The Homeless Amnesiac, Wandering America Trope for Missing Persons

[Or So It Seems]

I have so many questions. From the time UM started (first episode with Gail Delano) there was a consistent narrative in the show that a reasonable theory for missing persons was that they could be homeless, wandering the streets, unsure of who they are.

We've seen this theme with so many of the fan favorite segments like: Dan Wilson, Patty Meehan, Adam Hecht, David Stone, Dede Rosenthal, Matthew Chase, Amy Billig, Craig Williamson, Kristi Krebs, and many others I'm forgetting.

With 25 years of hindsight, and the reality that this theory was never accurate, I'm left wondering what was behind it? Was it just a defense mechanism created by the families to keep hope alive? Or did Cosgrove-Meurer create this cliche for dramatic purposes? It shows up consistently throughout the show's life. I was into true crime before UM and don't recall hearing the theory before UM. And after UM, I don't hear it either. (We have two big missing persons cases here in New England, Maura Murray and Brianna Maitland, and no one has suggested this theory for them.)

What do you think is behind this trope?

[infinityluxe]

Originally Posted by Or So It Seems

I have so many questions. From the time UM started (first episode with Gail Delano) there was a consistent narrative in the show that a reasonable theory for missing persons was that they could be homeless, wandering the streets, unsure of who they are.

We've seen this theme with so many of the fan favorite segments like: Dan Wilson, Patty Meehan, Adam Hecht, David Stone, Dede Rosenthal, Matthew Chase, Amy Billig, Craig Williamson, Kristi Krebs, and many others I'm forgetting.

With 25 years of hindsight, and the reality that this theory was never accurate, I'm left wondering what was behind it? Was it just a defense mechanism created by the families to keep hope alive? Or did Cosgrove-Meurer create this cliche for dramatic purposes? It shows up consistently throughout the show's life. I was into true crime before UM and don't recall hearing the theory before UM. And after UM, I don't hear it either. (We have two big missing persons cases here in New England, Maura Murray and Brianna Maitland, and no one has suggested this theory for them.)

What do you think is behind this trope?

I blame it on the surge of the made-for-television films of the late 70s and early 80s.

It was wishful thinking to think someone who vanished must have amnesia or have lost touch with reality and will be found safely.

Most of the times the people who came in contact with foul play were either very unlucky or into some unsavory things.

I think back then the news was even much more tame in broadcasting horrible crimes. These days we are more grim not because the world has become more violent but because violent news is no longer taboo. We anticipate it and many times before a body is found if there are enough clues most people presume someone missing dead and are shocked when they turn up alive.

40 years ago it was the opposite.

[EighthStreet]

Soap operas clearly held more sway over the culture at large than they do today.

When was the last time someone came into a city not knowing who they were? In the late 80's that seemed to happen at least once a year according to UM.

[MediaHoarder]

I would not necessarily agree with your premise OP.

With 25 years of hindsight, and the reality that this theory was never accurate

How do we know it was "never accurate", many of these cases are still unsolved, and most of them are unresolved. Some of the unresolved cases are arguably clear enough that this theory would not fit but for others many interpretations are possible.

For example, David Stone's remains were eventually found, but we know very little about the time, place, or manner of his death. The idea that he wandered in the desert due to amnesia seems quite plausible to me. If that was not the case some other explanation would need to be provided, and the best two fits are foul play or suicide, but neither have any evidence.

Patricia Meehan's case is unsolved, and thus to say the theory is not accurate in her case is speculative.

So, to say the theory was "never accurate" is going too far, however I will grant to you that it was sometimes over-applied or proven incorrect.

So then why was it seemingly common on UM? One reason is that the format of the show was viewer interactive, so it was inclined to feature cases where police/family thought the missing person might be in this state as it would be an excellent venue to get the word out and possibly identify them. Most later shows were not viewer interactive and were more crime focused, both of which disincentivize featuring cases like this where foul play may not even be a factor.
It is certainly not something the producers "invented" or probabally even consciously pushed. Rather, its a natural reflection of the show format as contrasted to later ones.
I will also say that some time element is plausible, in the 80's it was much easier to picture someone lost elsewhere in the country than it is today with the rise of the internet. That might be a false perception, but doubtless some people have it.

