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

 

[Whisper2112]

Agreed it's a narcissist reaction that is telling.

Are you a mental health professional? Have you clinically evaluated Amy's family?

 

[Whisper2112]

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

Amy doesn't have any stepparents. That is an example of bad reporting. Do you have any proof that they have spread false information? They have tried to correct the record when false things have been said. How is that controlling the narrative? They have followed law enforcement direction about what information to share and what information not to share. How is that "controlling the narrative?" That is a strong accusation. You should have some evidence before accusing someone. Almost all parents of missing kids have to go through this torture, of people with an agenda telling stories, and other people picking them up and repeating them without any reason to believe the worst of a heartbroken family suffering the trauma of a missing child.

 

[Noirdame79]

Amy doesn't have any stepparents. That is an example of bad reporting. Do you have any proof that they have spread false information? They have tried to correct the record when false things have been said. How is that controlling the narrative? They have followed law enforcement direction about what information to share and what information not to share. How is that "controlling the narrative?" That is a strong accusation. You should have some evidence before accusing someone. Almost all parents of missing kids have to go through this torture, of people with an agenda telling stories, and other people picking them up and repeating them without any reason to believe the worst of a heartbroken family suffering the trauma of a missing child.

I didn't say the parents have spread false information; I stated other cases where it happened and said it could be a possibility here. I did not say that it was a fact in this case. So the police, at least originally, were out to get the parents and put down the wrong information? The neighbors were out to get the parents, and the media was as well, etc? I'm sorry, this makes the parents look more suspicious, not less. It's almost as if they are forgetting that Amy is the victim, not them. I wrote about parents/stepparents to highlight that there are cases that have involved both. It doesn't help that the story has changed; that only makes things more confusing. So the police came up with the whole "Amy was promiscuous and wanted to go out and drink" by themselves, with no prompting or taking information from the parents? Everyone else has an agenda. The media misquotes them, the neighbors are nosy and want to cause trouble, etc. Hmm.

I'm not saying that law enforcement can't be incompetent or corrupt; there are definitely cases where that happens. I can believe that they initially assumed Amy was a runaway, partly because of her age, but they just randomly came up with that she was the type to sleep around, run away, and drink? Clearly, LE thought at least one of the parents was involved, and Amy was possibly buried on the family property, hence the digging. It appears that nothing came of that, but that was the direction LE was looking in. Was it founded or unfounded? I don't know. I'm open to being wrong, but we cannot say with any degree of certainty that Amy's parents, or at least one of them, were not involved.

MOO

 

[Whisper2112]

I didn't say the parents have spread false information; I stated other cases where it happened and said it could be a possibility here. I did not say that it was a fact in this case. So the police, at least originally, were out to get the parents and put down the wrong information? The neighbors were out to get the parents, and the media was as well, etc? I'm sorry, this makes the parents look more suspicious, not less. It's almost as if they are forgetting that Amy is the victim, not them. I wrote about parents/stepparents to highlight that there are cases that have involved both. It doesn't help that the story has changed; that only makes things more confusing. So the police came up with the whole "Amy was promiscuous and wanted to go out and drink" by themselves, with no prompting or taking information from the parents? Everyone else has an agenda. The media misquotes them, the neighbors are nosy and want to cause trouble, etc. Hmm.

I'm not saying that law enforcement can't be incompetent or corrupt; there are definitely cases where that happens. I can believe that they initially assumed Amy was a runaway, partly because of her age, but they just randomly came up with that she was the type to sleep around, run away, and drink? Clearly, LE thought at least one of the parents was involved, and Amy was possibly buried on the family property, hence the digging. It appears that nothing came of that, but that was the direction LE was looking in. Was it founded or unfounded? I don't know. I'm open to being wrong, but we cannot say with any degree of certainty that Amy's parents, or at least one of them, were not involved.

MOO

You say "It could be a possibility here" with zero evidence to back that up. A lot of stuff "could be a possibility here" if we don't need evidence. Sometimes the person responsible for the person's disappearance enters the public conversation and makes innuendo about people close to the missing person to throw people onto the wrong track. I'm not saying that's what you are doing, but it "could be a possibility here".

