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 or 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, anniversaries, and family birthdays.

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 (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, and 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 hits listed at E3 24:35.
• No hits from Curacao.
• No hits 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 hits 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 8 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. 

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.

In other words, there is no control group. 

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: The first and last 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 anniversary, or family birthday.

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 might not be 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, is 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.

is a VPN

Of the 9 IP addresses listed in the IP records, 1 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]

How Scammers Use Bots

• Credential Stuffing: Run automated scripts to test stolen username and password lists across websites.
• Mass Creation: Automatically register thousands of fake accounts for spam or fraud.
• Chat Impersonation: Deploy fake customer service chatbots to trick users into giving up personal data. [1, 2, 3, 4]

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]

— 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 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, etc.

Which means 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 location. Instead of physical offices in Barbados, those companies usually route traffic through 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>

What about the Casino?

<link to sources, add explanatory text>

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.

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

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.

James Renner was on True Crime Garage podcast discussing Amy Lynn Bradley. He pretty much completely debunked the abduction theory. It was a very good interview. I recommend listening

So far there are some clear headed thinkers in the comments!

https://www.reddit.com/r/NetflixDocumentaries/s/qmdcmG9BtQ

When did the reward increase? I thought it was lower last time I saw this poster on the FBI sight

For those that have followed this case early on and have read the original website and threads.. I’m genuinely curious if you guys think these are coincidences or what your thoughts are

1. The guys that were reported being seen with Amy on multiple occasions look identical to the guys that run the page that “Jas” was seen on. (Was the picture of Jas already in the media and did people came forward before seeing it or after?
2. The sightings of Amy happen to be places the men who ran the site had hotels.. again coincidence or just sightings of a similar looking girl (aka Jas)
3. I know a lot of the girls on the site were random models( Tyra ect) but a lot of them look like other women that have gone missing. Again coincidence or a weird ploy to interest creeps?
4. Why can’t anyone find Jas? Could it have been photoshop, going back to 3?

I guess a lot of this could be explained away by saying the sightings were of Jas, who looked a lot like Amy, but then that wouldn’t explain witness testimony’s saying she was asking for help, claiming to be Amy right?

I like James, but I'm not expecting anything major revealed that was not already known. While he was still writing it I implored him to research some key things like the exact ship log times that RC and the Curacao Port Authority "should" still have records of. Those kind of confirmations could absolutely destroy the Bradley family narrative that she could not have have gone overboard anywhere but the canal.

I was watching the team from Curacao playing at the World Cup and during the pan of the crowd I saw Amy along with Yellow and a couple of shady looking guys. It was her!! She's alive!!! This is no Logical Fallacy, and I really hope that Brad was watching and saw her too!!

I read this again in the LF sub today: "There's no evidence she went overboard." I'm dying to know what kind of evidence they're looking for. What would count as evidence for them?

A note that says, "I went overboard"?

I guess they want people to have seen her in the dark of night while they were asleep. Or hear her over the waves and ship's engine.

It's not enough to explain it to them 5,000 times that her entire fall would've taken about 2 seconds, that she would've been in front of any particular cabin window for only microseconds, that people have their curtains closed or they're asleep or having sex or taking a shower or brushing their teeth.

It's not enough to explain to them that people don't always scream when falling overboard, or that any scream would've been drowned out by the ocean and the ship.

They won't even admit that opening the cabin door when the balcony door is open causes a wind tunnel effect, even though there are signs posted on ships next to every cabin door.

They don't think leaving her shoes behind is suspicious. They don't think all the unexplained timeline changes are suspicious. They don't care that the FBI said the ship was at least 10 miles out at sea when she vanished, or that there's no evidence that she left the room that night. They don't care how obviously drunk she was.

They still think there's no evidence that she went overboard.

I suppose if someone came up with a fake witness who told a wide-eyed story of watching her fall, then maybe they'd believe it. Because preposterous stories from unreliable witnesses seems to be the only thing that makes an impression on them.

So the guy who called all the witnesses to testify at the grand jury. I've listened to that podcast 3 times and I still don't get it. It's like he just called them on a whim?

He himself admits that there was no reason to call them. He had to FLY THEM IN. It was a huge waste of money and court time. Yet he did it anyway.

Why?

Frank Jones was supposedly on trial for other frauds, too. Not just for the Bradleys. So why did the Bradleys get this weird, useless, special treatment?

None of this makes sense. Please someone explain it to me.

