TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #3

[redfish]

I am not saying GP was not abused. What I am saying is we do not know the circumstances of the night before. We know she was afraid in general and thought someone was following her. But the phone call to police we do not know that at that time she was afraid of MP or just angry. The circumstances of the other phone calls that we know of do not point to abuse specifically either, do I think there was more to those calls then we know? yes I do, and I think it's a possibility that she was abused physically, and a probability that she was abused mentally. but I just think it's an oversimplification to call them DV calls when we do not know what or if abuse took place at those particular times. JMO.

Sophie, you are right we don't. But SOMETHING made the responding officer give her a safe house number. They do not do this on a whim. They actually take you aside a give you a very firm talking to.

 

[happy409]

I think there is a distinction. One can lead to the other but they are not exactly the same. DV is a crime, and a verbal altercation is not always a crime, nor does it necessarily say threats took place. We don't know, exactly what happened. Domestic dispute is what is said here too when physical violence did not take place. When I read DV calls, I take it for granted that there was violence or threat of violence.

I'm not defending MP or saying no DV took place. I just kinda want to go on what we know as far as those phone calls when we are talking factually, and it doesn't sound like that is how they were classified by police.

They call it a domestic dispute call. All the articles also refer to it as such. Also, police have gone to the house multiple times, so for them to give her numbers, she may have appeared more frightened over other times? I hope they don't end up wishing they did something more.

 

[sophieness]

Sophie, you are right we don't. But SOMETHING made the responding officer give her a safe house number. They do not do this on a whim. They actually take you aside a give you a very firm talking to.

Could they have done that because they knew there was a pattern of arguments and 911 calls and thought there *may* be more they did not know about, as opposed to them knowing abuse or violence had taken place? I think it is likely that harm has come to GP. but I DO find those phone calls and the details that have been released strange. In so much as, if I was to call 911 on my partner, I know it would be because I thought he was either out of control and destroying property, threatening me, or hurting me. and if I go so far as to call 911 I'm going to make sure the police know what happened and they wouldn't just be writing verbal altercation over missing dog or jeep etc no crime committed.

I know DV doesn't always work like that and people get scared or back off etc. I'm just saying, I personally, do not know for a fact that is what happened in this case.

 

[fran]

IMHO, I believe the officers word usage on these DV reports, leads me to believe the officers either deffused the situation or the victim changes her story by the time LE arrived on the scene. IF the officers deffused the situation, of course they're going to minimize the seriousness of the dispute.

OTOH, if the victim changed her story, she may have either been threatened by him if he was arrested, or she feared his arrest could jeopradize her family and most specifically the children and the family's standing in the eye of public opinion. She appears to be too much together to make a 911 call just to control her husband. Obviously by her work history, she's perfectly capable of making decisions in an intelligent and educated manner. She would NOT call LE, imho, unless the situation was out of control.

It's interesting that during the period this couple was having contact with LE for domestic disturbance calls, one of the neighbors reported to the media, that Gail had a black eye and said 'she ran into something.' I don't recall seeing any mention of this on police reports.

It's also very PROBABLE, that someone under verbal abuse situations, will deny to LE, upon their arrival on the scene, the true situation that caused them to call LE to intervene. I really don't think that first call about the missing dog, was really about the dog at all. That was the cause of the argument, but most likely NOT the concern cause of the 911 call. My same thought for one of these other calls, about him walking home. IMHO, Gail would most likely have let him walk home unless he were not in a condition to take care of himself, ie POSSIBLE (per rumors) that he had a drinking problem. So who knows? he was most likely under the influence.

Of course, once again I'm not saying this IS what happened but may POSSIBLY have been the case here, viewing from the outside in and no proof of anything except speculation.

JMHO
fran

 

[Pearl*]

She appears to be too much together to make a 911 call just to control her husband. Obviously by her work history, she's perfectly capable of making decisions in an intelligent and educated manner. She would NOT call LE, imho, unless the situation was out of control.

I think the timeline is very important. As I recall, the Palmgrens have been married for many years. I've read nothing of 911 calls occurring until November 2010. This indicates to me a rapid escalation, if it is true that no DV calls were made before November 2010. I just can't believe Gail called for trivial reasons.

