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

[Sleuthy1]

I have a concern I hope is okay to post here, regarding the obvious and necessary intent for the websites to draw wide attention to the case, from media and other sources too. Naturally the complete websites are in public view (with the exception of a few private forums on WS, I believe).
:websleuther:
I have cringed a few times to see the pictures of some precious children on the FB page, including Gail's. I worry about perps seeing any of the children in such a public forum. Am I crazy?

I am so specifically careful about this on my own personal facebook page. NOBODY sees my children on there except my personal friends and family. I just wonder if anybody has thought of this in the midst of so much chaos.

The BGHN Facebook site does not post pix of Gail's children (other than the ocassional pic that is included/attached to a news report)...All of the pix floating around the internet are available on Gail's own FB page for all to see....Gail posted them.That being said...The BGHN crops all of their photos, so as not to include and thereby protect the children's anonymity post disappearance.:websleuther:

 

[Pearl*]

The BGHN Facebook site does not post pix of Gail's children (other than the ocassional pic that is included/attached to a news report)...All of the pix floating around the internet are available on Gail's own FB page for all to see....Gail posted them.That being said...The BGHN crops all of their photos, so as not to include and thereby protect the children's anonimity post disappearance.:websleuther:

Sleuthy, the top row of photos on the FB page has an adorable mother/daughter picture taken in the kitchen with them in matching outfits. Are we talking about the same thing? Honestly, that photo made me want to smile and cry at the same time.

 

[Sleuthy1]

For what it's worth, I don't think her good name has been damaged at all. I think many of the lies are fairly transparent, and the damage has been to his own name.

I don't know Gail, but I see her as an awesome mom and overall awesome person, based on what I've learned of her in the past 6 weeks.

Yes she is ...but if ppl like Arlene and other friends and colleagues of Gail's never spoke up...We would only know what MP wanted all of us to know (ie: court documents filed the week Gail went missing ....May 6th ~I believe)...GP did nothing wrong... Mr.P on the other hand... He is not so "squeaky clean" .... not professionally and definitely not as a husband IMO....He certainly has not measured up...in the husband department... I will leave the "father" aspect alone for now...but I do have an opinion about that too...I will wait for additional information to be verified before I go there.

 

[Sleuthy1]

Sleuthy, the top row of photos on the FB page has an adorable mother/daughter picture taken in the kitchen with them in matching outfits. Are we talking about the same thing? Honestly, that photo made me want to smile and cry at the same time.

That photo is on GP own FB page and a friend sent it to admins at BGHN when they asked for pix from friends and family to share with everyone ... It is probably the only one innocentversight) that has the kids in it and the BGHN site has never put it out on the main page...it was cropped to show GP's face alone...but now that you bring that to my attention...I will make sure BGHN removes the pic from the album ...:tyou: Personally ...I think out of over 500 photos in albums on the BGHN site....you found the ONE...that BGHN missed deleting. After close scrutiny...BGHN admins found 2 more that had already been published early on and used by news media...but the BGHN site has cropped and deleted those 2 larger ones too.

 

[Pearl*]

That photo is on GP own FB page and a friend sent it to me ...It is probably the only one innocentversight) that has the kids in it and the BGHN site has never put it out on the main page...it was cropped to show GP's face alone...but now that you bring that to my attention...I will make sure BGHN removes the pic from the album ...:tyou:

Aw, it's a GREAT picture. I love it and hate to see it go, but as a mom I'd want it to go.

I see Clive's children on there on a regular basis too. Does BGHN have a policy on "children" or just Gail's? He, too, has some adorable children, and I know from the posts that they are frequently out together in some desolate areas. Just a concern. And confusion. Is he an administrator of the site? If so, my post is really out of place and I apologize. I just get concerned for children. I'm a mom! And I see too many precious pics on this site of those who have gone missing. Really gives me chills and makes me hug mine a little tighter!

 

[JBean]

I have a concern I hope is okay to post here, regarding the obvious and necessary intent for the websites to draw wide attention to the case, from media and other sources too. Naturally the complete websites are in public view (with the exception of a few private forums on WS, I believe).

I have cringed a few times to see the pictures of some precious children on the FB page, including Gail's. I worry about perps seeing any of the children in such a public forum. Am I crazy?

I am so specifically careful about this on my own personal facebook page. NOBODY sees my children on there except my personal friends and family. I just wonder if anybody has thought of this in the midst of so much chaos.

