MN MN - Susan Swedell, 19, Lake Elmo, 19 Jan 1988

[mlhenn]

Washington County asks for any leads on birthday of woman missing since 1988

Over 37 years after 19-year-old Susan Swedell disappeared, the Washington County Sheriff's Office says the case is still open and active.

kstp.com

Swedell would be 57 years old on Thursday, according to the Washington County Sheriff’s Office; instead, she remains the subject of a mystery still unsolved decades after she went missing.

 

[mlhenn]

MISSING - Susan Anne Swedell | Solve the Case

On the evening of 1/19/88, 19-year-old Susan Swedell had left work and stopped at a gas station close to her house during a blizzard. Susan was experiencing car troubles and was allowed to leave her car at the station. She was next seen getting into a car with an unknown subject after they had...

www.solvethecase.org

 

[Sweetluv]

Alot off odd things about this case. If Susan was leaving work and heading home to watch a movie, why change into a skirt..esp during a snowstorm? Getting into this other vehicle, why leave your purse and eyeglasses behind if you intended to leave the vehicle behind?
The Mother thinks Susan returned home days later because dishes were in the sink and it smelled like cigarettes...did LE test for fingerprints?

 

[Reminder]

Hi Sweetluv. There are truly many odd pieces to this story.

Alot off odd things about this case. If Susan was leaving work and heading home to watch a movie, why change into a skirt..esp during a snowstorm?

One theory I think early investigators considered was that she was planning to meet somebody, but her sister has posted about this in social media and commented in the Still Missing Podcast. She says that Sue had a habit of changing into different outfits sometimes several times a day. Her sister never read much into that information. The skirt and sweater she changed into were seasonally appropriate according to her sister and it was the outfit she had worn earlier in the day to her first job at a boutique called Body & Sole. The clothes she changed out of were a pair of red pants and a red long sleeve button up shirt.

If she was going home to watch a movie with her mom and sister while the snowstorm passed, was she changing into a more comfortable outfit to lounge around in? Why not just wait and do that at home?

Getting into this other vehicle, why leave your purse and eyeglasses behind if you intended to leave the vehicle behind?

I suggested a few posts back that maybe she didn't leave these items in her car, but somebody came back to her car later that night and planted the items. It would be consistent behavior with all the other apparent manipulation. Examples: A. the sabotage of the car's cooling system - somebody had to unscrew that radiator drain plug. B. the sudden appearance of the red pants and shirt under Sue's bed (!) on the same day somebody entered the family's home while they were away. C. That same strange visitor also left the hidden key on the porch in an unusual place, left dishes in the sink that shouldn't have been there, and a burning odor hanging in the air.

The Mother thinks Susan returned home days later because dishes were in the sink and it smelled like cigarettes...did LE test for fingerprints?

Susan's sister has stated on the Swedell Strong Facebook page, "Our house was not dusted for fingerprints."

 

[Sweetluv]

@Reminder ..thanks for answering my questions!

 

[Reminder]

@Reminder ..thanks for answering my questions!

Glad I could help. Thanks for asking and keeping this thread alive!

 

[Reminder]

MISSING - Susan Anne Swedell | Solve the Case

On the evening of 1/19/88, 19-year-old Susan Swedell had left work and stopped at a gas station close to her house during a blizzard. Susan was experiencing car troubles and was allowed to leave her car at the station. She was next seen getting into a car with an unknown subject after they had...

www.solvethecase.org

Thanks for posting this, @mlhenn. I didn't know about that site. It looks like Susan Swedell's sister has teamed up with one of the PIs at SolveTheCase and created a new page about the case. There's a discussion started there by said PI. And Susan's sister has posted about it on her Swedell Strong Facebook page.

 

[Richard]

Susan has been missing for over 37 years.

 

[D. Locke]

The prevailing theory that someone loosened the petcock at Susan's workplace is likely wrong; it relies on variables that do not exist. The gas station was not a refuge; it was a calculated trap. The mechanical failure was not the cause of the stop, as much as it was the alibi staged on-site to cover the tracks.

Susan went to that station on purpose. She wasn't stranded; she was lured. The calls from "Dale" were a farce, a worm on a hook. Think of the context—"Dale" as in Chippendales. It was a persona used to get her to that location.

When she arrived, the trap was sprung. Susan left her purse and glasses in her locked car because she expected to return to it. She likely took her glasses off to avoid the stigma of wearing them while meeting a "cool" guy, and she left her purse because she only intended to sit in his vehicle for a moment. She never got that chance.

