TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #7

BeanE · Jul 12, 2011

MacKat said:
bbm

Gail seemed to be sending/giving a lot of "stuff" to various people for various reasons in the days/weeks before she vanished. Is it possible that Gail met with/spoke with a higher up at BCBS about Matt and TH? She had proof.

And, if this is even remotely true..it could have made for quite the discussion between Gail and Matt. If she had said to him...this is what I did or this is what I am going to do.

If I were going to separate, and had two children, and didn't have a job, I sure wouldn't go to the higher ups at my soon-to-be-ex's employment. I'd need him to keep that job to ensure that he could provide his half of my children's support.

What would the benefit be to going to his higher ups?

Oriah · Jul 12, 2011

believe09 said:
Personally I think that is a tough one, Oriah. He likely had a retainer and then accumulated billable hours. I am sure, or I assume, he turned over anything he had to LE. Would you search and accumulate a big bill for your client, or would you turn it over to LE to handle?

Hmm. Good question, and thank you for being more articulate than I am today!

If I were a PI who had information that might possibly lead to a missing persons' location (no matter my original paid task) I would turn it over to LE immediately.
I also would be expecting to have to appear in court at some point, if any of the information I found was evidentiary.

If I were a PI who had information that was given to me in confidence by a person who then went missing- I think I'd be on the phone asap with LE.

(But then again, I trust most LEA's; and I wouldn't be able to keep any evidence that might help to locate a missing person- especially an endangered person.)

hollyblue · Jul 12, 2011

Emeralgem said:
I'm not bashing LE however, I've been around long enough to know LE does cover their rear ends when they haven't/aren't performing up to par...Personally, I am interested in knowing WHY SMPD viewed her as just having left on her own, apparently no big deal, when we now know Gail asked her sister to call SMPD and requested SMPD meet her at her residence when she arrived on the 30th...Also, SMPD knew there were problems in that household...
I'm also concerned as to WHY Mike Mathis had to be on the scene when LE searched the premises of both MP and his mother's residence...WHY LE waited for almost two months to search the residence... Personally, I believe we just may have a conflict of interest going on..JMHO

I'd like to see the police reports.....and betting they are vague...in the least. Why was the call by Diane to LE and their call to GP not reported in the media, as the other calls? Did GP ever tell LE she was afraid of being followed? Did anyone besides GP have the plate #'s she had written down and give to LE? Her PI---hopefully?

Maybe it's my poor perception, but stating they will continue to investigate as leads are brought forth....doesn't say much for their own investigators. What leads have they found....in the house, on the computers, etc? Where are the subpeonas for the phone records, etc? Just sayin'. MP's attorneys and PI are the mouthpiece for MP...has P talked to LE since the beginning of her disappearance or even asked to be spoken to? We don't know.

BeanE · Jul 12, 2011

Melodie said:
:twocents:With all due respect Beane, I think that last statement is incomplete.

BBM. Well, glorias' transcription could well be wrong, but as she transcribed it, that was Arlene's complete sentence. Then Jammer speaks.

Further on in the conversation, she talks about the DVR, but from my memory, glorias' transcription is correct, and that is the complete sentence.

MacKat · Jul 12, 2011

Pearl* said:
Ouch....

Much of what she says unfortunately cannot be proven without Gail. I'm not saying none of it is true however most of it cannot and should not be considered "fact". For example...
AD is the only one who says that Gail wanted a divorce and was preparing for one. In my opinion she uses words that allude to the fact that Gail, too, was seeking a divorce. What if Gail had no intention of divorcing Matt? There is a PI, yes, but that could have been intended to confirm suspicions.
AD says she has this computer/tape..but nobody gets to see it. "I promised Gail I would only give it to her" and admitting that she thinks Gail is dead completely contradicting statements. She also says that LE is mucking everything up and has moved fast enough....a search warrant requires proof. I would think if AD had all this damming evidence, she would have not moved from LE office until someone paid this proof attention. She also could have supplied the family with it.
AD has frequently said she was the first to look and is the only one looking. Neither are true.
I think this is a friend of Gail's, yes, but I fail to believe she has all the answers.

Irish_Eyes · Jul 12, 2011

I've been looking into dv safety plans and gail seems to have been giving money and assets to people for safekeeping because this is what it is recommended to do. It is also recommended to get a po box for your mail. Fwiw

BeanE · Jul 12, 2011

Oriah said:
Hmm. Good question, and thank you for being more articulate than I am today!

