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

[K9Enzo]

Testifying before a grand jury isn't like gossiping on the phone with your friends. Saying that people lied to a federal grand jury is saying people committed a criminal act for which they can be sent to prison and their lives essentially destroyed. Total strangers. What motive would they have for doing so? Especially as none of them became celebrities or received monetary compensation? You can call it misidentification or even lies if you want I suppose. But to minimize it in favor of out-of-the-blue speculation is strange to me.

MOO.

I'm not confusing grand jury testimony with gossip. I never said they lied. I said the accounts are unverified and have never led to any confirmed evidence. Again, 25 + years later, no arrests, no charges, no Amy. Witnesses can be sincere and still be wrong. Testifying before a grand jury means a story was heard, not that it was proven. Zero strangeness here. imo

 

[Quill]

Grand jury testimony gives some weight to the witness's credibility within the context of this discussion, IMO. They are under oath for starters. They showed up for another thing. These are not just random people on the street who think they might have seen something. They are sure about what they saw and sure enough to disrupt their lives and appear before the grand jury, as well as many depositions and interviews I can imagine. Just look at how they are being impugned by some? How many more choose to stay silent rather than come forward with information whether in this case or another? Unless we were standing there with them, we can't really say that they are mistaken or liars. In all except the Navy guy's case, these people had others with them who were also interviewed by the FBI. They were not alone when they had the encounter with the person they believed was Amy. While it doesn't prove it was her beyond any shadow of doubt, it does give some weight to their words, IMO.

 

[K9Enzo]

Grand jury testimony gives some weight to the witness's credibility within the context of this discussion, IMO. They are under oath for starters. They showed up for another thing. These are not just random people on the street who think they might have seen something. They are sure about what they saw and sure enough to disrupt their lives and appear before the grand jury, as well as many depositions and interviews I can imagine. Just look at how they are being impugned by some? How many more choose to stay silent rather than come forward with information whether in this case or another? Unless we were standing there with them, we can't really say that they are mistaken or liars. In all except the Navy guy's case, these people had others with them who were also interviewed by the FBI. They were not alone when they had the encounter with the person they believed was Amy. While it doesn't prove it was her beyond any shadow of doubt, it does give some weight to their words, IMO.

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

 

[Quill]

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

You could say that in every single case that does or will exist. It does not discredit what these people have represented. It remains to be seen how accurate their accounts are, but if we used your logic no crime would eve be prosecuted. This is also why so many people fail to come forward.

 

[fsngruv]

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.

 

[Cedars]

You could say that in every single case that does or will exist. It does not discredit what these people have represented. It remains to be seen how accurate their accounts are, but if we used your logic no crime would eve be prosecuted. This is also why so many people fail to come forward.

I don't entirely agree - prosecutors will not go ahead with a trial just based on one or more witnesses testimony. They must support it with actual forensic evidence.

JMO

 

[Quill]

I don't entirely agree - prosecutors will not go ahead with a trial just based on one or more witnesses testimony. They must support it with actual forensic evidence.

JMO

We are talking about the grand jury process here, however.

 

[K9Enzo]

You could say that in every single case that does or will exist. It does not discredit what these people have represented. It remains to be seen how accurate their accounts are, but if we used your logic no crime would eve be prosecuted. This is also why so many people fail to come forward.

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)

 

[fsngruv]

We are talking about the grand jury process here, however.

Right. That's another thing I'm curious about, and have not been able to figure out by my searches, when did the federal grand jury witness testimony take place? For what reason?

 

[lohrtabitha]

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.

Here you go. 3/4 of the way down. Ageny Sheridan says Forensic analyst believes it to be Amy.

The True Story of Netflix's Amy Bradley Is Missing

The True Story of Netflix's Amy Bradley Is Missing

www.eonline.com

 

[lohrtabitha]

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.

Also Amy parents believe the photo is their daughter after the forensic artist took the photos and did a thorough comparison lining several of her features up. Not just her face but her arms. He said he would bet his career on it. I think his detailed report help confirm things for her parents as well as be enough confirmation to Sheridan that this might be Amy. Moo

 

[fsngruv]

Here you go. 3/4 of the way down. Ageny Sheridan says Forensic analyst believes it to be Amy.

The True Story of Netflix's Amy Bradley Is Missing

The True Story of Netflix's Amy Bradley Is Missing

www.eonline.com

Exactly right, a forensic analyst examined the picture and determined it to be Amy, it doesn't say the FBI determined it to be her. Eta: It also doesn't state the analyst was an FBI analyst either.

 

[fsngruv]

Also Amy parents believe the photo is their daughter after the forensic artist took the photos and did a thorough comparison lining several of her features up. Not just her face but her arms. He said he would bet his career on it. I think his detailed report help confirm things for her parents as well as be enough confirmation to Sheridan that this might be Amy. Moo

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.

 

[RandyMcDonald]

Grand jury testimony gives some weight to the witness's credibility within the context of this discussion, IMO. They are under oath for starters. They showed up for another thing. These are not just random people on the street who think they might have seen something. They are sure about what they saw and sure enough to disrupt their lives and appear before the grand jury, as well as many depositions and interviews I can imagine. Just look at how they are being impugned by some? How many more choose to stay silent rather than come forward with information whether in this case or another? Unless we were standing there with them, we can't really say that they are mistaken or liars. In all except the Navy guy's case, these people had others with them who were also interviewed by the FBI. They were not alone when they had the encounter with the person they believed was Amy. While it doesn't prove it was her beyond any shadow of doubt, it does give some weight to their words, IMO.

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.

 

[RandyMcDonald]

They can both be true.
You can love your sister unconditionally and support and accept her choices as being hers to make… while at the same time not being a fan of that lifestyle.

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.

In 1998 arguably your life was easier if you were straight and white. Maybe even more so today with all this rollback of rights. You hate to see a family member make their life more difficult.

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.

They were obvi all tight as a family.

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

 

[RandyMcDonald]

I hope Tom does an interview too. It will be interesting hearing him talk about the romantic part of their relationship if there was one. Maybe Amy had everyone fooled. Maybe she was confused about what she wanted herself. Imo

I do not think we have reason to think she was confused. Lots of young people dependent on parents hostile to their sexual orientation have beards, simply to give themselves cover.

For all we know, Tom may have been using Amy as a beard. If he also had a hostile family, someone as invested as him in the project of being straight would be a great beard.

 

[fsngruv]

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.

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!

 

[RandyMcDonald]

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.

Someone working for the FBI who says something is not the same as the FBI actually saying that. My understanding is that the first scenario is in play.

 

[fsngruv]

Someone working for the FBI who says something is not the same as the FBI actually saying that. My understanding is that the first scenario is in play.

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.

 

[waldojabba]

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!

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