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

[Danaya]

I haven't yet. But that's just what I thought: an investigator relaying what some FBI contact said at some point: "they confirm that they believe it is Amy" is different from "they confirmed it is Amy".

It's a bit of semantics, no?

In any case, the FBI conclusively determined the woman in the photo was Amy.

Take that for what you will, I guess. I doubted it was Amy until I heard the FBI investigator explain how technology was able to conclude it was her.

 

[lebvidox]

You misunderstood what I meant, so let me clarify. Being held against one's will doesn't mean they're chained to a pole in a basement.

It could mean that through the use of intimidation tactics and fear, victims of sex trafficking often do not attempt to leave their captors/handlers/pimps/etc. Amy's Dad mentioned Stockholm syndrome.

Another possibility is Amy left the ship willingly, in search of drugs, as was mentioned in the documentary. She hadn't slept much — if at all — after getting home from the disco party.

If she was still tipsy, or if Amy had mixed alcohol with drugs, she would have likely felt uninhibited and more apt to take chances. She may have made a risky decision that led to her being taken.

It was the 90s, we didn't have cellphones to instantaneously call someone to tell them we're in trouble. Amy would've had to have gotten herself to a payphone, if they had those in Curacao, or asked someone to use their landline.

Shame, trauma, and a belief that they will be killed or their family will be is something universal many survivors have said is what stopped them. That's what I meant, in terms of being held against her will.

I did understand what you mean. I disagreed especially for the comparison between the realities of Canada and Curacao, because many of the examples you're bringing forward now indeed happen, but not with American tourists cruising the Caribbean - not today, not 20 years ago.

In reality, human traffic usually goes the other way around: desperate people from underdeveloped countries are way more vulnerable. ["Traffickers target people who are marginalized or in difficult circumstances. Undocumented migrants and people who are in desperate need of employment are vulnerable, particularly to trafficking for forced labour."]

For women that become victims of sexual exploitation, they are often drawn with a fake promise of legitimate job in a privileged nation and lured with the chance of a better life. They indeed will have left voluntarily, they might not have close ties with their families, but once they get there they will have no money for a return ticket and might be forced to surrender their passports until they can pay for their way back. Their family isn’t looking for them, it won’t be a high-profile case. They might even call home and feel ashamed to disclose that they’re turning into sex. Etcetera, etcetera.

The portrayal of Curacao as this ‘dangerous’, ‘nobody’s land’ reads a bit xenophobic to me, because the chances of poor women coming from those islands being exploited, sexually or otherwise, in countries like the U.S. - and being kept under control by tactics of fear and intimidation, and not making a move to 'get away' even with current day technologies - are FAR higher. And if they are reported missing, those cases won't ever reach the high-profile of this one. These are the victims that would be realistically allowed to walk around in public. Not an American victim whose face is everywhere.

As I've said, I consider more realistic that she left the ship voluntarily (somehow she was able to evade the carefully choreographed procedure of disembarkation) and never wanting to be found (she's living her best life over there). The alternative of leaving by herself, drugged or sedated and psychologically manipulated afterwards is too far-fetched to me. (Of course, I stand by the theory that she went overboard and never left the ship.)

 

[lebvidox]

It's a bit of semantics, no?

In any case, the FBI conclusively determined the woman in the photo was Amy.

Take that for what you will, I guess. I doubted it was Amy until I heard the FBI investigator explain how technology was able to conclude it was her.

This cannot be determined. There's no way, it's impossible. But stating they strongly believe it was her is something different. I can get behind that.

 

[Danaya]

I personally believe the father was IMMEDIATELY scared Amy fell overboard when something made him wake up that morning. His frantic search around the ship make no sense to me otherwise.

What gave me pause was the fact that Amy left her shirt draped over a chair (or whatever it was) near the balcony door inside the room. It felt like she had gone inside to change her top, bringing her pack of cigarettes with her.

