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

[JSolt1210]

Yes, I would think so. When was it stated Amy felt sick? Before or after she was dancing with Yellow?

Oooh that’s a good callout... On Unsolved Mysteries, “at 3:40 A.M.” Ron said: “She said she hadn’t been feeling too well because of the motion of the boat since we left Aruba that evening. So she said she was gonna just to stay out there and get some fresh air.”

But maybe that was due to her having been slipped something... but then again, if she felt that bad, why go back out? Would she even have been in a position to walk away?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pseudonymph]

That is an opinion and a very subjective opinion at that. Also, did you read the part where the family suite had 2 balcony doors? She wouldn’t have had to open the door to her parents room.

Obviously it was my opinion. No need to be rude.

 

[Pseudonymph]

Can we at least verify the distance between the general area of the room up to the place where the possible sighting occurred by the elevator?

Like, can it take 15 minutes to get from the general area of the suite (+ or - 10 rooms) to the floor where the disco is?

Apologies if this has already been answered above. I’m at work and might’ve missed it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You could get from one end of the ship to the other in 10 minutes or less. It’s big but not that big.

 

[Hiandmighty]

Obviously it was my opinion. No need to be rude.

There is a question in my mind about what suite they were in. Many articles say “the family’s suite” and I wonder if over time that got changed to “family suite” which is much larger and seemingly not where their cabin was. Plus, given that Brad and Amy woke Ron up when they came in and left the bathroom light on, I tend to believe their suite was the smaller 241 sqft cabin. (Which is large for a cabin)

ETA:

***Also, Ron could see Amy smoking and on the balcony from where he was sleeping on his bed.***

 

[Hiandmighty]

You could get from one end of the ship to the other in 10 minutes or less. It’s big but not that big.

At 5:30 am there would be little people traffic as well. ROS is a smaller class of ship.

 

[Hiandmighty]

BBM, Maybe Amy was naive and perhaps she was drugged. JMO

MOO I don’t get the impression Amy was naive. She smoked, had multiple tattoos, and I just noticed multiple ear piercings and she liked to party.

Here is a photo of her showing the ear piercings, taken from amybradley.net

 

[Mica]

MOO I don’t get the impression Amy was naive. She smoked, had multiple tattoos, and I just noticed multiple ear piercings and she liked to party.

Here is a photo of her showing the ear piercings, taken from amybradley.net
View attachment 133470

Unless one personally knew Amy Bradley, how does one know if she was naïve or not. :shakehead: Being naïve has nothing to do with smoking, piercings, tattoos, and partying. Being this was Amy's first cruise, I would say she was quite inexperienced with those "types" surrounding her. IMO

 

[U2forever]

I think we can all agree that eyewitness accounts are not a standard equal thing across all cases. Its not apples to apples to compare eyewitnesses in one case to another.

When one eyewitness is quoted as saying he never thought anything about the sighting at the time, did not speak to the person or have any interaction with her and then didn't report it until 4 months later and only after watching a story about a missing person with a high reward mentioned, I discount it.

It is easy to infer the reward money was a motivator that triggered the sighting memory.

Also, no one has ever had a disbursement of reward money for the information that we know of. One news article (ABC maybe) stated no reward money was paid out for that sighting.

I would think if any sightings were credible, the FBI would mention them in the new updates starting last year.


I have also had numerous people throughout my life swear they have seen or met me before in places and situations that never happened. I always reply, "I must have a familiar face."

BBM
Eyewitness accounts are the least reliable. The same with Direct evidence in court with witnesses.
Back in the 90's I had a regular client tell me she saw me on the side of the road picking up trash or cans, it wasn't me.
Just last week a friend told me a mutual friend saw me at an Augusta Green-jackets baseball game, I haven't been to their games in years.
Years ago my boyfriend at the time was in Vegas, he said he saw me and was floored when it wasn't really me. LOL
I have more than one twin.

 

[CoolJ]

Lets not forget folks, these weren't just "eye witness" sightings that were a case of mistaken identity. The reports from at least 2 of the eye witnesses were that the lady who they thought was Amy, actually said her name was Amy Bradley. The San Francisco sighting reportedly had numerous witnesses. Another sighting also included the possibility that she was seen with "Yellow". And last but not least we have a set of 3 pictures that could very well be Amy.

These aren't your average, "I am pretty sure it was her" sightings. These reports have backbone. At the very least, we cannot just disregard them.

ETA - this does not even get into the fact that the Cruise line itself used 100+ witness sightings as their defense in the lawsuit!

