TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #6

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
believe09 said:
I doubt there are any ill intentions-in any case like this there are sightings every where from people who are absolutely positive that they saw the person and or the vehicle. They may not be able to refer to key elements.. plate, vehicle cover, driver info, facial features...what have you. Few are malicious-people are trying to be helpful.

In the Jody King case, we had dozens of people who saw him and described him down to his ball cap. He shed his clothes when he disappeared, so many people saw him partially dressed some where. In fact, Jody stuffed himself up a drain pipe and died within minutes of last being seen. So they couldnt have seen him. But they were positive that they did.

Make sense?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. That makes tons of sense to me.

People can be sincerely "sure" of something and then be flat wrong.

Furthermore, if for some reason she became convinced by day 2 that she was wrong after having drawn so much attention to herself, she very well might have wanted to retreat as much as she could.
 
If I were LE or Family, I would rather have a thousand Carol's rather than no one. Bless her for coming forward. Any involvement takes courage. It can be a difficult decision.
 
glorias said:
snipped...



Personally, I think there is a huge difference between the two things. C is someone whose full name was reported along with their information and direct quotes from her. This other person is nameless, unidentified, and the info they have was told through a third party. We don't know if he was quoting or paraphrasing this unidentified person. We can't even verify if s/he's an attorney or not.
Click to expand...

Right, and so what if the person is an attorney? When I think of some of the attorneys on a lot of these cases, they aren't exactly models of honesty. They will do anything to protect their client, even, dare I say, tweak facts to suit their needs. Good example: Mark Geragos in the Scott Peterson case.(and by the way, he hasn't lost his license yet that I know of).
 
JBean said:
What I find interesting is that Gail didn't say she was scared of Matt to her sister. If she was scared of Matt, why would she hold this information back? She seemed to have told people about the fact that she was being followed and she was scared but not vocal about any reason as to why she was being followed,by whom, or what she was scared of.
Click to expand...

I've never understood why Gail didn't specify she was scared of Matt to her sister either, unless at the time she spoke to her, she was so scared she couldn't say it? Or it was just too difficult to admit that her marriage had fallen apart and her husband might be behind all these things that were happening to her (cars tailing her, etc)?

I thought she was close to her sister--especially since she didn't seem to have a close-knit social group in SM-- but apparently she didn't confide everything in her.
 
Pearl* said:
Is it possible she (Diane) didn't see a value in giving that information to a reporter? Maybe considered it breaking a confidence to her sister for no good reason? I'm thinking that LE needed to know but reporters maybe not?

Do we know that Gail did not confide in her sister?
Click to expand...

bolded by me.

Yes, that is a really good point! Diane might not have wanted to tell a reporter, and actually it would have been smart of her, too, if she only told LE ....We don't know exactly how much Gail confided in her anyway, that has not been revealed.
 
JBean said:
What I find interesting is that Gail didn't say she was scared of Matt to her sister. If she was scared of Matt, why would she hold this information back? She seemed to have told people about the fact that she was being followed and she was scared but not vocal about any reason as to why she was being followed,by whom, or what she was scared of.
Click to expand...

The first thing along those lines that really grabbed my attention - in a big way - was in Arlene's interview with Susan Murphy Milano, when Susan asks Arlene what Gail said she was afraid of, and Arlene said that Gail said it was that her marriage was a sham, how many more lies were there, and that Matt might drive intoxicated with the kids in the car. Not that Gail was afraid of Matt.

While I have your attention, JBean, lol - you asked a while back if Arlene had given the documents to LE. I don't know if you got the answer, but in that same Susan MM interview, Arlene says she tried to give *everything* to LE, but that they only took part of it. Susan MM stressed that since that time, Arlene has sent everything else somewhere out of state, and no longer has anything left in her possession.

Here's the link to the interview I'm referring to:

http://herewomentalkradio.com/home/archives_details/805

Arlene's interview starts at about the 30 minute mark, and the thing about the documents is about 10 minutes beyond that, IIRC.
 
BeanE said:
The first thing along those lines that really grabbed my attention - in a big way - was in Arlene's interview with Susan Murphy Milano, when Susan asks Arlene what Gail said she was afraid of, and Arlene said that Gail said it was that her marriage was a sham, how many more lies were there, and that Matt might drive intoxicated with the kids in the car. Not that Gail was afraid of Matt.

While I have your attention, JBean, lol - you asked a while back if Arlene had given the documents to LE. I don't know if you got the answer, but in that same Susan MM interview, Arlene says she tried to give *everything* to LE, but that they only took part of it. Susan MM stressed that since that time, Arlene has sent everything else somewhere out of state, and no longer has anything left in her possession.