Had she left the cigarette pack behind, I might’ve believed her disappearance from the room wasn’t voluntary — that perhaps she died by suicide or accidentally fell overboard. If she had fallen or jumped, though, wouldn't it be more likely that her cigarette pack was left behind?

The balcony door was also left slightly ajar, as if she had stepped back inside but didn’t want to close it all the way — possibly to avoid waking her parents.

I can see her changing her top, bringing her cigarettes, and leaving the room. She then woke up her Dad with the sound of the door shutting.

One thing I recall is that Amy left her birkenstock type sandals that she was wearing on the balcony. Maybe she had slipped on a different pair, though, or put on running shoes.

 

[crussell821]

I’ve changed my tune on this case, since seeing the documentary. I’ve always believed that the easiest and most logical explanation is that she went overboard.

However-
- a woman goes missing in Curaçao
- rumors circulate that she is being trafficked in and around Curaçao and Barbados
- photos of an escort who looks exceptionally similar to said woman appear online….for customers in the south Caribbean

I feel like the odds of an escort that looks just like her, popping up in the area where she went missing, is very low and makes me believe she was indeed trafficked. MOO

 

[lebvidox]

What gave me pause was the fact that Amy left her shirt draped over a chair (or whatever it was) near the balcony door inside the room. It felt like she had gone inside to change her top, bringing her pack of cigarettes with her.

Had she left the cigarette pack behind, I might’ve believed her disappearance from the room wasn’t voluntary — that perhaps she died by suicide or accidentally fell overboard. If she had fallen or jumped, though, wouldn't it be more likely that her cigarette pack was left behind?

The balcony door was also left slightly ajar, as if she had stepped back inside but didn’t want to close it all the way — possibly to avoid waking her parents. I can see her quietly changing her top, bringing her cigarettes, and leaving the room, waking uo her Dad with the sound of the door.

One thing I recall is that Amy left her birkenstock type sandals that she was wearing on the balcony. Maybe she had slipped on a different pair, though, or put on running shoes.

There's no confirmation the balcony door was closed before, that's just what her father seems to remember after dozing in and out of sleep. No one can say where every object was inside the cabin before. It could be just that she was trying to smoke in the balcony, dropped her pack outside, tried to catch it and fell down.

 

[thesockguy]

I’ve been deep-diving into this case, and here’s what stands out to me:


There are two dominant theories about what happened to Amy Lynn Bradley, and they couldn’t be more different:


1. Suicide Theory
This is the “simplest” explanation on paper—but it falls apart under scrutiny:

• There’s no evidence she was suicidal.
• The idea that she opened a balcony door just 12–14 inches and jumped doesn’t add up.
• The ship was close to port—something likely would have washed up if she’d gone overboard. A person doesn’t just vanish without a trace in those conditions.
• Also, no shark is going to completely consume a human body in minutes without leaving a single trace. It’s not realistic.

2. Abduction / Trafficking Theory
This theory is 100000x more complex

• Amy was reportedly seen in the elevator around 6 a.m. with “Yellow”
• If that sighting is accurate (and I believe it is), sunrise was around 6:30 a.m., meaning it would have been getting light outside—enough to see both people and possibly the coastline.
• Yellow would’ve known the ship’s layout and traffic patterns—so if he brought her to a secluded area like the club, he may have known it would be empty at that hour.

Now here’s where I’m connecting dots:

• What if something happened in that quiet, early-morning setting—a sexual assault attempt or worse?
• Whether Yellow acted alone or with others, he would’ve had some access and knowledge to hide a body—at least temporarily.
• Could she have been hidden somewhere onboard (e.g. a locked equipment case) and removed from the ship later the next night, when fewer eyes were on the crew?

Let’s also remember: cruise ship “search” by the cruise staff in 1998 weren’t at a forensic level. A locked container(like for music instruments) wouldn’t have raised eyebrows if it wasn’t clearly suspicious.