Do you see how that works? It isn't very useful. It is certainly not kind, and you have offered nothing to support it being true.

You say "the story has changed", but you don't give any specifics.

And to be accurate, I've never heard Amy's family say that the officer who took the report down wrong was "out to get" them or anyone else. Inaccurate reports are quite common in my experience. I have seen some doozies. Officers are often stressed and have divided attention, still processing their last call, monitoring their radios, assessing the scene, and can often make big assumptions about the kind of call that they are answering. So when they get it wrong, can have a terrible impact on the investigation. That can be tremendously painful and frustrating. But that doesn't mean the officer was "out to get" anyone.

Yes, it is completely believable that the cop came up with all that stuff about Amy on their own. You would be surprised how often I have heard cops say stuff very much like that about kids they assume are run-aways. One officer told me that he thought what we had here was a "girls gone wild scenario" in another case. And yes, he came up with that on his own, with no indication or reason to assume that.

And yes, it is quite common for disgruntled neighbors, co-workers, or estranged family members to put in their negative .02 about the parents if the case gets any public attention. Again, very common. Not unusual for stuff like that to happen in this case, because it happens in so many others.

Nobody ever said that the media is "out to get" the family. That's just how the media works. They are under tight deadline, they have a very limited run-time for the story (usually just a couple of minutes), and they are under a lot of pressure to get engagement. Accuracy suffers, as does completeness. Media misquotes all the time. It is so common, that that is the main reason to get media training if you deal with the media at all. Law Enforcement has officers that specialize in managing the media and study and train on how to make it hard for them to do anything other than get it right...and the media STILL sometimes gets it wrong.

But just because they aren't "out to get you" doesn't mean it isn't painful and hurtful when there is wrong information out there. And I don't know why it is bad for someone to occasionally show how hard it is to have a child missing for decades, and that it is impossible to correct the record and get accurate information out. It is hard. It is painful. Sometimes it shows. I'm not sure what to think about people who believe that trying to correct the record, or occasionally showing hurt is playing the victim or as another person said being narcissistic.

The current investigator was probably right when they told the family that there was no point to participating in this venue and told them to stop. It sure hasn't been useful yet.

 

[Noirdame79]

You say "It could be a possibility here" with zero evidence to back that up. A lot of stuff "could be a possibility here" if we don't need evidence. Sometimes the person responsible for the person's disappearance enters the public conversation and makes innuendo about people close to the missing person to throw people onto the wrong track. I'm not saying that's what you are doing, but it "could be a possibility here".

Do you see how that works? It isn't very useful. It is certainly not kind, and you have offered nothing to support it being true.

You say "the story has changed", but you don't give any specifics.

And to be accurate, I've never heard Amy's family say that the officer who took the report down wrong was "out to get" them or anyone else. Inaccurate reports are quite common in my experience. I have seen some doozies. Officers are often stressed and have divided attention, still processing their last call, monitoring their radios, assessing the scene, and can often make big assumptions about the kind of call that they are answering. So when they get it wrong, can have a terrible impact on the investigation. That can be tremendously painful and frustrating. But that doesn't mean the officer was "out to get" anyone.

Yes, it is completely believable that the cop came up with all that stuff about Amy on their own. You would be surprised how often I have heard cops say stuff very much like that about kids they assume are run-aways. One officer told me that he thought what we had here was a "girls gone wild scenario" in another case. And yes, he came up with that on his own, with no indication or reason to assume that.

And yes, it is quite common for disgruntled neighbors, co-workers, or estranged family members to put in their negative .02 about the parents if the case gets any public attention. Again, very common. Not unusual for stuff like that to happen in this case, because it happens in so many others.

Nobody ever said that the media is "out to get" the family. That's just how the media works. They are under tight deadline, they have a very limited run-time for the story (usually just a couple of minutes), and they are under a lot of pressure to get engagement. Accuracy suffers, as does completeness. Media misquotes all the time. It is so common, that that is the main reason to get media training if you deal with the media at all. Law Enforcement has officers that specialize in managing the media and study and train on how to make it hard for them to do anything other than get it right...and the media STILL sometimes gets it wrong.

