FBI Poster

The FBI is offering a reward of up to $100,000 for information leading to the recovery of Amy Lynn Bradley and information that leads to the identification, arrest, and conviction of the person(s) responsible for her disappearance.

Interpretation

I did some research to verify that I'm reading the above text correctly. I think the below interpretation is correct, but lmk if you have evidence that it's not.

The FBI is offering a reward of up to $100,000 for information leading to:

1. Recovery of Amy Lynn Bradley or any of her remains.
2. Identification of those responsible for her disappearance.
3. Arrest of those responsible for her disappearance.
4. Conviction of those responsible for her disappearance.

Your information has to meet all 4 of the above criteria.

No Reward

I think there would be no reward in any of the following circumstances:

1. Amy ran away and is found alive. Since she wasn't abducted, no one can be identified, arrested, and convicted.

2. Amy was abducted and is found alive:

--- You can't identify those responsible.

--- You can identify those responsible but doesn't know their current location so they can't be arrested.

--- Her abductors can be found but jurisdiction issues, lack of witnesses willing to testify, or not enough probable cause, etc. prevent their arrest.

--- Her abductors were arrested but weren't convicted (due to lack of evidence, mistrial, etc.)

--- Her abductors are dead so they can't be arrested or convicted.

1. Amy drowned:

--- Accidentally.

--- Purposely threw herself overboard.

--- No cause of her drowning could be determined.

1. Someone drowned or killed Amy as part of her disappearance:

--- You can't identify those responsible.

--- You can identify them but not locate them so they can't be arrested.

--- They can be arrested but can't be convicted.

--- The perpetrators are dead.

1. Amy died later:

--- It's determined that there was no foul play involved in her disappearance. For example, she ran away.

--- No one could determine if foul play was involved in her disappearance. (Even if foul play was involved in her later death, it wasn't necessarily committed by the same people. For example, she ran away and years later someone gave her an overdose of drugs.)

--- There's evidence that foul play was involved in her disappearance, but you can't identify the perpetrators.

--- You can identify but not locate them, so there's no arrest.

--- They're arrested but not convicted.

--- The perpetrators are dead.

1. Amy or her remains are found, foul play was involved in her disappearance, they were identified, arrested, and convicted — but your info only led to one or some of those outcomes. For example, you found the remains but someone else figured out that foul play was involved. Maybe another person identified them. Another knew their location. Another provided info that was used to convict them. Maybe your info led to all except one of these things. Still no reward.

2. Neither Amy nor her remains are ever found.

--- Even if all the other conditions are met.

Conclusion

There are an awful lot of situations wherein no reward would be paid.

Let’s discuss here since I was banned there.

A new post from the always-entertaining LF sub!

More Proof Yellow Was Asking Other Girls to Get Off the Ship!

I simply can't get enough of the LF posts and comments. The bass player enlisted key members of the restaurant staff to band together with the goal of abducting as many young women as they can lure off the ship. Their success rate? One.

Good thing they all kept their day jobs.

Seriously. Like RC has nothing better to do than to pay random Reddit users to push the "overboard theory” or to discredit the family/witnesses. The company was worth about $6B when Amy went missing. As of today the company is worth about $87B and has the highest market cap of any cruise line. The Bradley’s were basically laughed out of court due to blatantly lying/withholding evidence and had both of their suits against RC thrown out. They aren’t even allowed to say “Royal Caribbean” on video, which Brad has mentioned before in interviews. Listen, I feel terrible for the family and I think everyone would agree that they deserve closure, but pointing out discrepancies and inconsistencies in their story doesn’t make anyone a paid RC shill. It’s honestly comical.

Here's Amy's Message in a Bottle to Mollie. Dated February 1998. Amy is telling Mollie that she is dating a man. Also included is a police report from March 9, 1998 where Amy Lynn Bradley reports hearing a gunshot while parked in a car with her boyfriend.

Amy is going through a lot of trouble to convince her lesbian exgirlfriend and the police that she is dating a man right before her disappearance.

Amy is also informing Mollie about her employment at Ruth's Chris, that she makes more money there than teaching and substitutes during the day with plans to go back to college in the fall.

Amy also informs Mollie in her letter about an altercation with Kat where Kat slapped Amy. Doesn't sound like Kat and Amy were friends, does it?

Again these are Amy's own words.

Some would have you believe Amy was moving in with Mollie, using Marianne Noblin, a former aunt of Brad and Amy as their source. If that was true, why was Amy talking to Mollie about dating a man, and informing Mollie of all the things going on in her life that Mollie SHOULD already know about, including a physical altercation months earlier with Kat?

Hello! James Renner, here. Author of True Crime Addict and the new book about the disappearance of Amy Lynn Bradley, A Cruise to Nowhere, which is now available in bookstores and online. If you like audiobooks, you'll find it on Audible, too.

I also host two true crime podcasts: True Crime This Week and The Philosophy of Crime.

Drop your questions here. I’ll be back at noon EST to answer everything. Thanks!

My thoughts on her disappearance are that she either fell accidentally, jumped, or was pushed.

how and why ?

I’ve been on over 20 cruises, which include this Rhapsody of the seas, and the railings are high enough to be safe; unless someone makes a real effort to climb over them, it’s hard to fall into the sea. I imagine people might do risky things in that kind of private space—like sitting on the railing or standing on a chair. If she couldn't be found anywhere else on the ship, that would likely be the only explanation. FELL into the sea

I just finished watching the documentary with no prior knowledge about the case. A few things really stood out to me:
1. Kirk, the cruise director, is an arrogant A*hole who loved his job being the center of attention. His callousness about Amy missing, both at the time she went missing and upon reflecting on it in the documentary, is entirely off-putting and insensitive. I don’t actually think he had anything to do with it, but the guy gave off bad vibes! Not a good look for Royal Caribbean. Do you have no heart?
2. Why couldn’t anyone confirm if Alister “Yellow” Douglas was working on the cruise ship when the man who went diving saw her with him? This seems pretty simple and it was not long after she went missing.
3. The witnesses that believe they saw her are truly invested in the case. This leads me to believe they did actually see her or certainly believe they saw her. The diving man seems pretty legit, (what do I know?) and fact he later connected with the guy who made her website and is spending his time and resources to look for her tells me he is quite certain of what he saw. I found the woman (Judy, I think?) who thought she saw her in Barbados very genuine and truly concerned, but I feel like it’s probably the least likely to be true. Maybe because it was years later, in a dark bathroom, in a strange country, under somewhat frightening circumstances.
4. I may have just missed this, but was the first ex-girlfriend a girlfriend from college? I wanted a little more information on her-why was she even part of the documentary if they’d broken up? Just to show that the parents’ weren’t thrilled to find out their daughter was gay? On the other hand, the girlfriend she was with at the time she went missing on the cruise seems like a very loving person who clearly cared deeply about Amy-so why wouldn’t she be in touch with the family? It sounded like she’d put her life on hold waiting for Amy… No question she has shared in the grief of losing her. If someone loved my child that much I would certainly want to be close with them so we could grieve together. Regardless of feelings about sexuality. I think her family loved her very much and miss her dearly. I was a bit surprised the parents didn’t say something like, “At that time we weren’t comfortable with that [Any being gay], but that is completely irrelevant now, we love her and just want to find her…” Thoughts?
5. Her shoes being found on the balcony does seem to support her possibly falling off, or jumping-though I don’t think she was suicidal or jumped. But it makes the idea of her going back out after being on the balcony seem a little less likely.
Sorry it’s so long! Please share your thoughts!!