My Conclusion

I’m not claiming to know what happened. But this “middle-ground” theory—that something happened involving someone she knew (like Yellow), followed by a panicked or premeditated cover-up—makes more sense than either extreme.


The case deserves more discussion from fresh angles. I hope this gives someone a new idea or helps jog a memory.


New here—feedback welcome.

 

[lebvidox]

I’ve changed my tune on this case, since seeing the documentary. I’ve always believed that the easiest and most logical explanation is that she went overboard.

However-
- a woman goes missing in Curaçao
- rumors circulate that she is being trafficked in and around Curaçao and Barbados
- photos of an escort who looks exceptionally similar to said woman appear online….for customers in the south Caribbean

I feel like the odds of an escort that looks just like her, popping up in the area where she went missing, is very low and makes me believe she was indeed trafficked. MOO

The distance between Barbados and Curacao is 1,032 kilometers. Those aren't just rumors of this woman being moved around the islands of Curacao, but now being sneaked into a different sovereign state. And maybe moved back and forth.

There's not a shortage of sex workers in the south Caribbean, btw. Nor of similarly looking people anywhere. Here's the famous photographer who has photographed strangers with no blood relation whatsoever who look more like each other than many set of twins.

 

[Danaya]

I did understand what you mean. I disagreed especially for the comparison between the realities of Canada and Curacao, because many of the examples you're bringing forward now indeed happen, but not with American tourists cruising the Caribbean - not today, not 20 years ago.

In reality, human traffic usually goes the other way around: desperate people from underdeveloped countries are way more vulnerable. ["Traffickers target people who are marginalized or in difficult circumstances. Undocumented migrants and people who are in desperate need of employment are vulnerable, particularly to trafficking for forced labour."]

For women that become victims of sexual exploitation, they are often drawn with a fake promise of legitimate job in a privileged nation and lured with the chance of a better life. They indeed will have left voluntarily, they might not have close ties with their families, but once they get there they will have no money for a return ticket and might be forced to surrender their passports until they can pay for their way back. Their family isn’t looking for them, it won’t be a high-profile case. They might even call home and feel ashamed to disclose that they’re turning into sex. Etcetera, etcetera.

The portrayal of Curacao as this ‘dangerous’, ‘nobody’s land’ reads a bit xenophobic to me, because the chances of poor women coming from those islands being exploited, sexually or otherwise, in countries like the U.S. - and being kept under control by tactics of fear and intimidation, and not making a move to 'get away' even with current day technologies - are FAR higher. And if they are reported missing, those cases won't ever reach the high-profile of this one. These are the victims that would be realistically allowed to walk around in public. Not an American victim whose face is everywhere.

As I've said, I consider more realistic that she left the ship voluntarily (somehow she was able to evade the carefully choreographed procedure of disembarkation) and never wanting to be found (she's living her best life over there). The alternative of leaving by herself, drugged or sedated and psychologically manipulated afterwards is too far-fetched to me. (Of course, I stand by the theory that she went overboard and never left the ship.)

I get that. I have gone back and forth with this case for almost twenty years, and I've shifted my personal theory as new information becomes available. However, I'm still open to every angle.

Earlier in this thread, I shared my experience and subsequent perspective regarding human trafficking here in Canada. I'm not sure what you mean by disagreeing with my comparison of Canada and Curacao?

What I meant is, even though I know very well how the sex industry here works, I don't know what it's like in Curacao. IMO the industry has universal elements (i.e sex exchanged for money) but, geographically, there are different nuances. If that makes sense.

I also think that Amy may have been more "at risk" than we know. Her girlfriend spoke of Amy feeling lost just two months earlier, as well as Amy's family struggling to come to terms with her coming out. Maybe Amy was more vulnerable and susceptible to this type of thing than we know. JMO.

 

[Quill]

I haven't yet. But that's just what I thought: an investigator relaying what some FBI contact said at some point: "they confirm that they believe it is Amy" is different from "they confirmed it is Amy".