NEW THOUGHT: Do we know anything about a DV history before they moved to Signal Mountain?

 

[fran]

There are some states, such as California, if there is 'evidence' of physical violence, they do NOT need the spouse's testimony or statement to place the abusive person under arrest. Of course, this is in response to a 911 call or just bringing the matter to LE attention.

I have a friend who was in an abusive situation. Long story as it went on for years, but the last time police were called regarding her and her husband's situation, she wasn't even the one who called LE. It was a friend and it was the worst attack up to the point. She had awful visual evidence on her neck and face. All she had to do was tell LE he did it, they did the rest and arrested him within hours, if not minutes.

My friend did get a RO, but the attack was so visually vicious, the courts ordered a 'criminal restraining order,' meaning while he was in jail, even verbally say on his phone calls, which were monitered, he couldn't even 'utter' her name! Yeah......she finally wised up and filed for divorce WHILE he was still and jail and stuck to it!

I'm not saying that happened here But this is an example of the different ways LE takes and reacts to domestic violence calls, both verbal and physical.

JMHO
fran

PS....OTOH, if there's NO physcial evidence, LE just has the alleged victim's word. My friend called 911, he was gone (by the time LE responded) but they took a report. He was eventually cited and ordered to appear in court. She relented her 911 statement (eventhough it was TRUE), but he had talked her into relenting. When she did, she stuck to it, even as the judge sentenced her to 100 hours of community service and a blemish on HER record, for filing a 'false police' report, or 911 report.

 

[happy409]

IMHO, Gail would most likely have let him walk home if he were not in a condition to take care of himself, ie POSSIBLE (per rumors) that he had a drinking problem. So who know? he was most likely under the influence.

JMHO
fran

AGREED!! ...and remember MP wants everyone to think she's delusional and paranoid...any police officer hearing that may think it's best for them to separate, cool down, sleep it off, that is a common thread here with domestic calls.

But, if it was that BAD, WHY did she go back so quickly, drop the kids in what appears to be in a hurry, possibly taking all their stuff in the house (including her purse or personal ID'd items), what did she see/hear for her to take off with only the keys and cell phone, leaving her children behind? Many would agree they wouldn't take children with them if they felt they'd be put in harm's way?!?

 

[ThoughtFox]

I think it's interesting that for two of the police calls Gail was the one who left the house.

One time she left and spent the night at the mother-in-law's house.

But that begs the question of why he didn't go there, since it was his mother, not hers?

I don't think that's normally what happens. It's true the police will try to diffuse the situation by asking one or another to leave, usually the husband if they suspect abuse is going on. Not leave forever, just for the night.

So why was Gail the one who had to leave the house?

This may seem like nitpicking, but it fits with the husband's attitude of separating Gail (and her family) from the children and her own house (which he quickly protected with a restraining order against her).

I told my husband about that today and he said, "Doesn't sound like he wants her to come home - how can she?" :banghead:

Then we have Gail asking to leave with the kids to drive all the way to Wetumpka, AL, alone with kids and dogs in the car. That sounds desperate to me. The fact he didn't want to go with her or insisted on driving in a separate car sounds like his problem, not hers. :maddening: So I understand why she wanted to get away with the kids, especially if he was already saying she wasn't in her right mind. What I don't understand is why she came back so quickly since school was out until Monday, and until I hear a good reason I'm just not going to be satisfied.

Did hubby call and give her an ultimatum? Did he threaten her? Did they talk on the phone at all while she was in AL?

ETA: Was the mother-in-law involved in persuading her to come home from Alabama? I want to know more about that, since the husband was with his mother (he says) just before Gail arrived home.

All of this starts to remind of the old movie "Gaslight" in which a husband convinces his wife that she is going mad, when really he is the cause of all the weird things happening to her. It happens all too often, I'm afraid. We see this all the time. :twocents:

 

[fran]

AGREED!! ...and remember MP wants everyone to think she's delusional and paranoid...any police officer hearing that may think it's best for them to separate, cool down, sleep it off, that is a common thread here with domestic calls.

