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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Guys - Everyone has been warned several times that the VI/FA is NOT discussable here. It is time to do your own sleuthing. Don't bring posts over from other sites; don't discuss what is happening on other sites. If you read elsewhere, that's fine. If it gives you ideas for sleuthing on your own, that's GREAT. But we want the original source of the information and not just someone's word about it.

Question everything.

Salem
 
Someone, please give us just one little crumb.
 
Has anyone ever seen the transcripts from the court cases? I know that the Bradleys and Royal Caribbean went to court more than once. I've never seen these transcripts and I've read that Royal Caribbean claimed that the Bradleys ignored the reports of over 100 witnesses who claimed that Amy was alive and well and living in the Caribbean by choice. Personally, I don't believe this is true at all, but I'm curious about who these people are and what exactly they said.
 
marie-chantal said:
Has anyone ever seen the transcripts from the court cases? I know that the Bradleys and Royal Caribbean went to court more than once. I've never seen these transcripts and I've read that Royal Caribbean claimed that the Bradleys ignored the reports of over 100 witnesses who claimed that Amy was alive and well and living in the Caribbean by choice. Personally, I don't believe this is true at all, but I'm curious about who these people are and what exactly they said.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was apparently a tactic done by Royal Caribbean. I think it could've been the result of RC paying people to be these ''witnesses'' After all The royal Caribbean was VERY disturbed learning that their ship member Alister Douglas ''yellow'' was identified by David Carmichael as one of the men flanking Amy at Porto Marie beach in August 1998. One lawsuit alleged negligence by the defendant in its handling of the Amy's disappearance, the other lawsuit was for wrongful death. It's obvious why the lawsuit was dismissed. You can't sue for wrongful death if the individual isn't dead or believed to be dead.
 
Murkywaters said:
Yeah, it was apparently a tactic done by Royal Caribbean. I think it could've been the result of RC paying people to be these ''witnesses'' After all The royal Caribbean was VERY disturbed learning that their ship member Alister Douglas ''yellow'' was identified by David Carmichael as one of the men flanking Amy at Porto Marie beach in August 1998. One lawsuit alleged negligence by the defendant in its handling of the Amy's disappearance, the other lawsuit was for wrongful death. It's obvious why the lawsuit was dismissed. You can't sue for wrongful death if the individual isn't dead or believed to be dead.
Click to expand...


That is so true. That's why I'm surprised to read that the Bradleys brought a wrongful death suit to Royal Caribbean. I don't understand, and that's why I'd like to see those court transcripts.
 
It could also have been a legal tactic. Once they started deposing people, new info may have come to light. Do parties in a civil action have subpoena powers?
 
marie-chantal said:
Has anyone ever seen the transcripts from the court cases? I know that the Bradleys and Royal Caribbean went to court more than once. I've never seen these transcripts and I've read that Royal Caribbean claimed that the Bradleys ignored the reports of over 100 witnesses who claimed that Amy was alive and well and living in the Caribbean by choice. Personally, I don't believe this is true at all, but I'm curious about who these people are and what exactly they said.
Click to expand...

Yes, the court docs were found online and put onto google drive for easy access. Here are the links to the google drive docs (may be out of order a bit):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5gVnuM4UZ_lLUV4cDA0bi0xeUU/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5gVnuM4UZ_lMmdIWUpBTWs5TE0/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5gVnuM4UZ_lNFNPMjhiUXpCeGM/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5gVnuM4UZ_lOVVLZUxYVm0wZWc/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5gVnuM4UZ_lQjFfbDg0UTNBbnM/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5gVnuM4UZ_lRmxmS29xcnRadzA/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5gVnuM4UZ_lV0tiZmNxOUtuQmM/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5gVnuM4UZ_lWmNuQXo0YnkwSlk/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5gVnuM4UZ_lX0gwNmR6NXFlcGc/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5gVnuM4UZ_ld2dNeTlnTVZfTFE/edit?usp=sharing
 
elepher50 said:
Yes, the court docs were found online and put onto google drive for easy access. Here are the links to the google drive docs (may be out of order a bit):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5gVnuM4UZ_lLUV4cDA0bi0xeUU/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5gVnuM4UZ_lMmdIWUpBTWs5TE0/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5gVnuM4UZ_lNFNPMjhiUXpCeGM/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5gVnuM4UZ_lOVVLZUxYVm0wZWc/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5gVnuM4UZ_lQjFfbDg0UTNBbnM/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5gVnuM4UZ_lRmxmS29xcnRadzA/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5gVnuM4UZ_lV0tiZmNxOUtuQmM/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5gVnuM4UZ_lWmNuQXo0YnkwSlk/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5gVnuM4UZ_lX0gwNmR6NXFlcGc/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5gVnuM4UZ_ld2dNeTlnTVZfTFE/edit?usp=sharing
Click to expand...

Thank you so much Elepher!!!!! I'm looking forward to reading these.