Yeah, well, you need to watch it then. It's not just any investigator. She is FBI. Just watch it.

 

[lebvidox]

I get that. I have gone back and forth with this case for almost twenty years, and I've shifted my personal theory as new information becomes available. However, I'm still open to every angle.

Earlier in this thread, I shared my experience and subsequent perspective regarding human trafficking here in Canada. I'm not sure what you mean by disagreeing with my comparison of Canada and Curacao?

What I meant is, even though I know very well how the sex industry here works, I don't know what it's like in Curacao. IMO the industry has universal elements (i.e sex exchanged for money) but, geographically, there are different nuances. If that makes sense.

I also think that Amy may have been more "at risk" than we know. Her girlfriend spoke of Amy feeling lost just two months earlier, as well as Amy's family struggling to come to terms with her coming out. Maybe Amy was more vulnerable and susceptible to this type of thing than we know. JMO.

I think such documentaries often have that impact if the filmmakers can only hope to explore a particular narrative and such. Anything can be made of a testimony of someone who knew her more than 25 years ago and who only had a partial view of her personality, and couldn't be privy on her inner feelings.

<modsnip>

 

[Danaya]

There's no confirmation the balcony door was closed before, that's just what her father seems to remember after dozing in and out of sleep. No one can say where every object was inside the cabin before. It could be just that she was trying to smoke in the balcony, dropped her pack outside, tried to catch it and fell down.

I'm discussing the documentary, and what Amy's father said he saw, which I believe.

We can "what if" in regards to most everything in this case. That, IMO, is what makes it all that more mysterious.

You're right — nobody can say everything in this case as a matter of fact. Even the FBI agent on the scene said the one fact they have, is the time she entered the room.

Websleuths is a place for discussing case information, as it becomes available. This is what I'm doing. You are welcome to make another post regarding your personal theory.

 

[lebvidox]

Yeah, well, you need to watch it then. It's not just any investigator. She is FBI. Just watch it.

I just watch this specific part. She explains about the software analysis (the editing puts some images over her deposition). Her final quote was "A forensic analyst looked at the photo and believed that that was Amy Bradley". Those are TV tricks.

 

[lebvidox]

I'm discussing the documentary, and what Amy's father said he saw, which I believe.

We can "what if" in regards to most everything in this case. That, IMO, is what makes it all that more mysterious.

You're right — nobody can say everything in this case as a matter of fact. Even the FBI agent on the scene said the one fact they have, is the time she entered the room.

Websleuths is a place for discussing case information, as it becomes available. This is what I'm doing. You are welcome to make another post regarding your personal theory.

That's fine, I'm enjoying the discussion! I don't mean to be dismissive in any way. I just think that questioning what's factual and what's not, especially once a recent high-profile TV special is released, is relevant to make sense of the information.

 

[Danaya]

I’ve been deep-diving into this case, and here’s what stands out to me:


There are two dominant theories about what happened to Amy Lynn Bradley, and they couldn’t be more different:


1. Suicide Theory
This is the “simplest” explanation on paper—but it falls apart under scrutiny:

• There’s no evidence she was suicidal.
• The idea that she opened a balcony door just 12–14 inches and jumped doesn’t add up.
• The ship was close to port—something likely would have washed up if she’d gone overboard. A person doesn’t just vanish without a trace in those conditions.
• Also, no shark is going to completely consume a human body in minutes without leaving a single trace. It’s not realistic.

2. Abduction / Trafficking Theory
This theory is 100000x more complex

• Amy was reportedly seen in the elevator around 6 a.m. with “Yellow”
• If that sighting is accurate (and I believe it is), sunrise was around 6:30 a.m., meaning it would have been getting light outside—enough to see both people and possibly the coastline.
• Yellow would’ve known the ship’s layout and traffic patterns—so if he brought her to a secluded area like the club, he may have known it would be empty at that hour.

