MN MN - Amy Pagnac, 13, Osseo, 5 Aug 1989

[Noirdame79]

This is the frustrating thing about bad reporting. Reporters and readers want to believe that something like this cannot happen to them, their child, or their family, so they blame the child or the family to protect their sense of safety with wild conjecture. When you are interviewed for a story, you know that they will interview you for an hour, pull a two second quote, and everyone will load everything into the few words that they use. But you do the interview anyway because that is how you keep the search going. But you know that the narrative is completely in the hands of others.

That may be true in some cases, but not all. Guilty parents/stepparents often try to control the narrative and will even spread false information to divert suspicion. Look no further than the cases of Aundria Bowman/Alexis Badger, Alissa Turney, Gannon Stauch, Dylan Redwine, etc. I don't know if that is what happened here, but it's possible.

MOO

 

[Noirdame79]

All pure speculation and opinion (and a long ramble..)

Jmo, but I think the whole story of Amy disappearing from the gas station is preposterous.

If my speculation is correct, all that MM would have had to do to pull this off would have been to convince police on the initial phone call from the gas station that Amy had run away.

Once that was accomplished, once that was embedded as the basis of the story… any later police investigation into any scenario other than runaway has been irreparably harmed. Irretrievably broken. Opportunities lost. You can’t undo it. So, in this case, as they say, nothing happened “in the first 48”. And for a missing 13 year old! What a tragedy. To say it was a very poor judgement call by police is, imo, the understatement of the year

Who was the dispatcher or officer who supposedly told MM to go on home and that police would just meet him there for a casual interview about how often she runs away and how delinquent a girl she is with all the running away for drugs and sex and stuff. What were the cops thinking? That is unforgivable in my book. Hard to believe even. Amy was 13!

What if AMY HAD been abducted? You just ignore the scene of the abduction? The only person who could have led LE to believe it was not an abduction was MM. But how could he have known? He did not see her leave the car or station. He said she was already gone. Why would he backburner the possibility of an abduction?

Can you imagine a dispatcher or police officer making a similar judgement call if the supposed “runaway” had been the man’s wife? “Officer she must’ve just run away while I was doing my business.”? “Ok, we’ll just meet you at your place and get a statement from you!”

No, if a wife had gone missing under similar circumstances, the husband would have been the (albeit unnamed) prime suspect no. 1. As well as numbers 2-10. Surveillance would’ve been checked, statements taken, witnesses (gas station employees and others) interviewed, father and daughter isolated, forensics done on the car, bolo’s issued, areas searched. For days. Why was this treated differently because it was a thirteen year old girl?

It seems to me that Amy was diagnosed with epilepsy as a matter of convenience. To throw shade snd deflect blame. When you can’t think of any other reason why she is so much trouble, so delinquent and so disobedient. Just narrative building and virtue signaling. “It can’t be us!” “And, did I tell you that she’s net even my child, so I’m responsible if she has ended up a bad seed.”

But even if the epilepsy were true, don’t seizures most often (most often, I know, not always) result in a person convulsing - w/eyes rolling back, etc. - not with the person getting out of the car and calmly walking away. And where would she have gone?

I read earlier in the thread that at one time, one of the parents (I think it was MM) suggested that she had been running away to have sex and to do drugs. Very curious statement. Sounds like more shade. I guess they were not terribly worried about Amy’s reputation. I wonder if the father would have easily offered up that smear if Amy had been his biological child? There have been cases in the past where it did.

