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

[Tabs1]

Here's what I keep coming back to:

Alister Douglas told the FBI that he was asleep in his room and that the last time he saw Amy was at the disco, in the very early hours of that morning.

But - THREE witnesses came forward and stated they saw him with Amy, going into the disco, several hours later, nearer 6a.m/6.30a.m. at a time when he claimed to be in his room.

Now, I get that he didn't 'fail' the polygraph BUT surely his blatant lie should have warranted more pressure from LE???

I would love to know whether they actually confronted AD with those witness statements and if so, WHAT did he say?

Let's suppose for the moment that AD did nothing to Amy: it would still be hugely helpful for him to reveal what she was doing when he left the disco; was she chatting with someone? Did he perhaps see the route she took when leaving the disco??

 

[Simply Caustic]

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

I'm NOT an attorney, but am a paralegal, and I concur with the thoughts you stated above.

Discovery is valuable. Perpetrating a fraud upon the court was the lack of disclosure of knowledge of credible sightings (as considered by both the court, and the petitioner).

I don't think that the lawsuit cast any aspersions onto the character of the Bradleys - moo and all that jazz.

 

[neesaki]

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 continue to question this as well, and please excuse my ignorance concerning legal matters, however, I just wonder, is it possible for the "wrongful death" suit to have been filed as an attempt to try to force RC to provide evidence proof of Amy's death, versus that she had been kidnapped?
That is, as a legal strategy by the Bradley team to refute the claims made by RC that Amy either committed suicide or fell overboard.

I say this because RC tried to claim that Amy had died by one of these methods. I stand by the belief that the Bradley's believe Amy was kidnapped from that ship and is / was still alive at that time.

Therefore, via this law suit, perhaps the Bradley team was trying to force RC's hand. That is, since RC's claims were that Amy had probably fallen overboard or committed suicide, versus being abducted / kidnapped from the ship, then they were being compelled to come forth with proof of their claims. Come forth with the proof that Amy is no longer alive. Come forth with the proof that she went overboard either by accident or by committing suicide. Come forth with the evidence.

 

[masootz]

i am not a lawyer and i'm basing the below on my opinion of what's likely, not on personal knowledge of the lawsuits filed by rc or the bradleys -

i'm the one who posted upstream about filing for discovery. the way it works is you can file a lawsuit for pretty much anything but if it's frivolous it'll get thrown out "with prejudice" (meaning you can't file it again - "without prejudice" means you didn't have enough evidence to make a case but it's possible you could in the future at which point you can re-file). in the interim (between filing and it getting thrown out) you get a period called "discovery" in which you're allowed to request information from the person you're suing and, if it's relevant to the case, they have to give it to you (a judge decides some matters of what is relevant and what they have to give you). if the bradleys weren't getting any information from rc then filing a suit would require rc to give them at least some information. i'm sure rc's lawyers tried very hard to prevent releasing information but a judge would at least allow the bradley's lawyers to interview rc employees, request any video evidence, ship's logs, etc. once the case starts (or sometimes before depending on how frivolous) rc's lawyers likely requested dismissal based on evidence showing ab was alive and evidence that even the bradley's knew amy was alive. that's where rc's list of witnesses comes from. i doubt those witnesses actually testified, it's more likely that rc told the judge that they had a list of people willing to testify under oath, probably relayed information from the various sightings we know about (showing that others had seen her alive), and probably relayed information that the bradleys have acted as though she is still alive (searching for her, investigating sightings). the bradleys really don't have a case for wrongful death but it may have provided them a venue to get information they weren't able to get otherwise.

you do have to be careful in filing a meritless suit because there are various laws against it and you can get in trouble and you can also be sued by the people you were suing.