Now here’s where I’m connecting dots:

• What if something happened in that quiet, early-morning setting—a sexual assault attempt or worse?
• Whether Yellow acted alone or with others, he would’ve had some access and knowledge to hide a body—at least temporarily.
• Could she have been hidden somewhere onboard (e.g. a locked equipment case) and removed from the ship later the next night, when fewer eyes were on the crew?

Let’s also remember: cruise ship “search” by the cruise staff in 1998 weren’t at a forensic level. A locked container(like for music instruments) wouldn’t have raised eyebrows if it wasn’t clearly suspicious.


My Conclusion

I’m not claiming to know what happened. But this “middle-ground” theory—that something happened involving someone she knew (like Yellow), followed by a panicked or premeditated cover-up—makes more sense than either extreme.


The case deserves more discussion from fresh angles. I hope this gives someone a new idea or helps jog a memory.


New here—feedback welcome.

Great post, sockguy. I had posted earlier that it's possible Amy was killed on board, perhaps after refusing somebody's sexual advances.

Strangulation is a quiet enough method that it can be done without anybody hearing. If a victim is taken by surprise, and/or is much smaller than their killer, then it's a pretty quick way to ensure no mess left behind.

I think one of the FBI agents interviewed touched on the possibility of foul play on board, and how Amy's body could've been transported off the ship once it docked.

 

[thesockguy]

Great post, sockguy. I had posted earlier that it's possible Amy was killed on board, perhaps after refusing somebody's sexual advances.

Strangulation is a quiet enough method that it can be done without anybody hearing. If a victim is taken by surprise, and/or is much smaller than their killer, then it's a pretty quick way to ensure no mess left behind.

I think one of the FBI agents interviewed touched on the possibility of foul play on board, and how Amy's body could've been transported off the ship once it docked.

As long as the killer waited til the next night, he could’ve tossed that body off the side. No one would have even seen it.

Any evidence got contaminated so quickly with all the people on the cruise.

Also, if she was alive and in sex trafficking - $250,000 is a ton of money for someone (she would’ve seen 1000s of people/clients ) . Hard to believe no one would try to get that reward if they worked with her and spent time with her

 

[lebvidox]

So, now that I’ve watched the FBI agent talking about the “Jas” photo, here’s something I’d like to bring to the conversation – no shade, always in good faith... In shows such as this, hundreds of hours of filming are edited down to what we see. Each statement allowed in the documentary is handpicked for what emotion it will evoke and what will support the narrative when time is right.

People are interviewed over many, many hours, and they will be asked to repeat the question in their answer. As in: “in your 20 years as an investigator, have you ever seen a case like this?”, and the answer will be ““In my 20 years as an investigator, I have never seen a case like this”. Producers might also ask you to repeat the same thing you just said but in a diferente tone etc. This could be used as a soundbite for the promo. In the final episode, dramatic pauses that weren’t in the interviewee’s original speech might also be created through the miracles of editing, and there will be background music and overlapping images.

In the Netflix documentary, the FBI agent was first talking about the digital resources to compare the picture of Jas with pictures of Amy. The images of the ‘ears’ and arms being traced is not from the FBI analysis; they were made by the documentarists. This woman was just explaining what the procedures were. We were not seeing the 'real FBI' analysis.

Then, at some point, the directors include a bombastic quote from the FBI agent. Here's how it is presented: “A forensic analyst looked at the photo…” / cut to a random picture of Amy to create a long pause / “…and believed that that was Amy Bradley”. This cut, apart from opening the possibility for some dramatic manipulation, doesn’t really tie neatly with what she previously said.

Before, she went over about how they analyzed multiple pictures of Amy, from multiple angles, to compare it with ‘Jas’; yet she says that “a forensic analyst looked at the photo”, singular. We don’t know the order her particular statements were given when she was interviewed (she could have started with “we got this photo, a forensic analyst looked at the photo and believed it was Amy Bradley, and then we did this and that).