And in the past hadn’t Amy normally taken a backpack with her when she left home for a day or two? Why wouldn’t she wait the 2 miles to get home to get the backpack this time? It makes absolutely no sense. She was not in the car at the gas station (jmo)

Why take the word of a possible suspect (about the runaways, and about the epilepsy, and about the gas station, and about the farm, and about the trip, and about the sex and the drugs, and the PI reports about the stripping, and the sightings and hanging out with bad characters much too old for her? Why take the word of a possible SUSPECT and a PI hired by the possible suspect? Would they have done that if it was his wife who was missing? Barry Morphew comes to mind

And why didn’t LE take the time to go find and interview the supposed witness at the farm who “saw them leave” on their own? Did police EVER identify this individual? Why did it take a PI hired by the family to find this witness and report the witness’ statement to police? Wouldn’t that make it hearsay, which is unreliable testimony - even in court. Did police just take the PI’s word for it? I have yet to see a link verifying that LE has ever stated as a fact that a witness saw (and could 100 percent identify) the two of them when they were at the farm, or as they were leaving the farm

And apparently it’s the same family PI who continued to throw up one red herring after another.. two friends swear they saw her one or two weeks later; she’s a stripper out west but she got away; she’s hanging out with a crowd that’s too old for her, she often gets epileptic seizures and just wanders off .. Imo the PI was dropping smoke bomb after smoke bomb for the people who paid him to do just that. More shade. Why would loving parents paint their child out to be such an evil person (that’s the way it came across to me anyway)?

And I don’t care what you call MM.. but for those that think bio father and adoptive (or step) father are statistically the same when it comes to crimes against natural vs adopted or step children, just do some research here on web sleuths. Insisting that because his name (as adopting father) is on her birth certificate does not mitigate this at all. Attempts to claim that it does are misguided (and leave the reader/listener wondering: could there be a motive behind such an adamant yet factually unsupported stance? And if Amy was his adopted daughter, and his name is on her birth certificate, why doesn’t she share his name?

But, what could LE do? They couldn’t go investigate each of these far fetched PI claims meant (imo) to deflect blame from MM and possibly SP. They had a budget. Not to mention, they were checkmated the moment they bought the runaway story in the very first phone call - and they knew it (though I give them credit for taking a second look at things 25 years later - but I never thought Amy was buried at the house). There might have been evidence of a crime in the house, but I think Amy is located approx 2 hours away by car.

So I don’t think Amy was ever at the gas station, and I don’t think she (or MM for that matter) was ever at the farm that day.

I think whatever happened to Amy happened overnight or in the morning the day of MM’s trip (to someplace). Someplace other than the farm. If (IF) something happened at the house, this would have been an easy-to-come-up with cover story for disposal and then false report. She ran away! Blame Amy!

I wonder what Amy’s sister remembers of that prior evening and that am? How old was she? How much does she remember vs how much she was told? Was she asleep? Did she actually see Amy that morning, or was she just told that’s where her dad and Amy went?

Why would LE be digging up the yard and searching the house in 2014 if they didn’t believe a possible crime had occurred at that location. Imo it was more than a few neighbors mentioning landscaping. Very likely it was discrepancies in stories - did he stop to do his business (but then happen to just buy gas before calling cops? - or did he buy gas, then use restroom as an afterthought? - SP said he “stopped to do his business”). That’s good enough for me. Or, maybe they had trouble locating the the mysterious farm dude, or they gleaned info from tapped phones. Idk

Jmo, but I think LE has a pretty good idea of what might have happened, but (if my speculation is correct) they have no clue where MM took Amy that morning. He could’ve headed anywhere.

Imo the only way this crime will ever be solved is if Amy’s body is somehow found and DNA or other evidence can tieher killer to her. But at this stage I don’t think she will ever be found. Imo he would not have gone to a property they owned. Was he a hunter, or fisherman? Did he own a cabin, or have storage some where? What outdoor area or remote out building was he familiar with (but didn’t own) within 2-3 hours that was not the farm? Also could’ve been a dumpster (again, everything in this post is speculation).

I hope that someday there is some small measure of justice for Amy. The time for a full measure of justice for an Amy has long since passed. A very sad and frustrating case, as it appears that somebody got away with murder.

All jmo

I agree. There is so much about this case that is off.

MOO

 

[ekardh]

Hadn't the police been called to the home on multiple occasions? Didn't Amy have a history of running away? This was clearly not a happy or stable homelife.

The problem for me is there's no independent witness that confirms Amy was at the gas station, or even with her father that day. It's possible Amy ran away while his back was turned or got snatched up by someone, but again no one saw or heard anything suspicious either.

