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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #661
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
 
  • #662
Someone, please give us just one little crumb.
 
  • #663
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.
 
  • #664
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.
 
  • #665
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.
 
  • #666
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?
 
  • #667
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
 
  • #668
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.
 
  • #669
  • #670
  • #671
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
 
  • #672
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.
 
  • #673
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 .......
 
  • #674
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.
 
  • #675
dotr said:
To be clear, one would not want to mess with some powerful organizations .......
Click to expand...

Was there/is there any evidence of Amy being involved with a powerful organization?
 
  • #676
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
 
  • #677
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.
 
  • #678
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
 
  • #679
  • #680
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.

Similar threads

Sillybilly
Amy Bradley, missing from cruise ship, 1998 Media, Maps & Timeline thread *NO DISCUSSION*
Replies
4
Views
2K
Sillybilly
Sillybilly
R
  • Locked
VA - Amy Bradley - missing from cruise ship, Curacao - 1998 #3
81 82 83
Replies
2K
Views
119K
Knitty
Knitty
R
  • Locked
VA - Amy Bradley - missing from cruise ship, Curacao - 1998 #4
15 16 17
Replies
323
Views
20K
Sillybilly
Sillybilly
S
  • Locked
VA - Amy Bradley, 23, Petersburg, 24 March 1998 - #2 - ***READ FIRST POST***
107 108 109
Replies
2K
Views
256K
Tricia
Tricia
S
  • Locked
Amy Bradley, 23, Disappeared from cruise ship en route to Curaçao, 24 March 1998 #4
52 53 54
Replies
1K
Views
258K
Threshold
T

Staff online

Members online

... and 154 more.
Total: 2,296 (members: 155, guests: 2,141)

Online statistics

Members online
155
Guests online
2,141
Total visitors
2,296
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
632,501
Messages
18,627,678
Members
243,171
Latest member
neckdeepinstories
Back
Top