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

[Columbo]

This may be slightly off topic (not wanting to sway the discussion away from the direction its going) but it's been nagging at me and it's just a quick question....

Do we know if any of the items/documents/etc left with friends were purely sentimental and of no monetary value? TIA if anyone can recall mention of this somewhere.

I got the impression that the items given to AD for safekeeping were more of evidentiary value--if anything happened to Gail, here was proof that MP did something to get rid of her. The jewelry of course had sentimental as well as monetary value, but things like the DVR--not sentimental.

 

[Columbo]

Wow, this guy is unbelievable. How on earth is he getting away with this? Clearly, his priority is not to find his missing spouse.

That sure doesn't seem to be his priority. It seems like an attempt to look cooperative, but they're really making it more difficult for LE, putting up hurdles for them to jump over if they want to search the properties. IMO

 

[JayCeeVee]

Why did the GF buy a car in PA (or wherever they were) and drive it down? Does she have connections up there. Did they pick up a 3rd person and drive that person down? Assuming MP and his GF are responsible for Gail's disappearance.[/QUOTE]

This has concerned me since I first read it although I believe they MP and GF were supposed to be at a company conference I believe in Minnesota not PA but were no shows, at least he was as I recall. Somehow the vehicle purchase in MN baffles me, wondering if there is any connection.

Also, I don't feel that MP has ever express true empathy for Gail from the beginning, this seems to follow a pattern from previous missing wives in this country, IMHO.

 

[Columbo]

Why did the GF buy a car in PA (or wherever they were) and drive it down? Does she have connections up there. Did they pick up a 3rd person and drive that person down? Assuming MP and his GF are responsible for Gail's disappearance.

bolded by me. (something went wrong when I hit the "Quote" button; the entire above statement is JayCeeVee's post.)

It's quite possible that she has connections in PA but I'm wondering if there are just better car deals in PA than in TN ? I don't think there are state tax issues that would make it less expensive to buy a car in PA. Kind of makes more sense that someone she or he knew worked at the dealership in PA and gave her a good deal on a car. It is kind of weird, though.

 

[msb]

i'm struggling w/ the lack of concrete detail in this case. no cell records, no details on mp's activity on the 30th, no searches of the main residence (last known location other than the unavailable vehicle) etc. so for me, tho making a jump to suspecting mp is "easy" if i go only on what is available, it could just as easily be that mp is just as mentioned before, a person who wants control and is arrogant and feels a high level of self importance (not to be confused w/ liking things orderly and having self confidence) who had emotionally distanced himself from his wife before she went missing and so can't/won't dredge up any feelings of sorrow over her disappearance. not for the public, not for his kids. i am local but don't know the family so i am just as much an outsider looking in as anyone here as far as his character goes. i'm just trying to look at it from all possible angles. most of the "hinky" things imo could be attributed to his lack of concern and compassion. his lack of pleaing for her safe return, his lack of giving possitive comments about gp and his restrictions on the search parameters. if you look at what was posted strictly from a position of him being an innocent but not "nice" person then *I* can see all those things being a protection of his property. i am one that likes my things to stay really nice and am not always "southern" enough in my demeanor when it comes to being polite about it when others don't show the same respect for my belongings as i do. (i'm working on this :innocent: ) anyway, if i give the benefit of the doubt i can see this in the details of the search order... not sure if any of this makes sense to anyone else but jmho...

 

[believe09]

Thank you MSB, I agree it makes sense. And I agree that it seems unlikely that Matt misses Gail and is motivated to find her. This doesnt mean he did anything to her.

 

[Pearl*]

If you look at what was posted strictly from a position of him being an innocent but not "nice" person then *I* can see all those things being a protection of his property. i am one that likes my things to stay really nice and am not always "southern" enough in my demeanor when it comes to being polite about it when others don't show the same respect for my belongings as i do. (i'm working on this :innocent: ) anyway, if i give the benefit of the doubt i can see this in the details of the search order... not sure if any of this makes sense to anyone else but jmho...