Typically we do not allow pictures of minors to be posted here, unless they are missing children of course, or victims.
Names of minors are usually not allowed either. I know it was a source of frustration for rmembers in the Kyron Horman forum because they were not even allowed to post his baby sister's name.

 

[JBean]

The BGHN Facebook site does not post pix of Gail's children (other than the ocassional pic that is included/attached to a news report)...All of the pix floating around the internet are available on Gail's own FB page for all to see....Gail posted them.That being said...The BGHN crops all of their photos, so as not to include and thereby protect the children's anonimity post disappearance.:websleuther:

Just to clarify something, Gail's own FB is private so only her friends see the pictures of her kids there.
I am not missing what you are saying, just want to make sure that you realize whatever Gail posted was for friends only.

 

[JBean]

______________________________________________________
For Starters:<snip>On May 6, Matthew Palmgren filed documents in Hamilton County Chancery Court, requesting a legal separation from his wife, asking for exclusive use of their home and temporary custody of the children. A chancellor is scheduled to rule on the motions.In documents, he said his wife suffered from depression and was prescribed several medications.<snip>http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/may/17/missing-woman-search-continues-gail-palmgren/
<snip>Matt Palmgren said in a telephone interview Friday that his wife has disappeared before.
“We’re very upset,” Matt Palmgren said. “She’s had psychiatric issues in the past. ... Usually she just goes somewhere and decompresses but stays in contact with the kids.”
Durham, one of Gail Palmgren’s relatives and the police detective heading the investigation, strongly dismissed questions about Gail Palmgren’s mental state.
“If she has psychiatric issues, then I’m the queen of England,” Durham said. “Ask anyone: Gail is smart and has a good head on her shoulders.”
Signal Mountain police Detective James Tizzio said his investigation had uncovered no psychiatric issues with the missing woman.<snip>
http://timesfreepress.com/news/2011/may/07/police-searching-missing-signal-woman/?local
<snip>Matt Palmgren said his wife returned with the children and the family’s dogs early April 30 from the family’s lake house, about 20 miles north of Montgomery, Ala. He said he did not know how long she had been there and that she dropped the children off with no one home at about noon.
“You can imagine what a difficult time it is for me and the kids right now,” he said.<snip>[URL]http://timesfreepress.com/news/2011/may/07/police-searching-missing-signal-woman/?local[/url]

He knew exactly how long she had been gone with the children and where they went...Gail left for the Lake House shortly after the 911 scenario with local SMPD ended with the police Friday night April 29th 2011 and headed for the Lake in Alabama ... he knew she was on her way back to SM that morning because he made arrangements to meet her at their marital home at 40 Ridge Rock to drop off the kids. So ... IMVHO...He knew where she was and how long....so this statement...is another "misleading statement" at the very least. shall I continue? :banghead: IMHO ....You can't "unring" that bell once it has been sounded...earlier or recently said ....damage has been done to her good name ...

I think what Glorias was saying is that he has not said anything since that time.
I concur what he said to the media about her at the begining was way out of bounds, but he has been quiet since. KWIM?

 

[Pearl*]

Clive is currently amongst us and he has chosen to share his family pix of he and his family assisting in the search for Gail. Unfortunately, Gail is not here to share with us her wishes regarding to the whole world seeing her beautiful children.Before Gail went missing she had absolutely no problem sharing her beautiful pix of her children with others ... or she would not have uploaded them to her facebook page and made them available for all to see. Status remains unchanged to this day....just as Gail left the page. They are beautiful children. BGHN would love to share many pix of Gail being the wonderful Mom to her children ... It would be a great way to show just what kind of relationship the kids had with their Mom, but BGHN has opted not to share pix of the kids with ppl on the net at this point in time due to possible concerns the family might have with regard to the children's anonimity

Absolutely! I share mine as well, but I just have to be careful about those privacy settings. I can't believe I found the one "problem" pic out of 500 or so. It just jumped out at me for some reason--such sweet expressions. I love it! And I have not looked around for Gail's personal page.

Yes, it's a fine line to walk. The pictures definitely deserve the chance to be seen and enjoyed. Finding how and when is hard sometimes.

