VA - Amy Bradley - missing from cruise ship, Curacao - 1998 #4

[lohrtabitha]

I agree the forensic analyst/artist report would be helpful in confirming things, but while he was working with the FBI does it state anywhere the FBI solicited his services, as he did not work for the FBI, or did the Bradley's solicit his services? I think that is important.

Wesley Neville was hired by The Bradley's and then the FBI hired their own.

All the signs Amy Bradley could still be alive 27 years after Royal Caribbean cruise disappearance

Amy Bradley disappeared on a Royal Caribbean cruise 27 years ago and there are a number of signs she could still be alive today

www.ladbible.com

 

[lohrtabitha]

You are exactly right. I have a hard time believing the FBI solicited the services of the analyst because if they did, why did FBI agent Sheridan make the statement they did could not determine if it was Amy or not? That contradicts the findings of the analyst. Seems like they would go with what the analyst supports, especially since he "bets his career on it". Now, if he was hired by the Bradley's, well it makes perfect sense why he would say that, and why the FBI doesn't support his findings.

The FBI hired their own and said the photo could likely be Amy

All the signs Amy Bradley could still be alive 27 years after Royal Caribbean cruise disappearance

Amy Bradley disappeared on a Royal Caribbean cruise 27 years ago and there are a number of signs she could still be alive today

www.ladbible.com

 

[RandyMcDonald]

I don't think Amy's being gay has any relevance to the case, to be honest. I don't think that we can assume that her family's dislike of Kat is homophobia or that they were unaccepting of her, especially as they did like Mollie. JMO.

It is relevant to the case, at least inasmuch as it does speak to the family's history to actively misrepresenting what was going on in order to tell the story they wanted.

Their established narrative, of implying that Amy was so powerfully heterosexual and conventionally attractive that she was an obvious target to be made into a sex slave, is at odds with the truth that Amy was just a normal young woman whose lesbianism and baby butch preferences were things that they were uncomfortable with, and that Amy knew that of their discomfort.

 

[lohrtabitha]

You are exactly right. I have a hard time believing the FBI solicited the services of the analyst because if they did, why did FBI agent Sheridan make the statement they did could not determine if it was Amy or not? That contradicts the findings of the analyst. Seems like they would go with what the analyst supports, especially since he "bets his career on it". Now, if he was hired by the Bradley's, well it makes perfect sense why he would say that, and why the FBI doesn't support his findings.

Because the FBI hired their own and they came up with same fundingsvof Wesely Neville.

 

[fsngruv]

I dont think the grand jury dates have ever been out there at least not recently - there has just been mention of witnesses testifying at that grand jury.
The diver, David Carmichael was mentioned as testifying at a Federal Grand Jury - he was the Canadian who along with another diver thought he saw her on the Porto Marie diving beach in Curacao in August of the year she went missing. He provided details about her tatoos and watch.
He said that he was "stared down' by a man with her and that there were two men with her - one he thought was Lemon.

IIRC the family sued the boat owners Royal Carib in 1999? It was dismissed in 2000 So I would put the GJ sometime after his sighting of Amy and before the lawsuit. Just my thoughts

I don't know if there is an accessible online website/database for Fed court cases in 1999/2000 but that info I imagine would be contained there. AI might be helpful to you in that search.

JMO

Thank for the info.

From what I understand, grand juries only convene for indictments. So was there an indictment? If there was, the grand jury was not moved to grant the indictment, if they did normally that allows the prosecutor to move on with the indictment(s).

How Does a Grand Jury Work? - FindLaw

The grand jury plays an important role in the criminal process, but not one that involves a finding of guilt or punishment of a party. Learn about how a grand jury works, and more, at FIndLaw's section on Criminal Procedure.

www.findlaw.com

I'm wondering if the indictment is from the proceedings of criminal fraud committed against the Bradley's in the early 2000's.

I am not a lawyer and maybe I just don't understand why a grand jury would listen to witness testimony in a civil case, but it appears to me that a grand jury would not listen to witness testimony unless there was criminal proceeding. I would appreciate anyone who could provide any info or if verified attorney could speak on whether a grand jury convenes for civil and criminal matters or only criminal matters because I think it's only criminal.

 

[lohrtabitha]

Afaik, Grand juries are used for criminal proceedings and not for civil matters, even when dealing with federal civil cases.

When did the grand jury hear these witnesses, and for what reason. There has to be a record of that. I've been searching for the reason the grand jury heard the witnesses and what their decision was on the matter. I'm rewatching the doc in hopes I missed it the first time. Any help would be appreciated!

