VA - Amy Bradley - missing from cruise ship, Curacao - 1998 #3

[TizerisT]

Out of fear? She possibly could have kids wrapped up in this by now too.

 

[lebvidox]

The fact that her family painted over entirely the fact that Amy Bradley was not straight is a red flag. She has been missing for almost thirty years but this did not come up before, even though she had two girlfriends?

I think we now know why Amy Bradley drank so much, and not only on the cruise: She knew that her family rejected a key part of her personality, wanting everything to seem "normal" and "moral". I personally know how shattering it can be to find that close family you think will support you will not.

I think I understand one reason why her family insists that she was abducted, that there was not tragic accident or suicide. The abduction scenario means that they do not have to consider if they had any kind of relationship to Amy's drinking issues.

I really, REALLY cannot understand her brother now building a case for Amy having a boyfriend, as if she 'was bi', when there's a previous girlfriend with a letter written by Amy herself a month before the trip, and they were hooking up like the night before she left for the cruise. Is the brother trying to suggest Amy was cheating on her boyfriend with this other girl? It seems like painting her in this light would be preferable than seeing her as a lesbian. This documentary was SO KIND on the family. They could have painted them all in a not so positive light., The case is being discussed again. What else they could hope for?

The expectations of Amy reuniting with them as a mother also made my jaw DROP. If you suspect your daughter was taken for sexual purposes, a pregnancy and multiple children would make you think of Brie Larson in Room: the pregnancies likely resulted from rape. Amy might love her children even if that's the case, but it's their assumption that the best case, happy-ending scenario would point to Amy being a mother and giving them grandkids is so, so out of touch even with the elementary view of what could make their daughter happy.

 

[RandyMcDonald]

Out of fear? She possibly could have kids wrapped up in this by now too.

Then you come into the whole question that has remained unanswered by people who, for instance, imagine that the Sodder children did not burn up in the fire and were actually removed by their captors and allowed to live so long as they do not contact their family. What would be the point of such a contrived conspiracy, sustained over decades, that could collapse disastrously for them if they let something slip for a moment?

Why would an Amy Bradley who was abducted and made into a sex slave be allowed to keep any resulting children? Frankly, why would she be allowed to carry children at all? The idea that she would be allowed to live for decades with her children, forming a weird sort of family, even though a second's lapse could lead to her captors being ruined, is ridiculous.

I did suggest that one reason the Sodder children, if they lived, might not have contacted their family would be if they had been rescued from their family. (The fire would be cover for their removal by sympathetic outsiders etc.) That would explain why people would have been willing to risk life sentences, perhaps even execution, in taking children who could destroy them with a single word: They would know that the children would be grateful.

Nothing like this operates for Amy. It is pretty clear that she had more problems with her family than they want to believe, but she was on a track to independence, with her own home and career and plans for the future. She would be able to move on, and away from them if necessary.

How is being forcibly drug addicted and prostituted going to work for Amy? If the Sodder children had been abducted to save them from their family, they hopefully would have enjoyed better lives as a result. The fate of Amy, though ... Why would she not be motivated to try to leave?

I really, REALLY cannot understand her brother now building a case for Amy having a boyfriend, as if she 'was bi', when there's a previous girlfriend with a letter written by Amy herself a month before the trip, and they were hooking up like the night before she left for the cruise. Is the brother trying to suggest Amy was cheating on her boyfriend with this other girl? It seems like painting her in this light would be preferable than seeing her as a lesbian. This documentary was SO KIND on the family. They could have painted them all in a not so positive light., The case is being discussed again. What else they could hope for?

The expectations of Amy reuniting with them as a mother also made my jaw DROP. If you suspect your daughter was taken for sexual purposes, a pregnancy and multiple children would make you think of Brie Larson in Room: the pregnancies likely resulted from rape. Amy might love her children even if that's the case, but it's their assumption that the best case, happy-ending scenario would point to Amy being a mother and giving them grandkids is so, so out of touch even with the elementary view of what could make their daughter happy.