The loosened petcock was the alibi. The suspect loosened it at the station after she was entrapped. They needed physical evidence to back up the story that she had car trouble. They wanted that leak to be discovered because it verified the lie.

The attendant is controlling the narrative but is not the mastermind. They definitely knew the victim and the suspect. I believe the attendant is a female—possibly a peer who envied Susan, or a family member/victim of the suspect—who is reluctant to help. They are not a gearhead and were likely told exactly what to say. This explains why the story changed so often and became historically contradictory; the attendant was trying to fill in the blanks of a script they were handed. The lies about the car were just cover for the suspect; a red herring.

I am looking for anyone who can help piece together the connections between the station personnel and a dominant male figure from that time who fits this profile. We need to find the link between the attendant and this violent, confident, smoking, mechanically inclined man.

 

[Reminder]

The prevailing theory that someone loosened the petcock at Susan's workplace is likely wrong; it relies on variables that do not exist.

Hi D. Locke. I'm curious what non-existent variables you are referring to specifically. Do you mean like, no puddle of radiator fluid found in the parking lot? No witnesses of anyone around Sue's car while she worked? Things like that?

The gas station was not a refuge; it was a calculated trap. The mechanical failure was not the cause of the stop, as much as it was the alibi staged on-site to cover the tracks.

Susan went to that station on purpose. She wasn't stranded; she was lured. The calls from "Dale" were a farce, a worm on a hook. Think of the context—"Dale" as in Chippendales. It was a persona used to get her to that location.

When she arrived, the trap was sprung. Susan left her purse and glasses in her locked car because she expected to return to it. She likely took her glasses off to avoid the stigma of wearing them while meeting a "cool" guy, and she left her purse because she only intended to sit in his vehicle for a moment. She never got that chance.

The loosened petcock was the alibi. The suspect loosened it at the station after she was entrapped. They needed physical evidence to back up the story that she had car trouble. They wanted that leak to be discovered because it verified the lie.

The attendant is controlling the narrative but is not the mastermind. They definitely knew the victim and the suspect. I believe the attendant is a female—possibly a peer who envied Susan, or a family member/victim of the suspect—who is reluctant to help. They are not a gearhead and were likely told exactly what to say. This explains why the story changed so often and became historically contradictory; the attendant was trying to fill in the blanks of a script they were handed. The lies about the car were just cover for the suspect; a red herring.

I am looking for anyone who can help piece together the connections between the station personnel and a dominant male figure from that time who fits this profile. We need to find the link between the attendant and this violent, confident, smoking, mechanically inclined man.

With genuine respect, because I've gone down a few dark alleys with various theories myself, your own theory relies on at least one key variable that doesn't exist and that's a question of the credibility of the gas station attendant.

From everything we have from Susan's family, from Washington County Sheriff's Office, from the gas station clerk's interview in a well-done podcast, and from others, she has been cooperative and credible and helpful for these past 38 years. Have you listened to her voice in her interview with Kara Thannert? Have you listened to what investigators and others close to the case have said about her? Have you listened to what Sue's sister said about meeting her? I can provide links and transcriptions if you haven't seen or heard this stuff. If you have heard/seen it, I'd like to know what you make of it and why you don't take it into consideration.

I believe your theory makes an unsound accusation that the gas station attendant was an accomplice of Sue's abductor. You might just be caught up in one of those circular logic loops these things can lead us into. I'd like to know more about what your reasons for believing the clerk is protecting a false narrative are. It's not supported by any of the credible information that's been published. If it comes down to the changes in what she recalls about that night, I really think she is legitimately memory-challenged. Even Sue's own family has problems recalling things exactly as they occurred 38 years ago now.

I believe the initial investigation by Washington County Sheriff's Office in 1988 failed Sue and her family and her community. I also believe Washington County Sheriff's Office is painfully aware of that and they have done everything they can since 1998 to make amends and bring this case to a solid resolution. There's no doubt in my mind that if they had questions about this gas station clerk's credibility that it would have come through somehow in the way this story has been reported, and that they would be right on top of it. She would have become a "person of interest" to the case a long time ago, or there would be a lot of tap dancing around any discussion of her in the press or in podcasts. We just don't see that sort of thing happening around her.

 

[Incomprehensible]

In the third paragraph from the bottom it says a few days after the disappearance there was an odor of cigarette smoke in the residence and dirty dishes in the sink. The red pantsuit Swedell had been wearing on the day of her disappearance....