Here is a article telling that there was a grand jury.
Here is a factual article telling you there was a grand jury. Info can be found if one googled the right search . No offense but many of these questions have been asked and answered if one goes back an reread all the old threads that have posted in websleuths the last couple of years.

What happened to Amy Bradley? A timeline of her disappearance and rumoured sightings

A new three-part documentary on Netflix investigates the case

www.cosmopolitan.com

 

[waldojabba]

Yeah, but the thing is, that is not actually support. That is actually a sort of patronizing concern, something that falls well short of actually offering support. It leads, as we have seen, to parents sending nasty letters to the child's inconvenient partner and to them insisting that their child is hugely attractive to the opposite sex with the implication that they are straight and just confused.

Being out as lesbian or whatever is not the problem. Being persecuted for being lesbian etc is the problem.

Choosing, instead of supporting the child and attacking the prejudice against the child, to undermine the child is not helpful.

And I am willing to bet, based on personal experience, that this is what made things so hard for Amy.

We all bring our own individual experiences to websleuths and that is why this is a great forum.
Not all experiences are identical obviously and things are often more complex than just one opinion.

Parents are just older people than us and they are imperfect just like us.

They have expectations for a child – and those expectations should not get in the way of who the child is or wants to become
but that is in a perfect world. That we why we have therapy and therapists.
And that is why for relationships to work constant communication helps along with an open mind

Children also have expectations of their parents – and oftentimes fail to see them as just people still finding their own way.

My bet is that the parents thoughts/ feelings and behavior around Amy’s sexual orientation were on a continuum – and evolved over time.

When people receive unexpected news it generally takes a while to really process that information logically and emotionally.

I know it takes a while for me when receiving unexpected news for my heart to catch up with my head /if that makes sense.

IME
IMO

 

[waldojabba]

Thank for the info.

From what I understand, grand juries only convene for indictments. So was there an indictment? If there was, the grand jury was not moved to grant the indictment, if they did normally that allows the prosecutor to move on with the indictment(s).

How Does a Grand Jury Work? - FindLaw

The grand jury plays an important role in the criminal process, but not one that involves a finding of guilt or punishment of a party. Learn about how a grand jury works, and more, at FIndLaw's section on Criminal Procedure.

www.findlaw.com

I'm wondering if the indictment is from the proceedings of criminal fraud committed against the Bradley's in the early 2000's.

I am not a lawyer and maybe I just don't understand why a grand jury would listen to witness testimony in a civil case, but it appears to me that a grand jury would not listen to witness testimony unless there was criminal proceeding. I would appreciate anyone who could provide any info or if verified attorney could speak on whether a grand jury convenes for civil and criminal matters or only criminal matters because I think it's only criminal.

I'm not really that curious about it since no idictments came of it -but my assumption was that it was a criminal GJ. An indictment would have strengthened the civil case and that is why I put the timing before the civil suit.
AI may be helpful to you in researching.
JMO

 

[fsngruv]

Because the FBI hired their own and they came up with same fundingsvof Wesely Neville.

Could you please provide a source for that information, please?

Here is a article telling that there was a grand jury.
Here is a factual article telling you there was a grand jury. Info can be found if one googled the right search . No offense but many of these questions have been asked and answered if one goes back an reread all the old threads that have posted in websleuths the last couple of years.

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/rep...sappearance-timeline-rumoured-sightings/[/URL

I've been here awhile. But my memory isn't as good as it once was. So, don't worry, no offense taken! I can be awfully dense at times too! Lol. If it's not too much trouble could you please quote where the article states when the grand jury convened and what they convened about, because I've read that article twice and I don't see where it states that anywhere, perhaps I'm being dense or perhaps you provided the wrong article? Anyone else mind pointing it out for me? I don't doubt there was a grand jury! But what was the matter they convened about and when did they convene?[/url]

 

[waldojabba]

It is relevant to the case, at least inasmuch as it does speak to the family's history to actively misrepresenting what was going on in order to tell the story they wanted.

Their established narrative, of implying that Amy was so powerfully heterosexual and conventionally attractive that she was an obvious target to be made into a sex slave, is at odds with the truth that Amy was just a normal young woman whose lesbianism and baby butch preferences were things that they were uncomfortable with, and that Amy knew that of their discomfort.

