Amy Bradley, 23, Disappeared from cruise ship en route to Curaçao, 24 March 1998 #4

[Hiandmighty]

Was it, though? According to Disappeared:

"Brad remembered having a disturbing encounter with Douglas [aka, "Yellow"]. 'I'm sitting by the pool at a table and up walks this guy, and the first thing he says is, "I'm sorry to hear about your sister"', Brad said. In retrospect, he says that he finds the timing of Douglas' statements suspicious, due to the fact that he says that there had been no announcement about Amy's disappearance."

Source: http://crimefeed.com/2018/04/disappeared-amy-bradley/

Go to the first few pages of thread #2 where this is discussed and maybe the last few pages of thread #1.

Supposedly Brad misspoke on the vanished quote.

I can’t explain it. I can only tell you where the discussion is.

 

[Hiandmighty]

Iva doesn’t say in this article that Amy’s photos were the only ones missing.

I’m thinking Iva didn’t pick up the reprinted photos because Amy disappeared the next morning. Iva was probably more concerned about the whereabouts of her missing daughter and never gave the reprints a second thought.

The FBI’s hands were tied to an extent because of international law just as they were in the Natalee Holloway case. Very easy for a parent to say the FBI was of no help.

Thinking Iva might have said things that weren’t true because she was was given mixed information from different parties. As the info changed, so did her comments. IMO

I’ll try to find a link but I am at lunch right now.

 

[CoolJ]

Iva is absolutely a victim but she has also not always been truthful. I can cite two examples with links when I get home.

Please do. That is an alarming accusation towards a mother who has been missing her daughter for 20 yrs. Please provide the links and then we can discuss because that accusation needs to be cleared up quickly IMO.

 

[CoolJ]

David Carmichael called in his sighing 4 months later

"The most intriguing lead came from David Carmichael, 46, a Canadian computer engineer and avid scuba diver, who is certain he saw Amy with two men on the beach in Curaçao in August 1998—five months after she disappeared. “She looked frightened, like she was about to say something, when one of the guys motioned her away and gave me a menacing look,” says Carmichael. He thought nothing of it until that December, when he saw a picture of Amy on America’s Most Wanted. “I was stunned,” says Carmichael, who flew to Virginia to meet the Bradleys. “I am haunted by that encounter with Amy. I know it was her.”

http://people.com/archive/cover-story-desperate-for-answers-vol-56-no-4/

Can anyone here remember what hairstyle you had 4 months ago or what you wore on this day 4 months ago?


Reposting an earlier link:
http://opd.ohio.gov/Portals/0/PDF/WC...tification.pdf

"Recently, post-conviction DNA exonerations of innocent persons have dramatically highlighted the problems with eyewitness identifications.6,7 In the United States, more than 300 exonerations have resulted from post- conviction DNA testing since 1989.8

According to the Innocence Project, at least one mistaken eyewitness identification was present in almost three- quarters of DNA exonerations.9 In many of these cases, eyewitness identification played a significant evidentiary role, and almost without exception, the eyewitnesses who testified expressed complete confidence that they had chosen the perpetrator. Many eyewitnesses testified with high confidence despite earlier expressions of uncertainty.10"

"Human vision does not capture a perfect, error-free “trace” of a witnessed event. What an individual actually perceives can be heavily influenced by bias18 and expectations derived from cultural factors, behavioral goals, emotions, and prior experiences with the world. For eyewitness identification to take place, perceived information must be encoded in memory, stored, and subsequently retrieved. As time passes, memories become less stable. In addition, suggestion and the exposure to new information may influence and distort what the individual believes she or he has seen."


BBM

I really don't know where you are going with all of this. You are saying that the Bradleys "committed fraud" by not submitting info about the sightings, but at the same time you are arguing that the sightings are not valid?

Which is it?

 

[Hiandmighty]

I really don't know where you are going with all of this. You are saying that the Bradleys "committed fraud" by not submitting info about the sightings, but at the same time you are arguing that the sightings are not valid?



Which is it?

It doesn’t matter if the sightings are valid or not.

The judge found they committed fraud and fined them $6600.

The court found they weren’t truthful. They lied to the court and were fined because of it.

Then in the court docs, they said they were trying to protect Amy and the court proved that was a lie too.