How unusual. Most abductors do not allow the victim to return home.

Someone had her keys

 

[D. Locke]

Hi D. Locke. I'm curious what non-existent variables you are referring to specifically. Do you mean like, no puddle of radiator fluid found in the parking lot? No witnesses of anyone around Sue's car while she worked? Things like that?




With genuine respect, because I've gone down a few dark alleys with various theories myself, your own theory relies on at least one key variable that doesn't exist and that's a question of the credibility of the gas station attendant.

From everything we have from Susan's family, from Washington County Sheriff's Office, from the gas station clerk's interview in a well-done podcast, and from others, she has been cooperative and credible and helpful for these past 38 years. Have you listened to her voice in her interview with Kara Thannert? Have you listened to what investigators and others close to the case have said about her? Have you listened to what Sue's sister said about meeting her? I can provide links and transcriptions if you haven't seen or heard this stuff. If you have heard/seen it, I'd like to know what you make of it and why you don't take it into consideration.

I believe your theory makes an unsound accusation that the gas station attendant was an accomplice of Sue's abductor. You might just be caught up in one of those circular logic loops these things can lead us into. I'd like to know more about what your reasons for believing the clerk is protecting a false narrative are. It's not supported by any of the credible information that's been published. If it comes down to the changes in what she recalls about that night, I really think she is legitimately memory-challenged. Even Sue's own family has problems recalling things exactly as they occurred 38 years ago now.

I believe the initial investigation by Washington County Sheriff's Office in 1988 failed Sue and her family and her community. I also believe Washington County Sheriff's Office is painfully aware of that and they have done everything they can since 1998 to make amends and bring this case to a solid resolution. There's no doubt in my mind that if they had questions about this gas station clerk's credibility that it would have come through somehow in the way this story has been reported, and that they would be right on top of it. She would have become a "person of interest" to the case a long time ago, or there would be a lot of tap dancing around any discussion of her in the press or in podcasts. We just don't see that sort of thing happening around her.

Hello Reminder,

I appreciate the thoughtful and detailed counterpoints you have raised, particularly regarding the specific sources such as the Kara Thannert interview and the perspective of the Washington County Sheriff's Office. You asked for clarification on the "non-existent variables" I referenced and defended the credibility of the gas station attendant. I want to be upfront immediately regarding my sources. I have not listened to the podcasts you mentioned, nor do I rely on media interpretations of the case. My analysis is based strictly on the official reports, a direct review of the available evidence, and an in-depth understanding of automotive mechanics. I approach this from a position of pure fact analysis, deliberately removing the emotional bias that often comes with audio interviews and narrated storytelling.

Regarding the variables, the prevailing theory that the car was sabotaged at her workplace relies on the assumption that a perpetrator could predict exactly when and where the vehicle would fail. Mechanical sabotage is inherently unpredictable. A loosened petcock could have resulted in a breakdown miles away on a dark highway shoulder or in a busy intersection, neither of which grants the perpetrator control over the environment. The variable that does not exist in the workplace-sabotage theory is the guarantee of location. The fact that Susan arrived safely at a lit, populated gas station suggests that the location was the variable being controlled, not the mechanical failure. The car likely did not force her to stop there. I argue she chose to stop there to meet someone, and the mechanical issue was fabricated or inflicted on-site to justify her presence.

On the matter of the attendant, I acknowledge that the Sheriff's Office and the family have viewed her as cooperative for decades. However, cooperation is not always synonymous with transparency. In criminology, individuals who are peripherally involved or acting under duress often appear helpful specifically to steer investigators away from the truth. If the attendant was indeed covering for a dominant figure, perhaps out of fear, her cooperation would naturally be designed to appear credible while offering just enough misinformation to confuse the timeline. The inconsistencies in her story, which you attribute to memory challenges, align suspiciously well with a narrative that shifts to fit available evidence. While we agree that the 1988 investigation failed Susan, relying on that same investigation’s clearance of the attendant may be a continuation of that initial error.

My goal is not to disparage a witness but to rigorously test the narrative using mechanical logic and behavioral analysis rather than emotional resonance. If we accept the possibility that Susan was lured rather than stranded, we must scrutinize the one person who controlled the scene after she arrived. I am suggesting we look past the label of "cooperative witness" and analyze the behavioral dynamics of that night, specifically the possibility that the attendant was a tool used by the perpetrator rather than a mastermind.