Regarding New England Cases, this theory has been put for for Maura Murray, it is simply not as popular as others. I don't think I have seen it for Brianna Maitland, but her case is dominated by what are probabally well grounded theories involving the drug trade which make an amnesia theory irrelevant.

[Killarney Rose]

I believe it was just easier for the loved ones to grasp at the straw of them wandering around alive with amnesia somewhere, and they might come home someday than it was to accept the fact that they were dead and never coming home again.

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by MediaHoarder

For example, David Stone's remains were eventually found, but we know very little about the time, place, or manner of his death. The idea that he wandered in the desert due to amnesia seems quite plausible to me. If that was not the case some other explanation would need to be provided, and the best two fits are foul play or suicide, but neither have any evidence.

Well, for that example.. I'd certainly put mental illness at the tippity top of the list of options vs "Amnesia". Manic episode seems to fit there. He was the right age for schizo/bipolar onset.

I think part of the problem.. The term Amnesia, so far as most of us, at least those of a certain age are concerned.. Is.. Pretty much BS.

We look at amnesia like an old Looney Tunes cartoon.. get popped on the head with a frying pan and memories are gone, hit again and they're all back. Obviously.. It's much more nuanced than that.

However.. I would be curious, how many legitimate cases are there where someone forgets who they are and they're still functional? I can't imagine that is really something that often happens. Most of them are like the case of the guy who had amnesia and was then arrested after his appearance.

Even go back to Agatha Christie.. Do you believe that her episode was legitimate amnesia? Honestly.. I do not. I think she might have had some kind of disassociative episode and.. Eventually just told people she couldn't remember because.. It was less embarrassing than the truth. She found out her husband was cheating and went wandering.. And.. I would suspect there was some real discussion with herself as to whether she wanted to continue with life. Do I believe she really didn't remember what happened to her or who she was? Not really.

There's.. No real great way to prove 'amnesia'. My opinion.. the vast majority of instances of it that don't involve head trauma, are made up. People just compartmentalizing things and refusing to 'remember' them.

So long as you expand out and say "Mental illness".. Then.. You've more got me with you. Because.. I do think the CLAIM of amnesia is likely a mental issue. Not necessarily an illness.. But.. True amnesia, where people can't recall who they are.. Absent massive, and probably unrecoverable head trauma.. I'm very skeptical.

Of course.. Having said that.. We then have to bring in things that can prevent new memories from forming. In truth, that *IS* a form or amnesia, and wrecks everything I said. After all.. Blackout drunk *IS* a form of amnesia.

So.. I'll kinda leave this with.. I still think most people who claim amnesia are.. Craig Williamson types. And I don't think any of us really buy his story?

[MediaHoarder]

Originally Posted by Labonte18

Well, for that example.. I'd certainly put mental illness at the tippity top of the list of options vs "Amnesia". Manic episode seems to fit there. He was the right age for schizo/bipolar onset.

Its not a matter of one versus the other, as they are interrelated conditions. A person experiencing a mental illness may exhibit Amnesia as a symptom. To say that the latter "doesn't exist" makes little sense. Many of the cases where Amnesia was put forth as an explanation clearly fit the profile for other mental issues as well.

Even today, Amnesia is not well understood, and it was even less so 30 plus years ago when these episodes were made. Combined with the fact that television is a medium with time/attention/audience education level constraints the overbroad use of a term like Amnesia to succinctly summarize these conditions, rather than having Stack read off terms like "Psychogenic amnesia" or "'psychogenic fugue" seems reasonable.

[Gelatinous Goo]

We've discussed the amnesia thing elsewhere fairly recently. The Pierre April case may be valid. If he was lying and trying to hide from something, he wouldn't have used his real name the entire time, would he? We were never party to any back story with his case as we were with others. It wouldn't surprise me if there was more to his story, as the other "amnesia" cases were simply a matter of immature people running from their own realities.

