TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #9

[BeanE]

I would be interested in seeing anything from Matt that says counter to what he filed in court.
I mean if anyone can show me something that says he thinks she met with foul play or had an accident or any other scenario-I would be interested in seeing it. Until then, I can only go on what he has made public to this point.

I must have completely lost my ability to express my thoughts.

 

[Melodie]

JBean, I understand what you are saying.

Respectfully, what I don't understand- is why this would be a normal course of action for a spouse to take- when they are also claiming mental illness of some sort in their spouse- and also that it is common for their spouse to get away for awhile? And then to locate (the previously thought to be missing) passports for their children, after citing that as a concern that their spouse might take their children out of the country? :waitasec:

Without any separation or divorce proceedings on file...how does that add up?
Why would Matt have come to the conclusion that Gail abandoned the children, as opposed to being concerned that she had an accident, or was just seeking some space?

BBM
I know you weren't asking my opinion, but I think the bolded part is a huge question for a lot of people. Why wouldn't he be concerned that she was involved in an accident or was harmed by someone else? And I base my belief that he isn't concerned about that on his behavior, court documents and the few statements he has made. I don't recall him saying anything that suggests he believes that she may have been the victim of an accident or foul play at the hand of another person. I would think that most people would immediately consider that their missing spouse might have been in an accident. Wouldn't they?

 

[JBean]

I must have completely lost my ability to express my thoughts.

Happens to me all the time.

 

[JBean]

JBean, I understand what you are saying.

Respectfully, what I don't understand- is why this would be a normal course of action for a spouse to take- when they are also claiming mental illness of some sort in their spouse- and also that it is common for their spouse to get away for awhile? And then to locate (the previously thought to be missing) passports for their children, after citing that as a concern that their spouse might take their children out of the country? :waitasec:

Without any separation or divorce proceedings on file...how does that add up?
Why would Matt have come to the conclusion that Gail abandoned the children, as opposed to being concerned that she had an accident, or was just seeking some space?

None of it makes sense. if my posting comes across as though I understand where Matt is coming from, then please let me take a moment to clarify.
All I know from Matt is that he think his wife took off and abandon the kids and her home.
That's all we know because he has not given a statement saying anything else and we only have his POV from court documents.
Nothing about his behavior is typical or normal,imo for a man whose wife is missing. Regardless of how he feels about her, I don't think his behavior is reasonable.
The following is a true story:
I was talking to my brother the lawyah about this case.
before I could give him ANY info he stopped me when I said she was missing and had a husband. he said let me ask you some questions first BEFORE you tell me what has happened.
1. was there an affair going on or did he have a girlfriend?
2.has he given a statement as to what happened?
3. Did he lawyer up immediately?
4.Were there ongoing financial issues?
5. Was there a divorce or talk of divorce and were there substantial monies involved?
6. Did the GF lawyer up?
7. Did he submit to voluntary searches immediately?
8. was there any history of DV?

When I answered the questions, he said well what haven't you figured out yet?

 

[Emeralgem]

None of it makes sense. if my posting comes across as though I understand where Matt is coming from, then please let me take a moment to clarify.
All I know from Matt is that he think his wife took off and abandon the kids and her home.
That's all we know because he has not given a statement saying anything else and we only have his POV from court documents.
Nothing about his behavior is typical or normal,imo for a man whose wife is missing. Regardless of how he feels about her, I don't think his behavior is reasonable.
The following is a true story:
I was talking to my brother the lawyah about this case.
before I could give him ANY info he stopped me when I said she was missing and had a husband. he said let me ask you some questions first BEFORE you tell me what has happened.
1. was there an affair going on or did he have a girlfriend?
2.has he given a statement as to what happened?
3. Did he lawyer up immediately?
4.Were there ongoing financial issues?
5. Was there a divorce or talk of divorce and were there substantial monies involved?
6. Did the GF lawyer up?
7. Did he submit to voluntary searches immediately?
8. was there any history of DV?

When I answered the questions, he said well what haven't you figured out yet?