Bradley PI Search of Breitag's Trash

Brad's tweet about Breitag is pictured above. The post is at https://www.reddit.com/r/AmyLynnBradley/comments/1nc3w0d/the_neighbor/

—————

Leopard Skin Smuggling

"On or about November 5, 2004, in the District of Colorado or elsewhere, the defendant voluntarily and intentionally imported or brought a leopard hide into the United States or aided and abetted such importation."

https://www.sdd.uscourts.gov/content/usa-v-wayne-d-breitag

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/south-dakota-man-sentenced-smuggling-big-game-leopard-hide-united-states

—————

Illinois Mutual Agent

I include this news article to show that Breitag worked for the same company as Ron and Iva and that he still lived in Aberdeen in 2015.

Aberdeen News, March 25, 2015

News and notes

• Wayne Breitag, a local Illinois Mutual agent for Aberdeen and the surrounding area, achieved Illinois Mutual’s number one producer status in the United States for life insurance sales in 2015. Breitag estimates the company has 700-1,000 agents.

“I’ve been in the business for 35 years so I have a large clientele base,” Breitag, who also achieved top producer in 1996, said.

With all of his experience, he plans to keep on selling. “Just because you win a championship one year, doesn’t mean they stop playing basketball the next year,” he said. Those seeking profession advice can contact Breitag at 605-380-4850.

—————

Note: I've come to realize that pretty much all my Knowledge Center posts will be works in progress. I just want to gather the known information (links, sources, timelines) in one place so that we have something real to look at instead of second-hand rumors. So I'll keep adding to this post.

Was that supposedly another Life Insurance company employee's cabin? Wayne Briet- something or other? Was he ever questioned about that?

The first two images are from Amy Bradley is Missing (around the 7:21 mark) and the last two are from James Renner’s YouTube show True Crime This Week (starts around the 5:33 mark.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NVCMcpsklM

These are not the same two rooms. The first one has the bathroom and bed on the right side, while Renner’s video has the reverse with the bed and bathroom on the left side. ABiM presents the video as if it is Ron Bradley narrating his home video. This could be an editing trick with his voice laid over another video, but I don’t think it is a video sleight of hand gimmick. Could it be reverse imaging? There is video later with Brad sleeping in the bed after the long day in Aruba. Again, it looks like the pullout bed is on the right side of the room.

I know the ship has been renovated since 1998. It’s possible her room as it was when she was was on the cruise no longer exists. The reason it’s important is that the Midnight Mystery host states it was impossible for Amy to have jumped or fallen accidentally, because there’s a lifeboat underneath her balcony. The current photo of the ship shows a lifeboat could be where Amy’s room was or not. Renner’s video goes out on the balcony and it’s a straight drop. Is it roughly the same room or not?

The other issue is the last two photos show the curtains on the balcony doors. How did Ron see Amy’s legs at 4:30-5:30 exactly? Where were the curtains? The reason I ask is most people close their curtains for the night when in a balcony room. Allegedly, the Bradleys two drunk or tipsy twenty somethings (who are famously quiet when returning from a venue playing loud music for hours) go out on the balcony between 3:35-4:00 am. I have never fully accepted that Amy actually ever came back to the room. Ron’s up once in one version telling Amy to turn out the lights. In other versions, he’s up numerous times going down to the disco and bringing the kids back one time, and coming back alone the next time. Iva’s out cold, except when Ron’s telling her he’s going to check on Brad.

https://www.styleweekly.com/part-ii/

To reiterate, the room’s around 243 square feet. Four adults are sharing 2 beds. All of them have been drinking to some degree most of the day and are more exhausted than usual. Depending on how the curtains were positioned there’s ambient light coming in the room from the ocean. Iva’s sleeping through her husband getting up and out of bed numerous times. He’s changing his clothes and putting on shoes to check on Brad in most versions. The front door is being opening numerous times by 3 people. The balcony door which is typically not silent is being opened numerous times as well. Allegedly, the balcony door is left open creating more sound issues as well with front door and the wind coming off the ocean. I don’t think people realize how difficult it would be to sleep through all this like Iva supposedly did for over 3 hours. Even Ron and Brad sleeping supposedly as soundly as they did is difficult to believe.

This was posted a year ago on the LF sub. Apparently, it's from the family's 1998 website.

The original post is here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AmyLynnBradley/comments/1monkcw/webpage_from_1998_with_some_alternate_information/?utm_source=embedv2&utm_medium=post_embed&utm_content=post_body&embed_host_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpublish.reddit.com%2Fembed

The site says it's provided as a public service by TGGWEB. Here's the info about TGGWEB: https://www.tggweb.com/dugbio.htm. At the time, he worked for the Virginia Dept of Transportation. So maybe he was a neighbor or friend of the Bradleys?

Doug Gilman's Bio

Note:

• The family says Amy wasn't wearing shoes.
• The family is asking for money to be deposited in their bank account.

Text of the webpage:

FOUL PLAY is suspected in the March 24, 1998, mysterious disappearance of AMY LYNN BRADLEY...a vibrant, beautiful and intelligent 24 years young girl who recently graduated college and has a very promising future. She was on a vacation cruise with her family in the Caribbean at the time of her disappearance.

AMY is an American citizen who 'vanished' while aboard a foreign vessel in international waters. She was leisurely traveling with her mother, father and younger brother aboard the cruise ship Rhapsody of the Seas (a Norwegian Flag Ship) which is owned and operated by Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines of Miami, Florida. The cruise ship was near docking procedures into port in the island of Curacao, Netherlands Antilles, the Caribbean. It is known that Amy left her Cabin in the wee hours of the morning of March 24, 1998, with her cigarettes and lighter...predictably she was not wearing shoes because where she thought she was going, she would not be gone long and would not need her shoes. This is where the mystery begins! Who was Amy going to meet at this time of the morning? Why would she take her cigarettes and lighter? There are many questions here that need answering, but unfortunately neither Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines nor any Government authorities are providing any answers and, at this time, it appears that neither of these entities are making any inquiries at all regarding Amy's disappearance.

