Dade Clerk of Courts and search the cases you will see there were several cases filed by the Bradleys. Some are dismissed with prejudice and some are without.

CMIIW but I believe after 7 years the Bradley's couldhave Amy declared deceased but if they do that, I believe, that would shut the door on an ongoing investigation into her disappearance and would probably put it in a cold case file.

If a Judge found that Bradley's claim valid then anything the Bradley's attorneys request that RCCL give them would legally be required to be surrendered, if, for some reason, they aren't able to surrender that specific info the Judge could rule in the Bradley's favor and force RCCL to pay damages. They actually did this TO the Bradley's and required them to pay RCCL over $6000 for taxes, I could be mistaken about the amount.

Anyway there are SEVERAL cases listed and each are worthy of reading

Thanks

unfortunately my time is limited


Was this case ever heard or was it thrown out?
If heard, wouldn't they see the the specific info?

 

[PeggyAnnMcKay]

actually, could someone explain to me how you can file a wrongful death lawsuit when there is no proof of a death or anything to prove it happened or who was to blame

I'd be interested in learning more too. The closest I could come to guessing would be similarly how BSL was charged with first-degree murder before Mickey's body was found.

But if the sightings were verified, then how can RC be held responsible in Amy's death.

 

[Cltguy49]

This is long but is basically give the jist of the courts opinion and explains fraud on the court.

http://www2.miami-dadeclerk.com/public-records/Search.aspx

 

[Cltguy49]

The case was heard and dismissed.

Thanks

unfortunately my time is limited


Was this case ever heard or was it thrown out?
If heard, wouldn't they see the the specific info?

 

[Dushi]

The case was heard and dismissed.

Ok Thank you

So if we are to believe that the Bradleys filed the case for discovery, expecting not to win anything more than information,they probably got it

 

[Cltguy49]

I believe they got nothing. RCCL made them out to be horrible people and liars, IMHO

Ok Thank you

So if we are to believe that the Bradleys filed the case for discovery, expecting not to win anything more than information,they probably got it

 

[Dushi]

I believe they got nothing. RCCL made them out to be horrible people and liars, IMHO

Ok, I am just going by a post up thread that suggested as an opinion that lawyers probably knew they could not win, but went forward for the discovery

 

[Cltguy49]

I'd be interested in learning more too. The closest I could come to guessing would be similarly how BSL was charged with first-degree murder before Mickey's body was found.

But if the sightings were verified, then how can RC be held responsible in Amy's death.

My opinion only. I suspect the Bradley's filed whatever lawsuit they could to RCCL liable for somethingunfortunately RCCL has more money than the Bradleys could ever hope for and the Attorneys are VERY good. I don't blame the Bradley's attorney at all, I think did what they thought was best at the time.

The court has to deal in absolutes, mostly. If there had been no verified sightings and RCCL couldn't provide proof otherwise, Wrongful Death probably would have been granted. Since there were sighting, verified or not, that left enough doubt with the court and the Bradley's lost

 

[Dushi]

My opinion only. I suspect the Bradley's filed whatever lawsuit they could to RCCL liable for somethingunfortunately RCCL has more money than the Bradleys could ever hope for and the Attorneys are VERY good. I don't blame the Bradley's attorney at all, I think did what they thought was best at the time.

The court has to deal in absolutes, mostly. If there had been no verified sightings and RCCL couldn't provide proof otherwise, Wrongful Death probably would have been granted. Since there were sighting, verified or not, that left enough doubt with the court and the Bradley's lost

Yes and the Bradleys have stated there are verified sightings and do believe she is alive

Therefore, it would be a hard case to win, money or no money

I do agree, the bottomless purse has the edge usually, but in this case, the verified sightings would make it impossible to win

 

[Cltguy49]

[/B]


Yes and the Bradleys have stated there are verified sightings and do believe she is alive

Therefore, it would be a hard case to win, money or no money

I do agree, the bottomless purse has the edge usually, but in this case, the verified sightings would make it impossible to win

Unfortunately yes.

However, the way the Bradleys have been portrayed by RCCL is dispicable.