People are different. Obviously Clive is comfortable sharing multiple pics of his children in remote locations. He's been quite a busy man, though. Maybe not thought of risks? I just got this concern on my mind and thought I should speak up in case some have been too busy (in a good way) to think that THIS facebook isn't probably like their PERSONAL facebook! We've simply got too many missing kids cases on Websleuths.

 

[Sleuthy1]

Just to clarify something, Gail's own FB is private so only her friends see the pictures of her kids there.
I am not missing what you are saying, just want to make sure that you realize whatever Gail posted was for friends only.

Not true JBean....I am not listed as a FB friend to GP and I click on PHOTOS and can see them all....if you are not a FB friend either...go try and you will see all the PHOTOS too

 

[JBean]

Not true JBean....I am not listed as a FB friend to GP and I click on PHOTOS and can see them all....if you are not a FB friend either...go try and you will see all the PHOTOS too

You are probably a friend of a friend and she has allowed that option. But strangers cannot see her pix on her FB.

 

[Pearl*]

Since this much as already been said about the fb pic issue, I think I should add that Gail's settings may or may not be her original settings. Everytime facebook makes a change in their format, it seems, the settings revert to default, which is almost always less restrictive than customized settings. It's something to be watching a lot, and I wonder how much time Gail had to be watching for fb "sneaky" changes. Plus...her situation has very tragically changed now. Would it be less appropriate to have her children so visible as she may have set it then? Just something to think about.

ETA: I've always thought "friends of friends" is an especially problematic setting. How much do you REALLY trust your friends, anyway? Friends who have 1500 friends maybe? I keep my stuff as "friends only" because I may not want YOUR friends to see my children! I may be much more selective than you are, after all....

 

[Sleuthy1]

Absolutely! I share mine as well, but I just have to be careful about those privacy settings. I can't believe I found the one "problem" pic out of 500 or so. It just jumped out at me for some reason--such sweet expressions. I love it! And I have not looked around for Gail's personal page.

Yes, it's a fine line to walk. The pictures definitely deserve the chance to be seen and enjoyed. Finding how and when is hard sometimes.

People are different. Obviously Clive is comfortable sharing multiple pics of his children in remote locations. He's been quite a busy man, though. Maybe not thought of risks? I just got this concern on my mind and thought I should speak up in case some have been too busy (in a good way) to think that THIS facebook isn't probably like their PERSONAL facebook! We've simply got too many missing kids cases on Websleuths.

I am not going to debate child care with you Pearl... I bolded the spot on your post that concerns ME that MOST...It seems as though you are questioning CB's ability to discern whether or not his children are safe in areas he chooses to bring them with him...It was between the late morning hours into the late afternoon early evening hours (all still bright sunlight I might add)....Many family's safely enjoy the trails during daylight hours....I am told it is the evening hours where one needs to be concerned for their own safety. I assure you CB knows how to keep his children safe....and might I add ... Can we say "CAMPING" .... many families go into remote areas all over the world and setup camps on vacation with children in tow...Does this mean that because they choose to camp at remote/rustic campgrounds (as many thousands do each year), that the parents that choose to go on these camping trips with their children are bad parents for the choice of campground location they make? I think not ... IMHO your concerns should befor your children and notfor CB's and any1 elses. IMOVHO:dunno:

 

[Sleuthy1]

Since this much as already been said about the fb pic issue, I think I should add that Gail's settings may or may not be her original settings. Everytime facebook makes a change in their format, it seems, the settings revert to default, which is almost always less restrictive than customized settings. It's something to be watching a lot, and I wonder how much time Gail had to be watching for fb "sneaky" changes. Plus...her situation has very tragically changed now. Would it be less appropriate to have her children so visible as she may have set it then? Just something to think about.

ETA: I've always thought "friends of friends" is an especially problematic setting. How much do you REALLY trust your friends, anyway? Friends who have 1500 friends maybe? I keep my stuff as "friends only" because I may not want YOUR friends to see my children! I may be much more selective than you are, after all....

Unfortunately, We my never know what GP's FB preferences originally were or if FB defaulted them in the upgrades/updates of the FB software. Very sad

 

[JBean]

ok guys, lets not get on Clive. He is out there doing what he can for Gail.
let's get back to topic and we can all select our own privacy settings.
thanks.

 

[Sleuthy1]

ok guys, lets not get on Clive. He is out there doing what he can for Gail.
let's get back to topic and we can all select our own privacy settings.
thanks.