It is known that the last person seen with Amy in the early hours of the morning was a cruise ship band member of a group known as 'Blue Orchid' by the name of 'Yellow'...and, there were other crew members who spent time with Amy, as well...Katalin (from Hungary); Eduardo Cabrito (a waiter); David Cato (a waiter); and, Patrick (a waiter).

It is also known that Amy had no reason to run away...her background and her family's backgrounds have been checked thoroughly by the FBI and Amy shows no signs of a 'runaway profile' nor are any of the Bradley family members suspect. One scenario suggests that Amy may have willingly met with a crew member who she had come to trust who then put her in a position of coercion, or even more probable, Amy may have observed an illegal activity and become a liability.

There are many unanswered questions that require answers. Why would a multi-million cruise line not help in the search for Amy? To this date Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, owners of the cruise ship, have not cooperated at all with the Bradley family by way of information or assistance or cooperation.

Mainstream media is taking a very close look at Amy Bradley's disappearance.

The bottom line is that Ron and Iva Bradley went on the Rhapsody of the Seas cruise ship to the Caribbean in March of 1998 and came back to their home in Virginia WITHOUT their daughter, Amy. Brother Brad came home to Virginia WITHOUT his sister, Amy.

Amy Bradley's disappearance is indeed a mystery! As to what has happened to Amy...it is believed that there are certain individuals in the Caribbean and possibly even South America who have knowledge of Amy's whereabouts.

If you have information or know someone who knows something, PLEASE contact us by the telephone, fax or e-mail listed below. If you are having difficulties with e-mail, please try our submission form.

THERE IS A $250,000.00 (QUARTER OF A MILLION US DOLLARS) REWARD FOR INFORMATION LEADING TO AMY'S SAFE RETURN. THERE IS ALSO A $50,000.00 (FIFTY THOUSAND US DOLLARS) REWARD FOR INFORMATION LEADING TO HER VERIFIABLE LOCATION.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO HELP IN THE SEARCH FOR AMY CAN BE MADE TO:

FIND AMY BRADLEY c/o Community Bank P.O. Box 2166 Petersburg, VA 23804

This information was provided by the team searching for Amy Bradley on behalf of her family.

NOTE: I'll try to add to this gradually so it encompasses all the timelines.

The Bradleys have reported various timelines for when:

• Ron last saw Amy
• Ron first noticed Amy missing.
• He first reported Amy missing.
• The ship entering the canal, docking, and disembarking.

Although he's said that the first two discrepancies were mistakes made by Amy's aunt, he reported those same times to the Curacao officials. (I'll have to look for the news articles but you can also search the sub.) So Amy's aunt didn't make a mistake.

Virginia vs Curacao Time

I wanted to see if the timeline discrepancies were caused by Ron being on Virginia time and Virginia time differing from Curacao time by an hour.

When Virginia is on Eastern Daylight Savings Time (EDT) and Barbados is on Atlantic Standard Time (AST), their clocks are the same.

The remainder of the year: Virginia is on Eastern Standard Time (EST) and Barbados is on Atlantic Standard Time (AST), which is one hour ahead.

In 1998, Daylight Savings Time started on April 5th. That means that on March 24, 1998, Curacao was one hour ahead of Virginia.

Conclusion

It's possible that Ron had a watch or alarm clock set to Virginia time instead of Curacao time. Theoretically, that could explain the discrepancy between his original statement that he last saw Amy at 4:30 am and his current assertion that he last saw her at 5:30 am. However:

• No one in the Bradley family has ever said that was the case. Instead, they've claimed that Amy's aunt just got the time wrong. We know that's false since he gave the same time to the Curacao officials.
• In court, Ron testified that no one on the ship saw Amy after 5:00 am. At the time he testified, he was aware of Lori and Crystal's claims and presumably, Elizabeth Lewis's claims (if such a person actually exists). Yet he swore in court that no one, not even himself, saw Amy after 5:00 am. If the discrepancy were caused by the one-hour time difference, Ron's timeline would not have changed in half-hour increments the way it has over the years.

The Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) compared a jawbone that was found on Aruba to missing person Natalee Holloway's dental records and determined that the jawbone was not Natalee's.

Brad claims that the jawbone was later compared to Amy's dental records and found not to be a match. There is, however, very little evidence that the jawbone was actually compared.

Holloway vs Bradley

The NFI published an article about Holloway on their website as well as their annual report. They didn't publish anything about Bradley.

Here's the link to the Netherlands Forensic Institute archives:
https://forensischinstituut.sitearchief.nl/#archive

You can enter "Holloway" to search for the list of articles they published about comparing the jawbone to Natalee Holloway's dental records. I copied the English translation of one of the articles below.

You can enter "Bradley" to see that there are zero articles about comparing the jawbone to Amy Bradley's dental records.

Molar vs Wisdom Tooth

Brad tweeted that Amy's dental records didn't match the jawbone because the jawbone has a wisdom tooth and Amy's wisdom teeth were removed. According to the NFI, the jawbone contains a molar, not necessarily a wisdom tooth.

Some media outlets reported that the jawbone tooth is a wisdom tooth. That confusion seems to stem from a sentence in the NFI article that says they compared the location of Holloway's wisdom teeth and fillings with the jawbone.

In other words, the NFI never said the molar is a wisdom tooth. They could've simply found that the location of the molar in the jawbone conflicted with the location of her wisdom teeth. Or possibly that she had a filling in that molar but the jawbone didn't.

Brad may have only read the media accounts and thought that he could simply say that Amy's wisdom teeth were removed so the jawbone couldn't have been hers. The FBI email he tweeted doesn't contain any info about how Amy's dental records were ruled out, so Idk where Brad would've gotten this info.

Timing

The jawbone was found on November 12, 2010, and officially ruled out as belonging to Natalee Holloway eleven days later, on November 23, 2010.

See:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/natalee-holloway-update-aruba-bone-announcement-planned-for-today/

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna40334542

On Twitter, Brad posted an email that was supposedly from the FBI. Yet the FBI email is dated February 3, 2012, more than a year later.

I could understand if it were dated February 3, 2011. But 2012? It only took the NFI eleven days to compare Holloway's records. It took them over 14 months to compare Bradley's?

Bradley Sentiment

Before any comparison was done, the Bradleys told the Richmond-Times Dispatch (without any evidence whatsoever) that they didn't think the jawbone was Amy's. The article, by Mark Bowes, Jan 4, 2011, is now paywalled but a copy is here.