 

[Dushi]

i am not a lawyer and i'm basing the below on my opinion of what's likely, not on personal knowledge of the lawsuits filed by rc or the bradleys -

i'm the one who posted upstream about filing for discovery. the way it works is you can file a lawsuit for pretty much anything but if it's frivolous it'll get thrown out "with prejudice" (meaning you can't file it again - "without prejudice" means you didn't have enough evidence to make a case but it's possible you could in the future at which point you can re-file). in the interim (between filing and it getting thrown out) you get a period called "discovery" in which you're allowed to request information from the person you're suing and, if it's relevant to the case, they have to give it to you (a judge decides some matters of what is relevant and what they have to give you). if the bradleys weren't getting any information from rc then filing a suit would require rc to give them at least some information. i'm sure rc's lawyers tried very hard to prevent releasing information but a judge would at least allow the bradley's lawyers to interview rc employees, request any video evidence, ship's logs, etc. once the case starts (or sometimes before depending on how frivolous) rc's lawyers likely requested dismissal based on evidence showing ab was alive and evidence that even the bradley's knew amy was alive. that's where rc's list of witnesses comes from. i doubt those witnesses actually testified, it's more likely that rc told the judge that they had a list of people willing to testify under oath, probably relayed information from the various sightings we know about (showing that others had seen her alive), and probably relayed information that the bradleys have acted as though she is still alive (searching for her, investigating sightings). the bradleys really don't have a case for wrongful death but it may have provided them a venue to get information they weren't able to get otherwise.

you do have to be careful in filing a meritless suit because there are various laws against it and you can get in trouble and you can also be sued by the people you were suing.

OK, thank you
After reading yours and Simply Caustics post, I have a more clear understanding of why the Bradleys would file this suit
It makes perfect sense that they would do so , given that they were getting nothing from RC when requesting information
There is no mountain too high to scale when your daughter is missing

 

[dotr]

Where could Amy be now? Why was Amy photographed in a nondescript room, but with a very conspicuous heart-shaped, head board that is almost impossible to find?
Wondering if any message political/geographical, could be in that "centre stage" heart?
Or, does it simply means a stake driven through the heart of Amy and her family?

 

[neesaki]

Where could Amy be now? Why was Amy photographed in a nondescript room, but with a very conspicuous heart-shaped, head board that is almost impossible to find?
Thinking about those videos posted by deceased O.B.L....before he was located and thinking of his cave videos analyzed for telling signs, ie. he points this way,that way, lantern placement. ect. and wondering if any message political/geographical, could be in that "centre stage" heart?
Or, does it simply means a stake driven through the heart of Amy and her family?

I'm sure I missed something or it is alluding my memory, or I am just in general , but may I ask what videos you are referencing? TIA

 

[PeggyAnnMcKay]

So where do we go from here? I'm at a loss as to which direction to start looking.

 

[Simply Caustic]

I think the original poster was referencing Osama Bin Laden...although I'm not sure I grasp the reference.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

 

[dotr]

I think the original poster was referencing Osama Bin Laden...although I'm not sure I grasp the reference.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

Reference was to experts analyzing B.Laden tapes in earlier days for hints as to his location or whether or not he was sending subliminal messages.
I was wondering if similiarly, the heart on the bed rail could signify anything at all in regards to Amy.

 

[PeggyAnnMcKay]

Reference was to experts analyzing B.Laden tapes in earlier days for hints as to his location or whether or not he was sending subliminal messages.
I was wondering if similiarly, the heart on the bed rail could signify anything at all in regards to Amy.

Same with whatever is on the table beside the bed. I have manipulated that photo a ton and can't figure out what is there. My best guess is a magazine, but boy would it be nice to know what issue (if it even is a magazine)! In that room, unfortunately,there just isn't much to go on at all.