Indeed. _Room_ was not a happy film, or book.

 

[lebvidox]

I just finished the documentary. I thought it was really informative and also well balanced in terms of exploring her sexuality and possible motives for suicide.

This case (and particularly that infamous photo of "Jas") has haunted me for a long time. I can't help but find the trafficking angle in this case to be credible in light of the photo and witness sightings.

The IP address intel is a really good lead - I almost wish Netflix had omitted that information (although I understand the FBI have no use for it jurisdictionally and/or don't value it enough materially). The exact correlation of the Barbados addresses to the family dates is the key thing though because regional interest in the case wouldn't be unexpected.

PS - were there not reports recently about new leads in the case (or have I dreamt this?) If so, is it the IP address stuff or is it as yet undisclosed?

The IP was one of the pieces of information that made me watch this whole thing, given how it was being discussed here. All I got was that there were lots of access coming from the area, and the guys in charge of the site started to post updates in some special dates. Anyone who had the website in their RSS feed could be getting those updates in those particular occasions.

 

[RandyMcDonald]

I can't pretend to understand how Caribbean criminals operate but it does strike me as a possibility that she is no longer under anyone's control and is technically "free", but is simply too irreparably changed to ever want to go back. Or her captivity may now be more informal than that - she's beholden to people financially or in terms of accessing drugs, etc. Not that she is literally restricted.

The idea that she would still be in those conditions thirty years on doesn't seem likely to me.

Curacao and Barbados are reasonably developed small island states. How long is a foreign woman lacking any legal residency or any local connections not going to avoid being visible, to someone? Why would she not have been picked up before now as an illegal immigrant? This is especially the case if she remains connected to different criminal activities and has done things like have local children: Someone would have run into her.

 

[KH05]

Why is everyone forgetting the pictures??? The prostitute pics were identical, confirmed by forensic comparison or whatever. Also, if there were that many sightings of her, WHY isn’t the family literally living on this island to potentially run into her themselves??? I have so many questions after this doc.

 

[cenazoic]

So now the em-effing SeaOrg is alleged to be involved?

C’mon now. I despise the CoS, but I don’t believe they’re known for abducting random people from cruise ships. Not only that, but they require you to already be a member of CoS. It’s like the Scientology version of joining the convent.

There is an unexplored background miasma to this case that has existed from early on. From the original WS VI and the frequent hushed allusions to the motive being something too big to mention (but not mere trafficking/prostitution), to the shifting accusations against Alistair Douglas and now unidentified SeaOrg members, to the ongoing lack of transparency about who Amy ‘really’ was.

And let’s not forget the dismissal of the Bradleys’ lawsuits against Carnival, which found

“…the couple had "perpetrated a fraud on the court" by giving false answers to the defense in depositions. The judge found the Bradleys failed to disclose contacts with witnesses who contradicted their claims that she had been taken from the ship against her will.” (Ref)

There’s something strange in all this, aside from Amy’s actual disappearance. There’s a friction, an asymmetry, an unease present that I can’t quite put my finger on.

 

[lebvidox]

Why is everyone forgetting the pictures??? The prostitute pics were identical, confirmed by forensic comparison or whatever. Also, if there were that many sightings of her, WHY isn’t the family literally living on this island to potentially run into her themselves??? I have so many questions after this doc.

Not confirmed. "Believed to be her" by one forensic analyst. There were not many sightings of her. The documentary mentions "three" coming in different times and from different places. And all pointing to different stories. In Madeleine McCann's case, there were hundreds of sightings coming in every day all around the globe.

