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

[Moon at Sea]

The fact is that a fair number of people go over the railings every year

Most of them are doing something like climbing on the railing or sitting on the railing for selfies though.

True Crime This Week filmed footage in the exact cabin, but gave no railing measurement. (why, James?!) He said it seemed low but he's no doubt taller than 5'6" so it would feel lower to him. Yes they could've redone the rails but maybe not, especially if he thinks they are "low", it seems unlikely they were lower than that. The balcony design looked 1980s - 1990s to me.

I suspect people who are taller than Amy could see it happening, but as a person of Amy's height, it's JMO that it's practically impossible to fall over even a 3" railing, even while leaning over it to vomit.

I've searched this thread and found no mention of 1998 regulations of railing heights. I've also been searching online, found nothing definitively stating what the exact requirements were in 1998, but AI says:

In 1998, regulations for cruise ship railing height were largely based on the 1966 International Convention on Load Lines, requiring rails on passenger decks to be at least 1,000 millimeters (39.5 inches) high, with other rails at least 910 millimeters (36 inches) high, with some exceptions for big game angling.

When I look up the 1966 International Convention regulations, I'm directed to this page:

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.ecfr.gov

(1) Rails on passenger decks of a ferry or a vessel engaged in excursion trips, including but not limited to sightseeing trips, dinner and party cruises, and overnight cruises, must be at least 1,000 millimeters (39.5 inches) high.

(2) Rails on a vessel subject to the 1966 International Convention on Load Lines must be at least 1,000 millimeters (39.5 inches) high.

Deck rails since 1966 were 39.5" high.

So that seems reasonable to conclude they were 39" or higher in 1998.

39" is to high to fall off -- in my opinion as a woman of Amy's height who knows approx. where 39" might fall on her body. And she was well-muscled in her legs and glutes so her center of gravity would be low.

 

[Moon at Sea]

The Bradleys are adamant that Amy didn’t jump. She wasn’t suicidal and she wasn’t stupid, they say, and she was afraid of the ocean. As for any shoes being left in the room or on the balcony, Amy packed at least 10 pair, they say, and they’re not sure which are missing.

Part III

Amy Interrupted

www.styleweekly.com

So we don't know if she left the room (by whatever means) with shoes or sandals, or barefoot?

 

[Mandala]

Most of them are doing something like climbing on the railing or sitting on the railing for selfies though.

True Crime This Week filmed footage in the exact cabin, but gave no railing measurement. (why, James?!) He said it seemed low but he's no doubt taller than 5'6" so it would feel lower to him. Yes they could've redone the rails but maybe not, especially if he thinks they are "low", it seems unlikely they were lower than that. The balcony design looked 1980s - 1990s to me.

I suspect people who are taller than Amy could see it happening, but as a person of Amy's height, it's JMO that it's practically impossible to fall over even a 3" railing, even while leaning over it to vomit.

I've searched this thread and found no mention of 1998 regulations of railing heights. I've also been searching online, found nothing definitively stating what the exact requirements were in 1998, but AI says:


When I look up the 1966 International Convention regulations, I'm directed to this page:

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.ecfr.gov

Deck rails since 1966 were 39.5" high.

So that seems reasonable to conclude they were 39" or higher in 1998.

39" is to high to fall off -- in my opinion as a woman of Amy's height who knows approx. where 39" might fall on her body. And she was well-muscled in her legs and glutes so her center of gravity would be low.

I posted a photo of the balcony up thread. If drunk and disoriented, she could easily have fallen by accident IMO.

 

[Chimera]

Just wishing Amy's family could have answers.

 

[Moon at Sea]

I posted a photo of the balcony up thread. If drunk and disoriented, she could easily have fallen by accident IMO.

I saw the picture but I don't think that simply by looking at a picture one can judge how easy it would be to fall over a railing.

If the ship met the 1966 regulations, the railing was at least 39.5" which would come, roughly, to above her navel. When I stand by an object that comes to that point on my body, my opinion is that it would be very difficult to go tumbling over the edge, even if drunk and disoriented.

Most cruise overboard incidents are from someone climbing on railings.

However, I'm open to any of the main theories. I just think there are major holes in all the theories.

Here are my opinions on the pitfalls of each theory:

1. accidental overboard -
- IMO it's highly unlikely to "fall off" the side of a railing that comes to above your navel, or possibly lower ribs, while leaning over.

-side note - the people saying "she was a strong swimmer so that rules out overboard" are not considering a fall from that height would likely kill you on impact.