 

[CoolJ]

The most intriguing lead came from David Carmichael, 46, a Canadian computer engineer and avid scuba diver, who is certain he saw Amy with two men on the beach in Curaçao in August 1998—five months after she disappeared. “She looked frightened, like she was about to say something, when one of the guys motioned her away and gave me a menacing look,” says Carmichael. He thought nothing of it until that December, when he saw a picture of Amy on America’s Most Wanted. “I was stunned,” says Carmichael, who flew to Virginia to meet the Bradleys. “I am haunted by that encounter with Amy. I know it was her.”


http://people.com/archive/cover-story-desperate-for-answers-vol-56-no-4/

"He thought nothing of it" does not appear to be a direct quote. It appears to be a reporters verbiage. I would say the reporter is the one who is unreliable. Carmichael obviously thought something of it as he took notice of how she was acting and how the guys she was with were acting.

I would absolutely not discount this sighting.

 

[Dushi]

"He thought nothing of it" does not appear to be a direct quote. It appears to be a reporters verbiage. I would say the reporter is the one who is unreliable. Carmichael obviously thought something of it as he took notice of how she was acting and how the guys she was with were acting.

I would absolutely not discount this sighting.

We are all free to have an opinion.
He waited four months before doing anything
If he thought some young woman , whoever she may have been' was in trouble, why didn't he do something about it then?

 

[CoolJ]

It doesn’t matter if the sightings are valid or not.

The judge found they committed fraud and fined them $6600.

The court found they weren’t truthful. They lied to the court and were fined because of it.

It does matter. If the sightings were not confirmed why would they include something in court documents that is only hearsay. The courts are only interested in 100% confirmed facts.

I think we should ease back on the attacks on the Bradley family.

 

[cluciano63]

I have always thought she went overboard one way or another and just was not found in the waters. I find the whole abducted for sex slavery a bit out there and none of the “sightings” believable at all. It is a shame the family has been taken advantage of, duped, cheated etc. jmo

 

[CoolJ]

We are all free to have an opinion.
He waited four months before doing anything
If he thought some young woman , whoever she may have been' was in trouble, why didn't he do something about it then?

Lots of possible reasons. He was fearful, he was just processing what he saw, he was unsure of what he saw... whatever. There are a million reasons why he didn't do anything at the time. The fact is, he did do something when he realised the significance of what he saw.

I am not saying we should take this sighting as 100% fact. I am saying it should not be discounted.

 

[Hiandmighty]

It does matter. If the sightings were not confirmed why would the include something in court documents that is only hearsay. The courts are only interested in 100% confirmed facts.



I think we should ease back on the attacks on the Bradley family.

Relaying a fact from a judge isn’t an attack on the family. I don’t know why they lied under oath to the judge, but the fact is that they did.

 

[CoolJ]

Relaying a fact from a judge isn’t an attack on the family. I don’t know why they lied under oath to the judge, but the fact is that they did.

I think " lied under oath to the judge" is profoundly misinterpreting the way things went down. Regardless, it has nothing to do with the case. It has to do with the lawsuit. I am sure they were only following legal advice.

To continue to call the Bradley's liars is twisting our focus away from what matters and it also casts suspicion on them which makes me question the motives behind anyone doing so. It sounds vengeful to me.

 

[JSolt1210]

Go to the first few pages of thread #2 where this is discussed and maybe the last few pages of thread #1.

Supposedly Brad misspoke on the vanished quote.

I can’t explain it. I can only tell you where the discussion is.

I totally believe you. It's just confusing because, although I haven't found a quote where Brad himself directly says "Yellow" or "Douglas" or even "the band member" or "bass player," the major interviews I've read all supply this person in the narration—as if Brad actually said the name or the person in the interview, or the interviewer used the name during a question, and it just had to be cut in production for whatever reason.

On Dr. Phil:
(Iva): "My son went up to look for Amy. He was approached by the band members and they said, 'Sorry to hear about your sister.'"
https://www.drphil.com/slideshows/the-search-for-natalee-amy-bradley/ (Page 2)

On Unsolved Mysteries:
(Narrator): "That morning, no one but the Bradley family and ship's security knew Amy was missing. No one, that is, except the bass player. According to Amy's brother Brad, the musician mentioned that he felt bad about what had happened to his sister."