 

[DustysMom]

RE: PAT BROWN Profiler Video—-Well, this was entertaining. I agree with her reasoning on the sex trafficking angle. And I understand why she thinks AB went overboard. But, it gives me pause when local coastal professionals (per NF doc) who understand tidal conditions on that side of the island, opine that she (body part or piece of clothing) would have swept ashore at some point. The ship wasn’t at sea, it was either at or very close to port at 5:30/6:00am. If Dad saw her feet on the balcony at 5:30 and got out of bed at 6ish, that’s a half hour timeframe…

 

[Quill]

I really, REALLY cannot understand her brother now building a case for Amy having a boyfriend, as if she 'was bi', when there's a previous girlfriend with a letter written by Amy herself a month before the trip, and they were hooking up like the night before she left for the cruise. Is the brother trying to suggest Amy was cheating on her boyfriend with this other girl? It seems like painting her in this light would be preferable than seeing her as a lesbian. This documentary was SO KIND on the family. They could have painted them all in a not so positive light., The case is being discussed again. What else they could hope for?

The expectations of Amy reuniting with them as a mother also made my jaw DROP. If you suspect your daughter was taken for sexual purposes, a pregnancy and multiple children would make you think of Brie Larson in Room: the pregnancies likely resulted from rape. Amy might love her children even if that's the case, but it's their assumption that the best case, happy-ending scenario would point to Amy being a mother and giving them grandkids is so, so out of touch even with the elementary view of what could make their daughter happy.

It actually makes me think of Jaycee Dugard. Maybe we should ask Jaycee if no longer being a captive and being able to raise her daughters in a normal life is a happy ending? I saw no "happy ending" scenario being touted only a possible reality. I think the only people who are out of touch are people who never knew Amy or her family projecting onto people they truly know nothing about.

 

[lebvidox]

RE: PAT BROWN Profiler Video—-Well, this was entertaining. I agree with her reasoning on the sex trafficking angle. And I understand why she thinks AB went overboard. But, it gives me pause when local coastal professionals (per NF doc) who understand tidal conditions on that side of the island, opine that she (body part or piece of clothing) would have swept ashore at some point. The ship wasn’t at sea, it was either at or very close to port at 5:30/6:00am. If Dad saw her feet on the balcony at 5:30 and got out of bed at 6ish, that’s a half hour timeframe…

That also depends on how much we rely on her father's recollections. Around 5:30 am it's not 5:30 am, sharp. Did he have a clock? Did he look at the clock? Just like the recollections of those girls who were in the deck could have taken place between 5 am and 6 am. Without being able to pinpoint the precise location, it's hard to determine something would come ashore for sure.

(I LOVE Pat Brown's analysis, btw. She's so entertaining and funny, and very smart. Her take on the Maura Murray frenzy cracks me up every time)

 

[DustysMom]

That also depends on how much we rely on her father's recollections. Around 5:30 am it's not 5:30 am, sharp. Did he have a clock? Did he look at the clock? Just like the recollections of those girls who were in the deck could have taken place between 5 am and 6 am. Without being able to pinpoint the precise location, it's hard to determine something would come ashore for sure.

(I LOVE Pat Brown's analysis, btw. She's so entertaining and funny, and very smart. Her take on the Maura Murray frenzy cracks me up every time)

Agree with you about the timing accuracy of everyone’s recollection that morning.
I had never heard of Pat before this evening but she is certainly a breath of fresh air. I’m going to check out her take on MM right now. Thanks !

 

[lebvidox]

It actually makes me think of Jaycee Dugard. Maybe we should ask Jaycee if no longer being a captive and being able to raise her daughters in a normal life is a happy ending? I saw no "happy ending" scenario being touted only a possible reality. I think the only people who are out of touch are people who never knew Amy or her family projecting onto people they truly know nothing about.

Yes, there are many a case of kidnapping victims that are found alive and with children resulting from previous rapes (Room, the book and movie, were inspired by Elisabeth Fritzl's horrible ordeal).

This was never about what it would be a happy ending for the victim. They would always have to live with some unimaginable trauma. This was about the possibilities entertained by the family. You might not be hoping for the grandchildren you never had if you're picturing these grandchildren being produces of the hypothetical violence your daughter is being subjected to. But people react differently to cope.