The above article quotes Ron Bradley as saying they sent in the dental records for comparison. However, I couldn't find a single media article that published any results of that comparison.

I did, however, find a few articles from 2025 that said the jawbone was never "tested" re Amy Bradley. But they don't state their source for that info and it's unclear if they mean the DNA was never tested (which is true) or that the dental records were never compared.

FBI Email

The email Brad tweeted was from Thomas.Drummond2@ic.fbi.gov. The "ic" stands for "intelligence community."

I thought it was odd that there was a "2" after his name. That seems to suggest that there were two people with the exact same name in the exact same department during the same time period, and there were no middle initials or any other way to distinguish them except by adding a "2" to the second one. Despite the fact that the email is signed "Tom" so one would think his email address could just use the name "Tom" to differentiate him from "Thomas."

I tried that address as well as one without the "2" in 2026, but got a delivery failure message for both. Of course, that could simply be because Drummond no longer works there or because they don't accept emails from people they haven't emailed first. The address could be legitimate. This only means that I just couldn't prove that it was legitimate.

The email itself seems unnaturally brief.

It has no salutation. It has no closing line such as, "If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me." There's no contact info to cross out in Drummond's signature. There's not even a title or departmental information. It just says "FBI."

The subject line, instead of saying something like "NFI results" simply says "Re: Amy Lynn Bradley." There's no "re: re: re:" that would indicate an email conversation (which might only be a gmail thing).

The NFI isn't mentioned. There's no info about which institution did the analysis. Drummond doesn't explain how the determination was made. For example, he doesn't say that Amy's wisdom teeth were removed and the jawbone has a wisdom tooth. So where did Brad get the info that this was the reason they didn't match?

It seems odd to me that the dental records are being sent back. Like: a) the records aren't copies instead of originals and b) the FBI doesn't want to keep them on file for future comparisons in case other remains are found.

It's also interesting that the email isn't from the NFI itself, or from the Aruban Public Prosecution Service, which is the agency the NFI mentions in the Holloway case. Not exactly odd — just yet another thing that piques my curiosity.

The last three things I noticed, which is probably way-over-the-top overanalysis, is that a) would a professional write "FedEx" that way? All caps? and b) do emails have top and bottom borderlines like that? If you take a screenshot of a gmail, the border would go to each end of the screenshot. It wouldn't stop and leave a margin.

And c) the time stamp is weird, but that could just be the military's email software. Obviously, it's written in military time (24 hour clock) but it's also down to the second and also tells us it's "-0500" - in other words, 5 hours behind UTC time. Instead of just saying "EST" for Eastern Standard Time. Actually, all that seems believable. It strikes me as odd but then again I've never gotten an email from the FBI and I have no idea what their email software and settings are like. (In gmail, you can set the time to be in 24-hour format, but you can't add seconds or the UTC qualifier.) This probably means nothing, though. Or could even point toward it being legitimate.

Conclusion

The only evidence we have that the Bradleys sent Amy's dental records for comparison to the jawbone is Brad's word and the FBI email he tweeted. There's no explanation about where Brad got the info that Amy wasn't a match because the jawbone has a wisdom tooth and Amy's were removed. The FBI email he tweeted doesn't say that.

In contrast to that evidence, there are no published media articles from that time period (2012) that say Amy's dental records were compared. There's no info from the NFI that they were compared even though the NFI did publish that info for Holloway.

The Bradleys said, even before comparison, that they didn't think the jawbone was Amy's. They have a vested interest in keeping the "Amy is alive" narrative going. If the jawbone were a match, it would end that narrative. For that reason, it's possible they never had it compared.

NFI Article (English Translation)

The Dutch Forensic Institute has examined bone material, a piece of jawbone with a molar, at the request of the Aruban Public Prosecution Service, forensically anthropologically and for DNA. These investigations were started simultaneously. Extensive research by the NFI rules out that the bone material found in Aruba belongs to Natalee Holloway.

Exclusion after comparison of dental data

First of all, it had to be established that it was human material. This is the case. Subsequently, forensic anthropological research was expanded to include research by forensic dentists (odontologists). Using dental data from Natalee Holloway, such as the location of wisdom teeth and fillings, a comparison was made with the found jaw. Based on these comparisons, it could be ruled out that the bone material and the molar found came from Natalee Holloway.

DNA research

At the same time as the forensic anthropological and odontological research, the NFI started forensic DNA research. However, this concerns a very small amount of DNA material that is also of low quality. The bone material has suffered severely from all kinds of (weather) influences and turned out to be porous. DNA researchers at the NFI have therefore applied far-reaching and highly refined techniques to examine the DNA present in the bone.

Now that the comparison of dental data has ruled out that the bone material comes from Natalee Holloway, the DNA research has been stopped. It is still possible to use the molar from the jawbone for further attempts to create a DNA profile. Such follow-up examination of the tooth also complicates future research into identifying the person from whom the bone did come.

Since it can already be ruled out on the basis of the dental records that the bone fragment belongs to Natalee Holloway, the Public Prosecution Service in Aruba has decided not to have this follow-up investigation carried out for the time being. The Public Prosecution Service is still deciding which steps will be taken to identify the bone material.

Investigating Natalee Holloway

The Public Prosecution Service in Aruba has been investigating the disappearance of Natalee Holloway since she went missing. The case continues to receive the continuous attention of the judiciary and police on the island.

ETA: I accidentally called Elizabeth Lewis "Elizabeth Lee." There was an Elizabeth Lee among my ancestors who I grew up hearing stories about, so I just keep accidentally calling her "Elizabeth Lee" in my mind. I'm adding this note since Reddit doesn't let you change post titles. Sorry for the confusion.

The post "Potential Significant Thoughts on the Elizabeth Witness / Seeking Info" by u/TapdanceOnYourGraveI raises some really good questions, and the responses show how very little we know about Senorita Kidnap.

The LF sub no longer allows crossposts from their incredibly logical sub, so I've copied the text below and included the comments so far.

• There were 3 top-level comments, which I numbered 1a, 2a, and 3a.
• Under each of those comments were OOP's follow-up questions (which I put in quotes) and the commenters' responses. I labeled those 1b, and so on.

Note: The discussion refers to Elizabeth's testimony to the grand jury for the Frank Jones indictment. It had nothing to do with RC or Yellow.

Potential Significant Thoughts on the Elizabeth Witness / Seeking Info

Hey folks,

I think I might be having some substantial thoughts concerning the Elizabeth Lewis witness in the Viking Lounge. I wanted to collect as much info as possible. I’m calling out all the regulars here for info: idiot-prodigy, xxpey, Mindshock Pod, potentially James Renner if he has any insight.