It may be impossible to prove what happened, but I know what my gut tells me.

 

[Whisper2112]

Hadn't the police been called to the home on multiple occasions? Didn't Amy have a history of running away? This was clearly not a happy or stable homelife.

The problem for me is there's no independent witness that confirms Amy was at the gas station, or even with her father that day. It's possible Amy ran away while his back was turned or got snatched up by someone, but again no one saw or heard anything suspicious either.

It may be impossible to prove what happened, but I know what my gut tells me.

It's not that uncommon to have multiple police visits for a variety of reasons. For instance, if a child has seizures, and doesn't return home when expected, or leaves without informing the parents, it seems reasonable that they would call the police to tell them that they could not locate their child, who has a medical condition.

Also, the police will respond to medical calls alongside EMS for medical emergencies.

Every time we had a medical emergency at my house, Police responded to the call. We also had a visit from police when my car was vandalized. And a neighbor once called in a noise complaint because of our youngest child's band practicing in our house. I even called my child in as missing once when they didn't get off the school bus, and nobody could locate them. I would hate for someone to assume that our home life is unstable and unhappy.

A missing child is defined as a child whose legal custodians don't know where they are and cannot locate them. Police generally seem to call any missing child over the age of 12 a "runaway" unless there is evidence of foul play. For instance, Amanda Berry was classified as a "runaway" because there was no evidence of her abduction until she was found and told police what happened to her. In fact, all three of that man's victims were considered to be "runaways", including Michelle Knight who was abducted as an adult.

I also don't find it at all surprising that police don't have any eye-witnesses who saw Amy that day, as I have never seen any indication that they canvassed the area at all in the days following the disappearance, when people might have remembered. If there was any indication that they tried to talk to people who were there that day while their memory was fresh, it might be more significant. If there is no search for the evidence, its absence isn't really that surprising.

Just as an example, do you remember the last time you went to the gas station? Would you notice a 13 year old sitting in a car, or getting out and wandering off? If so, would you remember it weeks or possibly months later?

Another thing that stands out to me is that while there have been other leads, generally, the main people and places the police have to work with are Amy's home, her family, and their farm property. And in 36 years of working directly with the family (who the police have publicly stated are cooperative), there's no evidence uncovered? It is really hard to believe that if there is anything to find, they have not been able to find it.

I was at a BCA Missing Person's Conference before the 2014 search. There was a significant contingent from the Maple Grove PD there, and one of the sessions was about how to review an old case. The speaker stressed identifying new technologies, techniques, information and practices that might reveal new evidence, and then beginning the investigation fresh, starting with the people and places closest to the missing person. I remarked to one of my contacts with another agency that I was hopeful that they might do this with Amy's case. The person just shook their head and said that the family had been treated very badly. But Maple Grove did appear to follow what that training recommended. I remember Amy's mom being hopeful that it would bring more awareness and maybe prompt some people who might know something to come forward.

The media focused on the search of the house, the farm property, and the digging in the back yard, but if MGPD was doing what the training suggested, they were tracking down old leads and talking to the Private Investigators and re-examining everything. But it would be impossible to show that on camera, of course.

So people assume that was the only action taken on that case in 2014. I find that highly unlikely if they were going by the training that they received at that conference.

 

[ekardh]

It's not that uncommon to have multiple police visits for a variety of reasons. For instance, if a child has seizures, and doesn't return home when expected, or leaves without informing the parents, it seems reasonable that they would call the police to tell them that they could not locate their child, who has a medical condition.

Also, the police will respond to medical calls alongside EMS for medical emergencies.

Every time we had a medical emergency at my house, Police responded to the call. We also had a visit from police when my car was vandalized. And a neighbor once called in a noise complaint because of our youngest child's band practicing in our house. I even called my child in as missing once when they didn't get off the school bus, and nobody could locate them. I would hate for someone to assume that our home life is unstable and unhappy.