Thank you JBean :websleuther:

 

[glorias]

snipped...

shall I continue? :banghead: IMHO ....You can't "unring" that bell once it has been sounded...earlier or recently said ....damage has been done to her good name ...

With respect, I am fully aware of all of those things, I think most of us are. When MP said something iffy, I was on it in a second because I could not believe his audacity. I practically have everything he said about Gail memorized because I was talking about it incessantly at the beginning.

I know what you're saying, that Gail's reputation has been irretrievably sullied, but I just do not personally agree. I'm not trying to diminish the fact that Matt has made statements about Gail that were extremely problematic. What I'm saying is that (a) MP lawyered up and clammed up, and we haven't seen a slam against Gail that needed immediate countering in weeks, and (b) there were plenty of people speaking for Gail in the beginning. LE, her sister, Susie, and Arlene all countered Matt's claims back then. That is why it is my personal opinion that Arlene is not "forced", as SMM said, to be Gail's voice.

And to be very, very honest here, a single self-appointed spokesperson who has said things publicly that they later had to delete may not be the best "voice for Gail" available. Also, I personally think the family should be deciding the "voice" issue but it appears to have been taken out of their hands.

 

[Oriah]

We have a landfill, but mostly I've just seen were heaps of tree limbs, and much of that has been hauled away by the tree cutters.

As I've mentioned before, in the places torn up by the tornado there would be nowhere to hide a bright red jeep. A body, perhaps, but they'd be crazy to leave someone out where all the families and police were looking for bodies and animals.

So to me that's really not a great place to look. If she's anywhere, I would look in those mines, caves, or ravines on Signal Mt. Or the river, although they didn't find her or the Jeep off Suck Creek Road when they searched it.

BBM: That is my thought as well. I know they searched the river off Suck Creek, but I am concerned about access points farther south.
Did anyone local venture to cross the river after the storms and note the water level and turbulence? I can look it up but would like a locals opinion. TIA.

 

[Oriah]

That's what I did - I dug out an old battery radio and we listened to it for five days. I had to keep swapping phones with my husband so he could take them to work and charge them up because we don't have a car charger. And we cooked on a charcoal grill.

I was just happy to have a roof without a tree on it, since my neighbors were dealing with that. It's hard to describe exactly what we were going through. Post-traumatic stress disorder and survival mode.

Disasters are terrifying. I feel for you ThoughtFox, and am glad you were spared, although it sounds like many people are still traumatized by the devastation in the area. I hope there were counselors available (at least in schools) to help people deal with the stress of what you all endured.

On a different topic- regarding the caves in the area... is the thought that someone would drive a jeep into one and park it? There do not appear to be many that would accomodate that with access by vehicle, only on foot. Does anyone know of an area that could be accessed by vehicle like this?

ETA: the ravines are of great concern to me as well. There were some earlier statements about searches where the guardrails were not damaged anywhere on Signal, as such would happen if a vehicle were to go over. Were no guardrails damaged by the storms?

Also, I have something eating at me (different case we worked several years ago) similar situation, but not in TN. Missing person and distinctive vehicle from a mountainous area, in early summer with everything in bloom and a great deal of trees, brush etc. Also, guardrails all along the curvy route thought to be taken by the missing person driving the vehicle.
No damage to guardrails anywhere along the route.

The vehicle (with missing person inside, deceased) was located in late Fall, after the foliage had thinned. The vehicle was about 2/3rds of the way down a ravine, hung up almost vertically by trees. The conclusion was the driver was traveling at a high rate of speed and literally jumped the guardrail at a curve, or possibly swerved to avoid an oncoming vehicle. Further inspection of the guardrail above where the vehicle was located, indicated minor damage to the top of the guardrail- and that's it.

This concerns me.

 

[ThoughtFox]

Oriah: I didn't see the river after the storms because I don't live near it now. However, when I was younger I lived right on the river in downtown Chattanooga, and after heavy rain there are really strong currents out in the channel. It's a heavily traveled and heavily fished river though, and most of the time if someone goes in, the body is eventually found.

Caves: Most caves in this area are limestone sinkhole type caves that go straight down. I would say the vast majority of openings are far away from roads in rocky terrain, but these old mines might have openings close to one of the dirt roads. Could you drive right into one of them? Probably not, but you'd have to go out there and inspect each one individually, imo.