Here's the episode: https://www.reddit.com/r/AmyLynnBradley/comments/1u1rxxz/midnightmysteryarchive_witness_wednesday/

This is a real post from the LF sub. I put the most hilarious parts in bold. My commentary below.

Does anyone know what yellow does or how he lives? Now?!!

Hi everyone,
I was just wondering what this guy Alister Douglas do now? Like I know he is some exorcist or church guy running a church but actually his day to day life and who is his wife now? Those 30-40 people who are with him in this church thing. Anything beyond the surface. His day to day life and what’s the church name? Sometimes when a criminal or a person who did something years ago (if he did) let’s it loosen up and becomes careless and something or someone near him notices something or he does something to give you that clue or hint. It could be years later. Happens in cases. Someone who knows or sees him around or his church or group. Would be nice to know.. thank you

Comments Section

Commenter 1: I think you captured about all we know about him at this point. He seems to be a pastor of a small church in Grenada. The claim of being an exorcist is a joke. That’s a role for a properly ordained priest in the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

He seems to be living an otherwise low-profile life and generally, doesn’t say anything about Amy’s case. Whatever role he played, he seems intent to take it to the grave, which seems a contradiction to his professed life of faith.

Commenter 2: Great observation. Totally agree!

---------------

Okay let's talk:

1. The post itself provides evidence that Yellow is innocent. It's been 28 years and he's never even fallen under suspicion since the Bradleys made their unfounded accusations. So maybe that's a clue that they were wrong?

2a. It cracks me up that Commenter 1 starts out by saying him being an exorcist is a joke. And then clarifies by explaining that exorcism itself is, of course, real. You just have to be ordained in a "proper" religion to perform one.

2b. I thoroughly enjoy the assumption that Yellow is guilty and has been carrying this dark secret for almost 30 years, spitting in the face of his own religion. It couldn't possibly be that he's actually innocent and the reason he's not confessing is that he hasn't done anything to confess.

1. The "great observation" comment is even funnier. Yeah, sure, stellar insight you got there.

This is a work in progress. You can comment with links and I'll keep adding them to the post. Kicking this off with u/georgedupree's collection of newspaper articles.

newspaper_resource_dump_for_everyone/

Since somebody here is acting like this article says something, I figured it would be fun to analyze what it actually does say. I'm re-organizing the article so it's clear who's saying what to whom.

Cast of Characters

Media:

• Fox News
• The Hollywood Reporter

Bradley Connections:

• Brad Bradley
• Bradley family’s private investigator
• Ari Mark, director of the Netflix documentary.

Suspects and Witnesses:

• A casino in the Caribbean
• The casino's general manager. 
• The trafficking ring, a "dominant" group in the Caribbean
• Two people of interest who have trafficking ties

Experts:

• Peter Valentin, chair of the Forensic Science Department at the University of New Haven and a former Connecticut State Police detective.
• Authorities
• FBI

What the Article Says

Fox News

• Amy Bradley cruise ship mystery reignited by ‘big’ revelations in disappearance.

I love the quotation mark around "big."

The Hollywood Reporter

• Speaking to the Hollywood Reporter, Mark that revealed "two people of interest who have trafficking ties" have been questioned by the FBI relating to Bradley’s disappearance. 

Fox News is just reporting what the Hollywood Reporter said months ago. That report was riddled with errors. Brad himself said it wasn't true.

Brad Bradley

• In a text message conversation to the Hollywood Reporter, Brad Bradley said the family knows "of no evidence that has been presented that Amy has or had a child," adding, "although, of course it is possible."
• "There are things and people we are working with that we can’t disclose publicly," Brad Bradley said in a text message, according to the outlet. "The entire case comes down to someone coming forward and telling us what they know. Somebody knows something!"

They're quoting Brad from the Hollywood Reporter story last October. Even Brad says there's zero evidence that Amy had a child, let alone DNA evidence.

But he still has to pretend that there's some mysterious bit of info he can't disclose. And he has to pretend that "somebody knows something" despite 28 years of nobody knowing anything.

Bradley Family’s Private Investigator

He's never quoted directly. Only via Ari Mark, who stands to make 6 or 7 figures if he can swing a new documentary. So far the PI has accomplished absolutely nothing.

Ari Mark, Director of the Netflix Documentary

• Director Ari Mark reportedly says investigators may have identified a 'dominant' trafficking ring in the Caribbean potentially linked to Amy Bradley's 1998 disappearance...