A missing child is defined as a child whose legal custodians don't know where they are and cannot locate them. Police generally seem to call any missing child over the age of 12 a "runaway" unless there is evidence of foul play. For instance, Amanda Berry was classified as a "runaway" because there was no evidence of her abduction until she was found and told police what happened to her. In fact, all three of that man's victims were considered to be "runaways", including Michelle Knight who was abducted as an adult.

I also don't find it at all surprising that police don't have any eye-witnesses who saw Amy that day, as I have never seen any indication that they canvassed the area at all in the days following the disappearance, when people might have remembered. If there was any indication that they tried to talk to people who were there that day while their memory was fresh, it might be more significant. If there is no search for the evidence, its absence isn't really that surprising.

Just as an example, do you remember the last time you went to the gas station? Would you notice a 13 year old sitting in a car, or getting out and wandering off? If so, would you remember it weeks or possibly months later?

Another thing that stands out to me is that while there have been other leads, generally, the main people and places the police have to work with are Amy's home, her family, and their farm property. And in 36 years of working directly with the family (who the police have publicly stated are cooperative), there's no evidence uncovered? It is really hard to believe that if there is anything to find, they have not been able to find it.

I was at a BCA Missing Person's Conference before the 2014 search. There was a significant contingent from the Maple Grove PD there, and one of the sessions was about how to review an old case. The speaker stressed identifying new technologies, techniques, information and practices that might reveal new evidence, and then beginning the investigation fresh, starting with the people and places closest to the missing person. I remarked to one of my contacts with another agency that I was hopeful that they might do this with Amy's case. The person just shook their head and said that the family had been treated very badly. But Maple Grove did appear to follow what that training recommended. I remember Amy's mom being hopeful that it would bring more awareness and maybe prompt some people who might know something to come forward.

The media focused on the search of the house, the farm property, and the digging in the back yard, but if MGPD was doing what the training suggested, they were tracking down old leads and talking to the Private Investigators and re-examining everything. But it would be impossible to show that on camera, of course.

So people assume that was the only action taken on that case in 2014. I find that highly unlikely if they were going by the training that they received at that conference.

Under those circumstances, it wouldn't be uncommon, but apparently there had been 65 calls to the family address down the years. That shouldn't be handwaved lightly.

I agree that people often don’t remember everyday moments, like a gas station stop unless something stands out.

That said, the issue for me is the pattern in combination with everything else: Multiple calls from police, a history of Amy running away, domestic violence, frustrated parents, and the circumstances that day, all stack up into a picture that doesn’t look good. That doesn’t necessarily mean abuse, but it wasn't a low-stress environment.

The lack of independent corroboration is still one of the most troubling things. Even if canvassing wasn’t done properly, we're still left with no witnesses, no sightings, no signs of an abduction, and no physical evidence of Amy ever being there.

There’s a huge hole in the timeline. It might mean bad police work, or it might mean Amy wasn’t there to begin with. I’m not saying the family did anything, but based on what we know, the inconsistencies and gaps make it difficult to rule it out. That’s what my gut tells me, even if the truth can’t be proven.

 

[Mysteries1974]

It has a great chance considering the location. The fact that they could not determine key factors tells me that it has been there awhile. Very good find.

I sent an email about the possible match and have yet to hear back. I sent it to the ME but I’ll send one to NamUs to see if that might help.

I’m wondering what address the construction site was at and whether or not the land was developed when Amy disappeared.

 

[Whisper2112]

Perhaps initially the mother felt A had run away and would return but later figured out she did not because her things and money were still around. Maybe that's why she kept her medical appointment - if A had previ

Well, whether a person would leave town for a few days for a medical procedure under those circumstances likely depends at least in part on what the procedure was, how much trouble it was giving you, and how long you had been waiting for the appointment, as well as whether there was anything you could do at home. If you're just sitting around waiting for a phone call, you can do that as easily at the medical facility as in your house.

Did it say whose medical procedure it was?

So, the younger sister was home sick the day Amy disappeared? Did Amy go to school that day? If not, why not?

Amy did not go to school that day because it was Saturday. It was also summer break and school was not in session. Amy's mom said several times publicly that Amy had been looking forward to back-to-school shopping.