A BIG THANK YOU...To both you and your brother..JMHO

 

[glorias]

It is a great point- because I cannot for the life of me figure out how else it could be validated how long the children were left alone. :waitasec:

Perhaps based on the time of a phone call? We've heard that Gail called either LE or MP directly to say she left the kids at the house. It's not verified in the media as far as I know so it's just rumor, but I think it's very possible she did notify MP somehow, since it appears he went straight home when he realized the kids were there.

 

[Oriah]

Clarification successful.
Thanks, JBean.

Please ask brotha lawyah where he thinks a missing vehicle- that belongs to a missing person- might be located under the circumstances described above.
He seems to know what he's talking about.

 

[glorias]

For those who seem to think he was just being sarcastic when he said "She is not kidnapped", I'm personally wondering WHY he made that statement or how he could be certain she had not been kidnapped considering he, himself, has stated Gail thought she was being followed and was even taking down license plate numbers...Seems to me he would have been somewhat concerned there may have been some merit to Gail's suspicions...JMHO

That's a good point. I was looking through articles to find out who told the media that Gail thought she was being followed, and MP was the first one to say so as far as I can tell. So it makes sense that he would think people believe Gail had been kidnapped by the person(s) allegedly following her.

Whether it was sarcastic or not isn't the point. He had the idea in his head that kidnapping was at least a theory floating around out there, that's what I was so curious about. I think your point here explains it well, thanks.

 

[glorias]

For what it's worth, last night when I was going through some old posts here on WS I stumbled across a mention of someone on WRCBtv's Facebook who early on said there was videotape of Gail withdrawing $420,000 from her bank account before disappearing.

http://www.facebook.com/WRCBtv/posts/225253184158731

This person is allegedly friends with either MP or MP's brother, per posts on WS. And you know what's really weird? Someone very early on said they thought they saw Gail's Jeep at Sandestin resort:

[ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6487448&postcount=449"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - TN TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #1[/ame]


And the person who made the claim about video showing Gail taking that $420,000 is fans on FB of some resorts in Destin FL, the same place where Sandestin is. It's all one big resort area, I think.

I came across all this on accident when using Google trying to find that specific Websleuths post. But it is a heck of a coincidence, isn't it?

 

[Oriah]

So....
(I know, I'm all over the place...)

The computer situation. Keystroke software enabled?

 

[Melodie]

None of it makes sense. if my posting comes across as though I understand where Matt is coming from, then please let me take a moment to clarify.
All I know from Matt is that he think his wife took off and abandon the kids and her home.
That's all we know because he has not given a statement saying anything else and we only have his POV from court documents.
Nothing about his behavior is typical or normal,imo for a man whose wife is missing. Regardless of how he feels about her, I don't think his behavior is reasonable.
The following is a true story:
I was talking to my brother the lawyah about this case.
before I could give him ANY info he stopped me when I said she was missing and had a husband. he said let me ask you some questions first BEFORE you tell me what has happened.
1. was there an affair going on or did he have a girlfriend?
2.has he given a statement as to what happened?
3. Did he lawyer up immediately?
4.Were there ongoing financial issues?
5. Was there a divorce or talk of divorce and were there substantial monies involved?
6. Did the GF lawyer up?
7. Did he submit to voluntary searches immediately?
8. was there any history of DV?

When I answered the questions, he said well what haven't you figured out yet?

Sometimes "thanks" just isn't quite enough. Thank you for this because I think your brother is absolutely correct. I understand that many people don't want to see it like this because it's horrible, sad and just heartbreaking for the family and especially the children, but sometimes you have to look at the facts and face the truth. JMHO

 

[KathyJ]

I fully realize they may have not had one hard piece of evidence of foul play, but SMPD was aware of the fact they had been called on several occassions, and had also given Gail the number for a safe house..
My understanding is Gail also called her sister on the morning of the 30th and requested she call SMPD. Am I wrong in thinking Gail may have even spoken to someone in the SMPD and requested they meet her at her residence?
IMO.. Something went terribly wrong somewhere for them not to immediately suspect foul play even IF there was no physical evidence of such.....JMHO

You make excellent points! And you are correct with what you said. Calls had been made to LE. So, as joe public, the speculation is there. As LE you have to have hard evidence, and we really do not know what LE has right now, they do not owe us an explanation through their investigation, we also know anything said to the public can hurt an investigation. Of course we are all chomping at the bit to get more information, but LE has to do what they do. It has to be black and white, they can't have "gray" areas when it comes to an investigation.