 

[D. Locke]

Hello Reminder,

I appreciate the thoughtful and detailed counterpoints you have raised, particularly regarding the specific sources such as the Kara Thannert interview and the perspective of the Washington County Sheriff's Office. You asked for clarification on the "non-existent variables" I referenced and defended the credibility of the gas station attendant. I want to be upfront immediately regarding my sources. I have not listened to the podcasts you mentioned, nor do I rely on media interpretations of the case. My analysis is based strictly on the official reports, a direct review of the available evidence, and an in-depth understanding of automotive mechanics. I approach this from a position of pure fact analysis, deliberately removing the emotional bias that often comes with audio interviews and narrated storytelling.

Regarding the variables, the prevailing theory that the car was sabotaged at her workplace relies on the assumption that a perpetrator could predict exactly when and where the vehicle would fail. Mechanical sabotage is inherently unpredictable. A loosened petcock could have resulted in a breakdown miles away on a dark highway shoulder or in a busy intersection, neither of which grants the perpetrator control over the environment. The variable that does not exist in the workplace-sabotage theory is the guarantee of location. The fact that Susan arrived safely at a lit, populated gas station suggests that the location was the variable being controlled, not the mechanical failure. The car likely did not force her to stop there. I argue she chose to stop there to meet someone, and the mechanical issue was fabricated or inflicted on-site to justify her presence.

On the matter of the attendant, I acknowledge that the Sheriff's Office and the family have viewed her as cooperative for decades. However, cooperation is not always synonymous with transparency. In criminology, individuals who are peripherally involved or acting under duress often appear helpful specifically to steer investigators away from the truth. If the attendant was indeed covering for a dominant figure, perhaps out of fear, her cooperation would naturally be designed to appear credible while offering just enough misinformation to confuse the timeline. The inconsistencies in her story, which you attribute to memory challenges, align suspiciously well with a narrative that shifts to fit available evidence. While we agree that the 1988 investigation failed Susan, relying on that same investigation’s clearance of the attendant may be a continuation of that initial error.

My goal is not to disparage a witness but to rigorously test the narrative using mechanical logic and behavioral analysis rather than emotional resonance. If we accept the possibility that Susan was lured rather than stranded, we must scrutinize the one person who controlled the scene after she arrived. I am suggesting we look past the label of "cooperative witness" and analyze the behavioral dynamics of that night, specifically the possibility that the attendant was a tool used by the perpetrator rather than a mastermind.

I wanted to add three specific points regarding the physical evidence and the official statements that present significant probability gaps in the narrative.

First, the driver’s seat was found pushed back to a position that was inconsistent with Susan’s height. Mechanically, this points to active manipulation. A simple coolant leak is a passive failure. To force a vehicle to overheat visibly and rapidly while stationary, the engine usually must be revved to high RPMs to build the necessary heat and pressure. The seat position indicates a larger individual entered the vehicle and then depressed the accelerator to force this overheating. This evidence strongly supports the theory that the mechanical failure was intentional rather than accidental and that the last peron driving the car (moving it to the found location) was not Susan.

Second, the attendant stated she told Susan to move her car from the pumps because "the plow was coming in the morning." This instruction is logically inconsistent with the behavior of a helpful witness assisting a stranded motorist. If the plow was not due until morning, there was no immediate operational need to force a woman with a "boiled over" engine to restart and move her vehicle during a blizzard. A truly overheating car is difficult to restart and risky to move. The probability that an attendant would prioritize a future plowing schedule over the immediate safety of a stranded driver is low. This statement serves more effectively to explain why the car was found away from the pump island where water or coolant would naturally be sought, rather than reflecting standard service behavior.

Third, the attendant claimed to notice "sport wheels" on the suspect’s vehicle, yet there is no record of the suspect purchasing gas. If the suspect did not buy gas, he was simply blocking a pump. An attendant’s attention in this scenario is typically on the lack of a transaction or the obstruction, not the specific automotive features of the vehicle. Identifying "sport wheels" on a car covered in road slush, at night, in a blizzard, requires a level of visual acuity that is statistically unlikely for a casual observer inside a store. This detail implies a familiarity with the vehicle that contradicts the conditions of that night.

Finally, thank you for the suggestion to listen to the interviews with Kara Thannert and the others close to the case. I will be taking the time to listen to those thoroughly today. I promise to get back to you with my honest take after I have completed a full review of those available interviews.