If I were a PI who had information that might possibly lead to a missing persons' location (no matter my original paid task) I would turn it over to LE immediately.
I also would be expecting to have to appear in court at some point, if any of the information I found was evidentiary.

If I were a PI who had information that was given to me in confidence by a person who then went missing- I think I'd be on the phone asap with LE.

(But then again, I trust most LEA's; and I wouldn't be able to keep any evidence that might help to locate a missing person- especially an endangered person.)

From day one, we have provided both the Signal Mountain Police and the Hamilton County Sheriffs Department with physical evidence, investigative leads, financial information, personal information, DNA samples, access to all of Palmgrens real property and face to face meetings with his investigator, Mike Mathis. As his attorneys, both Lee (Davis) and I have met with law enforcement and been in constant contact with them throughout this process. We will continue to assist and cooperate in the missing person investigation of Gail Palmgren.

It really sounds to me - and I'm not gullible by a long shot regarding how defense attorneys work - that Matt is cooperating, the attorneys and PI are turning things over and talking with LE. I mean, that's quite a laundry list there of what they've provided - more than I usually see.

hollyblue · Jul 12, 2011

BeanE said:
BBM. And we know that subsequently LE and Gail talked, and we know that LE has never revealed what they talked about.

Perhaps Gail told LE in that phone call that she was leaving.

I have noodled on that, and it would make a lot of things make sense.

If so, you would think they would have released it to the public to stop all the suspicion on MP for disappearing her. Especially, his attorneys.

***CA threads must be heavy today, computer response time is slow

MacKat · Jul 12, 2011

BeanE said:
If I were going to separate, and had two children, and didn't have a job, I sure wouldn't go to the higher ups at my soon-to-be-ex's employment. I'd need him to keep that job to ensure that he could provide his half of my children's support.

What would the benefit be to going to his higher ups?

We don't know for fact what Gail wanted. We only have AD contribution on that. What if she didn't want a divorce, was going to fight Matt's request. It could be control. Honestly if my husband had a girlfriend(s), not sure what I would do. I might just rock his world. If I didn't want a divorce perhaps I would ensure he had no job, might do it just to irritate him and "her". The termination only made front page news because Gail vanished.

obody · Jul 12, 2011

Just some random thoughts...

MP being a professional, and knowing full well that it LOOKS like he did away with his wife, would get the best professionals he could, and would listen to their advice. I'm not sure that any of what he has done would point to guilt, as opposed to innocent but scared. I think I'd be pretty terrified of LE finding enough circumstantial evidence.

I can't think what motive a friend would have to harm Gail.

Though there is someone else who would have benefited from Gail being out of the picture w.r.t. MP.

Melodie · Jul 12, 2011

Oriah said:
Hi Melodie, I didn't mean a literal franchise. Just a comparison to parent companies, and the standards they have to set for their independent 'companies.'

I believe an employee who has been terminated (even in an 'at will' state) has the right to file wrongful termination. Might not go anywhere, but that would depend on cause, I would think.

I don't know.
I'll ask over in the attorney thread.

No problem. I believe that BCBS of TN, may just have paid a licensing fee to use the name. I know that they are not affiliated with the other BCBS companies in other states. You are correct about being able to file a wrongful termination lawsuit. I'm not saying they can't do it. I'm just saying that it's pretty strict here and most attorneys will tell clients that they are very unlikely to win. There would have to be hard core evidence of discrimination. I don't think that applies here. If you are asked by your employer to attend a conference, especially if they pay for it, and you skip out on it, that would be plenty of grounds for termination. Plus, we don't know what else may have been going on there. Generally, employers have a reason and the employee is told. I would be seriously surprised if we hear much more about a wrongful termination lawsuit. :twocents:

BeanE · Jul 12, 2011

MacKat said:
Much of what she says unfortunately cannot be proven without Gail. I'm not saying none of it is true however most of it cannot and should not be considered "fact". For example...
AD is the only one who says that Gail wanted a divorce and was preparing for one. In my opinion she uses words that allude to the fact that Gail, too, was seeking a divorce. What if Gail had no intention of divorcing Matt? There is a PI, yes, but that could have been intended to confirm suspicions.
AD says she has this computer/tape..but nobody gets to see it. "I promised Gail I would only give it to her" and admitting that she thinks Gail is dead completely contradicting statements. She also says that LE is mucking everything up and has moved fast enough....a search warrant requires proof. I would think if AD had all this damming evidence, she would have not moved from LE office until someone paid this proof attention. She also could have supplied the family with it.
AD has frequently said she was the first to look and is the only one looking. Neither are true.
I think this is a friend of Gail's, yes, but I fail to believe she has all the answers.