 

[Whisper2112]

That's a good question. But didn't she disappear in August? So there would not have been school in session

Yes, it was a Saturday, school was not in session. Amy's mom has publicly stated many times that Amy was very much looking forward to back-to-school shopping that evening.

 

[Whisper2112]

hmmmm....well, according to the friend of the younger sister....post above....little sis was home that day from school....:dunno:

Yes, August 5

She stayed home from going to the farm. Mom stayed with her. Not sure where the school thing came from. Just another example of how stuff gets twisted around here.

 

[Whisper2112]

I can "see" the mother doing this: eccentric, naive, probably innocent IMO.

One thing that I find strange is that LE is tearing up the place, yet Mom is okay with that. If it were my house and yard, I would be a wreck.

Amy's mom was just glad to have the public aware of Amy's case, and for there to be visible investigative activity on the case, according to public statements. I can't imagine it is easy, but when finding your child is a top priority, you're likely to cooperate with investigation activity and do whatever you can to accommodate.

It did get the case out there. With any luck, someone who actually knows something will come forward and tell what they know soon.

 

[Whisper2112]

Bolded and snipped by me

If the date is correct, August 5th 1989 was a Saturday meaning there was no school.

There is no way on this earth that her sister is a suspect. But the most traumatic thing that I dealt with as a child was when my grandma stroked in front of my and died. I was 11 at the time and I honestly don't remember if I went to school that day or not.

I'm just saying that maybe she has been told that she was sick and didn't go to school, which would explain why Amy was the only one that went with her father to the farm?

I guess my question is why was it only Amy and her dad going to the farm, and for what? I would imagine that if it was to work on something, the whole family would have gone, especially on a Saturday.

And who really stops at a gas station when you are 2 miles from home to do a #2? Maybe that is just the chick in me and my public bathroom phobia. Even on roadtrips, I wait until we need gas, and then I still have walked away after surveying the scene.

MM stopped for gas. He also visited the restroom. This has been mentioned several times over the years, but for some reason I can't find those posts. Not sure if they got deleted by the mods, or if I just haven't gotten to them yet.
Articles on this case say they went to tend crops. I would imagine that if you are going out to a field to take care of farm chores, you don't bring a sick kid out there. You wouldn't leave an eight-year-old at home alone, sick, all day. So one parent stays home with the sick child and the other parent takes the well child with to do chores. It doesn't seem that odd to me, but then again, I grew up with a family with large gardens and grandparents who grew crops. So maybe it just seems normal to me.

 

[Whisper2112]

I thought they already had family DNA for Amy. Why would they need more? Or am I mistaken?

Familial DNA is good. The actual DNA of the person is better.

 

[Whisper2112]

The article said there have been 65 calls from that address over the past 30 years. Amy has been gone for nearly 25 of those 30 years. Why doesn't the article clarify how many calls were made before Amy went missing, & how many were made after?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatal

The article said there have been 65 calls from that address over the past 30 years. Amy has been gone for nearly 25 of those 30 years. Why doesn't the article clarify how many calls were made before Amy went missing, & how many were made after?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly. Thank you for this awesome display of critical thinking.

 

[Whisper2112]

Didn't Patty wear a wire to meet with a suspect? I can't remember. Did she fly down to meet with a guy who said he was Jacob?

It's been reported that Patty Wetterling wore a wire to talk to Dan Rassier. I also seem to recall that she did so at the request of and with the full participation and support of law enforcement. That's not the same as parents taking the investigation into their own hands, which is just a weird thing to demand of them. If Law Enforcement doesn't share information with the family, they cannot share it with you. If law enforcement shares information with the family and tells them to not share it, they cannot share it with you. If the PIs that worked with the family gave all their information to Law Enforcement, and Law Enforcement didn't share it with the family, they cannot share it with you.

 

[Leprikawn]

How is far the gas station to the highway? Does anyone know?

 

[Leprikawn]

My role is in my verified notation. I'm an advocate for the missing. It is really tiresome that I am repeatedly dismissed as a family member just because I would like the discussion to be sensible, responsible and effective.