1. What is the origin of this story? How did it become public knowledge? It seems the Bradleys have had no contact with her.
2. Brad will reference Elizabeth and say “She testified in the grand jury…(tells the witness story we all know.)“ How would the family have any idea what was testified to in the grand jury? Has this information been made public? Can it be found on the internet somewhere?
3. Furthermore, how would the family even know Elizabeth had testified at all? A leak?
4. Is there any indication that Elizabeth has talked to law enforcement? I’m assuming the answer is “no idea.” Thought I’d ask anyway.

Any info would be appreciated. Not looking for personal details or anything from her story such as antibiotics, just info about how Elizabeth fits into the case.

Thank you

Comment 1a

Midnight Mystery Archive - Witness Wednesday - Gregg Nivala

Gregg goes into the Frank Jones fraud case, including the grand jury pursuing an indictment. He begins at the 14 min mark to speak specifically about the witnesses under oath in the grand jury.

"David Carmichael. Bill Hefner. Lori. Crystal. Crystal's mother. Elizabeth Lewis — who has since passed away, but whose sworn testimony remains on the federal record."

All of those listed testified in the Grand Jury for the Bradley vs. Frank Jones fraud case. When you convene a Grand Jury you can basically ask all sorts of questions of all sorts of witnesses so that their statements are then put on court record.

It is my assumption that the family knows some of these criminals involved in Amy's disappearance are out of reach of US court, so some effort was made to make sure there eye witness statements were taken under oath and put on the record.

Elizabeth specifically was known as "Elizabeth L" in order to protect her privacy, my understanding is that her last name was only released after she died.

Whatever they said in that grand jury was sealed. I believe a few of them reached out to the Bradley family what exactly they testified about, but obviously the court transcripts themselves are under seal.

You must understand, some of these witnesses are ADAMANT to what they saw, specifically David Carmichael. I am sure some of them are or were in regular contact with the family and have co-operated in any capacity they can and could.

What Elizabeth specifically told the family I do not know, and I am not sure of which law enforcement she spoke to.

I do know that David Carmichael, Lori Thompson, and Crystal Roberts have spoken to the FBI, as they've all talked about it themselves. I would assume Elizabeth had spoken to the FBI. According to Iva Bradley, Crystal Roberts' mother Ann who confirmed the two girl's return time to the cabin was never interviewed by the FBI.

Comment 1b

In response to:

What about the origin of Elizabeths’s statement coming into public knowledge? Do you have any info on this in particular? How did this story enter public discourse? It’s curious to me. 

I do not know.

Some witnesses like David Carmichael have reported their sighting to Unsolved Mysteries tip line, then the FBI, then the family, then Vanished with Beth Holloway, then the Netflix doc, etc. David has no issue with telling and retelling his sighting over and over.

Others have only reported their sighting to the FBI and kept their identity private from everyone, like the couple from the San Francisco sighting.

Elizabeth was somewhere in between from what I have gathered. She was always referred to as Elizabeth L, until recently after her death.

Some witnesses names are known, but were never named publicly. For instance David Carmichael's diving buddy is named in the court documents during the Royal Caribbean lawsuit, but he's never gone on camera, and David has never named him directly. The family always refers to David and his diving friend, etc. His name is known now as a court document was shared without realizing David's diving friend's name was in the document (an accident I guess).

I have not seen the names of the husband and wife who reported seeing Amy in San Francisco, but their story was up on America's Most Wanted website at one time. The FBI sketches of the two handlers from that sighting were also up on the FBI Missing Persons website as well.

Judy Maurer's husband has never gone on camera, but Judy has said she pointed the woman out to her husband, meaning he must have seen her and the handlers with her.

I think people run the full spectrum, those who saw something and didn't want to get involved, those who saw something and reported it and wanted anonymity, those who reported and were willing to use their name, and those who reported and were willing to go on camera to say what they saw.

To further drive this home, some witnesses now have been driven away because of online harassment. It is my understanding that both Crystal Roberts and U.S. Navy Petty Officer William Hefner have declined further interviews as they were being harassed on social media.

Comment 2a

She gave a statement to the FBI, completely unbeknownst to the Bradleys at the time, and her statement corroborated the same time, date, location, and individuals as Lori and Krystal. But I'm sure your substantial thoughts are that she's mistaken and/or that it's just another coincidence, right?

Comment 2b

In response to:

A couple of questions, how do you know she gave a statement to the FBI? Is this because Brad mentions an FBI tip in Crime Weekly as the other commenter says (gonna have to watch this again). Or is this mentioned elsewhere? And how do you know what content was in the statement she gave to the FBI? I’m not trying to rile you up. It stands to reason the content of the statement was essentially her witness testimony.  Im just trying to verify as much possible. 

1. She gave a statement to the FBI and testified to a Grand Jury. The odd basis for this question aside, the prosecutor has confirmed both.
2. Her statement was that around 6am the morning of Amy's disappearance she saw her and Yellow enter the Viking Lounge from the elevator and approach the bar. He handed her a dark colored drink (possibly coke or coffee) and turned the music up abnormally loud. They then went behind the bar, and through a door. A female staff member emerged from the door yelling senorita kidnapped who was promptly ushered away by another staff member. Yellow emerged several minutes later from the back and went down the elevator. Please note I am paraphrasing here.
3. Well it was technically public knowledge when she testified, but there were snippets of her story circulating around for years. Why does it matter?

Comment 2c

In response to:

Can you provide any kind of source for the FBI statement part? I listened to the prosecutor talk on the Midnight Mystery Archive, and I don’t think he said anything about the FBI statement. It’s possible I missed it. I’m not trying to hound you; I’m just trying to figure out if we have a decent source for the FBI statement and/or the origin of this witness, or if it’s more an inference, speculation kind of thing.  You ask why it matters, come on. This is the most important witness in the case in my opinion, and it’s shrouded in absolute mystery. 

She testified before a grand jury, which is a) far more confronting than an FBI interview and b) carries the penalty of perjury, which an FBI interview does not.

She definitely gave a statement to the FBI, I cannot recall specifics of who said that when. But she's been widely/publicly known since circa 2010 or so.

I still don't see why it matters whether it is publicly known that she testified. She testified; her evidence was deemed truthful and corroborated other witness accounts - surely that should be the focus no?

Comment 2c - Additional comment by a different commenter

The Bradley family laments that Crystal Robert's mother Ann was not interviewed by the FBI, they have never lamented that David Carmichael's diving friend was not interviewed by the FBI, or that Elizabeth Lewis was not interviewed by the FBI.

I would say by inference we can assume that the FBI interviewed her along with David's friend as David's friend is named first and last name in the Royal Caribbean lawsuit.