But most importantly, she never, ever say the FBI has confirmed that Jas was Amy Bradly. She mentioned what “a forensic analyst” believed – not even “THE forensic analyst”, it could just be the opinion of someone in the team (there’s often more than one expert involved, and they may reach different conclusions). Whatever doesn’t serve the filmmakers’ purpose could have been left out.

Bottom line is, we only now that she reported what one forensic analyst believed, which is different from "the FBI believe" (many, many expert reports are done in a case like this and don't become the center of a main investigative avenue). It also doesn't suggest "the FBI has confirmed" this woman was Amy. I just think that's an important distinction to make in future discussions.

 

[thebedbug]

I'm going to have to be the boring wet sock on this one.

I've only just watched the NETFLIX doc and that's about all I know, but I was struck by the father's story and the timing of Amy returning to the cabin.

It just doesn't make sense to me that after a night of partying, she'd be back in the room... probably tired, coming down from drinking... sit on a deck for 2 hours, then at some point after 5:30am (when the father saw her still on the deck) spontaneously or planned, get up and leave to go meet "Yellow" for any reason. I'm sorry... at that point, I think the night is over.

Several times the doc made the point about keys only providing times when doors were opened, but that's not the only way a person's whereabouts can be verified. There were cameras on that ship. There were other people.

Excluding the 2 girls with the murky unverifiable timing of a sighting, nobody else and no other video camera saw her anywhere on the ship after she theoretically left the cabin at 6am? When was the next verified sighting of "Yellow?" We heard he went back to his cabin at 3:30am... but when did he go back inside the next time?

All it would take would be a single frame of either of them outside the cabin after 3:30 and we'd have a different story, but it just doesn't exist.

The pictures are certainly eerie - but having seen the spitting image of a family member in a clothing ad, last Christmas... ultra-close resemblances are out there. Heck, I even went to college with a Doppelganger.

For whatever reason, I think she went over the side and was lost. It happens.

 

[Jezel]

It is truly mind-boggling to me that anyone can watch the documentary, with the knowledge that the FBI - one of the very most respected, skillful, equipped, and prepared law enforcement agencies in the entire world - doesn't think she fell overboard, and still say that she must've simply fallen overboard.

As I've said many times, the overboard theory requires many beliefs that the FBI holds to be flat-out wrong. All the witnesses are wrong, Yellow's daughter is wrong, Jas isn't Amy despite the sophisticated forensics saying otherwise, etc., etc.

How likely is that, really?

I just cannot fathom disagreeing with the FBI and jumping through all of those mental hoops.

 

[lebvidox]

It is truly mind-boggling to me that anyone can watch the documentary, with the knowledge that the FBI - one of the very most respected, skillful, equipped, and prepared law enforcement agencies in the entire world - doesn't think she fell overboard, and still say that she must've simply fallen overboard.

As I've said many times, the overboard theory requires many beliefs that the FBI holds to be flat-out wrong. All the witnesses are wrong, Yellow's daughter is wrong, Jas isn't Amy despite the sophisticated forensics saying otherwise, etc., etc.

How likely is that, really?

I just cannot fathom disagreeing with the FBI and jumping through all of those mental hoops.

I’m not familiar with the FBI’s particular definition of a “missing person”, but broadly speaking, that can be “anyone whose whereabouts cannot be established will be considered as missing until located, and their well-being or otherwise confirmed.” And an American citizen who is reported “missing” in international waters could only fall under the FBI’s jurisdiction.

An open investigation DOES NOT mean the FBI is dedicating countless men-hours to it, nor that the ‘top agents’ aren't convinced she didn’t fall overboard. They're just doing what they're supposed to do, which is to follow whatever investigative avenue that's still available. Assignments like this aren't necessarily chosen, they're just part of the job. You'd be surprised at how many cases are seen as an internal joke.