To be honest, much I have been critical of MP, I had the same thought when I read the provisions of the agreement. My impression is that when a legal search is carried out, there is generally not a tremendous concern for what might be torn up, tossed around, etc. That may just be an impression I have developed from watching too much TV.

Regardless, even if the provision is unnecessary and searchers are typically careful and respectful of property, I don't see any harm in agreeing to that beforehand.

I keep thinking of the children and how they must be coping with all this. And to have their belongings gone through and the house possibly left in a state of disarray surely would be upsetting for them. To look at the agreement as maybe giving the children some assurances their property will be handled with respect and care puts a different light on things, even if we think the agreement was not drafted with that thought in mind. They are old enough that I can't imagine they aren't painfully aware of more details than anybody thinks.

 

[Oriah]

To be honest, much I have been critical of MP, I had the same thought when I read the provisions of the agreement. My impression is that when a legal search is carried out, there is generally not a tremendous concern for what might be torn up, tossed around, etc. That may just be an impression I have developed from watching too much TV.

Regardless, even if the provision is unnecessary and searchers are typically careful and respectful of property, I don't see any harm in agreeing to that beforehand.

I keep thinking of the children and how they must be coping with all this. And to have their belongings gone through and the house possibly left in a state of disarray surely would be upsetting for them. To look at the agreement as maybe giving the children some assurances their property will be handled with respect and care puts a different light on things, even if we think the agreement was not drafted with that thought in mind. They are old enough that I can't imagine they aren't painfully aware of more details than anybody thinks.

I feel for the children also, Pearl. I don't however, believe that in this type of situation LE will execute a SW and trash the home- but I can also very much understand an attorney advising their client to put in such provisions when approached about authorizing a search of private property.

It is interesting to me that the consent of the DA is added in there. That seems to me as though LE working the case might not have backed down on that request- and it was a bit of a trade off- as if, "Ok, your attorney can be present... but in exchange, we give you the DA."

Just a thought.

 

[Emeralgem]

Thank you MSB, I agree it makes sense. And I agree that it seems unlikely that Matt misses Gail and is motivated to find her. This doesnt mean he did anything to her.

Seems to me his children's pain and fear of not knwing what happened to their mother would be motivation enough for him to do everything within his power to help find her, so IMO I am inclined to believe he is involved with what may have happened to her...Let me add... The consensus of opinion from what I have gleaned from residents in the area feel he is involved also.... JMHO..

 

[msb]

Seems to me his children's pain and fear of not knwing what happened to their mother would be motivation enough for him to do everything within his power to help find her

using this argument, wouldn't all men stay in touch w/ their kids and/or pay child support when faced w/ divorce, out of love and concern for them? all i'm saying is maybe he is just that big of a not nice person (trying really hard not to give it a label but rather just be descriptive, lol!) that most of us can't comprehend him behaving this way without being involved somehow. as for those i've spoken w/ locally i've gotten "it sure seems like he must be involved" but again, that plays into my thoughts of maybe "normal" people can't comprehend the level of uncaring behaviour that is being displayed and therefore feel he is likely guilty.

just food for thought, not vouching for anything or anyone since as i said i don't know the key players in this.

 

[ThoughtFox]

As for the brother, I believe from looking him up on the net, that he died about 2 years ago. If Gail and AD were friends at that time, I would think AD would have known. I also wondered if maybe the "best friend" thing was a bit exaggerated by AD. She may have felt they were best friends, but Gail just thought of them as casual friends.

All JMO.

Hmmm, I have to disagree. I see no reason why Gail would confide so much in a "casual friend" and send important papers to her. They have known each other quite a few years, since the time the Palmgren's lived in Kentucky according to Arlene.

I think Arlene has a strong personality, like a few other people in this case, and it's working against them because they become the focus instead of Gail.

 

[hollyblue]

The article outlining the consent order...also stated that the five listed parameters were INCLUDED.....so curious what else it stipulates?