Sex trafficers don't really discriminate/ or choose their victims due to sexual orientation

"Sex trafficking exploits people of all races, ethnicities, sexual orientations, citizenship statuses, and income levels"

What you or I perceive the parents reaction/actions to be around Amy's sexual orientaion I believe has little to do with this case -

We are looking at the case through very different lenes

JMO

About Sex Trafficking

This page defines sex trafficking, presents the latest data, and describes associated outcomes.

www.cdc.gov

 

[waldojabba]

Could you please provide a source for that information, please?

I've been here awhile. But my memory isn't as good as it once was. So, don't worry, no offense taken! I can be awfully dense at times too! Lol. If it's not too much trouble could you please quote where the article states when the grand jury convened and what they convened about, because I've read that article twice and I don't see where it states that anywhere, perhaps I'm being dense or perhaps you provided the wrong article? Anyone else mind pointing it out for me? I don't doubt there was a grand jury! But what was the matter they convened about and when did they convene?[/url]

I suspect the issue is that GJ proceedings are Secret/Confidential. Since no indictment was handed down there is likely not any info out there/ all info sealed - no info officially in the public realm.
Any info likely came from someone who testified or was leaked by a member of the jury etc.

JMO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

It is relevant to the case, at least inasmuch as it does speak to the family's history to actively misrepresenting what was going on in order to tell the story they wanted.

What exactly did they do to misrepresent what was going on? I admit, I haven't kept up with every nuance of this case, so it's possible I missed something. What did they do to misrepresent this that her sexual orientation somehow becomes relevant?

Their established narrative, of implying that Amy was so powerfully heterosexual and conventionally attractive that she was an obvious target to be made into a sex slave,

Ok, so the above represents a significant misunderstanding of human trafficking. I say this as a physician who has not only trained for these cases, but has also treated these cases. For one, it neglects the fact that there are several different types of human trafficking, not just sex slavery. Second, even when discussing sex slavery, equating (your perceived) level of attractiveness with victimhood is objectively inaccurate and actually the worst thing you can do when analyzing these types of cases. It's tantamount to assuming that people who are not conventionally beautiful won't ever be victims of rape, as if beauty has much to do with it. There is a reason that not all human trafficking victims are 5'8" blonde-haired, blue-eyed, size 2 girls.

is at odds with the truth that Amy was just a normal young woman whose lesbianism and baby butch preferences were things that they were uncomfortable with, and that Amy knew that of their discomfort.

How is that at all relevant to her being missing? You're not even taking into consideration what multiple posters have already told you, which is that in the late 90s, many heterosexual women had a haircut and style like Amy and that there is no evidence that she had "baby butch preferences" and that actually, at this point, by repeating this over and over again, you're becoming incredibly offensive.

Even if Amy was a lesbian and even if her family didn't approve or tried to portray a different narrative, so what? Many families did exactly the same back then. I fail to see how that's at all relevant to what happened on that ship.

Partly MO and partly fact based on my work.

 

[Deleted member 363451]

Amy Bradley's family lied in court during Royal Caribbean lawsuit in incident left out of Netflix doc​

Amy Bradley's family lied in court during Royal Caribbean lawsuit in incident left out of Netflix doc

Amy Bradley's family were found to have lied in court during a lawsuit against Royal Caribbean, but Netflix left the bizarre incident out of their new doc

www.ladbible.com

Oh dear...

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Witnesses are a double-edged sword. They routinely help solve cases, but they can also be notoriously wrong. People misidentify others all the time. Confidence alone does not equal accuracy. Testifying under oath does not make a statement automatically a verified fact. People can be completely convinced of what they saw and still be wrong. That is not rare. Grand jury testimony is one sided. There is no cross examination. If this ever went to trail, those witnesses would be subject to defense questioning and scrutiny. IMO

I mean, you're saying testifying under oath doesn't make a statement automatically accurate while also pushing a narrative that relies on the belief that random speculation makes a statement accurate. If I'm a betting person, I'm going with the testimony under oath >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> random speculation every damn time.