BBM. I've wondered about that too. Arlene says Gail had been telling Matt since November that she was leaving him. Then all the planning for divorce.

But... have you seen the video where Clive says Gail was fighting hard to *save* her marriage? Direct conflicts to what Arlene said.

Let me know if you want the link to the video if you haven't seen it.

It's been bugging the heck outta me ever since I saw it.)

Oriah · Jul 12, 2011

believe09 said:
I get your point. It is sort of like the reverse in my mind...LE has a warrant for a search that covers XYZ. They find the weapon covered in blood in the ceiling fan, but the ceiling fan was not included in the search document. Someone has to be there to make sure the agreed upon terms are enforced....and IIRC the weapon would be thrown out by a judge if seized any way.

At least on Law and Order it would be.

I think Law and Order might be correct on that.

But I'm no attorney!

Here's what gets me-
If LE cannot provide enough evidence to a judge to obtain a SW for property- then it seems there is a good chance that any possible evidence found of a crime would be subject to scrutiny in court.

If LE does not have enough evidence to obtain a SW; but then asks for permission to search property and is granted that- then evidence recovered seems like it would be much more admissable should that evidence be requested by a court.

But what up with having an attorney draft a SW??

Not blaming anyone for anything here, but imvho... well, here's a comparison (for me, anyway.) If I were to take a SAR dog to a residence to search for evidence of the location of a missing person under a SW issued by a judge- I'd feel a lot more confident should I have to testify about any evidence found in a court of law.

If I were to take a SAR dog to a residence to search for evidence of the location of a missing person without a SW or a blanket 'OK' from property owners...well, I'd be sweating the results of the search- whatever they might be. I'd be sweating the results even more if I had to work my dog under conditions dictated not by LE- but by anyone else.
Does that make any sense?

hollyblue · Jul 12, 2011

fran said:
But they didn't say they wanted her to come in and talk to them. They just barked orders, from what I understand.

IF LE wants to talk to AD, all they have to do is call the local LE, have them make arrangements for a sit down with AD and go to Alabama and talk to her. Appears they haven't done that, or at the least, no one's reporting it.

I think around here somewhere, I saw or heard that AD is in the process of having copies made of the harddrive at her local PD. So, her local agency has talked to her, somewhat.

I heard AD say, in her first Jammer interview I believe, that she wasn't willing to give the ORIGINAL harddrive to LE because she feared it would disappear. But at the same time, she said she had PROMISED Gail that she wouldn't give it to anyone but Gail herself. When LE initially refused to even get involved with the harddrive, is most likely when AD decided she couldn't trust anyone.

FWIW and IMHO, I THINK AD is untrusting of the local TN LE, because the PI working for Matt, and who has taken belongings out of the TWO residences prior to LE doing a thorough search, the PI worked for the local LE in Tn.

AD's mistrust may be misplaced, but I completely understand her hesitation.

At least she's offering to have LE make a copy of the harddrives. That's more than MP's attorney offered. With regard to the family's home computer, he said he'd let 'em know if there's anything that will assist in locating GP. OH, and he didn't say that to LE that I know of, he said it to a reporter.

JMHO
fran

I believe AD talked with investigators from HCSO. She related that she ask why no searches of properties, etc and was told because no foul play had been found.

Personally, I'm little disheartened because I think it boils down to the cost of an investigation and a small LEA at the get go. I'm not a LE basher, but wondering if apparent mistakes were made very early on and the later dragging of feet may have been the reason.

fran · Jul 12, 2011

BeanE said:
What? When? Where did this come from?

I've looked for the info in the media thread and cannot find it. I'm sure I read early on, at least in the first month, that LE did do an 'initial walk-through' on the day GP was reported missing. I believe when LE initially went to the house upon the sis' phone call, no one was home. Later on they went out again and MP was home. I THOUGHT that's when they went through the home, just walk-through. Now I'm doubting myself..............but............