The consent order to search the Palmgrens’ Signal Mountain home included these parameters

:

 

[believe09]

Sure, in a perfect world MP should be beating the bushes for the sake of his children. I am not judging their marriage, but I have to say if the kids were a primary motivator, carrying on with a co worker is a poor choice. Why not leave Gail? We think we know why-the financial burden if nothing else would have been huge. But what is the lesson here for the kiddos?

 

[believe09]

Hmmm, I have to disagree. I see no reason why Gail would confide so much in a "casual friend" and send important papers to her. They have known each other quite a few years, since the time the Palmgren's lived in Kentucky according to Arlene.

I think Arlene has a strong personality, like a few other people in this case, and it's working against them because they become the focus instead of Gail.

Others received items as well, and I wonder how they would be characterized as well. Intimates? Dont know.

 

[ThoughtFox]

. . . i am local but don't know the family so i am just as much an outsider looking in as anyone here as far as his character goes. i'm just trying to look at it from all possible angles. most of the "hinky" things imo could be attributed to his lack of concern and compassion. his lack of pleaing for her safe return, his lack of giving possitive comments about gp and his restrictions on the search parameters. if you look at what was posted strictly from a position of him being an innocent but not "nice" person then *I* can see all those things being a protection of his property. i am one that likes my things to stay really nice and am not always "southern" enough in my demeanor when it comes to being polite about it when others don't show the same respect for my belongings as i do. (i'm working on this :innocent: ) anyway, if i give the benefit of the doubt i can see this in the details of the search order... not sure if any of this makes sense to anyone else but jmho...

Just from my experience reading these cases on WS for years, I can tell you that when people lawyer up and stonewall searches this way, they usually nine times out of ten have something to hide.

I hope his carpet stays nice, though. :crazy: He's really got his priorities straight! [/snark]

 

[hollyblue]

Just from my experience reading these cases on WS for years, I can tell you that when people lawyer up and stonewall searches this way, they usually nine times out of ten have something to hide.

I hope his carpet stays nice, though. :crazy: He's really got his priorities straight! [/snark]

I hope they take the dogs in too. Seriously.

O/T ....just curious. Did Matt/Gail do their own yard work or have a house keeper? Could Gail speak any other language?

 

[msb]

but in continuing to play devil's advocate...it IS only 9 times out of 10 so there is that 10% that just look guilty but aren't, kwim? i know chances are..."if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck..." just saying in this trial by the public that there can't be a for sure conviction w/ the "evidence" we have thus far (the evidence being his questionable behaviour of course).

i know many have said they are glad they aren't LE in this situation due to the time zone confusion but for me, i already deal w/ that and if i WERE LE then at least i would know what all info was out there ... :banghead:

 

[msb]

oh and to clarify, i wasn't saying it was "ok" to care more about your "carpet" than about finding your missing spouse only that if he really is as controlling as he appears to be that that could be very important to him and why the parameters are in place. it could be completely separate from the desire to hide something.

that all said, when i first heard there were stipulations/parameters (but didn't know yet what they were) my first thought was that they might find drug paraphenalia and he didn't want to be charged on that. again, so many things unknown...

 

[Columbo]

I hope they take the dogs in too. Seriously.

O/T ....just curious. Did Matt/Gail do their own yard work or have a house keeper? Could Gail speak any other language?

I don't mean to sound silly, but if only the dogs could talk....I wonder if they would have some testimony to contribute.

I always used to wonder that about the Laci Peterson case and other cases--if their dog could have talked, it would have been mind-blowing.

Guess this is a sign that I am really frustrated with lack of information in this case!

 

[Columbo]

oh and to clarify, i wasn't saying it was "ok" to care more about your "carpet" than about finding your missing spouse only that if he really is as controlling as he appears to be that that could be very important to him and why the parameters are in place. it could be completely separate from the desire to hide something.

that all said, when i first heard there were stipulations/parameters (but didn't know yet what they were) my first thought was that they might find drug paraphenalia and he didn't want to be charged on that. again, so many things unknown...

It seems to me that he is controlling and arrogant: "LE doesn't tell me what to do, I tell them what they can do" type of attitude. I could be wrong.