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

[Whisper2112]

Perhaps it's not a lack of capability of understanding, it's that there has been confusing information provided. Originally, I understood it that Amy disappeared, and very soon afterwards, the family left to go out of town because of a medical appointment out of town. And it seemed questionable to leave town while your child is missing.

Now I'm being told it was Amy herself that had the appointment, which was subsequently cancelled on account of the fact she was missing. That would make sense.

But if a scheduled medical appointment for Amywas cancelled after her disappearance, why was it even ever brought up? It would be clear why an appointment for someone would be cancelled when the person for whom the appointment is for is missing.

There was a poster a few months back who made it all just clear as mud.

So that's why I'm gonna have to go back and read over it all again. Because why would there be any discussion about a cancelled appointment? Why would I even think to wonder about it, and why do I have it stuck in my head that the appointment was for a different family member and wasn't cancelled due to the absence? Did I just grab that idea out of the ether?

It seems like this is based on the (disputed by the family) police report that was released to the press. The report said something about them having plans to leave town for a medical appointment, and the officer asking if they thought Amy would come back in time to make the trip to the appointment, and they said that they thought she would.

People claim it as an established fact that the family left town immediately after their daughter disappeared. The factual basis for that claim is very thin.

 

[Whisper2112]

That would make it easy for anyone that grabber her to hit the highway and be gone quickly. By the time anyone reacted and the police were called they could be 30 minutes down the highway. The fact that they looked at it as a runaway makes it devastating for anyone to find her.

Can't find the post now, but I seem to remember making that exact same point back in 2014. and "grabbing" doesn't necessarily have to be a high-profile noticeable event. It could be luring or even going with someone a person knows, or getting in a car to visit with someone you know and the driver takes off.

I was a student at a rural high school in the 1980's, and actually got roped into some weird situations a couple of times when a friend waved me over and I thought I was just jumping into the car so they could tell me something, and next thing you know, the driver is taking off. Once, I pitched such a fit about it, they dropped me off in the middle of nowhere and I had to walk to a place with a payphone and call my parents. kid stuff can get weird.

 

[Whisper2112]

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.

It hasn't been "handwaved lightly. For instance, the article that was cited from didn't say that it was 65 calls "down the years" It said that it had been 65 calls in the past 30 years.

As another commentor pointed out, that at the time of the article, that count included 25 years AFTER Amy disappeared. We know at least one was a medical call before Amy disappeared. One of the three "runaway" incidences appears to be when she accompanied a child who was having trouble to The Bridge.

Wasn't there something said about harassment/bullying from neighbors? Situations like that can rack up a lot of police calls.

Not sure what you mean by a "huge hole in the timeline". A timeline work-up was reportedly done by the PIs working with a local missing child organization, and that was given to the MGPD. If you have seen it, or any other timeline done by LE such that you are able to identify a "gap", that would indeed be remarkable.

 

[Whisper2112]

That would be an excellent question to ask the Maple grove PD. Since they have the report, they would likely be able to verify that information.

On further reflection, was that a police report you signed, or was that your witness statement?