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

[Hiandmighty]

Well, the court seemed to be specific that it was the Bradleys who failed to disclose the witnesses:

"The order says the Bradleys committed fraud against the court by not disclosing more than 100 reports they'd gotten of people seeing their daughter, in Curacao, after her disappearance."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/10/wbr.01.html

The subject of the sentence is "The Bradleys"

The action of the sentence is: "committed fraud"

The Bradleys committed fraud.

I don't see how this can be 100 witnesses RCI dug up.

The Bradleys didn't disclose 100 eyewitness tips that stated Amy was alive and not under duress and was living freely.

 

[Montjoy]

The sighting in SF is intriguing. At first it seems hard to believe. After reviewing reported facts of the sighting I'm convinced she was there. Do you think she will eventually return there or elsewhere in the US? Might be the best chance to recover her.

I'm convinced that any SF sighting is false; it seems hard to believe at first, and impossible to believe (with a straight face) upon reflection. To enter the US at a port of call she would have had to have cleared customs. This would not only require identification, which presumably she did not have, but it would also give her an opportunity to alert a border guard. If you're suggesting some sort of a conspiracy, in which her 'handlers' either got fake ID for her, or got her into the US surreptitiously, I would have to call that a million times more implausible than the overboard theory. What's more, having her in the US makes it far more likely that she would be detected or seen time and time again. So, if she was ever seen in SF, I would bet all that I own that it was before she took that fateful cruise with her parents.

 

[trenchmouth]

I'm convinced that any SF sighting is false; it seems hard to believe at first, and impossible to believe (with a straight face) upon reflection. To enter the US at a port of call she would have had to have cleared customs. This would not only require identification, which presumably she did not have, but it would also give her an opportunity to alert a border guard. If you're suggesting some sort of a conspiracy, in which her 'handlers' either got fake ID for her, or got her into the US surreptitiously, I would have to call that a million times more implausible than the overboard theory. What's more, having her in the US makes it far more likely that she would be detected or seen time and time again. So, if she was ever seen in SF, I would bet all that I own that it was before she took that fateful cruise with her parents.

It could be a false sighting, however the family and FBI took it pretty seriously. Then there's the other sightings in the department store restroom and in the hotel bar where she identified herself as Amy or Amy Bradley. Those are difficult to explain away.

 

[Montjoy]

It could be a false sighting, however the family and FBI took it pretty seriously.

RSBM --

I do not believe that the FBI have ever commented on whether they believe a sighting is legitimate. I would need to read a FBI release or MSM quotation from them to believe that they'd verified a sighting -- hearing it from the VI or a family member simply does not pass muster.

And for what it's worth, if your daughter was missing, and continuing any investigation into her disappearance was entirely premised on a belief that she was alive, would you not cling to any bit of information you could find, and accept it uncritically? What would there be to lose?

 

[Hiandmighty]

And for what it's worth, if your daughter was missing, and continuing any investigation into her disappearance was entirely premised on a belief that she was alive, would you not cling to any bit of information you could find, and accept it uncritically? What would there be to lose?

Yes, her father said nearly this in regards to the extortion of his money by Jones.

"Jones and Margaritha were not the first people the Bradleys thought took advantage of them by claiming to have information about their daughter. But the Bradleys say they had no choice but to trust anyone who seemed to have credible information.

"If there's a chance — I mean, what else do you do?," Ron Bradley says. "If it was your child, what would you do? So I guess we took a chance. And I guess we lost."
http://sec-global.com/services/ctp/vsg/news/030626.html


It really breaks my heart that her family wants her to be alive so badly that they are willing to believe any "credible" person. It just illustrates the desperation of the situation.

It is too bad the ship didn't have infrared cameras so that they could have information about what happened, if she fell overboard.

 

[Sillybilly]

Well, the court seemed to be specific that it was the Bradleys who failed to disclose the witnesses:

"The order says the Bradleys committed fraud against the court by not disclosing more than 100 reports they'd gotten of people seeing their daughter, in Curacao, after her disappearance."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/10/wbr.01.html

The subject of the sentence is "The Bradleys"

The action of the sentence is: "committed fraud"

The Bradleys committed fraud.