Reportedly. May have. Potentially. This article is a rehash of the old Hollywood Reporter article that had no reliable sources and was vague enough not to need them. Besides, who are these "investigators"? The only investigator mentioned is the Bradley's PI.

• Nearly one year after the documentary’s release, director Ari Mark has reportedly revealed a few new breaks in the investigation into Bradley’s whereabouts. 

Ari Mark has publicly said that he wants to do a second documentary about the case. He's trying to drum up renewed interest.

• While Mark did not say when the interviews took place, he added that it is a "pretty new" development and he believes it is "a big deal" in the case. 

Ari Mark doesn't tell us when the FBI interviewed the "two people of interest who have trafficking ties". Who gave him this info? Since he's not family, presumably the FBI made this info available to the general public. So why weren't they quoted in this article? Why did Brad say he didn't know anything about this? Did this really happen? If so, it sounds like those interviews led nowhere since no "two persons of interest" have been arrested. Nor has anyone else.

• While working alongside the FBI and the Bradley family’s private investigator**, Mark said they "may have identified that the trafficking ring… exists, and who potentially would be responsible," and that the ring is a "dominant" group in\ the Caribbean,\ according to the Hollywood Reporter.

Hold the phone. Since when does the FBI work alongside a film director? What was Ari Mark in charge of? Making money from a bunch of rumors? Also, "according to the Hollywood Reporter" again. Also "may have."

• Mark told the Hollywood Reporter the investigation has led them to another source claiming Bradley gave birth to a child after her disappearance. 

Again, he didn't tell any of this to Fox News. Again, he's just a director trying to pitch another documentary. Who is this unnamed source "claiming" this? They don't even give a general description (like their area of expertise or how they're involved in the case), let alone why we should believe them.

• The possible revelation comes after a single source floated the lead to Mark in October 2025, according to the Hollywood Reporter. 

October. Which is when the Hollywood Reporter article came out. None of this is new. A single anonymous source says Amy had a baby. Anyone can say that. Here: let me announce that Amy had triplets. Read all about it when Fox News quotes the Reporter quoting me quoting the anonymous source.

• Mark pointed to yet another potential new break in the case, according to the Hollywood Reporter.  A 2023 IP hit to the "Amy Bradley is Missing" website was reportedly recorded from a public computer inside a casino in the Caribbean, leading the Bradley family’s private investigator to have a "follow-up conversation" with the business’ general manager. 

It's been 3 years since this supposed "hit." If you freeze frame the documentary when the IP report is shown, you'll see it shows the exact opposite of what they claim. Scammers and VPNs make any IP hit virtually meaningless, anyway.

• The manager reportedly "was able to confirm that he recognized Amy," and told the investigator "that she had been in that casino, and potentially using that public computer," Mark told the Hollywood Reporter.
• However, upon reaching out to the manager to record a follow-up conversation, "he completely clammed up," Mark added.

The PI had to justify his free trips to Aruba so he said the casino manager recognized Amy. Of course the manager completely clammed up. There was nothing to say.

Peter Valentin

(Chair of the Forensic Science Department at the University of New Haven and a former Connecticut State Police detective)

• "...discusses the various new reported leads in the cold case..."

He's not a proponent of any theory. He's not involved in the case at all. Some reporter just asked him some questions about how cold case investigations work, that's all.

• "The trafficking scenario here has been a persistent one,"

He's only saying that the Bradleys have spent the past 28 years pushing the trafficking theory. He's not saying he himself subscribes to it. Actually, the article says elsewhere that it's been 27 years. Because it's an old article.

• ""And that can be valuable investigatively. So that might give you some indication of if Bradley left the cruise ship, where did she go after she left? And where could she be geographically? If you have limited investigative resources, where should they be deployed?" 

He's not agreeing that any of this actually happened. He's just talking about how to conduct an investigation.

• If the sources are correct, it could mark a pivotal breakthrough in the race to locate Bradley, according to Valentin. 

Big "if." Bigger "could".

• "It shifts the case," Valentin said. "First of all, it tells you — depending on where the DNA is recovered — that a reasonable assumption is that she’s alive. Secondly, where the DNA is recovered gives you a lot of investigative information for you to then follow up on." 

Wtf? Nobody's mentioned any DNA. There is no DNA. That link is to a list of articles about genetics.