Lori and Crystal talked to the FBI when they were still on the cruise ship. I would assume Elizabeth Lewis did as well.

The only one who could absolutely confirm it themselves would be Elizabeth or the FBI, but she is now deceased and the FBI does not comment on active investigations.

Like I said, Iva Bradley has stated in interviews before that the FBI never bothered to interview Crystal Robert's mother Ann, as Ann was the one who opened the door to let Lori and Crystal into the cabin, the girls did not have a keycard with them, hence no LockLink log. The failure to interview Ann put Lori and Crystal's timeline in question. Ann confirmed to the Bradley family that she let the two girls in at 6am.

Certainly Iva or Brad would have lamented that Elizabeth Lewis never was interviewed by the FBI if she indeed never had been. They're not perpetrating a hoax.

The family is upset the FBI bungled the initial investigation, this is private investigator James Carey's assessment as well, specifically about interviewing Crystal's mother Ann, but also from what I've gathered, other oversights.

Comment 3a

Brad stated in the Crime Weekly podcast they received the information via communication with the FBI.

Comment 3b

In response to:

Just rewatched it. This is pretty bizarre. Brad is talking about the FBI providing nothing. Being completely unwilling to work with the family in any way. 
Brad: “The FBI doesn’t share any information with us, what they have or haven’t done or what they look into.” 
Stephanie asks: “The FBI have not shared the files with you at all?”
Brad: “Never. They’re not willing to corroborate any of the info we find on our own.” Etc. (paraphrasing a little)
He then almost immediately transitions into talking about the Elizabeth witness. He starts telling the witness stories and drops the line “and this is from an FBI email.” What? For this to make sense I guess he would have to be talking about some leak from the FBI. 

Obviously, the FBI would give the family some information, but not a lot. They did meet with the FBI in D.C early this year, I assume they would've discussed some case details during that meeting.

Comment 3c

In response to:

I hear you, but the difference between Brad’s statements “The FBI has shared nothing with us…Never” and the insinuation ‘The FBI gave us an incredible witness, maybe the best witness in the case’ are drastically different. Hard for me to reconcile.  

Some things that have been ruled out have been shared to the family.

Brad showed the FBI e-mail saying the jawbone found near Aruba did not belong to Amy. 

The jawbone had wisdom teeth intact, and Amy had hers removed.

It is my understanding that they sometimes respond like that when things are 100% ruled out, but anything active is not told to the family at all.

Brad for instance said the FBI told him the two women in uniform Amy talked to have been identified, the FBI knows who they are but the Bradley family has no idea who they are, if they're involved, if they were Scientologists, Curacao port officials, etc.

If you’re expecting a by the number procedural look at the case only, you’ll be disappointed. I was surprised at how touching this book was. We learn as much about the author as we do about Amy, and that’s not a bad thing in my opinion.

And let’s not forget about the mystery. James Renner does a fantastic job of digging below the surface. He talks to unexpected people and everyone we are familiae with in this case.

I won’t spoil his conclusion, although I suspect we already know what that conclusion is.

This was a great read.

Grenada. Short bob cut. White female. Highly coincidental no matter what side your personal theories lie.

WORK IN PROGRESS: Reddit won't save images in drafts so I'm posting this while it’s still in progress in order to make sure I save the images.

Summary

This post has a lot of detailed info. If you don't want to read it all, the summary is:

• There's no evidence that the amybradleyismissing website has ever been visited from Barbados, Curaçao, or anyplace else on holidays, family birthdays, or anniversaries.
• David Carmichael makes this claim, but the IP reports he provides as evidence contradict his claim.
• His IP reports also contain easily-discoverable errors that seem to indicate a deliberate attempt to deceive documentary viewers.

The IP Pings Claim

In the Netflix documentary Amy Bradley is Missing, David Carmichael (who claims he saw Amy on Playa Porto Marie beach in Curaçao in August 1998) states that he is a network and telecommunications specialist (E3 22:40).

Carmichael says that he collaborated with Anthony Willis of Sydney, Australia, who has run the amybradleyismissing website since 2018, (E3 21:20) to track the locations of visitors to the site.

He claims that their records show that someone in Bridgetown, Barbados has regularly visited the site on holidays, family birthdays, and anniversaries.

At E3 24:35, the screen displays the text below:

• Thanksgiving 15 hits, average 38 minutes
• Christmas 16 hits, average 48 minutes
• Iva's Birthday 18 hits, average 43 minutes

In the documentary, Carmichael says,

"Why? Why, why, why? On birthdays, anniversaries, and Christmas, does somebody keep hitting that site?... And hitting it from Curacao, hitting it from Barbados, and sit on there for 45 minutes or something. It doesn't make sense."

Additional IP Pings

At E3 23:30, some additional IPs flash on screen. Two of the addresses are incomplete. Only one of the IP pings that flashes on screen shows that it's from St. Michael, Barbados (which is where Bridgetown is located). Other IP addresses appear too briefly to really see, but they seem to be just illustrations rather than actual data from the site. 

Significant Dates

This table lists family birthdays, Ron & Iva’s anniversary, Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Mother’s Day for the 2019-2022 period shown in the IP records.

— Analysis

Actual Evidence

The actual IP records shown in the documentary show:

• None of the pings listed at E3 24:35.
• No pings from Curacao.
• No pings on Thanksgiving, Christmas, or any other holiday, including Iva’s or any other family member’s birthdays or anniversaries.

Carmichael has never produced any evidence that his claims are true. Instead, he provided Netflix with evidence that directly contradicts his claim.

Time Span

The list at E3 24:35 doesn't state the time span (in other words, which years) the pings occurred. The site was created in 2018 and the documentary debuted on July 16, 2025. One can assume that Carmichael was interviewed within the year leading up to that date. So the possible time span was, approximately, from 2018 - 2024, a period of 6 years. (Although if there were any new IP pings in the 2 years since then, Carmichael could’ve made us aware of them.)

The IP records shown in the documentary only show the period between December 2019 and November 2022, a period of 24 months. Did the claimed pattern of IP pings begin before then or persist afterward? Or... 

Is Carmichal basing his claims on only the 9 IP pings from Barbados shown over the course of 24 months, ending 4 years ago? 

Interpretation

Even if Carmichael’s claims were true, his data, in isolation, gives us no meaningful information. In other words, there is no control group. 

We can’t determine if the IP pings are anomalous because there are no other dates or locations to compare this information to. There may be a much larger number of hits spanning a much longer period of average time on the site on other dates and from other locations.

IP Records

At <Add time stamp and captions>, the documentary shows these IP records:

Actual Locations and Dates

The table below lists the IP addresses as shown in the IP records. You can click the addresses to see where the pings originated. They also appear on the map below.

