Second piece in a series giving insight and a behind-the-scenes look from the perspective of a private investigator and a journalist working to establish facts and researching a story and the time and investment it takes for a story that “walked in the door.” Remembering the old adage, “trust but verify.”
Continued from Part I
After communicating with the Bradbury family and obtaining permission to obtain DNA from a Bradbury family member (the client “Laura” had already agreed to obtain a DNA test with chain of custody), things changed. Private Investigator Tony Campbell of AC Investigations received a letter from Michael Bradbury’s brother asking that “Laura” just do an Ancestry.com test, as they had already submitted samples previously to that company. What we believed needed to happen in order to legally follow up, was a legal chain-of-custody DNA test, but that was unlikely now. They were not interested in obtaining chain-of-custody DNA testing and would prefer us to have “Laura” just use Ancestry.com to make any family linkages.
Given the interest shown by both Michael Bradbury and family members, we felt that with all parties interested in the matter, we would move forward. Research showed that there were labs available in their county, and the cost would be from $450 to $700 for both family members. So we had to decide, “Is it worth the investment for us?” Neither “Laura” or the Bradburys are in a position to pay for the testing.
We decided we would move forward and split the cost the following week. The Bradbury family member who was willing would like to do it separately from “Laura.” This is understandable, as the family has felt like she was stalking them. It was reported that she came to the door of the Bradbury home and it was answered by a family member, the daughter of Michael Bradbury.
“Laura” reported that who she believed was her sister looked surprised, closed the door, and yelled to someone in the house, “She’s here!” “Who?” Someone answered. “Her!” she replied. Then a man came to the door (clearly not Michael Bradbury) and said, “Leave us alone. Laura’s ashes are in a dresser drawer.”
However, Tony Campbell contacted the family and explained that he was working with “Laura” and was committed to getting to the bottom of it and he would talk to “Laura” and convince her to not just show up at their home.
After both parties agreed to do the chain-of-custody DNA test, “Laura” was seen parked in front or near the Bradburys’ house. They approached her and asked her why she was there, and she replied that she was talking to the lady next door about buying her house. She explained to us that she wants to be close to her dad. That irritated the Bradburys and set us back a bit.
They were open to do the chain-of-custody testing and then changed it to just asking that she do Ancestry.com for any family linkages.
There is doubt within the family that “Laura” is their little girl; however, they are still open.
The main reason we were told was because of the eye color. But because Mr. Bradbury was not completely convinced about the skulls and the DNA, I believe they were willing to take a look at new DNA.
Back to the original story
The woman “Laura” said she began systematically searching missing-child databases after an older woman who helped raise her said she had information she would “take to my grave.”
She said that while living in Minneapolis in 2023, she searched online using combinations of “Southern California,” “Mike” or “Michael,” and “missing girl.” She soon found Laura’s photograph.
“When I found my picture, I started reading,” she said. “I knew that I was her.”
She said she contacted the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, federal investigators and the coroner’s office. She claims personnel at the coroner’s office collected a cheek swab but that an investigator later told her it would not be tested because authorities already had Laura’s remains.
There was no incentive to reopen the case, said an FBI agent that Valley News spoke with.
The newspaper has not obtained records confirming that the sample was collected, how it was documented, whether it remains in evidence or why it was not analyzed.
The woman said she also approached a courthouse seeking information about establishing paternity and tried to contact members of the Bradbury family. She described those encounters as dismissive or hostile.
The Bradburys endured decades of tips, reported sightings and false hopes. Family reluctance would not be surprising.
The woman said she previously completed a consumer Ancestry.com DNA test but lost access to the account after a cellphone disappeared following a serious automobile crash. She said she has another test kit but has not completed it.
A consumer genealogy test showing that she is not related to the people who raised her would not, by itself, establish that she is Laura. However, that would raise more questions, maybe substantiating the theory that she was not a biological child of her “parents.” One of her claims is that her father is Native American. A DNA test showing no Indigenous ancestry would also be interesting but just another clue, not proving that she was kidnapped or that she was a Bradbury. But if that was the case it would add another layer.
The most probative evidence would obviously be a direct, legally documented DNA comparison between the woman and a confirmed close biological relative of Laura, ideally processed through law enforcement or an accredited laboratory with a verifiable chain of custody.
A comparison could also potentially be made against the genetic profile developed from the remains, if sufficient material and records still exist.
Until such testing is completed, the woman’s claim remains just that — a claim.
Her memories, blue eyes, physical resemblance and account of a blue van are reasons to keep asking questions. They are not proof. Conversely, conflicting descriptions in decades-old publications are not sufficient grounds to reject her without examination.
The woman says she is not seeking publicity for its own sake. She says she wants authorities to test her DNA and determine whether she belongs to the Bradbury family.
“I just want to go home,” she said.
For a family marked by unanswered questions since a child vanished into the desert in 1984, the responsible next step is not speculation, but evidence.
The Bradbury family had agreed to a chain-of-custody test. Then the incident with “Laura” in front of their home, and then a letter was received by Michael Bradbury’s brother, Jack, stating that the family did not wish to do the chain-of-custody testing and wanted “Laura” to just use Ancestry.com, as a brother of Michael Bradbury had already submitted his DNA to the company and they were confident that it was sufficient to know if she is a relative or not.
When confronted with this new reality, “Laura” expressed she wanted to not deal with Ancestry. “I am not interested in Ancestry ‘I have been dealing with ‘ rounda bout’ for nearly all my life. I am so sick and tired of the roundabout. I want to have my hair tested against the hair that is in my brush” (from age 3).
Next week we will continue the story and also report on several people who turned up dead after being shot who either had tips or were searching and following up on leads in the Laura Ann Bradbury missing persons case.