One thing that bothers me to this day is what the neighbor said, she waved to Gail as she drove passed but Gail did not even acknowledge her. We have all been there in life, deep in thought, stressed, in our head too much thinking so much we don't notice someone waving to us. I know Gail had a lot on her mind, however, on that day driving away from the house what happened to put her in that state of mind???? I guess that is one of the biggest questions right now.

 

[glorias]

Wikipedia says Tennessee doesn't require a front license plate, FWIW.

SB once said she saw a car in the neighborhood and thought maybe Gail's fears were true:

"I would keep seeing the same car coming in and just turning around and stopping at one of the houses. So that was strange in itself. So after she would say that, I I started thinking and I could believe that could be true," said Button.

http://www.newschannel9.com/news/palmgren-1001248-button-gail.html


It's likely Gail was taking license plate numbers of cars she saw in the neighborhood. But then again, MP is the one saying she was writing down plates of the people following her:

He also stated that she was writing down license plate numbers to identify drivers that she thought were following her.

http://www.examiner.com/missing-per...ren-missing-husband-files-for-custody-of-kids


So... I guess I personally wonder what exactly he was saying. To me, I think it's possible he was trying to make Gail sound paranoid/more paranoid, and the wording may be reflective of that. Because you're right, how can someone get a plate number of a car that is behind them? Only if that car passes you can you do that.

Or maybe MP just meant cars that were seen in the neighborhood that had possibly followed Gail home.

 

[hollyblue]

It's hard for me to conceive of court documents as filed because someone wants me to believe anything. I always think of the audience for court filings as being the judge who will hear the motion, preside over the hearing, etc. I'm just a nosey onlooker.

Not saying I think you're wrong - just saying I never thought about court docs that way, so probably why I didn't 'get' what stiletto was talking about, if indeed that's what she meant.

I guess it's hard too for me with those filings to think of them as being currently in effect, because he dissolved them, didn't he? I'm a bit unclear about their status, because it was reported they were dissolved or withdrawn or whatever, but then at the hearing on Diane/Kevin's motion, it was said that filing was going over to the chancellor handling Matt's filing. I never did understand why a chancellor was handling docs that had been withdrawn. Is that because they could be re-filed? Maybe I should ask this in the legal thread?

Regarding the pressuring - I was thinking in terms of the 'want us to think something'. If I think someone wants me to think something, I think of that in terms of them attempting to apply pressure to me, to influence me, etc.

ETA: Thinking that last over, I suppose it could be a more passive than active 'wanting', in which case, there would be no intended pressure.

Interesting perception BeanE. I would have had never thought of it like that.

 

[conundrummed]

I dont understand the reasoning of why it would appear that Gail was 'doing everything in her power....
We don't know why she returned on Saturday. Or why she left Alabama so ridiculously early on a Saturday. We don't know if she thought she was meeting Matt at home - and then something happened where she needed to drop off the kids. Or if she was headed out of her neighborhood to meet Matt at a determined destination. We just don't know where she was headed or why. So how can it be presumed that she was avoiding Matt? Given the timeframe, she very well may have passed Matt. That is, if Matt did arrive home about 12:30. I believe he is the sole person stating this.

 

[confused]

Hmm. I have conflicting info about this that I need to confirm.

The ping situation is making me insane. Gail had her cell with her. The jeep has GPS capabilities. Matt had his phone with him. He had a tracking device on his vehicle that would ping from a satellite. They were traveling in opposite directions, with only two main routes possible if the last ping (that day- not the 2nd) is accurate...

I think I need to get some sleep!

Oriah, how do you know Matt's locator pinged off that tower? Gail uploaded the tracker on April 28th, and put the tracker back on Matt's car. The pings from Matt's tracker from April 30th would have to have been uploaded later. Did Matt give you the upload information from the tracker that was on his car? Who took the tracker off his car and uploaded it and gave you the information?"

Is it legal to take a tracker off somebody else's car? I know it's illegal to put one on there. Isn't it illegal to take any equipment off someone else's car?"

Thanks so much!