(Brad): "That was a really odd thing to say that early in the stages of this thing, you know. Nobody knew except for my family and I, and security, that something may be wrong."
https://unsolved.com/gallery/amy-bradley/

And then, of course, on Disappeared.

 

[Hiandmighty]

I think " lied under oath to the judge" is profoundly misinterpreting the way things went down. Regardless, it has nothing to do with the case. It has to do with the lawsuit. I am sure they were only following legal advice.

To continue to call the Bradley's liars is twisting our focus away from what matters and it also casts suspicion on them which makes me questions the motives behind anyone doing so.

They lied. It isn’t a misrepresentation. Read the court documents again. They lied and then they lied about the first lie and the court proved those both as lies and proved the second one using dates.

 

[Hiandmighty]

I totally believe you. It's just confusing because, although I haven't found a quote where Brad himself directly says "Yellow" or "Douglas" or even "the band member" or "bass player," the major interviews I've read all supply this person in the narration—as if Brad actually said the name or the person in the interview, or the interviewer used the name during a question, and it just had to be cut in production for whatever reason.

On Dr. Phil:
(Iva): "My son went up to look for Amy. He was approached by the band members and they said, 'Sorry to hear about your sister.'"
https://www.drphil.com/slideshows/the-search-for-natalee-amy-bradley/ (Page 2)

On Unsolved Mysteries:
(Narrator): "That morning, no one but the Bradley family and ship's security knew Amy was missing. No one, that is, except the bass player. According to Amy's brother Brad, the musician mentioned that he felt bad about what had happened to his sister."

(Brad): "That was a really odd thing to say that early in the stages of this thing, you know. Nobody knew except for my family and I, and security, that something may be wrong."
https://unsolved.com/gallery/amy-bradley/

And then, of course, on Disappeared.

It is confusing.

 

[CoolJ]

They lied. It isn’t a misrepresentation. Read the court documents again. They lied and then they lied about the first lie and the court proved those both as lies and proved the second one using dates.

I vehemently disagree with how you are interpreting this situation. But lets move on from this, shall we? It has nothing to do with the disappearance of Amy.
Unless you think the family has something to do with her disappearance?

 

[CoolJ]

It is confusing.

What is it that is confusing here?

 

[scadagirl28]

I totally believe you. It's just confusing because, although I haven't found a quote where Brad himself directly says "Yellow" or "Douglas" or even "the band member" or "bass player," the major interviews I've read all supply this person in the narration—as if Brad actually said the name or the person in the interview, or the interviewer used the name during a question, and it just had to be cut in production for whatever reason.

On Dr. Phil:
(Iva): "My son went up to look for Amy. He was approached by the band members and they said, 'Sorry to hear about your sister.'"
https://www.drphil.com/slideshows/the-search-for-natalee-amy-bradley/ (Page 2)

On Unsolved Mysteries:
(Narrator): "That morning, no one but the Bradley family and ship's security knew Amy was missing. No one, that is, except the bass player. According to Amy's brother Brad, the musician mentioned that he felt bad about what had happened to his sister."

(Brad): "That was a really odd thing to say that early in the stages of this thing, you know. Nobody knew except for my family and I, and security, that something may be wrong."
https://unsolved.com/gallery/amy-bradley/

And then, of course, on Disappeared.

Brad says it on Vanished with Beth Holloway.

 

[Dushi]

What is it that is confusing here?

Whether it was Yellow or a waiter that was sympathetic to Brad before the announcement was made regarding Amy missing

 

[Hiandmighty]

I vehemently disagree with how you are interpreting this situation. But lets move on from this, shall we? It has nothing to do with the disappearance of Amy.
Unless you think the family has something to do with her disappearance?

The fact that the family lied at least twice under oath to the court and was fined because of it to me, MOO, means that anything the family states as a fact can and should (MOO) be viewed with a healthy skepticism. They are willing to lie in order to direct conversation and direction of the discussion of the disappearance of their daughter. (Court transcripts, their explanation for the first lie).

There is no room for movement here. It is in black and white and the court record that they lied under oath. Half of the court documents is case law about what happens when people commit fraud on the court and how the court needs to come down hard on these people.

There is NO interpretation on this issue.