In my opinion, if there is no evidence of foul play in the home, then I highly suspect it took place a long ways away from TN where MP has no ties and nobody would ever suspect something terrible happened. My heart goes out to Gail children for what they must be going through not knowing where their mother is or what happened to her. This is going to haunts these children forever. I wish the good Lord would give a sign where Gail can be found and who was responsible. God bless Gail and her children.
TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren,44, Signal Mountain, 30 April, 2011 - #11
- Thread starter Shelby1
- Start date
- Status
hollyblue
It may be the *advertiser censored* that crows, but it is the hen t
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2010
- Messages
- 9,113
- Reaction score
- 35
Did they ask permission the day she was reported missing?
I suspect from the start the offer from MP's lawyers was "you can search on our terms". Perhaps LE didn't want to wade through sorting out an agreement for searching until/unless it became obvious no cause for a warrant was turning up.
Must say that I agree, Cazzie.
While I admit I'm a newbie to sleuthing and following a case like Gail's, it seems to me that something hasn't felt right about the way this has been handled. From the beginning.
We call it the "practice" of medicine because there are so many things we don't yet know about our bodies and medicine -- how and why certain things work, or don't work. Same thing goes for our legal system. If our system and rules are in place to seek truth and justice, I fear that in this particular case it has missed the mark. I think it misses a lot of the time as a matter of fact, and it seems that the more money one has and the better legal team one has, "things" seem to go your way more often than not.
One thing that bothers me about the way this case has been handled is this:
A person is/goes missing. No one (apparently) knows for certain that she did, just that she is no longer home.
And this is where the legalities bother me -- while "examining" evidence or shared marital properties, especially at this late date (today!), it is infuriating and disheartening to think of all the pain and suffering that might have been avoided IF the legal system had permitted Gail to be searched for from the very beginning. Just who decided that no, she just took off -- move along, nothing to see here. Not enough evidence. And, while I know it's hypothetical, let's imagine for a minute that Gail was separated or divorced from MP at the time she went missing. Who, legally speaking, would have OR could have made the decision that she was missing? Her children? Would they have called the Signal Mountain Police to say their mother hadn't come home? When would they have called? How many hours would pass before they became afraid something had happened to her? Would they tell the police they did not want the house or computers searched?
Would the police or judge have said, sorry kids, there's not enough compelling evidence to indicate any foul play so we'll just keep an eye out.
If LE has worked this case diligently from day one, then that's wonderful. If MP's attorneys and PI have searched for Gail from day one, that's wonderful too. But if they have, most people I know have seen no evidence of it.
Even in Biblical times, rules sometimes overtook reason and common sense. Maybe we've gone too far to protect some, and others become victims.
Praying extra hard for Gail and her children tonight.
hollyblue
It may be the *advertiser censored* that crows, but it is the hen t
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2010
- Messages
- 9,113
- Reaction score
- 35
Jumping from your post McSpy. Info on searches not requiring a warrant:
1. Consent. If the person who is in control of the property consents to the search without being coerced or tricked into doing so, a search without a warrant is valid. Note that police do not have to tell you that you have the right to refuse a search, but you do. Also, note that if you have a roommate, he or she can consent to a search of the common areas of your dwelling (kitchen, living room), but not to your private areas (bedroom, for instance). On the other hand, the Supreme Court recently ruled that one spouse cannot consent to the search of a house on behalf of the other.
2. Plain View. If a police officer already has the right to be on your property and sees contraband or evidence of a crime that is clearly visible, that object may be lawfully seized and used as evidence. For example, if the police are in your house on a domestic violence call and see marijuana plants on the windowsill, the plants can be seized as evidence.
3. Search Incident to Arrest. If you are being arrested in your house, police officers may search for weapons or other accomplices to protect their safety (known as a "protective sweep"), or they may otherwise search to prevent the destruction of evidence.
4. Exigent Circumstances. This exception refers to emergency situations where the process of getting a valid search warrant could compromise public safety or could lead to a loss of evidence. This encompasses instances of "hot pursuit" in which a suspect is about to escape. A recent California Supreme Court decision ruled that police may enter a DUI suspect's home without a warrant on the basis of the theory that important evidence, namely the suspect's blood alcohol level, may be lost otherwise.
http://www.legalzoom.com/everyday-law/home-leisure/can-police-search-your
glorias
Active Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 738
- Reaction score
- 100
I also suspect the attorneys always had specific terms. It just does not make sense for the attorneys to offer unlimited searches in the beginning and then change their minds. It would also mean LE declined those unlimited searches once offered, which would be a pretty weird thing for them to do since voluntary searches would undoubtedly make their job easier.