I'm sure I read in the following weeks when GP's siblings were in Signal Mountain, they didn't go inside the house, but at the door to see the kids.

Anyone can correct me if I'm mistaken.

fran

BeanE · Jul 12, 2011

hollyblue said:
If so, you would think they would have released it to the public to stop all the suspicion on MP for disappearing her. Especially, his attorneys.

***CA threads must be heavy today, computer response time is slow

It's not LE's job to stop suspicion if they didn't start it. They've said, quite clearly, this is a missing person investigation, and theres been no evidence of foul play.

The suspicion is not coming from LE. There's nothing for them to 'fix'.

Melodie · Jul 12, 2011

BeanE said:
BBM. Well, glorias' transcription could well be wrong, but as she transcribed it, that was Arlene's complete sentence. Then Jammer speaks.

Further on in the conversation, she talks about the DVR, but from my memory, glorias' transcription is correct, and that is the complete sentence.

I agree that was the end of that sentence and then he asked for further elaboration and she spoke again and clarified what she meant. Sorry, if I wasn't clear, that is what I meant. Let me be clearer: I think her next words after "If it's on my terms." are necessary to understand what she meant. She said "If it's on my terms." Jammer asked her to clarify and she finished the thought saying that she would turn over a copy of the DVR made by her local LEA. I think it's important to clarify that. I think it sounds bad for people to think he asked her if she would cooperate and she just said, if it's on my terms and that's it. I would never criticize Glorias' transcription. I'm sure it contains the full exchange.:twocents:

Pearl* · Jul 12, 2011

MacKat said:
AD has frequently said she was the first to look and is the only one looking. Neither are true.
I think this is a friend of Gail's, yes, but I fail to believe she has all the answers.

I think Arlene holds a lot of answers, though not all the answers. I wish so much, however, that she would stop giving interviews without legal representation guiding her. She may have legal representation, of course, but I think it's striking that all players that we KNOW have legal representation are declining interviews. Please correct if I'm wrong.

My gut feeling is that any lawyer considering representing her would cringe everytime she gives an interview. I do believe Jammer has taken advantage of her several times. I also believe she doesn't have the legal knowledge or interview experience to be "safe" being on live radio. I hope none of this will come back to haunt her. If she unknowingly hurts this case, I wonder if she will ever get over it. She's still so emotional, and understandably so.

MacKat · Jul 12, 2011

BeanE said:
BBM. I've wondered about that too. Arlene says Gail had been telling Matt since November that she was leaving him. Then all the planning for divorce.

But... have you seen the video where Clive says Gail was fighting hard to *save* her marriage? Direct conflicts to what Arlene said.

Let me know if you want the link to the video if you haven't seen it.

It's been bugging the heck outta me ever since I saw it.)

Yes, I've seen it. Honestly brings up the other person speaking. (And let me preface this by stating loud and clear this is not an attack on either AD or CB) But, CB does not know Gail at all, nor her family. He says a lot too which comes from various sources and I don't know who they are. I fail to believe he is on the inside track of this case though, with the police or the family. I do commend his searches, time, and effort, as well as all the volunteers on and off the mountain.
This is only said because I have to remind myself to take everything said with a grain of salt. What could hold up in court if Gail is never found...
This is also not an invitation to debate that CB and AD are only speaking because nobody from the family is....we've done that...a lot.

My point is/was...if Gail didn't want out. I think if we are to cover all bases it should be considered.

believe09 · Jul 12, 2011

You all have me thinking-what if Gail hired her PI to confirm suspicions. We have read that Matt hired MM three weeks after she went missing...did he have another PI prior to this?

I guess I was under the impression that they were watching each other....

TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #7

Inactive

Verified SAR

It may be the *advertiser censored* that crows, but it is the hen t

Inactive

New Member

Well-Known Member

Inactive

It may be the *advertiser censored* that crows, but it is the hen t

New Member

New Member

R.N.

Inactive

Verified SAR

It may be the *advertiser censored* that crows, but it is the hen t

Former Member

Inactive

R.N.

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics

It may be the advertiser censored that crows, but it is the hen t

It may be the advertiser censored that crows, but it is the hen t

It may be the advertiser censored that crows, but it is the hen t