Here's the link to the interview I'm referring to:

http://herewomentalkradio.com/home/archives_details/805

Arlene's interview starts at about the 30 minute mark, and the thing about the documents is about 10 minutes beyond that, IIRC.
Click to expand...

bolded by me.

When Gail said "how many more lies there were" I wonder if she means beside the fact that he had a mistress? I wonder if she told anyone what the other lies were?
 
Columbo said:
bolded by me.

When Gail said "how many more lies there were" I wonder if she means beside the fact that he had a mistress? I wonder if she told anyone what the other lies were?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I didn't word that well. It was more in the vein of "If he lied to me about the affair, the ATM money, etc, what else is out there that I don't even know about yet?" Rather than there was already more she knew. It was a fear of the unknown.
 
BeanE said:
I'm sorry. I didn't word that well. It was more in the vein of "If he lied to me about the affair, the ATM money, etc, what else is out there that I don't even know about yet?" Rather than there was already more she knew. It was a fear of the unknown.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying that, BeanE, now I understand. I actually changed your wording because I didn't understand--but that makes a lot of sense. Of course.
 
fran said:
My question is, 'does LE believe this sighting?'

I ask this because IF this was true, this would be a VITAL piece of the puzzle in finding Gail. That would mean there's a person, or two, that saw Gail AFTER LE is reporting the last sighting of Gail. LE would also be asking this woman and whoever was in the truck to step forward. There would also be a description of the truck................NADA!

Apparently, for SOME reason, either LE hasn't been given this information, or they believe it's a FALSE lead.

I don't know if this sighting is valid, but I'm more inclined to DOUBT it, than think it's true. But, in the back of my mind, this information deserves to be stored until, or unless something else develops from it.

JMHO
fran
Click to expand...

What good would it do to ask them to step forward and identify themselves IF they are involved in whatever happened to Gail... Also, I was under the impresson the witness stated the last thing she saw when leaving the area was Gail's headlights and a truck next to Gail's vehicle..If she was exiting the area maybe she did not get a good look at the truck or maybe she did and LE doesn't want that information revealed... JMHO...
 
BeanE said:
The first thing along those lines that really grabbed my attention - in a big way - was in Arlene's interview with Susan Murphy Milano, when Susan asks Arlene what Gail said she was afraid of, and Arlene said that Gail said it was that her marriage was a sham, how many more lies were there, and that Matt might drive intoxicated with the kids in the car. Not that Gail was afraid of Matt.

While I have your attention, JBean, lol - you asked a while back if Arlene had given the documents to LE. I don't know if you got the answer, but in that same Susan MM interview, Arlene says she tried to give *everything* to LE, but that they only took part of it. Susan MM stressed that since that time, Arlene has sent everything else somewhere out of state, and no longer has anything left in her possession.

Here's the link to the interview I'm referring to:

http://herewomentalkradio.com/home/archives_details/805

Arlene's interview starts at about the 30 minute mark, and the thing about the documents is about 10 minutes beyond that, IIRC.
Click to expand...

BBM-that is very troubling. Very troubling. It surprises me the Ms. Milano would communicate that in any fashion. It seems to be very baiting to me, certainly when it comes to law enforcement.

Very troubling. :(
 
BeanE said:
The first thing along those lines that really grabbed my attention - in a big way - was in Arlene's interview with Susan Murphy Milano, when Susan asks Arlene what Gail said she was afraid of, and Arlene said that Gail said it was that her marriage was a sham, how many more lies were there, and that Matt might drive intoxicated with the kids in the car. Not that Gail was afraid of Matt.

While I have your attention, JBean, lol - you asked a while back if Arlene had given the documents to LE. I don't know if you got the answer, but in that same Susan MM interview, Arlene says she tried to give *everything* to LE, but that they only took part of it. Susan MM stressed that since that time, Arlene has sent everything else somewhere out of state, and no longer has anything left in her possession.

Here's the link to the interview I'm referring to:

http://herewomentalkradio.com/home/archives_details/805

Arlene's interview starts at about the 30 minute mark, and the thing about the documents is about 10 minutes beyond that, IIRC.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify something: By "out of state" I believe Arlene meant the papers were no longer at her home in Alabama, and she was sort of sending the message that Private Investigators didn't need to harrass her anymore. Arlene had previously received a letter from MP saying to turn everything over to his PI, so she may be sending the message for them to bug off. :twocents:

While we can't know for sure, I'm hoping that Arlene left the papers with Gail's attorney in Chattanooga (whoever that is). I believe Gail must have had her own attorney here in TN since this is where the divorce would be filed (since at that time her husband had a job here, and her children are in school here).
 
believe09 said:
BBM-that is very troubling. Very troubling. It surprises me the Ms. Milano would communicate that in any fashion. It seems to be very baiting to me, certainly when it comes to law enforcement.