The family is stuck in time. They preserve Amy's car believing she'll be eager to drive it when she comes back home. I feel for them. They're not considering that if Amy ever comes home, she won't be the same person they knew 27 years ago. Her priority would hardly be driving that same car again.

 

[lebvidox]

Agree with you about the timing accuracy of everyone’s recollection that morning.
I had never heard of Pat before this evening but she is certainly a breath of fresh air. I’m going to check out her take on MM right now. Thanks !

The MM video is a MASTERPIECE! She is a breath of fresh air among many self-proclaimed experts who are just out to feed the mystery.

 

[Quill]

Yes, there are many a case of kidnapping victims that are found alive and with children resulting from previous rapes (Room, the book and movie, were inspired by Elisabeth Fritzl's horrible ordeal).

This was never about what it would be a happy ending for the victim. They would always have to live with some unimaginable trauma. This was about the possibilities entertained by the family. You might not be hoping for the grandchildren you never had if you're picturing these grandchildren being produces of the hypothetical violence your daughter is being subjected to. But people react differently to cope.

The family is stuck in time. They preserve Amy's car believing she'll be eager to drive it when she comes back home. I feel for them. They're not considering that if Amy ever comes home, she won't be the same person they knew 27 years ago. Her priority would hardly be driving that same car again.

People should try walking a mile in the parents' shoes. There but for the grace of God go I. We have no idea what they are thinking just because we follow media sources, listen to and read gossip and watch highly edited documentaries. This audacity some have of thinking they know more than the victims in this case is astounding. I thought WS was victim friendly?? Has this changed under my nose?

 

[RandyMcDonald]

People should try walking a mile in the parents' shoes. There but for the grace of God go I. We have no idea what they are thinking just because we follow media sources, listen to and read gossip and watch highly edited documentaries. This audacity some have of thinking they know more than the victims in this case is astounding. I thought WS was victim friendly?? Has this changed under my nose?

I do not understand. To what extent are they being attacked?

 

[lebvidox]

People should try walking a mile in the parents' shoes. There but for the grace of God go I. We have no idea what they are thinking just because we follow media sources, listen to and read gossip and watch highly edited documentaries. This audacity some have of thinking they know more than the victims in this case is astounding. I thought WS was victim friendly?? Has this changed under my nose?

Apart from the fact that people can make assumptions about the parents based on media sources, gossip and highly edited documentaries as much as relying on the same data to make assumptions about suspects that were never even charged, I never said anything about the victim (which is Amy in this case).

 

[Quill]

Apart from the fact that people can make assumptions about the parents based on media sources, gossip and highly edited documentaries as much as relying on the same data to make assumptions about suspects that were never even charged, I never said anything about the victim (which is Amy in this case).

The family are also considered victims here.

 

[lebvidox]

The family are also considered victims here.

If you go back to my previous comments, you can see I was coming from the context of Amy's sexuality and their expectations of the family being healed. Entertaining that Amy returning to their home with children she might have been given birth to is just some angle for their ideal, original vision of Amy's future, disregarding everything else. I wasn't saying they were nefarious. They're just innocent, like keeping her car and hoping she'll return eager to drive it.

That doesn't even get close to what some other characters in similar documentaries are subjected to.

 

[RandyMcDonald]

The family are also considered victims here.

This may be the case, but there have always been elements of their explanation that have never been plausible. A lot of the new detail provided by the documentary, most notably for me the revelation that she came out to her family as lesbian and got a negative reaction from her parents, was never to my knowledge shared by her parents. That this new detail also went some way towards explaining how Amy got so dangerously drunk in the first place is interesting.

I am reminded, a lot, by the behaviour of the Sodder parents after the fire. They were so desperate to believe that five of their children did not die in a terrible fire at Christmas time that they embraced the most unlikely and contrived conspiracy because, all plausibility aside, it meant their children were still alive.