2. sex trafficking -
a. eyewitness accounts can be wrong. This theory hinges on the eyewitness account of "E" who swore before a grand jury to see Amy and Yellow on the elevator around 6 am. Maybe she saw them, maybe she was mistaken. Same with the other sightings.

b. Jas pictures do look similar to Amy -- BUT there are no tattoos on the pictures of Jas where there should be tattoos! I've seen almost no mention of this, not even by the forensic expert!
Did the "escort service" airbrush out the navel and lower back tattoos? Maybe, but then how do we know the original image wasn't manipulated to look like Amy?
I also think Jas might have a different eyebrow shape and slightly different nose than Amy.
(My heart goes out to Jas, other women/girls like her, and Amy and family. Lots of sad stories in the world.)

3. murder on board -
- same issue as 2a
- IMO maybe the most plausible based on my personal opinion that an accidental overboard IMO is unlikely.

--
Surely there has been a consultant with expert knowledge in physics or biomechanics who could've weighed in on the possibility of Amy falling off a railing at that height. That is fundamental! Could have possibly put an end to decades of speculation.

But maybe the FBI did have that kind of expert input, and we just don't know it, and maybe that's why the case is still open.

It does seem unsolvable with the knowledge available to the public.

 

[Quill]

I saw the picture but I don't think that simply by looking at a picture one can judge how easy it would be to fall over a railing.

If the ship met the 1966 regulations, the railing was at least 39.5" which would come, roughly, to above her navel. When I stand by an object that comes to that point on my body, my opinion is that it would be very difficult to go tumbling over the edge, even if drunk and disoriented.

Most cruise overboard incidents are from someone climbing on railings.

However, I'm open to any of the main theories. I just think there are major holes in all the theories.

Here are my opinions on the pitfalls of each theory:

1. accidental overboard -
- IMO it's highly unlikely to "fall off" the side of a railing that comes to above your navel, or possibly lower ribs, while leaning over.

-side note - the people saying "she was a strong swimmer so that rules out overboard" are not considering a fall from that height would likely kill you on impact.

2. sex trafficking -
a. eyewitness accounts can be wrong. This theory hinges on the eyewitness account of "E" who swore before a grand jury to see Amy and Yellow on the elevator around 6 am. Maybe she saw them, maybe she was mistaken. Same with the other sightings.

b. Jas pictures do look similar to Amy -- BUT there are no tattoos on the pictures of Jas where there should be tattoos! I've seen almost no mention of this, not even by the forensic expert!
Did the "escort service" airbrush out the navel and lower back tattoos? Maybe, but then how do we know the original image wasn't manipulated to look like Amy?
I also think Jas might have a different eyebrow shape and slightly different nose than Amy.
(My heart goes out to Jas, other women/girls like her, and Amy and family. Lots of sad stories in the world.)

3. murder on board -
- same issue as 2a
- IMO maybe the most plausible based on my personal opinion that an accidental overboard IMO is unlikely.

--
Surely there has been a consultant with expert knowledge in physics or biomechanics who could've weighed in on the possibility of Amy falling off a railing at that height. That is fundamental! Could have possibly put an end to decades of speculation.

But maybe the FBI did have that kind of expert input, and we just don't know it, and maybe that's why the case is still open.

It does seem unsolvable with the knowledge available to the public.

You've made great points. I will add that there were many, many posts about the tattoos on the original thread that has been deleted. If I recall, the military guy who first reported that he had seen her in the brothel did describe her tattoos accurately, FWIW.

 

[BethAnn777]

You've made great points. I will add that there were many, many posts about the tattoos on the original thread that has been deleted. If I recall, the military guy who first reported that he had seen her in the brothel did describe her tattoos accurately, FWIW.

Why was the original thread deleted, do we know?

Him describing the tattoos is meaningless IMO. It was public knowledge. We have no way of knowing if we was telling the truth or not. He may have been, I don’t know. There is no way to know.

 

[Quill]

Why was the original thread deleted, do we know?

Him describing the tattoos is meaningless IMO. It was public knowledge. We have no way of knowing if we was telling the truth or not. He may have been, I don’t know. There is no way to know.

There are some old ones here if you search. Are they fully restored? If anyone knows please chime in. I know they were completely taken down and were not accessible for a period of time. I don't know if these threads have been edited or if they exist in their original form. I don't know why they were taken down but something seemingly abrupt caused it. I do know there was a verified insider in that thread at the time that posted a lot of interesting things and I do know the family had been taken advantage of many times by nefarious people. I always wondered if the thread had become compromising to the family in some way. Did the VI accidentally reveal something that was dangerous for someone? Was the VI found to be a fraud? Are we even supposed to mentioning it? I would love to know the answers. I wasn't following here for a a couple of years and I missed out on any possible explanation if there ever was one.