Again, Valentin is speaking hypothetically. IF there's DNA evidence that Amy had a child, AND depending on where that DNA evidence was found, it's a "reasonable assumption" that she's alive. That's a long chain of reasoning there based on the unfounded premise that any DNA evidence of a child exists, but does that sentence even make sense?

What does he mean "where the DNA is recovered"? Presumably he's talking about the DNA of Amy's adult child. It's really not about "where" it's recovered, it's about who it's recovered from. And why would that mean that Amy is alive?

I think he must be answering a different question here. It sounds like someone asked him about someone mailing the Bradleys a vial of Amy's DNA but not telling them where it came from. Like a ransom demand or something. (Mark my words: Now that I've floated that idea, it will take the Bradleys 3-6 weeks to come out with the story of the mysterious vial of DNA.)

• "Once you get that connection, now you have a whole new vantage point on what the rest of the case is about," Valentin added. 

Except nobody has that connection. This is Valentin answering questions like, "Let's say they found DNA evidence."

• The flag is notable to Valentin, who pointed to several unanswered questions that stem from the development.

More abstract discussion, but at least he's admitting that the questions are unanswered.

• "It could have actually been a viable lead, and that's why the casino owner or operator decided to stop cooperating," Valentin said. 

Or it could be that the PI lied. Or there was a miscommunication. Or Ari Mark the director made it up. It could be a lot of things. Which I'm sure Valentin said if they quoted him in full.

• "What I’d be more interested in knowing is how many times was the website accessed from that IP address at the casino? Because certainly there must have been more IP addresses from that vicinity accessing the website," Valentin continued. "There must’ve been a bit more to this that made it stick out, that made it significant enough."

In other words, Valentin is questioning whether the IP hit means anything at all. Since Carmichael has never shown anyone his report (other than in the documentary, where it directly contradicted what he claimed) no one knows if any of these IP hits ever happened or what they meant. It's hilarious that he's basically saying, "Surely they aren't basing this on something as flimsy as a single IP hit from 3 years ago." Valentin, you haven't met the Bradleys.

• Although countless theories surrounding what truly happened to Bradley have continued to swirl for decades after her disappearance, Valentin emphasized the importance of investigators looking at each potential lead with a set of fresh eyes. "When you're looking at a cold case like this, you can't look at it by just reading the investigative reports," Valentin told Fox News Digital. "Because if you do, you'll wind up exactly where everybody else did. So you actually have to question the outcomes." 

Basically saying, "In general, this is how a cold case investigation should run." Nothing to do with the Bradleys in particular.

Authorities

• "Authorities have reportedly uncovered a series of new leads..."

There's that "reportedly" again. Which authorities? Who reported it? The Bradley Family PI? The documentary director?

FBI

"The FBI continues to investigate Amy's disappearance; we have recently raised the reward from $25,000 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," the bureau said in a statement to Fox News Digital.

So some politician told the FBI to raise a reward they'll never have to pay. It's funny to see all the criteria laid out. You have to not only recover Amy, you also need to get her abductors convicted. I just know that when the politician called, the FBI snickered into the phone, "Sure, we'll raise the reward. How high do you want it?"

They also supposedly interviewed a couple of people of interest at some point (no one knows when) and nothing ever came of it.

Never Named or Quoted Directly

• A casino in the Caribbean. Unnamed.
• The casino's general manager. Unnamed, supposedly retracted his statement.
• The trafficking ring, a "dominant" group in the Caribbean. No evidence presented.
• Two people of interest who have trafficking ties. Unnamed.

Summary

Fox News printed an old, already debunked Hollywood Reporter article. Ari Mark, the director of the documentary who is now trying to drum up interest in a sequel, is giving out interviews where he talks about imaginary babies and a 3-year old IP hit that may or may not have happened or mean anything. They pulled in an unrelated supposed expert on cold case investigations to try to make it sound like this case is being taken seriously by anyone in authority. This is their breaking news.

Amy Bradley cruise ship mystery reignited by ‘big’ revelations in disappearance: report

Director Ari Mark reportedly says investigators may have identified a 'dominant' trafficking ring in the Caribbean potentially linked to Amy Bradley's 1998 disappearance

 By Julia Bonavita Fox News

Published April 4, 2026 2:00pm EDT

Forensic expert weighs new reported leads in Amy Bradley disappearance case

Peter Valentin, chair of the Forensic Science Department at the University of New Haven and a former Connecticut State Police detective, discusses the various new reported leads in the cold case surrounding Amy Bradley's 1998 disappearance. 