I don't see how this can be 100 witnesses RCI dug up.

The Bradleys didn't disclose 100 eyewitness tips that stated Amy was alive and not under duress and was living freely.

Which is your strongest theory ... the 100 or so witnesses who supposedly saw Amy alive and well, the 3 who supposedly saw her under duress with handlers, or that she went overboard March 24 1998?

 

[Hiandmighty]

I'm leaning to deceased on 24 march 1998.

So the next logical choices are:

1) suicide

2) accidental overboard

3) crime/murder/body overboard

Because I believe she died on 24 March 1998, my next selection would be "accidental overboard".

But anything is possible. In my mind, accidental overboard is most probable.

 

[Sillybilly]

RSBM --

I do not believe that the FBI have ever commented on whether they believe a sighting is legitimate. I would need to read a FBI release or MSM quotation from them to believe that they'd verified a sighting -- hearing it from the VI or a family member simply does not pass muster.

And for what it's worth, if your daughter was missing, and continuing any investigation into her disappearance was entirely premised on a belief that she was alive, would you not cling to any bit of information you could find, and accept it uncritically? What would there be to lose?

IF the FBI didn't believe the sighting was legitimate, they sure went to a lot of trouble to disseminate information about it until fairly recently.

IIRC, the sketch of Amy and the composites were developed by the FBI artist from Quantico. The sketch of Amy and the composites of all 3 "handlers" was on the FBI site.

Amy's case is still on Interpol (with only her picture), but her case is still on NAMPN with the SF sketch and the composites with reference to the composites having been developed by the FBI:

http://www.interpol.int/notice/search/missing/2011-955

http://www.nampn.org/cases/bradley_amy.html

 

[Sillybilly]

Yes, her father said nearly this in regards to the extortion of his money by Jones.

"Jones and Margaritha were not the first people the Bradleys thought took advantage of them by claiming to have information about their daughter. But the Bradleys say they had no choice but to trust anyone who seemed to have credible information.

"If there's a chance — I mean, what else do you do?," Ron Bradley says. "If it was your child, what would you do? So I guess we took a chance. And I guess we lost."
http://sec-global.com/services/ctp/vsg/news/030626.html


It really breaks my heart that her family wants her to be alive so badly that they are willing to believe any "credible" person. It just illustrates the desperation of the situation.

It is too bad the ship didn't have infrared cameras so that they could have information about what happened, if she fell overboard.

It breaks MY heart that there are scum who would take advantage of a family who is desperately searching for their loved one :furious:

As Ron Bradley so aptly asked "If it was your child, what would you do?"

 

[Hiandmighty]

Why does Interpol list her place of disappearance as the Caribbean Sea as opposed to the island of Curaçao?

Date of disappearance: 24/03/1998 When 23 years old
Place of disappearance: CARIBBEAN SEA, United states

The second link lists these sources for their information on their page:

Source Information
Federal Bureau of Investigation
National Center for Missing Adults
Namus

The FBI page about Amy is gone.

The National Center for Missing Adults page about Amy is gone.

The Namus page is still up stating Amy was last seen on 24 March 1998.

 

[Murkywaters]

IF the FBI didn't believe the sighting was legitimate, they sure went to a lot of trouble to disseminate information about it until fairly recently.

IIRC, the sketch of Amy and the composites were developed by the FBI artist from Quantico. The sketch of Amy and the composites of all 3 "handlers" was on the FBI site.

Amy's case is still on Interpol (with only her picture), but her case is still on NAMPN with the SF sketch and the composites with reference to the composites having been developed by the FBI:

http://www.interpol.int/notice/search/missing/2011-955

http://www.nampn.org/cases/bradley_amy.html

Amy went to San Fransisco on the 18 of April 2003. The FBI took it very seriously, the sketches of the handlers were done by some of the best FBI sketches artists available. I remember reading it took hours to hours to complete them. It's not far fetched at all Amy getting into San Fransisco actually. With a good fake I.D and having all her captors being American citizens, she would have no problem coming and going from the US or anywhere back then. I don't know when Amy was added to Interpol but today If Amy is recognized passing in customs at any Interpol country, Interpol will allow her to be detained. Amy is not believed to be traveling through huge, high tech airports. Her handlers can't risk this.