 

[Moon at Sea]

You've made great points. I will add that there were many, many posts about the tattoos on the original thread that has been deleted.

Thank you. Just to clarify-- so the missing tattoos on Jas's photos were discussed on the original thread? The pictures of poor Jas that reveal her navel and back don't show any tattoos. Is it just chalked up to airbrushing by the escort service, IF indeed that photo is Amy?

Such a tragedy for Amy and her family, and for all the victims of sex trafficking that this case highlights (whether or not that group includes Amy).

 

[Quill]

Thank you. Just to clarify-- so the missing tattoos on Jas's photos were discussed on the original thread? The pictures of poor Jas that reveal her navel and back don't show any tattoos. Is it just chalked up to airbrushing by the escort service, IF indeed that photo is Amy?

Such a tragedy for Amy and her family, and for all the victims of sex trafficking that this case highlights (whether or not that group includes Amy).

I thought it was discussed back then but it has been so long that I can't recall enough to say decisively what if anything was determined. I really need to sit down and go back through what threads are here because I was going off of my memory, not realizing that the threads appear to be available again.

 

[Quill]

Why was the original thread deleted, do we know?

Him describing the tattoos is meaningless IMO. It was public knowledge. We have no way of knowing if we was telling the truth or not. He may have been, I don’t know. There is no way to know.

I think if you read back over some of the posts about that you might think differently as to his credibility. You're right in that we may never know, but there is more to his story. He took a risk in telling his story.

 

[butterflycucu]

How do we know Amy left her sandals and all her shoes in the cabin/room? Does anyone have a link to the family stating this? Just making sure it's confirmed and not something I read that's inaccurate.

If she indeed left that room without her shoes, it could mean one of three things:

1. overboard
2. she exited the front door barefoot intentionally (that hallway carpet is probably yucky but maybe she didn't mind?)
3. she exited the front door barefoot unintentionally (she absent-mindedly walked out having been lounging barefoot on the balcony, only to realized she'd forgotten to put on sandals [I could see myself doing this]. But she didn't want to wake her family by opening the front door again so just left without shoes.)

Her shoes were left behind.I believe that they were sandals?? And that could be the noise her Dad heard.She either fell overboard or was trafficked.

 

[GreyPhantom]

AI Witness Digital Rendition

Amy (aged)
Abductees (as they were at the sightings in the 2000s)

 

[Quill]

AI Witness Digital Rendition

Amy (aged)
Abductees (as they were at the sightings in the 2000s)

This is jaw dropping!

 

[chipwhitley]

I've followed Amy's case for a long time and still don’t know exactly what to believe. I don’t think she fell or jumped—something happened to her, either on board or afterward. The trafficking theory has always stuck with me. The witnesses over the years are very compelling, and I do think Jas looks a lot like Amy.


I have a question about trafficking—I’m no expert, just trying to understand. Is it possible that a client could “request” someone with a very specific look or background, like Amy? White, in her 20s, from a nice family, etc.? I know people say it’s unlikely she was trafficked because her family was with her, but could it be that her “type” was requested and whoever took her did it for a lot of money? I’m not saying this did happen, I just wonder if it’s something that could happen in those kinds of situations. Curious what others think.

 

[GreyPhantom]

I've followed Amy's case for a long time and still don’t know exactly what to believe. I don’t think she fell or jumped—something happened to her, either on board or afterward. The trafficking theory has always stuck with me. The witnesses over the years are very compelling, and I do think Jas looks a lot like Amy.


I have a question about trafficking—I’m no expert, just trying to understand. Is it possible that a client could “request” someone with a very specific look or background, like Amy? White, in her 20s, from a nice family, etc.? I know people say it’s unlikely she was trafficked because her family was with her, but could it be that her “type” was requested and whoever took her did it for a lot of money? I’m not saying this did happen, I just wonder if it’s something that could happen in those kinds of situations. Curious what others think.

That was basically the theory. That she fit the bill of what that trafficking syndicate has their agents on the lookout for.

Amy's family even remembers a specific man who wasn't a passenger eyeballing them from a balcony when they were in the mezzanine, as if he was the final decider to greenlight her abduction. Also, all her pictures in the gallery were mysterious taken before her family could purchase them.

 

[fridaybaker]

I've followed Amy's case for a long time and still don’t know exactly what to believe. I don’t think she fell or jumped—something happened to her, either on board or afterward. The trafficking theory has always stuck with me. The witnesses over the years are very compelling, and I do think Jas looks a lot like Amy.