 

[redfish]

Oriah, how do you know Matt's locator pinged off that tower? Gail uploaded the tracker on April 28th, and put the tracker back on Matt's car. The pings from Matt's tracker from April 30th would have to have been uploaded later. Did Matt give you the upload information from the tracker that was on his car? Who took the tracker off his car and uploaded it and gave you the information?"

Is it legal to take a tracker off somebody else's car? I know it's illegal to put one on there. Isn't it illegal to take any equipment off someone else's car?"

Thanks so much!

Confused, Thank you for bringing Oriah's post up front again. I did not give it the proper attention I should have at first. I don't know that Oriah has this information, for sure. But.... wow, good sluethin' Oriah! That is an excellant way to tell for sure if those two were ever in close proximity! If LE hasn't already checked for this information, they should try. Wonder what did happened to that tracker..... wonder when the gps came out of the jeep? (I will always remember your post Oriah!)

 

[hollyblue]

Sorry, ThoughtFox- it seems I'm being very confusing. I'm not doubting your timeline at all, actually.

I just can't make full sense of SB's report (and this is not necessarily doubting SB. Just trying to see how this would all work route-wise) She was heading back to her residence. If Gail dropped the children off and left @ 12:15pm- and the children were home alone for 10 mins before Matt returned- I would think she was traveling the same route as Matt was. And that Matt would have passed Gail. Does that make sense?

Just a big WHAT IF...and my thoughts may be a little scrambled because I'm tired. lol But, do we have any confirmation or sighting of the children being brought back to SM by GP? AFAIK, we only have the quote from MP that 'she dropped my kids off and left' to AP during a phone call. Nothing mentioned by SB, DN or LE for that matter...about the children. What I'm getting at and wanting to put out for thoughts...is What would GP likely do if Matt showed up at the AL house later that night and took the children---with or without her knowledge...respectively, threat or did so without her knowledge if she was asleep. Would she call LE or would this be the reason necessitating her immediate return to SM? She called DN and LE and wanted them to meet her at the house, but to our knowledge...they didn't. If this happened and she returned to the SM home and the children were not there....what would she have done? Where would she go? If this did happen LE thoughts might have been 1. it originated in AL 2. it was within MP's rights to have the children.

If GP lowered the boom on MP with all of the knowledge she had acquired (putting the fork in him as far as the divorce: kids, monies, affair, work, etc) He may have felt his only defense/option were the children.

Maybe it's far fetched because he took the children to the ballgame, but there has been no sighting of GP since SB...and that could have been a mistake...and a "take for granted" sighting. It happens. Heck, I'm even having doubts now if GP left AL. Did LE in fact talk to GAIL or someone who was using her phone? Do we definitively have a confirmation that GP talked to DN after 6:30 AM that day...or was it a text?

Whatever.....I find it remarkably odd that we didn't hear anything about LE's involvement on that day...til much later into her disappearance. Maybe LE wanted to keep this info from MP after they rec'd a call of concern from DN?

Just putting my thoughts out here....

 

[JBean]

Sometimes "thanks" just isn't quite enough. Thank you for this because I think your brother is absolutely correct. I understand that many people don't want to see it like this because it's horrible, sad and just heartbreaking for the family and especially the children, but sometimes you have to look at the facts and face the truth. JMHO

I think the other important thing to be gleaned from that is that even if we assume Matt has nothing to do with Gail's disappearance,it is not unreasonable to cast him in a suspicious light because these issues and behaviors closely mirrored that of a guilty spouse. IOW, all those things do not make him guilty of anything at all-but since many elements of suspicion and earmarks of guilt are there, I think Matt himself would understand why people are looking at him critically-even if innocent. It just can't all be ignored.

 

[hollyblue]

Perhaps based on the time of a phone call? We've heard that Gail called either LE or MP directly to say she left the kids at the house. It's not verified in the media as far as I know so it's just rumor, but I think it's very possible she did notify MP somehow, since it appears he went straight home when he realized the kids were there.

I'm just going to view this in a little different pespective... just for thought, glorias.

Since it appears he went straight home after he realized: Gail had been home and left...er... disappeared... since this was the last alleged sighting by someone who personally knew her.

ETA: Wasn't it MP who said GAIL? called him?