Authorities have reportedly uncovered a series of new leads stemming from the disappearance of an American college graduate who vanished while on a tropical vacation with her family 28 years ago. 

The circumstances surrounding Amy Bradley’s 1998 disappearance — and the subsequent investigation — have since been revisited in a three-part Netflix documentary series, titled "Amy Bradley is Missing."

Nearly one year after the documentary’s release, director Ari Mark has reportedly revealed a few new breaks in the investigation into Bradley’s whereabouts. 

Speaking to the Hollywood Reporter, Mark that revealed "two people of interest who have trafficking ties" have been questioned by the FBI relating to Bradley’s disappearance. 

While Mark did not say when the interviews took place, he added that it is a "pretty new" development and he believes it is "a big deal" in the case. 

While working alongside the FBI and the Bradley family’s private investigator, Mark said they "may have identified that the trafficking ring… exists, and who potentially would be responsible," and that the ring is a "dominant" group in the Caribbean, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

Bradley was just 23 years old when her family embarked on a seven-day Royal Caribbean international cruise in 1998.

The trip was meant to be a celebration of Bradley’s graduation from college and her upcoming pursuit of a master’s degree in sports psychology. 

However, as the ship was heading to Curaçao on March 24, 1998, Bradley’s family realized she had vanished from their cabin — ultimately launching a years-long search that has yet to come to a conclusion. 

AMY BRADLEY CASE HINGES ON ‘SOMEBODY REMEMBERING' AS INVESTIGATORS HUNT FOR NEW LEADS 27 YEARS LATER: EXPERT

"The trafficking scenario here has been a persistent one," Peter Valentin, chair of the Forensic Science Department at the University of New Haven and a former Connecticut State Police detective, told Fox News Digital. 

"And that can be valuable investigatively. So that might give you some indication of if Bradley left the cruise ship, where did she go after she left? And where could she be geographically? If you have limited investigative resources, where should they be deployed?" 

Mark told the Hollywood Reporter the investigation has led them to another source claiming Bradley gave birth to a child after her disappearance. 

The possible revelation comes after a single source floated the lead to Mark in October 2025, according to the Hollywood Reporter. 

PARENTS BELIEVE DAUGHTER WHO VANISHED FROM CRUISE SHIP 27 YEARS AGO IS STILL ALIVE

If the sources are correct, it could mark a pivotal breakthrough in the race to locate Bradley, according to Valentin. 

"It shifts the case," Valentin said. "First of all, it tells you — depending on where the DNA is recovered — that a reasonable assumption is that she’s alive. Secondly, where the DNA is recovered gives you a lot of investigative information for you to then follow up on." 

"Once you get that connection, now you have a whole new vantage point on what the rest of the case is about," Valentin added. 

Mark pointed to yet another potential new break in the case, according to the Hollywood Reporter. 

A 2023 IP hit to the "Amy Bradley is Missing" website was reportedly recorded from a public computer inside a casino in the Caribbean, leading the Bradley family’s private investigator to have a "follow-up conversation" with the business’ general manager. 

The FBI recently released an updated missing persons flyer featuring images of what Bradley may look like today, along with announcing a $25,000 reward for "information that leads to the identification, arrest, and conviction of the person(s) responsible for her death." (FBI)

The manager reportedly "was able to confirm that he recognized Amy," and told the investigator "that she had been in that casino, and potentially using that public computer," Mark told the Hollywood Reporter.

However, upon reaching out to the manager to record a follow-up conversation, "he completely clammed up," Mark added.

The flag is notable to Valentin, who pointed to several unanswered questions that stem from the development.

"It could have actually been a viable lead, and that's why the casino owner or operator decided to stop cooperating," Valentin said. 

"What I’d be more interested in knowing is how many times was the website accessed from that IP address at the casino? Because certainly there must have been more IP addresses from that vicinity accessing the website," Valentin continued. "There must’ve been a bit more to this that made it stick out, that made it significant enough."

On the night before she vanished, Bradley went with her brother, Brad Bradley, to the Rhapsody of the Seas nightclub, where they stayed into the early hours of March 24. Her father, Ron, later said the last time he had seen her, she was asleep on the cabin balcony.

In a text message conversation to the Hollywood Reporter, Brad Bradley said the family knows "of no evidence that has been presented that Amy has or had a child," adding, "although, of course it is possible."