Very troubling. :(
Click to expand...

I didn't think of it as baiting LE, but rather that she was trying to give the impression that Arlene may have been in some kind of danger while she had the docs, and impress on this unspecified entity that Arlene no longer had the docs, and therefore should not be harmed. In fact, now that I think of it, she said something like "not a hair on this woman's head should be harmed". It was a bit bizarre.

But now that you mention baiting LE, she did say some things about LE around that same timeframe in the interview. I don't know. I'm going to go back and listen again and see how it hits me. I was concentrating more on what Arlene was saying, trying to pick up info, than on what Susan was saying, so I'll go back and listen to Susan this go-round.
 
ThoughtFox said:
Just to clarify something: By "out of state" I believe Arlene meant the papers were no longer at her home in Alabama, and she was sort of sending the message that Private Investigators didn't need to harrass her anymore. Arlene had previously received a letter from MP saying to turn everything over to his PI, so she may be sending the message for them to bug off. :twocents:

While we can't know for sure, I'm hoping that Arlene left the papers with Gail's attorney in Chattanooga (whoever that is). I believe Gail must have had her own attorney here in TN since this is where the divorce would be filed (since at that time her husband had a job here, and her children are in school here).
Click to expand...

Yes, I think they specifically said not in Alabama. I hadn't thought of the PI. I hope a PI wouldn't harm someone. I really couldn't figure out who it was that this nebulous threat was supposed to be, but like I said, I was concentrating on what Arlene was saying, trying to pick up nuggets of info. And this same timeframe in the interview was a lot about the black box on Matt's car and the DVR and that part is all a ball of confusion to me lol.
 
Here's the link to the interview I'm referring to:

http://herewomentalkradio.com/home/archives_details/805

Arlene's interview starts at about the 30 minute mark, and the thing about the documents is about 10 minutes beyond that, IIRC.[/QUOTE]


What is the "black box" that was removed? When I google it I get 3 different things- 1. a storage box in the back of the jeep to protect belongings 2. a GPS system 3. A black box like on a plane http://detnews.com/article/20110526/...C3%82%E2%80%99

They start talking about it around 54 minutes. It's hard to understand because Arlene mumbles, but I think she says that Matt removed the black box from Gail's car. If they're talking about #3, that is very concerning!
 
looking4lost said:
Here's the link to the interview I'm referring to:

http://herewomentalkradio.com/home/archives_details/805

Arlene's interview starts at about the 30 minute mark, and the thing about the documents is about 10 minutes beyond that, IIRC.
Click to expand...


What is the "black box" that was removed? When I google it I get 3 different things- 1. a storage box in the back of the jeep to protect belongings 2. a GPS system 3. A black box like on a plane http://detnews.com/article/20110526/...C3%82%E2%80%99

They start talking about it around 54 minutes. It's hard to understand because Arlene mumbles, but I think she says that Matt removed the black box from Gail's car. If they're talking about #3, that is very concerning![/QUOTE]

meaning a GPS system
 
This won't be everybody's cup of tea. In fact, it may be only my cup of tea. :)

It's a mindmap timeline. Not the format we usually see in these cases, but one I've gotten to love. It really helps me keeps things straight in my poor befuddled brain, but I've had people tell me they find the format actually more confusing, so I'm just trying to give fair warning.

Each of the little boxes has a tiny grey circle icon on it in the upper right corner, and if you click it, it will pop up the news article that supports the info in the box.

It's not perfect - it's not really meant for publication - it's just my personal notes. But... I wanted to share it just in case it was helpful in figuring out what happened to Gail.

Here's the link:
http://www.mindmeister.com/102206426/gail-palmgren-disappearance-timeline
 
JBean said:
What I find interesting is that Gail didn't say she was scared of Matt to her sister. If she was scared of Matt, why would she hold this information back? She seemed to have told people about the fact that she was being followed and she was scared but not vocal about any reason as to why she was being followed,by whom, or what she was scared of.
Click to expand...

Do we actually know the full context of what she said to her sister? I am sorry if I missed this during the time I was unable to be on
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 146 more.
Total: 3,905 (members: 147, guests: 3,758)

Online statistics

Members online
147
Guests online
3,758
Total visitors
3,905
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,132
Messages
17,981,437
Members
229,031
Latest member
Motherrunner
Back
Top