But just because they aren't "out to get you" doesn't mean it isn't painful and hurtful when there is wrong information out there. And I don't know why it is bad for someone to occasionally show how hard it is to have a child missing for decades, and that it is impossible to correct the record and get accurate information out. It is hard. It is painful. Sometimes it shows. I'm not sure what to think about people who believe that trying to correct the record, or occasionally showing hurt is playing the victim or as another person said being narcissistic.

The current investigator was probably right when they told the family that there was no point to participating in this venue and told them to stop. It sure hasn't been useful yet.

We are allowed to have our speculations and theories here, as long as we state that they are just that. You don't have to agree, but you also don't have the right to tell someone what theories they are allowed to have. I'm even more suspicious of the parents now. Of course it would be painful to have a child missing, for years or not. However, finding the child is the top priority, not your reputation or what people think of you. Parents who make the latter their main priority are the ones that many view as suspect. If you don't know what I'm referring to about the story changing, go back to the first page and look at the posts by Amy's mother and sister.

 

[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

 

[Whisper2112]

We are allowed to have our speculations and theories here, as long as we state that they are just that. You don't have to agree, but you also don't have the right to tell someone what theories they are allowed to have. I'm even more suspicious of the parents now. Of course it would be painful to have a child missing, for years or not. However, finding the child is the top priority, not your reputation or what people think of you. Parents who make the latter their main priority are the ones that many view as suspect. If you don't know what I'm referring to about the story changing, go back to the first page and look at the posts by Amy's mother and sister.

You are allowed your speculations. They are not good speculations, and they are not well-supported. I am allowed to point that out. Criticism is not censorship. Just because I observe that your speculations are unsupported and harmful, doesn't mean I'm telling you that you can't have them. But you should not expect them to be above criticism.

It is interesting that you speculate that finding Amy is not the family's "Top priority". What is that based on? Because they choose to cooperate with law enforcement? Is it that they try to correct inaccurate information? Or maybe that they continue to engage with reputable media to get the case out there so anyone who knows something might be prompted to finally share what they know?

In fact, finding Amy has been their top priority from day one, and that they take every useful opportunity to continue and advance the search. That includes pushing back on rumors, innuendo, inaccuracies, and other misleading messages. You don't like that, and think it shows bad character. But sensible people understand that bad information does not help you find the truth.

 

[Noirdame79]

You are allowed your speculations. They are not good speculations, and they are not well-supported. I am allowed to point that out. Criticism is not censorship. Just because I observe that your speculations are unsupported and harmful, doesn't mean I'm telling you that you can't have them. But you should not expect them to be above criticism.

It is interesting that you speculate that finding Amy is not the family's "Top priority". What is that based on? Because they choose to cooperate with law enforcement? Is it that they try to correct inaccurate information? Or maybe that they continue to engage with reputable media to get the case out there so anyone who knows something might be prompted to finally share what they know?

In fact, finding Amy has been their top priority from day one, and that they take every useful opportunity to continue and advance the search. That includes pushing back on rumors, innuendo, inaccuracies, and other misleading messages. You don't like that, and think it shows bad character. But sensible people understand that bad information does not help you find the truth.

I think it's rather strange you feel the need to type these long posts in response to anyone who thinks that the parents are suspicious. You have your opinion, I have mine. Let's just leave it at that.

 

[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.

 

[Leprikawn]

Are you a mental health professional? Have you clinically evaluated Amy's family?

I was commenting on the action and the action is a narcissist thing action. I have not clinically evaluated her family but if they would allow me I would be happy to.
I think the best course of action on this site is to keep an open mind and look at everything. we do not achieve anything by shutting out or shouting down everything that is brought forward. That is how serial killers flourish and the missing are never found. There are numerous cases of "runaways" that were abducted, and numerous stories where a parent has covered up an "accident."

So I am sorry if you are offended. I am offended by the fact this child is missing and what happened to her needs to be exposed. If the person that did this is a family member, cop, or a drifter, I don't care.