I have a question about trafficking—I’m no expert, just trying to understand. Is it possible that a client could “request” someone with a very specific look or background, like Amy? White, in her 20s, from a nice family, etc.? I know people say it’s unlikely she was trafficked because her family was with her, but could it be that her “type” was requested and whoever took her did it for a lot of money? I’m not saying this did happen, I just wonder if it’s something that could happen in those kinds of situations. Curious what others think.

It's an interesting question, and I think we can all agree that it's certainly probable that this kind of thing happens in reality: Certain "types" are sought; "role playing" is quite common. Etc. Whether this happened here, who knows, but one of the most singular aspects about this case, and there are many, IMO, is that Amy in particular, seemed to be sought out by some of the employees on the ship. It's something specifically mentioned by the Bradleys -that Amy was being paid singular attention, and that part of the crew (men) wanted to take her off the ship, to Carlos and Charlies on Aruba. They've also said that Amy wasn't having any of it and thought the crew were "creepy" or something to that effect.

There's always an underlying thought of "trafficking" in this case, because of several aspects, and the above is one of them. However, it's a puzzle: Why Amy? Was she simply targeted, for the reasons you suggest? I don't know. She just doesn't seem like your typical target for sex trafficking. She's there with an attentive family, not just her parents, but her brother, too. The original Verfied Insider on this case suggested human trafficking, but for a different reason than simply using Amy for prostitution. I do think the answers lie somewhere in that direction, but I don't have a specific theory. It's possible that Amy simply fell or jumped overboard, but there are so many strange aspects of this case that point to her being targeted and taken off the ship, IMO. I'm not sure we'll ever know, though.

 

[fridaybaker]

My thoughts on Amy being trafficked have always lay less in the prostitution arena and more in the "minder" or something similar category. It's possible, but I dont' think terribly probable that, if she were targeted, the "targeting" started long before the trip. I think more likely is that she would have been targeted sometime around the beginning of the cruise. Trying to think about what characteristics Amy would present to someone seeing and/or interacting with her, we're aren't left with a ton of promising leads. I think I'd notice these things about Amy, although I may be WAY off of what someone else would see:

Amy was very friendly and seemed to be easy-going. Very willing to mingle with strangers. Confident. Not afraid to venture to places on the ship on her own. Also, though, a bit naive. She looks for all the world like a young woman who's never experienced hardship, so likely wouldn't be "street smart" at all, and likely not "on guard". Maybe fairly trusting.

She's white, American, solidly middle-class, and a young adult, so likely fairly strong. Actually, she has a fairly athletic build. She was also drinking.

She was close to her family. Perhaps this wasn't noticeable to someone watching her, but I do believe anyone watching her would at least have noticed that she wasn't alone or with a group of friends who were focused on having fun and drinking, and not watching out after each other. She was with her family. Her parents. Anyone "targeting" her would have known that.

I'm not sure I can come up with any other facets about Amy that someone would have noticed about her, although there are likely others. What does it all mean in the context of "trafficking". What kind of group would be targeting a woman who presented like Amy? It's all very odd and, yet, it doesn't seem to be to be a falling/jumping overboard scenario. It's so different than the other cases we've read about, and which are extremely rare.

 

[fridaybaker]

I watched the video on the FBI page about Amy and they make a slightly different statement, "A reward of up to $25,000 is available for information leading to the resolution of the case of missing Virginia woman Amy Lynn Bradley, who was last seen while on a cruise in 1998." It is also provided below the video, that being said I don't think it would be wise to get too caught up in FBI verbage and what it means in comparison to other high profile missing people. The FBI is also offering a reward for an agent missing in Iran for nearly 20 years... I'm sure they want to recover as much as possible on every case they investigate. The FBI is involved in this case because it occured on international waters.
I am also interested in any info where the FBI has completely disproven the theory she fell over board. We all understand they knew Amy was a strong swimmer and no body was recovered, but that's does not completely disprove the theory imo. Is that just surmised by the og poster because of implied language used by the FBI?

Not to nitpick, but just for accuracy, the FBI does not automatically get involved in cases where a US citizen disappears in international waters.

 

[fridaybaker]

Sorry for the "power posting", but it's my tendency, for better or worse...

For those interested, it seems that James Renner's book on Amy is projected to be out in late 2026. Why does it take so long to write a book, I have no idea. But it is what it is. Hopefully, it's taking so long means that he will have done some serious research and have some new information, or at least can confirm/deny aspects of the case that we've heard before.