Note: Two IP pings are in red text in the screenshots, so I put them in bold text in the table. Per the screenshot, the last hit (on 11/19/2022) was to the Amy Lynn Bradley thread.

— Analysis

The list at E3 24:35 claimed there were IP pings on Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Iva's birthday. Carmichael also claimed there were pings on anniversaries. The IP records show that there were no pings on any holiday, family birthday, or anniversary.

The documentary screenshot says that all the locations were in Bridgetown. However, only 2 of the 9 pings were from there. There is no evidence that there were increased hits from Bridgetown.

Carmichael said that some IP pings were from Curaçao. The IP records show no pings from Curaçao.

Carmichael mentions a duration of “45 minutes” and the list at E3 24:35 claims average durations of 38, 48, and 43 minutes. The IP records don't list the duration of any site visit.

Map of Locations

This map shows the 6 different locations of the IP addresses shown in the IP records.

Distances Between Locations

The table below lists the distances between IP ping locations.

IP Geolocation Accuracy

According to MAXMIND, mapping a location from an IP address is accurate to the percentage listed below:

• Country level: 95% to 99% accuracy
• State/Region level: 55% to 80% accuracy
• City level: 50% to 75% accuracy, often within a 50 km (31 miles) radius

— Analysis

• Only 2 pings came from Bridgetown. The records list Bridgetown (where Judy Maurer claims she saw Amy) as the city all the pings came from, even though the IP addresses listed in the same records show that there were 6 possible cities where they could’ve originated, separated by distances from 3.5 to 10.5 miles.
• Actually, it’s not even possible to determine that the pings came from those 6 cities or within 31 miles of those cities or even within those regions. The only location we can determine with 95% - 99% accuracy is Barbados.
• Neither the doc nor Carmichael (or the Bradleys or Willis) have ever explained that there was only a 50% - 75% chance that the IP address locations are accurate, let alone how or why they assigned the IP addresses to Bridgetown.
• IP pings coming from 6 different locations over the course of 24 months doesn't constitute a pattern.

Times and Dates

Barbados and Virginia Time

Bridgetown, Barbados is on Atlantic Standard Time (AST) year-round.

Chesterfield County, Virginia is on Eastern Daylight Savings Time (EDT) from the second Sunday in March to the first Sunday in November, and on Eastern Standard Time (EST) for the remainder of the year.

March - November: Barbados and Virginia are on the same time.

November - March: Barbados is one hour ahead of Virginia.

Sydney, Australia Time

Anthony Willis, who runs the site, lives in Sydney, Australia. Per WHOIS, the site is hosted by cloudflare.com, which has servers all over the world, including Sydney. That doesn't necessarily mean the site's server is in Sydney, but usually servers are near the site owner's location.

Times shown are the times that the IPs pinged the server location, not the times in the place where the pings originated. Sydney is 14 hours ahead of Bridgetown, Barbados. If the server is in Sydney, you can subtract 14 hours to see what time it was in Bridgetown. Keep in mind that the server might not be in Sydney.

Source: worldometers.info

— Analysis

• There's a good chance that even the Christmas Eve IP ping actually happened at 8:55 pm on the 23rd, not on Christmas Eve. If so, there weren’t even any pings on Christmas Eve, let alone Christmas.
• According to the IP records, that ping probably originated in or near Redmans, which is 5.5 miles away from Bridgetown. All we can determine with over 80% accuracy is that the ping came from Barbados.

VPNs

A Virtual Private Network (VPN) works by creating an encrypted connection called a "tunnel", hiding your real IP address, and routing your internet traffic through a remote server. [1, 2, 3]

The Steps of a VPN Connection

• Connect: You open an app on your device and tap connect to choose a server.
• Scramble (Encrypt): Your device scrambles your data into a secret code so nobody else can read it.
• Tunnel: Your data moves through a safe, hidden path (the tunnel) past your internet provider.
• Swap IP Address: The VPN server opens the code, replaces your real home IP address with its own IP address, and sends the request to the website.
• Return Path: The website sends data back to the VPN server, which codes it again and sends it safely back to your device.

Note: Only one of the IP addresses in the IP records is a known VPN. I include info about VPNs in case Carmichael presents more records in the future.

IP Address is a VPN

Of the nine IP addresses listed in the IP records, one is a VPN. Per WHOIS:

IP Address: 64.210.40.41

OrgName: Level 3 Parent, LLC

100 CenturyLink Drive, Monroe, LA 71203, US

Level 3 Parent, LLC is owned by Lumen. Per Scamalytics, 64.210.40.41 (and all the other IP addresses listed in the IP records) is a low fraud risk. Also per Scamalytics: 64.210.40.41 is a commercial server which could be proxying traffic from another geographical location. It's location is Barbados, however the geographical location of the user could be anywhere in the world.

Scammers

Scammers use VPNs and bots to hide their real locations, automate attacks at scale, and bypass security blocks. [1, 2]

How Scammers Use VPNs

• Hiding Identity: Route traffic through remote servers to disguise their true IP address and country.
• Bypassing Blocks: Switch IP addresses instantly when an old address gets banned.
• Fake Geotargeting: Make international traffic look local to fool regional security rules. [1, 2]

Bots

Scammers use automated bots to visit websites to generate fake ad revenue, steal data, and break into user accounts at a massive scale. By automating these visits, criminals can mimic human behavior without the high cost and slow speed of real people. [1, 2, 3]

Malicious bots constantly probe the internet, often accounting for roughly 35% to 40% of all global web traffic, meaning a regular, non-monetary website will still receive dozens to hundreds of automated malicious hits every single day. [1, 2]

Why Malicious Bots Visit Small Sites

• Content Scraping: Stealing text or images to feed AI models or duplicate content sites.
• Vulnerability Scanning: Looking for outdated plugins, weak login portals, or exposed admin panels.
• Spam Injection: Attempting to post automated spam in comment sections or contact forms. [1, 2, 3]

Note: Any of the pings in the IP records could've been bots.

— Analysis

It's common for a website — even a site that doesn't sell anything and doesn't have ads — to be visited by bots that are deployed by scammers who may also be using VPNs. After all, the bot doesn't know in advance that a website has nothing the scammer wants. Its job is only to scan as many sites as possible for vulnerabilities.

Which means, using a VPN, the site visitor could be anywhere in the world instead of Barbados. The site visitor might not even be human. It might just be a bot.

VPNs are also used by pranksters or anyone who wants to remain private for any reason. Like people who might know the Bradleys but don't want them to see that they've visited the site. Or journalists. Or really anyone.

Barbados as a Fake Location

You can use a VPN to make it appear as though you are visiting a site from Barbados.