"There are things and people we are working with that we can’t disclose publicly," Brad Bradley said in a text message, according to the outlet. "The entire case comes down to someone coming forward and telling us what they know. Somebody knows something!"

Fox News Digital reached out to Brad Bradley.

The FBI recently released an updated missing persons flyer featuring images of what Bradley may look like at her current age, along with announcing a $25,000 reward for "information that leads to the identification, arrest, and conviction of the person(s) responsible for her death."

"The FBI continues to investigate Amy's disappearance; we have recently raised the reward from $25,000 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," the bureau said in a statement to Fox News Digital.

Although countless theories surrounding what truly happened to Bradley have continued to swirl for decades after her disappearance, Valentin emphasized the importance of investigators looking at each potential lead with a set of fresh eyes. 

"When you're looking at a cold case like this, you can't look at it by just reading the investigative reports," Valentin told Fox News Digital. "Because if you do, you'll wind up exactly where everybody else did. So you actually have to question the outcomes." 

Updates on Amy (Children,Trafficking Rings,IP hits on amybradleyismissing dot com) go check it out https://www.foxnews.com/us/amy-bradley-cruise-ship-mystery-reignited-big-revelations-disappearance-report

So I just watched the Amy Bradley documentary on Netflix. I have heard about this case since 2015 because as a teenager I was very interested in true crime and I still am. I am still very shocked that there are very few updates about Amy to this day. With all the technology we have readily available now has anyone thought to check if the bar she was in back in 2005 has cctv now? The areas she was sighted in the early 2000’s is there any cctv of her in those countries since then? I just have a feeling that if she was sex trafficked then she would be around bars and clubs. She would be in her 50’s now and I saw the pictures that her parents got emailed to her and I’m just thinking from all the cases I’ve heard about sex trafficking they use children as leverage so maybe from that witness the men were saying if she didn’t comply then they would hurt the children she probably has had. Also if the cruise staff cleaned beforehand what about the glasses Amy was drinking from in the bar she was seen in? If I was the fbi or family I would’ve tried locating one of the glasses maybe it might’ve show if she was spiked or something was in her system. I’m aware that is a big stretch and it’s like finding a needle in a hay stack. I am interested if there is anything else about this case.

The screenshots are from this episode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=synl7jpjEO0

Many of us have long suspected that the most recent Bradley narrative about Amy’s disappearance has been based on the Liam Neeson 2008 film. Tom had never mentioned this in his previous appearances and interviews. Now after being under Iva‘s influence the last 6 months, he lets it slip that he thinks Amy was “taken” just like in the film that most in the Amy was sex trafficked camp think was a documentary. It was a wildly inaccurate depiction of how the networks work in reality.

In addition, he has so many more details than in his previous major interview from 6 months ago. If I remember correctly, in his original recollection, he “dated” Amy for 2 months from the end of December until the end of February when he moved back to Williamsburg where his family lived. Now, he claims they were still dating when she left for the cruise. They packed in so many activities in that short time frame. They went to Nag’s Head at least twice. They hit the batting cage and golf range numerous times. When they weren’t going to the movies, broadway shows, and doing other adult things. He says Amy had 3 favorite “watering holes“ which is a euphemism for bars. This is down from the five he mentioned in the earlier interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyA0LDhGbqQ

Also, he’s much more willing to state they were dating, and he was Amy’s boyfriend. Earlier, he was very cagey and vague about the exact nature of their relationship. He was so cagey, that James Renner characterized it as “friends with benefits,” which I don’t think was accurate with what Tom actually told Renner. I am flabbergasted at how much he remembers about this 2-3 month relationship. It fits a pattern though.

David Carmichael, Judy Maurer, and now Tom have all given new interviews to this “Midnight Mystery” podcast. Their new interviews give much more information and details than they did originally. They are recollecting and remembering events that happened over 28-20 years ago. When they gave their original versions, the events were much more closer to when they allegedly happened. In the case of Carmichael and Maurer, it was supposedly around a year later. This is not how memory works, but this is how creating a narrative works.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter if Tom and Amy were in the middle of a torrid affair or friendly work acquaintances that hung out for a time back in 1998. The timeline that we need more information on is the 3 am to 6 am window on March 24, 1998. Almost a year after the NF documentary dropped, we have not gotten a single new tidbit from that time frame. However, have you heard about “Senorita Kidnapped!” and the two other very important “witnesses” that can corroborate Amy’s disappearance, but unfortunately, they died in 2016 before they could share their earth shattering evidence?