 

[Montjoy]

Amy went to San Fransisco on the 18 of April 2003.

Ok, that's a statement of fact, not opinion. Can you please provide a link?

 

[Hiandmighty]

Ok, that's a statement of fact, not opinion. Can you please provide a link?

There is no link to MSM or a reliable source, most likely because it isn't verified and can't be verified because it likely didn't happen. Just another person screwing with the family. (Which, again, is very sad).

 

[Hiandmighty]

What I would like to find is any evidence that Amy had been drinking alcohol or "partying hard" that night. I have seen references to it, but that is next on my list to find quoted from reputable sources.

Can anyone help? Thanks.

(There is, of course, Chris Fenwick's video of Amy seeming to enjoy her dancing that night, in which she appears inebriated, but I don't know that that is "proof" of her drinking)

 

[trenchmouth]

It wouldn't surprise me if she was drinking, very common thing to do on a cruise. I've drank too much on many occasions and have still avoided falling off a ship in to a calm warm swimmable to land canal before docking or get in to any accident for that matter.

What I want to know is when she is found how will she want to be rescued at this point? So very sad that she hasn't been rescued after all these years. I feel for the Bradley's. Imagine waking up every single day of your life knowing your beautiful daughter is being held captive by a bunch of low lifes. As a parent, I would never stop trying to find her, especially if I knew with certainty she was abducted like the FBI and the family likely know.

 

[teeandcee]

I wonder if the two Canadian women means David Carmichael, the Canadian scuba diver who says he saw Amy on a beach in Curaçao in August of 1998 but didn't report it until December 1998 after he saw America's Most Wanted?

I don't know, 4 months is a lot of time for incredible recall. Think about a stranger you noticed in passing 4 months ago who you didn't even speak with.... Did your stranger have tattoos? What was their color eyes?

Ill keep an open mind about it, but I can't remember what I did and who I made eye contact with 4 months ago.

This is how I view all the sightings. I'm a people watcher and have played a game with myself to notice a person then try to remember them later. A week later, a day later, a month later. I can't. And that's me specifically noticing. I just don't put much stock into sightings.

For instance, several weeks ago there was a woman in the produce section at the grocery store wearing a very revealing top and drawing a lot of attention to herself. I watched her in amusement (and all the bored husbands watching her as well, lol) for a long time. But all I remember are vague details such as her being blond and my height and her top was patterned.

 

[teeandcee]

What I would like to find is any evidence that Amy had been drinking alcohol or "partying hard" that night. I have seen references to it, but that is next on my list to find quoted from reputable sources.

Can anyone help? Thanks.

(There is, of course, Chris Fenwick's video of Amy seeming to enjoy her dancing that night, in which she appears inebriated, but I don't know that that is "proof" of her drinking)

Didn't her brother say they partied hard that night? I might re-watch the "Disappeared" episode soon and if he says it there I'll post it, but I don't think he did. I think I read it quoted somewhere from an article.

I'm not discounting that Amy was abducted, and in fact, submitted a tip regarding one of the sketches a few weeks ago, but it honestly seems like the simplest explanation is foul play on board or falling overboard. I lean towards Yellow being involved and that Amy met up with him somewhere that morning based on their dancing (despite telling her parents differently....who of us hasn't lied to our parents?). It may even have been an accident and Yellow sees no reason to confess to something he didn't do intentionally. Not saying that's the ethical thing to do, but he wouldn't be the first or the last to take that road.

 

[teeandcee]

dotr, do you think whoever took Amy is involved with FARC?

You know, this is the only reasonable possibility for a kidnapping that I've heard. It would explain the mysterious silence after 2005 and the VI's cryptic statements.

 

[Deleted member 96356]

I This was a huge piece of the puzzle that linked AFV to San Francisco.

I've been following along in this thread and have really enjoyed the different perspectives and discussion. I don't have much to add, but what does AFV stand for?

Carry on, sleuthers!

 

[Hiandmighty]

FARC: Colombia's terrorist military organization? The idea would be that she was kidnapped a la the Americans and missionaries in Indonesia by that terrorist group?

Just catching up.....