But, if it was that BAD, WHY did she go back so quickly, drop the kids in what appears to be in a hurry, possibly taking all their stuff in the house (including her purse or personal ID'd items), what did she see/hear for her to take off with only the keys and cell phone, leaving her children behind? Many would agree they wouldn't take children with them if they felt they'd be put in harm's way?!?

We have seen this before, where the ABUSED spouse will actually leave their children behind. IMHO, it's usually because the victim feels personally threatened but NO threat to the children. It might be actually, quite the opposite, IMHO. The abuser of the spouse, is over-indulgent with the children.

As far as her returning them when she already had them. Well think about this for a minute. Just a SUPPOSE. ......while she was at the lake home, he called her, threatened her as he MAY have done in the past, but told her she could just leave the kids and he doesn't give a darn what happens to her. She MAY HAVE known if she took the kids he'd go to the ends of the earth to track her down. But if she left the kids, they'd be safe and she, being away from her POSSIBLE abuser, is safely out of his reach.

Just some possiblities,
JMHO, of course!
fran

 

[ThoughtFox]

We have seen this before, where the ABUSED spouse will actually leave their children behind. IMHO, it's usually because the victim feels personally threatened but NO threat to the children. It might be actually, quite the opposite, IMHO. The abuser of the spouse, is over-indulgent with the children.

As far as her returning them when she already had them. Well think about this for a minute. Just a SUPPOSE. ......while she was at the lake home, he called her, threatened her as he MAY have done in the past, but told her she could just leave the kids and he doesn't give a darn what happens to her. She MAY HAVE known if she took the kids he'd go to the ends of the earth to track her down. But if she left the kids, they'd be safe and she, being away from her POSSIBLE abuser, is safely out of his reach.

Just some possiblities,
JMHO, of course!
fran

Fran: You and I are totally on the same wavelength here.

As you can see from my previous post which echoes yours, I am beginning to wonder what went on while Gail was in Alabama.

Who called her?
Was she threatened over the phone or in text messages?
Did the mother-in-law get involved and persuade her to bring the kids home?

She knew the husband loved the kids, but probably didn't love her anymore.

The more I thought about this today, the angrier it makes me feel about her situation. I feel she was being pushed to always concede to someone else's demands and felt alone except for the police. It's horribly sad.

 

[fran]

Just a heads-up!

One of the owner-partners of Websleuths is on Websleuth Radio right now. To hear Tricia talk to some of our Websleuth members just go to the top of the Websleuth's page and and click on the proper link. On the right side when you see Tricia, click to listen in!

She's talking about the Anthony case....

fran

 

[fran]

LOL, I hope I didn't run anybody off! We can still post!

The show was awesome and quite a success as far as listeners went! Even caused a {blip} on our own forum.

:blowkiss:
fran

 

[glorias]

I can definitely understand what you are saying, but am wondering WHY LE felt it necessary to give her a number for a safe house... Am also wondering WHY she was the one who left instead of him...He could have just as easily gone to his mother's home unless he was impaired and unable to drive..

Some speculation: We recently found out that Gail texted Arlene at 1:49 PM saying she was coming on down, which is earlier than we previously thought. Also, some locals have helpfully confirmed that the kids were out of school on Friday. I think it's possible Gail and the kids were planning on going down to Alabama, maybe for a weekend away, but a verbal altercation happened before they left.

Keep in mind though that Matt has told the media this was an unplanned trip to Alabama. If he has been so worried about Gail taking the kids, maybe he was worried before she disappeared, too. Maybe he got mad that she was leaving with them for the lake house, thinking she was "stealing" them, and they got into the verbal altercation.

When Gail called 911 she was presented with options like the safe house, she may have decided to just go on down to Alabama like she wanted to in the first place. Matt may have insisted she bring the kids back, which would explain why she came back so soon on the 30th. She and the kids weren't even at the lake house 24 hours.

 

[Pearl*]

There are some states, such as California, if there is 'evidence' of physical violence, they do NOT need the spouse's testimony or statement to place the abusive person under arrest. Of course, this is in response to a 911 call or just bringing the matter to LE attention.

This is true in Tennessee as well.

That word "evidence" can get very complicated though.

 

[hollyblue]

I think it's interesting that for two of the police calls Gail was the one who left the house.

One time she left and spent the night at the mother-in-law's house.