Oriah can weigh in here, but I dont think it is uncommon for LE to wait for a change in the season so it is easier to search large areas.
Not uncommon at all- especially when the physical environment is prohibitive to success, or hazardous during a certain season, and there is not an urgency (such as due to time passed.)
I think the FBI involvement is a million dollar question. Perhaps they were just offering resources.
I am not sure on what basis LE could have forced a search for Gail or of the properties when she was finally reported. I mean, a missing person is not enough to force a thorough search of the houses. Where was the missing report finally taken when Matt made it? Did he go down to PD or did they come to his house?
If they came to his house, I am sure they did a walk through. But, they can only do it if he says yes. Which is not a full blown CSI search of the premises.
The same holds true for any other property. They have to have enough to get a judge to agree to sign a request to search the property for things and impound them.
I dont see that they had enough to do that, but I believe they wanted to.
By the looks of things, Gail left under her own steam. She drove away in her own car. It doesnt matter how bad Matt looks or even how obvious it is that he isnt wounded that she is gone. They would need to find something that indicates he did something to her.
I am frustrated that there is no indication of anything concrete. Except for today. Today there is an article that states there is a videotape showing Matt threatening Gail and it was in Arlene's possession in June of this year.
Is the scene on it compelling enough to obtain a warrant? Apparently not.
BBM:
Respectfully believe09, we don't know that to be true.
While I tend to agree with you about the video not containing significant evidence- or of possibly being altered, damaged, copied etc- it is possible that a warrant was issued and we don't know about it, or it hasn't been executed yet. It's also possible the tape was passed to a different dept or agency for further analysis. In fact, I have wondered if this 'videotape' is actually a videotape- or if it is an alternate recording device entirely.
Course, it's also possible it was a judge-holiday.
It will be telling to me who this alleged tape is returned to- if it is returned at all.
Looks like some poster may have been right on the money regarding formal interviews.
To date, neither MP nor his children have given formal statements to investigators.
Taken from the linked article.
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/sep/28/investigators-search-palmgrens-alabama-properties/
Also taken from that linked article.
MP continues to assist in this investigation and had done so since May
Would hate to see what he was doing if he wasn’t assisting then shesh…..
I for one still find this so strange, how can you not question the one person formally to gain a statement, when that someone has the most to gain when someone is missing, if only to clear him of any wrong doing so focus can be placed elsewhere.
I personally would like to apologies to one verified poster for having questioned if her information was right re the subject of formal statements the last time she posted. I hope you know who you are and accept my apology as I believe the last time you posted this information you given a hard time. I know I will be listening more carefully to your comments. I must add this is just how I feel regarding this.
To date, neither MP nor his children have given formal statements to investigators.
Taken from the linked article.
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/sep/28/investigators-search-palmgrens-alabama-properties/
Also taken from that linked article.
MP continues to assist in this investigation and had done so since May
Would hate to see what he was doing if he wasn’t assisting then shesh…..
I for one still find this so strange, how can you not question the one person formally to gain a statement, when that someone has the most to gain when someone is missing, if only to clear him of any wrong doing so focus can be placed elsewhere.
I personally would like to apologies to one verified poster for having questioned if her information was right re the subject of formal statements the last time she posted. I hope you know who you are and accept my apology as I believe the last time you posted this information you given a hard time. I know I will be listening more carefully to your comments. I must add this is just how I feel regarding this.
believe09
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 28,094
- Reaction score
- 539
Clearly, it is not enough. I am not arguing at all that Matt needs to be looked at and cleared. He is not clearing himself, which keeps a target on his back. That and that alone is unbelievably suspicious.
But it is not enough for a warrant. No evidence is no evidence-best guesses wont get you a warrant except on TV.
Clearly, it is not enough. I am not arguing at all that Matt needs to be looked at and cleared. He is not clearing himself, which keeps a target on his back. That and that alone is unbelievably suspicious.
But it is not enough for a warrant. No evidence is no evidence-best guesses wont get you a warrant except on TV.
If that ain't the truth, I don't know what is.
believe09
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 28,094
- Reaction score
- 539
Formal statements vs informal statements, cooperating vs not cooperating...it makes my head spin.
I have to focus on the tape. It is the one piece of physical evidence I have heard of to date. One that is not subject to the interpretation of the press as existing, right? The one piece that can take the investigation to the next level.
Both pieces indicate that in June, the hard drive existed and was in the hands of AD. But that the information/video was contained in a deleted file. Now in September, this has morphed into a statement that it contained a threat to Gail by Matt days before her disappearance. Easy enough to corroberate, right? When were Gail and Matt at the lake house prior to his departure at the conference?
Perhaps the tape is what is generating all of the activity now?