I don't share any facts that aren't already public. Period. If Law Enforcement wants it to be public, THEY will share it. The main way folks here can help is to share responsibly about Amy's case, provide crucial social support for the search, publicly encourage anyone who knows anything to speak to police, and to keep an open mind about what information might be important. (If the public thinks that there's only one possible conclusion, people might not recognize some of what they know as important, for instance).

I'm not opposed to people bringing up ideas. I am dismayed by continued repetition of misinformation that has been corrected over and over again, and that comments that address this information are ignored, dismissed, devalued and reported for deletion or editing so that there is just ONE dominant theory that, frankly, makes very little sense given the totality of the case.

For instance, why, on God's green earth would any sensible person think that the most accessible, cooperative, motivated people associated with the case, who have been cooperating fully with law enforcement for 36 years and continuously begging for more investigation are guilty of something? Why would any sensible person believe that despite having full access to every aspect of their life, law enforcement can't seem to find anything to use against them? Make that make sense.

It makes no sense that so much of this whole thread is people demanding that the family provide information that they do not have, or that they have been told not to share. Then the fact that they will not share something they don't have, or the fact that they will not interfere with the investigation, is seen as proof that they are guilty.

As an example, the family cannot produce the gas receipt that they gave to the police. Because they gave it to the police. They don't have it anymore. They cannot tell anyone what the police did to follow up on certain tips, because the police have not told them what they did to follow up on the tips. They can't tell anyone details about the tips that the police have told them not to share. They can't tell anyone what was done to follow up with the witness that saw MM and Amy leaving the farm because law enforcement has not told them what was done to follow up with the witness.

It's very frustrating that this is impossible to understand, because it seems very simple to me.

I understand why the police dont share much. My friend Sharon when her daughter Michaela Garecht was kidnapped they would bring her in to update her, but it was after the investigation was done of those people. She said that when they laid out every suspect you would be convinced that they were the one. IN the end it turned out to be someone who had been in prison shortly after her abduction.

People have every right to ask about the people she lived with. In May of 2014 they did a search of the home looking for something. They spent a lot of resources and a lot of time in that search. I don't think they have questions about the mother but they did with the stepfather. It's talked about on some threads. I have learned through the many many cases I have tried to help on and worked on that you can't leave anyone off the table until. I also know that sometimes it is better to rule people out than never to look at them. I have also seen cases where the police get focused on one person and ignore others.

 

[Whisper2112]

How is far the gas station to the highway? Does anyone know?

I assume you mean County Road 81?
It's about .1 to .2 miles depending on how you go.

 

[Whisper2112]

I understand why the police dont share much. My friend Sharon when her daughter Michaela Garecht was kidnapped they would bring her in to update her, but it was after the investigation was done of those people. She said that when they laid out every suspect you would be convinced that they were the one. IN the end it turned out to be someone who had been in prison shortly after her abduction.

People have every right to ask about the people she lived with. In May of 2014 they did a search of the home looking for something. They spent a lot of resources and a lot of time in that search. I don't think they have questions about the mother but they did with the stepfather. It's talked about on some threads. I have learned through the many many cases I have tried to help on and worked on that you can't leave anyone off the table until. I also know that sometimes it is better to rule people out than never to look at them. I have also seen cases where the police get focused on one person and ignore others.

MGPD addressed this in one of their press conferences. They said it was more about the process than anything specific. I also mentioned this in a previous comment. It was fairly soon after I had attended a conference where there was a noticeable contingent of MGPD officers. They (and I) attended a session on how to revitalize a long-term missing case. The presenter made a big deal about identifying the new techniques, technology and best practices that could be used and had not yet been, and then beginning with the people and places closest to the missing person, and working your way forward from there.

I assumed that the 2014 efforts were due to what they learned in that conference, and it did seem consistent. I also assume that there was a lot of other effort put in. just because that was the focus of the press doesn't mean it was the focus of the whole effort.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

Discuss the case and stop all the back and forth rudeness, personalizing and bickering or there will be a loss of posting privileges.

Thanks.