But that begs the question of why he didn't go there, since it was his mother, not hers?

I don't think that's normally what happens. It's true the police will try to diffuse the situation by asking one or another to leave, usually the husband if they suspect abuse is going on. Not leave forever, just for the night.

So why was Gail the one who had to leave the house?

This may seem like nitpicking, but it fits with the husband's attitude of separating Gail (and her family) from the children and her own house (which he quickly protected with a restraining order against her).

I told my husband about that today and he said, "Doesn't sound like he wants her to come home - how can she?" :banghead:

Then we have Gail asking to leave with the kids to drive all the way to Wetumpka, AL, alone with kids and dogs in the car. That sounds desperate to me. The fact he didn't want to go with her or insisted on driving in a separate car sounds like his problem, not hers. :maddening: So I understand why she wanted to get away with the kids, especially if he was already saying she wasn't in her right mind. What I don't understand is why she came back so quickly since school was out until Monday, and until I hear a good reason I'm just not going to be satisfied.

Did hubby call and give her an ultimatum? Did he threaten her? Did they talk on the phone at all while she was in AL?

ETA: Was the mother-in-law involved in persuading her to come home from Alabama? I want to know more about that, since the husband was with his mother (he says) just before Gail arrived home.

All of this starts to remind of the old movie "Gaslight" in which a husband convinces his wife that she is going mad, when really he is the cause of all the weird things happening to her. It happens all too often, I'm afraid. We see this all the time. :twocents:

Messing with her head. My thoughts, exactly. I think most of those ^^^^ types in Gaslight are always the passive/aggressive one. imo. "Fifty Ways to Leave Your Lover" #? Start an argument so you can be alone. Friday's are usually a good target date so they can start "their" weekend. That's why I ask why he wasn't at work on Friday. Take off to start his week-end plans for himself?

 

[hollyblue]

LOL, I hope I didn't run anybody off! We can still post!

The show was awesome and quite a success as far as listeners went! Even caused a {blip} on our own forum.
:blowkiss:
fran

I listened.:woohoo:Very good intro show. Heard Kimster and AZLawyer. :rocker: We are a family! The blip was very noticeable. :innocent:

 

[Emeralgem]

Messing with her head. My thoughts, exactly. I think most of those ^^^^ types in Gaslight are always the passive/aggressive one. imo. "Fifty Ways to Leave Your Lover" #? Start an argument so you can be alone. Friday's are usually a good target date so they can start "their" weekend. That's why I ask why he wasn't at work on Friday. Take off to start his week-end plans for himself?

BBM IMO Sounds more like "50 Ways To Meet Your Lover"...JMHO

 

[happy409]

We have seen this before, where the ABUSED spouse will actually leave their children behind. IMHO, it's usually because the victim feels personally threatened but NO threat to the children. It might be actually, quite the opposite, IMHO. The abuser of the spouse, is over-indulgent with the children.

As far as her returning them when she already had them. Well think about this for a minute. Just a SUPPOSE. ......while she was at the lake home, he called her, threatened her as he MAY have done in the past, but told her she could just leave the kids and he doesn't give a darn what happens to her. She MAY HAVE known if she took the kids he'd go to the ends of the earth to track her down. But if she left the kids, they'd be safe and she, being away from her POSSIBLE abuser, is safely out of his reach.

Just some possiblities,
JMHO, of course!
fran

I concur! That seems logical and why she would leave them at the house, possibly thinking SHE was possibly in danger, and didn't bring the children with her, knowing this wasn't about them. BUT, if she didn't leave in haste and/or planned on being away purposely, you would think she would have at LEAST taken her driver's license, told a neighbor or her sister where she would be.

Per MP they were to meet back at the house...to do what? Why didn't she wait for him to return? (if he was even at his mother's), and I read she lives at the bottom of the W road...so 25 minutes is a stretch! :twocents:

 

[ThePhantom]

Sounds to me that perhaps her husband was intimidating and frightening her on a regular basis, and is now hoping to capitilize on her departure by gaslighting her -- i.e. making it appear that she is the one with the problem. Manipulators are exceedingly skilled at doing that sort of thing.

 

[glorias]

Maybe she left the kids at the house because someone asked her to meet at another location without the kids.