The properties have to be cleared, even if it is at a later date than optimal. Matt's attorneys know that.
The computers, the computers....that confuses me as well fwiw. AD had Gail's, Gail had hers, Matt had key counters on Gail's....there must be evidence of that when AD turned over Gail's computer.
I have to focus on the tape. It is the one piece of physical evidence I have heard of to date. One that is not subject to the interpretation of the press as existing, right? The one piece that can take the investigation to the next level.
Both pieces indicate that in June, the hard drive existed and was in the hands of AD. But that the information/video was contained in a deleted file. Now in September, this has morphed into a statement that it contained a threat to Gail by Matt days before her disappearance. Easy enough to corroberate, right? When were Gail and Matt at the lake house prior to his departure at the conference?
Perhaps the tape is what is generating all of the activity now?
The properties have to be cleared, even if it is at a later date than optimal. Matt's attorneys know that.
The computers, the computers....that confuses me as well fwiw. AD had Gail's, Gail had hers, Matt had key counters on Gail's....there must be evidence of that when AD turned over Gail's computer.
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/sep/28/investigators-search-palmgrens-alabama-properties/
To date, neither Matthew Palmgren nor his children have given formal statements to investigators.
I suspect MP hasn't given any informal statements either or allowed the children to speak to the investigators in any capacity...JMHO
To date, neither Matthew Palmgren nor his children have given formal statements to investigators.
I suspect MP hasn't given any informal statements either or allowed the children to speak to the investigators in any capacity...JMHO
BeanE
Inactive
It says video evidence versus video tape. If the deleted video was retrieved, it's on the DVR. But it couldn't be retrieved by Best Buy to put on the DVR. Rather, Arlene claims that her son and Gail's son, watched the video prior to it being deleted. She doesn't say whether or not they saw a threat.
This is what I get from the Jammer interview, transcript here:
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1I9EShqx08jSRHdlHg0oVNL7UdQTdCyWGGc0iYCef8jk&pli=1
So far as what the video is supposed to have been on, or is on, I don't think there was ever a tape, but rather a hard drive and a DVR.
Again, this is what I get from the Jammer interview and the articles/interviews in which Arlene has talked about the video/video tape/hard drive/DVR/arguments/bad treatment of Gail and the kids/threat/whatever.
IMHO LE giving Gail numbers to a safe house and her requesting LE to meet with her at the residence on Ridgerock should have been reason enough to take this case to the next level especially when they discovered she had been missing for over 48 hours before he ever even bothered to report her missing...IMHO.. He wouldn't have called LE then IF it weren't for Gail's sister and AD voicing their concerns.....JMHO..
BeanE
Inactive
Well, we know he has indeed given informal statements, because LE has directly told us that, in the police report and on the HCSO website.
Police report - LEO says Matt called and talked to LE.
HCSO website - LE states Matt filed the missing person report. You can't file a missing person report without talking to LE.
I'd like to know if LE ever asked Matt or the kids for a formal statement, formal statement usually meaning in writing, which you review for accuracy, and sign, and which can be used later as evidence at trial if you are a victim, witness, or someone charged with a crime.
Personally, I doubt LE asked Matt or the kids for a formal statement, because they've said not only is there no evidence of foul play, they've said there is nothing to indicate that anything nefarious has happened.
I tried to email the reporter, Beth Berger, to ask her if LE had stated that Matt and the kids have never talked to them at all, and if LE had stated that they'd asked for a formal statement from Matt or the kids and been refused, but the email - the address for which I got from the Times Free Press website - bounced back as undeliverable.
BeanE
Inactive
BBM. It's so odd to me that Diane - the one who talked to Gail and talked to LE that day - has never said that Gail asked for LE to meet her at the house.
Only Arlene - who did not talk to Gail or LE that day - has claimed that.
I agree.
'Video' vs.'videotape' can mean a whole lotta things when it comes to evidence.
I think we are talking about a dvr (or a sm card(s) or..ya know, yet another memory device- geez) here.
Ugh. Make it stop.
BeanE
Inactive
calliestarnes Callie Starnes
Search of Palmgren's two Alabama lake homes complete. No sign of Gail Palmgren.
6 minutes ago
calliestarnes Callie Starnes
No dive or water search. No sign of anything that would lead to a dive either. Investigators confident there's nothing there.
1 minute ago
http://twitter.com/#!/calliestarnes
Search of Palmgren's two Alabama lake homes complete. No sign of Gail Palmgren.
6 minutes ago
calliestarnes Callie Starnes
No dive or water search. No sign of anything that would lead to a dive either. Investigators confident there's nothing there.
1 minute ago
http://twitter.com/#!/calliestarnes
- Status