[Or So It Seems]

Originally Posted by MediaHoarder

I would not necessarily agree with your premise OP.

With 25 years of hindsight, and the reality that this theory was never accurate

How do we know it was "never accurate", many of these cases are still unsolved, and most of them are unresolved. Some of the unresolved cases are arguably clear enough that this theory would not fit but for others many interpretations are possible.

Patricia Meehan's case is unsolved, and thus to say the theory is not accurate in her case is speculative.

So, to say the theory was "never accurate" is going too far, however I will grant to you that it was sometimes over-applied or proven incorrect.

If I were to say to you, "no one on UM was ever kidnapped by a UFO," would you then say that since we don't know the results of some of the disappearances, it could still be possible? That's what I hear you arguing here. Please point out a missing persons case on UM where it was shown the person was wandering around homeless, unsure of who they were? It's never happened.

It feel like you are splitting hairs here.

[MediaHoarder]

Originally Posted by Or So It Seems

If I were to say to you, "no one on UM was ever kidnapped by a UFO," would you then say that since we don't know the results of some of the disappearances, it could still be possible? That's what I hear you arguing here. Please point out a missing persons case on UM where it was shown the person was wandering around homeless, unsure of who they were? It's never happened.

It feel like you are splitting hairs here.

Axiomatically yes, it would be possible. However that misses the point.

It is not merely that it is possible, it is that we have numerous unsolved cases where that is a leading theory (not a pathological case theory, ie. the UFO example) so to dismiss all of them is a bit heavy handed.

"It's never happened." False, neither you nor I know that as fact. All we can say is one has not been identified.

Moreover, to get at this correctly you need to approach it in terms of probability distribution. What are the odds that such a person, if they were in that sate, would be identified? I would postulate it is one of the more difficult cases to solve and thus unlikely that they would be identified. Not only that, one has to consider the time element. It is very reasonable that some of these people did wander in such a state for some length of time, but that does not mean they wandered for decades.

Rogest Cain is an excellent example of this. He likely wandered with some mental impairment that could be described as Amnesia for at least some period of time. However he either met with foul play or died of natural causes without being identified, probabally within a relatively short period. To ask why he was not found if he wandered for decades like that is begging the question, because in all likelihood he did not wander for decades like that.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by Or So It Seems

Was it just a defense mechanism created by the families to keep hope alive? Or did Cosgrove-Meurer create this cliche for dramatic purposes?

Both of these. No matter how nonsensical the scenario was (Curt Borton for example), the family would hold on to sometimes ridiculous narratives because they desperately wanted to believe their loved one was still alive. UM would play along because it made for good TV.

[Or So It Seems]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

Both of these. No matter how nonsensical the scenario was (Curt Borton for example), the family would hold on to sometimes ridiculous narratives because they desperately wanted to believe their loved one was still alive. UM would play along because it made for good TV.

I think what perpetuates this with the families too is the external factors, like prank calls and letters that really played into the families' hopes that their loved ones were still alive. Or in worst cases you have a scumbag like "John King" walk up to someone at a bar and say they saw your loved one alive in a POW camp in North Vietnam.

[cordwainer1453]

Another thing that seems to be chic now is to say "they were trafficked". Though I can't think of any examples of that really happening either.

[Killarney Rose]

Originally Posted by cordwainer1453

Another thing that seems to be chic now is to say "they were trafficked". Though I can't think of any examples of that really happening either.

Yes, the white van in the Walmart parking lot…

[MediaHoarder]

Originally Posted by cordwainer1453

Another thing that seems to be chic now is to say "they were trafficked". Though I can't think of any examples of that really happening either.

No, what is chic to say now is "no one is trafficked", I have heard that hundreds of times for each time I actually have seen someone say the former.

Trafficking definitely happens, but you are not going to hear about it much as the victims rarely surface. This is particularly the case with those that are taken and sent overseas