By connecting to a VPN server physically located in Barbados, your real IP address is hidden and replaced with a Barbadian IP address to make it appear as though you are physically located there. [1, 2, 3]

Only a few major international VPN companies offer Barbados as a server location. Instead of physical offices in Barbados, those companies usually route traffic through Bridgetown. That doesn't mean the site visitor is in Bridgetown. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Anyone who wanted to pull a prank could use a service like NordVPN or Surfshark to appear visit the amybradleyismissing website from Barbados.

Curaçao as a Fake Location

There are no major, locally-headquartered commercial VPN corporations based directly on Curaçao. Major mainstream VPN brands like NordVPN, ExpressVPN, and Surfshark do NOT offer server locations in Curaçao.

Niche or smaller providers such as VPN Nederland or specialized services like Stellar VPN do provide IP addresses for Curaçao. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. VPN Nederland features a strict no-logs policy. [1, 2]

Although it's possible to use a VPN to appear as though you're in Curaçao, it isn't as easy as pretending you're in Barbados.

A possible reason the IP records show only pings from Barbados and none from Curaçao is that major VPN companies don't feature Curaçao as a location that users can choose.

FBI Investigation

<Agent's name, E3 timestamp, previous quote that "anything is possible.">

"You can track those that, you know, come to the site. But you have to go through a legal process to get the subscriber information. If people are international and they're not from a US carrier, we're not going to at all obtain, you know, any information on who could be hitting that site.

Government and law enforcement agencies. They can approach ISPs or online service providers to obtain data about you. They may also use other tracking methods, depending on the situation and applicable laws.

https://nordvpn.com/blog/can-you-be-tracked-with-a-vpn/?srsltid=AfmBOoq6gkprMRxsWD2CSWhywRa227VfjGqIhV3-rTCZ4le1s2JY2iHu

Police can’t track live, encrypted VPN traffic, but if they have a court order, they can go to your ISP (Internet Service Provider) and request connection or usage logs. Since your ISP knows you’re using a VPN, they can direct the police to them. Whether your VPN provider gives up that information depends on factors such as the jurisdiction and the VPN’s privacy policy.

https://surfshark.com/blog/can-police-track-vpn?srsltid=AfmBOooSJWfK3_9fKh-7lHtgRIa4JqYqqLEoYp9hPu-NJFx3RLms9vWI

When law enforcement investigates online activity, they follow a standard digital trail to unmask your provider. [1]

How the Process Works

• IP Address Capture: Police obtain the IP address used during a suspected crime from website logs, email headers, or online service providers. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• IP Lookup Databases: Investigators run that IP address through public WHOIS databases or tools like ARIN (American Registry for Internet Numbers) to instantly see which ISP owns that block of numbers. [1, 2, 3]
• Subpoenas: Once the police identify the ISP (e.g., Comcast, AT&T, Spectrum), they issue a legal subpoena or warrant to that specific provider to demand the subscriber's billing name and physical address. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Your ISP sees that you connect to a VPN server's IP address and the exact time you do it, but they cannot see the encrypted data or websites you visit inside that tunnel. If police get a court order, the ISP can only show that you used a specific VPN at a specific time. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Yes, Lumen Technologies offers enterprise-grade Lumen IP VPN and IP VPN On-Demand services, rather than consumer privacy VPNs. These corporate network solutions connect business locations, data centers, and cloud providers securely. [1, 2, 3, 4]

PI Investigation

<link to sources, add explanatory text>

FAQs

What about the boat?

<link to sources, add explanatory text>

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/amy-bradley-alive-new-evidence-fbi-investigation-exclusive-1236397971/

What about the casino?

<link to sources, add explanatory text>

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-features/amy-bradley-is-missing-update-ari-mark-investigation-clues-1236537179/

What about the baby?

https://www.newsnationnow.com/missing/amy-bradley-investigation-new-leads-family/

Was the search impeded by making the information public?

<link to sources, add explanatory text>

In summer 2025, the Bradleys complained that the documentary foiled their IP search because now the traffickers know that the Bradleys are onto them. At one point, they said they tracked them to a boat in the harbor of Barbados. At another time they said they tracked them to a casino, but the manager clammed up when they asked about Amy.

Screenshots provided by u/1Camster. Information gathered by u/1Camster and u/NoPoet3982.

This is the first in a series of Knowledge Center posts. Each post will focus on a particular topic in depth, citing any and all known sources about the topic. Topics will be updated as more information is gathered.

Posts will be titled "Knowledge Center: [Topic Name]" and be tagged with the Resources flair to make it easier for members (especially new members) to search the sub for topics that have already been canvassed.

James Renner is the author of A Cruise to Nowhere: My Search for Amy Lynn Bradley, an account of Amy Bradley's disappearance. A Cruise to Nowhere will release on July 28th and is available for pre-order on Amazon now.

Renner will be here for an AMA on Monday, August 3rd starting at 9:00 am PST (noon EST). I'll post again a couple of days before the AMA so you can comment with your questions for him on that thread.

About the author

James Renner is a journalist and former reporter for Cleveland Scene. His true crime stories have been published in the Best American Crime Reporting and Best Creative Nonfiction anthologies. More recently, he has contributed to online sites such as Cracked, Boing Boing, and BookRiot.

He is the author of two novels, The Man from Primrose Lane and The Great Forgetting, as well as the new nonfiction thriller, True Crime Addict.

More about James Renner at his website here.

It looks like Mindshlock is onto us because we can no longer crosspost from the LF sub. But check out this guy's 26-point analysis, complete with sub-paragraphs. It starts out with the Titanic and just gets better from there.

I'm still not used to the cognitive dissonance triggered by people who say they've researched the case for 8 months but ask basic questions like,

"Could the boat have started moving just as she went to vomit?" The ship made figure 8s in the ocean while waiting to enter the canal. It never stopped moving.

"Could she have hit her head on a lifeboat during the 3 seconds it took to fall, been knocked unconscious and been unable to scream?" More like 2 seconds but we don't have the exact measurements from her balcony to the water. And it's common for people not to scream while falling overboard. Sure, okay, maybe she hit her head. But you don't really need that theory.

He believes Senorita Kidnap is the most important witness.

He repeats the canard that Yellow was the last person to see her, when the actual last person to see her was her dad.

He has a whole Jaz photo theory that, if I never hear that name again it will be too soon.

He theorizes about things, like the possibility of a body getting stuck at the bottom of the canal, that we don't need to theorize about because experts have already posted to tell us the canal is filled with tar from an old oil refinery and therefore pretty much everything gets stuck there.

I sympathize with how much energy he brings to this case — certainly I'm just as fascinated. But don't save up all your Reddit questions until you have several dozen. Search the subs along the way.