 

[Dushi]

]Unless one personally knew Amy Bradley, how does one know if she was naïve or not. [/B]:shakehead: Being naïve has nothing to do with smoking, piercings, tattoos, and partying. Being this was Amy's first cruise, I would say she was quite inexperienced with those "types" surrounding her. IMO

You were the one that suggested she may have been naive in a post up thread.
But I do agree with your post I am quoting (BBM) we don't know if she was naive or not.
She did have enough savy to refuse the evening at Carlos and Charlies

 

[bears10]

Unless one personally knew Amy Bradley, how does one know if she was naïve or not. :shakehead: Being naïve has nothing to do with smoking, piercings, tattoos, and partying. Being this was Amy's first cruise, I would say she was quite inexperienced with those "types" surrounding her. IMO

Those “types”?

 

[Tssiemer]

Was this the Bradley’s first cruise? Or Amy’s?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tasidasi]

Those “types”?

He probably means the unsavory characters on the cruise, like Yellow and the creepy waiter that asked to take Amy to Carlos & charlies.

 

[tasidasi]

Lets not forget folks, these weren't just "eye witness" sightings that were a case of mistaken identity. The reports from at least 2 of the eye witnesses were that the lady who they thought was Amy, actually said her name was Amy Bradley. The San Francisco sighting reportedly had numerous witnesses. Another sighting also included the possibility that she was seen with "Yellow". And last but not least we have a set of 3 pictures that could very well be Amy.

These aren't your average, "I am pretty sure it was her" sightings. These reports have backbone. At the very least, we cannot just disregard them.

ETA - this does not even get into the fact that the Cruise line itself used 100+ witness sightings as their defense in the lawsuit!

Can you provide a link to the San Fran sighting? It was mentioned on the amybradleyforums or something...I saw it in an old screen cap but I am not sure that is credible information.

 

[neesaki]

Can you provide a link to the San Fran sighting? It was mentioned on the amybradleyforums or something...I saw it in an old screen cap but I am not sure that is credible information.

There are numerous links in this and / or the previous threads concerning the San Francisco sighting. If you’re unfamiliar with it I would encourage you to go back and read up on it. And Welcome to Amy’s thread ! :welcome:

 

[nannymo]

Lets not forget folks, these weren't just "eye witness" sightings that were a case of mistaken identity. The reports from at least 2 of the eye witnesses were that the lady who they thought was Amy, actually said her name was Amy Bradley. The San Francisco sighting reportedly had numerous witnesses. Another sighting also included the possibility that she was seen with "Yellow". And last but not least we have a set of 3 pictures that could very well be Amy.

These aren't your average, "I am pretty sure it was her" sightings. These reports have backbone. At the very least, we cannot just disregard them.

ETA - this does not even get into the fact that the Cruise line itself used 100+ witness sightings as their defense in the lawsuit!

BBM I have always felt the sightings were pretty reliable....

I have seen the one picture of her that is provocative on the bed and she has long hair. I am not sure I have seen the other 2.

Can you direct me in that direction?

 

[CoolJ]

BBM I have always felt the sightings were pretty reliable....

I have seen the one picture of her that is provocative on the bed and she has long hair. I am not sure I have seen the other 2.

Can you direct me in that direction?

2 you can get with a simple google search. The 3rd you might need a certain wayback machine link.... anybody help out here?

 

[Mica]

2 you can get with a simple google search. The 3rd you might need a certain wayback machine link.... anybody help out here?

Post #639

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/s...-Bradley-23-Petersburg-24-March-1998-3/page43

 

[bears10]

There are numerous links in this and / or the previous threads concerning the San Francisco sighting. If you’re unfamiliar with it I would encourage you to go back and read up on it. And Welcome to Amy’s thread ! :welcome:

The only mention of San Francisco I’ve been able to find has been rumors and other message boards. I believe the info was provided by the VI (which I’m not sure if we are allowed to discuss) on more than one site, but I haven’t found any official articles on the sighting.

 

[Tricia]

Hey Everyone,

A reminder. You cannot post links to other discussion forums. No way to tell if what their posters are saying is true or not.

We need to start looking at everything again. What have we missed if anything?

I know it is tempting to post rumors or things someone told you but I swear to you with every fiber of my being that would do much more harm than good.

One of the reasons why Websleuths is respected is because we do everything we can to stay away from rumors.

This is why we do not allow Facebook comments about cases. Facebook is out of control as far as true crime is concerned. It's all wild rumors.

What I am trying to tell you in this rambling post is try going back to the early news articles. Follow up on solid information that can be verified.

Just a suggestion.

Thank you,
Tricia