EDIT: Just read them all. My head is spinning.

While my heart goes out to the family, I cannot for the life of me understand why they did that. It puts things in a totally different light. If these sightings are accurate, then I cannot understand why she would have been staying there of her own accord.
 
marie-chantal said:
I'm still sitting here in shock over what was in those court records.
Click to expand...

Uh huh, I understand totally. It is also my belief that the Bradleys are very fearful of lawsuits against them if they pursue any 'investigations' in regards to certain parties/organizations.

eleph
 
elepher50 said:
Uh huh, I understand totally. It is also my belief that the Bradleys are very fearful of lawsuits against them if they pursue any 'investigations' in regards to certain parties/organizations.

eleph
Click to expand...

What a shame. If they have a legitimate claim against something that someone else has done, then they should be able to question it and seek justice. It's just so disappointing to see that they withheld that information; it did not cast them in a favorable light at all (and I hate saying that about a victim's family). This is just so puzzling to me. The information that was dismissed about the sightings at the beach seem credible to me and don't necessarily bolster the theory that she was there of her own free will. I don't think they would have harmed the case by disclosing those, MOO.
 
elepher50 said:
Uh huh, I understand totally. It is also my belief that the Bradleys are very fearful of lawsuits against them if they pursue any 'investigations' in regards to certain parties/organizations.

eleph
Click to expand...

To be clear, one would not want to mess with some powerful organizations .......
 
marie-chantal said:
What a shame. If they have a legitimate claim against something that someone else has done, then they should be able to question it and seek justice. It's just so disappointing to see that they withheld that information; it did not cast them in a favorable light at all (and I hate saying that about a victim's family). This is just so puzzling to me. The information that was dismissed about the sightings at the beach seem credible to me and don't necessarily bolster the theory that she was there of her own free will. I don't think they would have harmed the case by disclosing those, MOO.
Click to expand...

Or maybe she was there on her own free will. Maybe the staying in Curaco was of her own free will initially but then turned into something more sinister over time. It is baffling.
 
marie-chantal said:
Was there/is there any evidence of Amy being involved with a powerful organization?
Click to expand...

Not that is known, if it was, clearly lawsuits would not be initiated and they could be discussed.. imo
 
marie-chantal said:
Thank you so much Elepher!!!!! I'm looking forward to reading these.

EDIT: Just read them all. My head is spinning.

While my heart goes out to the family, I cannot for the life of me understand why they did that. It puts things in a totally different light. If these sightings are accurate, then I cannot understand why she would have been staying there of her own accord.
Click to expand...

The law suit was filed in 2003, a long time before a lot of crucial evidence came to light. The photos of the AVV site, ect. Also the complaint also charged that Amy was abducted from the ship "Rhapsody of the Seas." The lawsuit stated that Amy was abducted, hidden and then forcibly removed from the ship when it docked in Puerto Rico. This by the way, is no longer believed to accurate. The entire court case was dismissed with prejudice by the judge. This means that they can't ever appeal. Royal Caribbean charged that Iva and Ron committed fraud in their depositions when they didn't reveal the names of the people who had seen Amy happily adjusted and living in the Caribbean. Meanwhile, Iva and Ron didn't have names of anyone who had seen Amy happily adjusted. Royal Caribbean came up with about 100 names. The whole thing was bogus and a tactic by Royal Caribbean attorneys.
 
I don't know about a 2003 lawsuit. I was referring to the one linked by Elepher. That one was filed in 2000.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Murkywaters said:
The law suit was filed in 2003, a long time before a lot of crucial evidence came to light. The photos of the AVV site, ect. Also the complaint also charged that Amy was abducted from the ship "Rhapsody of the Seas." The lawsuit stated that Amy was abducted, hidden and then forcibly removed from the ship when it docked in Puerto Rico. This by the way, is no longer believed to accurate. The entire court case was dismissed with prejudice by the judge. This means that they can't ever appeal. Royal Caribbean charged that Iva and Ron committed fraud in their depositions when they didn't reveal the names of the people who had seen Amy happily adjusted and living in the Caribbean. Meanwhile, Iva and Ron didn't have names of anyone who had seen Amy happily adjusted. Royal Caribbean came up with about 100 names. The whole thing was bogus and a tactic by Royal Caribbean attorneys.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the other 98 people, but that lawsuit mentioned two sightings and names that the family somehow stated (and I'm confused about how RC had that info) that they acknowledged that were credible sightings. That's what is confusing to me. I don't understand why they wouldn't have been disclosed if they felt they were credible. Based on what was in those documents linked by Elepher, there wasn't anything from witnesses that said Amy was happily living there on her own. I don't see anything from RC in the documents that supports this claim. That's why this is puzzling. MOO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 83 more.
Total: 1,973 (members: 84, guests: 1,889)

Online statistics

Members online
84
Guests online
1,889
Total visitors
1,973
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,241
Messages
18,105,756
Members
230,993
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top