The Documented Date and City

The California Department of Justice’s entry states that Abel Calderon Salgado was last seen in Calexico, California on January 3, 1990. Its Missing Since field gives the same date.¹ The public narrative identifies a city and a day; it does not supply a precise address, time, witness account or planned destination.

The reviewed card offers identification information but no account of the events immediately preceding the disappearance. It does not explain whether the last observation occurred at a home, workplace or another location. None of those settings can be supplied from the city name alone.

The Agency Case Reference

The card names Calexico Police Department, gives case number 930424 and lists telephone (760) 768-2190.¹ These details provide a specific agency reference for matching a later public statement to this record.

No separate report date appears on the reviewed card. This paper does not interpret the digits in the case number as a date or use them to change the January 1990 chronology.

What the Secondary Reference Adds

The Charley Project also places Salgado’s disappearance in Calexico on January 3, 1990 and gives his age at disappearance as 21.² Its source-information section cites the California Attorney General’s Office. Agreement between these pages therefore does not establish two independent accounts of the last observation.

The secondary profile describes the circumstances as suspicious, but the reviewed official card does not explain a cause or identify a suspect.¹² That difference should remain visible: an attributed secondary description is not proof of a particular crime or an official finding about responsibility.

Sourced Accounts and Questions

The California card establishes a January 3, 1990 observation in Calexico without giving a precise place, time or witness account.¹ The secondary profile cites the California source, so its matching date is not an independent eyewitness account.² No incompatible sequence of events was established in the reviewed material.

Can you find a publicly released agency statement or attributable news report explaining the January 3 observation in more detail? Note whether the source records an actual statement, describes an interview or repeats another publication. That distinction would help you trace the account to its documented basis.

As you compare later references, can you match the name, Calexico Police Department case 930424 and observation date before adding new events? A dated source explaining a movement or circumstance would be needed to expand the chronology. A secondary description alone does not establish a cause or responsibility.

Explore these questions in a Research File in Almost Solved. Keep the official card and any later reporting with their dates, and record exactly which detail each supports. Leave unanswered questions open rather than treating repeated information as additional corroboration.

Conclusion

The available chronology has one clearly stated observation date and city, supported by an identifiable agency case reference. The reviewed material does not reconstruct what happened afterward. A useful reference preserves that limited foundation and makes additional, dated evidence the requirement for expanding the account.