MOO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Please correct me if this has already been cleared up... but it is being stated that the FBI determined the photo of Jaz to be Amy, I believe this may be a bit of a mischaracterization, an analyst who later worked with the FBI, determined it to be be Amy in his opinion but Erin Sheridan the FBI spokesperson for Amy's case has said they could not verify if it was Amy or not. I saw it on the Discovery disappeared episode, troubles waters, and I'm trying to see if I can find a transcript or a YouTube video of the episode. Can any of the posters saying Erin Sheridan believes it's Amy or that the FBI believes those photos are Amy please provide evidence of that because all I can find is Erin Sheridan saying they could not verify the photo was her. I personally believe it isn't her, the photo and the items in the photo look like the times of the late 80's, before Amy was missing, even the hair looks more like the teased up trends from the 80s. Another thing, the woman in the photo spent a lot of time on her make up and hair, even in the dressed up photos of Amy, the most make up she has on is eyeliner and mascara, and she's not as good as doing her makeup as the lady in the photo, and maybe some mousee or gel in her hair, but she never looks like she would spend hours in the mirror adjusting her appearance like the lady in the photo. And never mind the HUGE detail being there is a photo of the left shoulder of the Jaz person and it is not present in any way. The FBI may follow leads but they also have declared her dead, I'm sure because the family requested that for legal purposes. I also find it odd Erin Sheridan says they cannot tell if the photo was altered or not... Sounds like the also FBI looked into the possibility it was an altered photo, maybe because it would explain why the tattoo isn't present or because the Bradley's were being scammed or the possibility they may have altered the photo to bolster their lawsuits with the cruise line? I try to avoid reading into the statements of the FBI too much because according to the FBI it seems like the only thing they are sure on is that it's a big mystery to them as well.

I don't know if that's Amy or not, but your reasoning doesn't make sense to me. Amy Bradley may not have spent time on her hair and makeup, but IF Amy was abducted and trafficked, her life was no longer her own. Trafficking victims don't get the luxury of deciding what they look like, what they wear, how they do their makeup, whether or not they cut their hair. These are not choices. So hair and makeup isn't going to distinguish Jaz from Amy.

Based on my experience.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Since a grand jury only hears one side and does not involve cross examination, do you think testimony at that stage should be enough on it's own to justify charges? Or should there still be supporting evidence before taking further legal action? (imo)

I've been keeping up with these posts and I didn't see anyone say anything about charges. I won't speak for others, but I personally am just saying that some are so convinced this trafficking angle is bogus for no other reason than they'd rather believe something else. There is no evidence or even suggestion of some of the things being speculated, per law enforcement. For the past 25 years, their investigation has led to the conclusion that whatever happened to Amy, it was not willful. Grand jury testimony, federal investigations, documentaries, revival of the case, and still some are so sure everything we know about this case is wrong for no other reason (it seems) than speculation.

MOO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

It lends weight to the idea that they told the truth as best they knew.

It does not in itself mean that they were correct.

I am also curious: What about all of the other witnesses the Bradleys found who saw Amy and said that she was doing perfectly fine, with no signs of coercion? Did they also testify?

Was there a possibility that the Bradleys, for whatever reason, helped present a misleading slate of witnesses to the grand jury? Again they were found to have done that before.

Can you link to these witnesses please? I remember some rumblings about such things, but I could have sworn they were discredited. If you know different, I'd like to read it.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Yeah, but the thing is, that is not actually support. That is actually a sort of patronizing concern, something that falls well short of actually offering support. It leads, as we have seen, to parents sending nasty letters to the child's inconvenient partner and to them insisting that their child is hugely attractive to the opposite sex with the implication that they are straight and just confused.

Being out as lesbian or whatever is not the problem. Being persecuted for being lesbian etc is the problem.

Choosing, instead of supporting the child and attacking the prejudice against the child, to undermine the child is not helpful.

And I am willing to bet, based on personal experience, that this is what made things so hard for Amy.

Parents being concerned about their child's sexual orientation does not lead to any conclusions of relevance in this case, IMO.

 

[fsngruv]

The FBI hired their own and said the photo could likely be Amy

All the signs Amy Bradley could still be alive 27 years after Royal Caribbean cruise disappearance

Amy Bradley disappeared on a Royal Caribbean cruise 27 years ago and there are a number of signs she could still be alive today

www.ladbible.com

I where the article states "
Forensic analysis by the FBI found that it was very likely that the woman in question could have been Amy, with a side by side picture showing how similar they look."
But other articles seem to imply there was only one analyst. So maybe it's bad reporting?
When I Google if the FBI confirmed it was Amy ai tells me the FBI states on their website that they cannot confirm if it is Amy or not. I'll pick my druthers, so perhaps you are right.

 

[TizerisT]

I had a major eye roll when watching the Rebekah Aliff interview with James Renner. Credible? hummmm?

Renner asked her when she first posted on SM about the Jas pics, and she states it was recently. He asks her if it was after the documentary was released. She says something like "What documentary? I don't know anything about any documentary???" Yet a few seconds later, she states, "I don't have Netflix." NO ONE mentioned Netflix... so how did she know it was on Netflix if she never knew anything about it????

He actually did mention it at 13:05