 

[dotr]

THE FIFTH ESTATE, with video and many links concerning kidnapping.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kidnapped/
"the fifth estate recreates a real-life kidnapping minute-by-tension-filled-minute and lets viewers decide what to do to catch the perpetrators each step of the way"

 

[fairlight]

Hello. I just joined. I am not sure I am seeing all of the content. In one subforum all I saw were empty boxes with no posts, just the posters name-"find amy" with no content. I am still trying to find out if there is some problem getting fully processed. Any help much appreciated. Have contacted admin. but still problem continues, hence thought someone might suggest my doing something.
This all seems confusing, where does this discussion start?
What are the details of these sightings? Otherwise, why put them up, as it may as well be like the sightings of Elvis. How can one evaluate a sighting without the details as to who made it and under what circumstances, so on?
fairlight

 

[fairlight]

I just joined, please forgive me if I have missed something, but I don't see any content in this post, other than the poster's personal signature quote.Some posts on another page I went to were completely blank. I don't understand it.
fairlight

 

[neesaki]

Hello. I just joined. I am not sure I am seeing all of the content. In one subforum all I saw were empty boxes with no posts, just the posters name-"find amy" with no content. I am still trying to find out if there is some problem getting fully processed. Any help much appreciated. Have contacted admin. but still problem continues, hence thought someone might suggest my doing something.
This all seems confusing, where does this discussion start?
What are the details of these sightings? Otherwise, why put them up, as it may as well be like the sightings of Elvis. How can one evaluate a sighting without the details as to who made it and under what circumstances, so on?
fairlight

I'm not sure if I understand the problem, it does sound strange. Here are the links to Amy's threads, #1 and 2:
[ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4936"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

[ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183563"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

Hope this helps. If not, let us know. And, Welcome to Amy's thread. :welcome:

 

[neesaki]

Hello. I just joined. I am not sure I am seeing all of the content. In one subforum all I saw were empty boxes with no posts, just the posters name-"find amy" with no content. I am still trying to find out if there is some problem getting fully processed. Any help much appreciated. Have contacted admin. but still problem continues, hence thought someone might suggest my doing something.
This all seems confusing, where does this discussion start?
What are the details of these sightings? Otherwise, why put them up, as it may as well be like the sightings of Elvis. How can one evaluate a sighting without the details as to who made it and under what circumstances, so on?
fairlight

OMG, Elvis sightings? That's a good one, LOL!!! .... Actually, I have read up on some of those as well, (Yes, I am an Elvis Fan:rocker: :giggle. Unfortunately, none of the alleged pics or photos look anything even close to Elvis. Again, very, very unfortunately, . But then here I am fftopic:

Anyway, all quite different from Amy's case. Definitely verified sightings of Amy. So, hopefully it will help you out if you can go back and read up on the links to the threads as posted. If you're still having problems, I would suggest you contact the mods. And, again, Welcome!

 

[arielilane]

Welcome to WS fairlight!

 

[dotr]

I just joined, please forgive me if I have missed something, but I don't see any content in this post, other than the poster's personal signature quote.Some posts on another page I went to were completely blank. I don't understand it.
fairlight

Welcome to WS! hopefully the blank sites have been sorted out and you can join in to help find Amy!

Some important pics.and info. has been posted on this thread...
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4936&page=27

 

[Teche]

Bumping for Amy.

 

[Dushi]

Here's what I keep coming back to:

Alister Douglas told the FBI that he was asleep in his room and that the last time he saw Amy was at the disco, in the very early hours of that morning.

But - THREE witnesses came forward and stated they saw him with Amy, going into the disco, several hours later, nearer 6a.m/6.30a.m. at a time when he claimed to be in his room.
Now, I get that he didn't 'fail' the polygraph BUT surely his blatant lie should have warranted more pressure from LE???

I would love to know whether they actually confronted AD with those witness statements and if so, WHAT did he say?

Let's suppose for the moment that AD did nothing to Amy: it would still be hugely helpful for him to reveal what she was doing when he left the disco; was she chatting with someone? Did he perhaps see the route she took when leaving the disco??

This is very curious
If he in fact said he was in his room, how would he pass the polygraph after three witnesses saw him with Amy

I realize polygraphs are not fail proof, but a blatant lie should be readable