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

[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.

 

[Noirdame79]

Well, I also have many years experience advocating on this case. Hence that verified insider notation.

You are a verified advocate for the missing. That doesn't necessarily mean you are right.

 

[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]

You are a verified advocate for the missing. That's doesn't necessarily mean you are right.

Nope, just that I have more information about this case than you do.

 

[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.

 

[Noirdame79]

Nope, just that I have more information about this case than you do.

It seems more like you want to take over this thread.

 

[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]

It seems more like you want to take over this thread.

Don't worry, my posts tend to disappear.

 

[PGHJW]

"I..."

"I..."

"I..."

Aye, yi, yi...

 

[Leprikawn]

Trying to correct misinformation is not a narcissistic action. The shutting and shouting down (and deleting and editing) that has happened historically in this conversation has been against anything that does not fit with people's preconceived biases and assumptions against Amy's family. That is the most offensive thing. When people care more about their own egos than they do about actually searching for the truth about what happened to Amy.

I have spent years on this case. Among other things, I've gone through a year's worth of archived local newspaper editions from around the time of Amy's disappearance to find out what was happening in the area at the time. I made a FOIA request about another missing person case that was being investigated at the same time that Amy went missing.

I have been contacted by people who were Amy's classmates and friends and spoke to them about things that were happening in Amy's life around the time of her disappearance. I've produced social media content that brought in tips (which were passed to the MGPD). I have coordinated media coverage. I talked to the PIs who worked the case (though they are quite old now, and both gave all their work product to the Maple Grove PD but they told me what they could remember). The PIs were not working for the family, as some have claimed.

You may be offended that Amy is missing, but what have you actually done to find all the information possible and get it to the right people? Because being offended isn't really helpful. It's also not helpful to fixate on one theory, which is exactly what has dominated this thread has been since day one. It is especially not helpful if the ONE theory that the dominant voices fixate on and shout down has been the most easily investigated. For 36 years, the easiest people to investigate have been cooperating fully with anyone who has worked the case. And yet it has produced nothing actionable. But pointing that out is the cardinal sin of this group, the only thing more offensive is pointing out where misinformation is being repeated.

What you have done is great. So why are you so against people bringing up ideas? are you a family member? Enlighten us to what you have because we are just trying to help. Nothing would make me happier than finding the truth and getting an arrest for the person who did this. I always hope the person taken can be brought home to their families.

 

[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.

 

[Noirdame79]

Don't worry, my posts tend to disappear.

I can actually relate to that.

 

[Leprikawn]

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

 

[Whisper2112]

What you have done is great. So why are you so against people bringing up ideas? are you a family member? Enlighten us to what you have because we are just trying to help. Nothing would make me happier than finding the truth and getting an arrest for the person who did this. I always hope the person taken can be brought home to their families.

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.

 

[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.