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?

 

[ekardh]

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.

It was handwaved by yourself. You said that because Amy had a history of seizures and running away, it's not uncommon to have police visits. 65 police visits over the course of 30 years is still higher than average. It shows a pattern of long-term difficulties.

There is a hole in the timeline because no one really knows the last time Amy was seen alive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no independent witness who's verified seeing Amy in the car with her father on the day she vanished?

 

[Whisper2112]

Whisper, I am going to be straight with you. I think you are clearly a member of Amy's family, given that you obviously have insider knowledge of this case, you only ever post on Amy's thread, and you have a great deal of personal emotion in your posts about Amy.

You don't have to reveal your identity if that's not what you want, but there is a verification process for insiders on cases, which you can go through if you are interested in doing that. If you want info on how to do that, you can ask me and I will point you in the right direction.

We just want to see Amy found, that's all. And we would like to see anyone who has been responsible for her disappearance brought to justice. We want to help you and the rest of Amy's loved ones to achieve resolution in this case.

Have a look at some of the other threads in Websleuths. As flourish posted earlier, there are lots of great sleuthers on here who you could have at your disposal to help you. Check out the Anna Christian Waters subforum to see how members on here have put in a lot of hard work to help the family of a missing child. We could try and do the same for you and Amy's family, but you have to be willing to let us.

Please accept this post in the spirit it is intended - a genuine desire to help find Amy.

Well, I got verified, for all the good it did. Not a family member. Not a family friend, not personal emotion. Just popping in from time to time to see if anyone has said or done something useful, try to correct a bit of misinformation, and then go back to working on it on my own.

Anyone who wants to help bring a resolution to this case should spread the word that Amy is missing, that little is known publicly about her disappearance, and that police will follow every lead, and are open to all information, no matter how small. In particular, people who knew Amy socially around the time of her disappearance might be able give some real insight into what could have happened. Where she might have gone if under her own power? Who was bullying her? Were there any developments or new relationships that her parents might not be aware of? Have they heard anything that might give some insight?

It would be great if people could help get that messaging out to the public.

 

[Whisper2112]

It was handwaved by yourself. You said that because Amy had a history of seizures and running away, it's not uncommon to have police visits. 65 police visits over the course of 30 years is still higher than average. It shows a pattern of long-term difficulties.

There is a hole in the timeline because no one really knows the last time Amy was seen alive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no independent witness who's verified seeing Amy in the car with her father on the day she vanished?

As has been covered in the past on this thread, There is a witness whose information was given to police that told a PI he saw them leave the farm. The police have the information on that witness. They haven't shared what they did to follow up or what they learned. I assume to protect the investigation. If you have seen the timeline that was developed and feel that there was a hole, you probably have enough pull with the police to find out what they did to try to find out what went on in that hole.

As I pointed out, there has been a lot of discussion here about the newspaper article statement that there were 65 calls for service in a 30 year period that spans from five years before Amy disappeared, to 25 years after she disappeared. There's plenty of reason to believe that some of them were medical, since there is a reference to her having a seizure. In fact, the reference to her having a seizure is dated June 28th in the article you reference. There were two calls involving a "runaway" event on the 29th and a third the next day. That accounts for four of the calls right there, in a three day period. A person can engage in wandering behavior for hours after a seizure, and can also have altered behaviors, thoughts, and emotional states that last for hours or days after the seizures. So it makes sense that the parents would be concerned and call police if they could not locate their daughter in the days following a seizure. There is no reason to assume that all of the police calls happened in the five years before Amy disappeared.

SP had mentioned harassment from neighbors a few times in various venues, here, as well as in other articles. Those sorts of situations can lead to a staggering number of police calls. Either having the police called on you, or you have to make calls about the activities of others.

But let's say that all 65 of those calls came in the five years before Amy disappeared. In 1999, records not linked to active investigations were purged per city policy. The article also says that both parents have clean criminal records. It seems unlikely that the calls had a criminal component, or they would not have been purged, and would likely have led to arrests or charges which would show up on a criminal record. Amy's sister has said here in this thread that there was no abuse in the house.

All of this is information covered in this venue, and in the article that is the source for the 65 police calls over 30 years. By not detailing it all in my comment, I was not trying to engage in "hand waving". I just felt you didn't need a review of the article you referenced, the discussion thus far, and was also trying to avoid doing a big, long review since long comments are viewed as suspicious and a sign of being overly emotional. However, I hope that this is helpful.