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

[glorias]

So we know this sequence of events happened on the 29th/30th:

Gail and Matt got into some kind of fight/disturbance and both ended up at the police station nearby. A report was filed and Gail was given the number to a safe house. She decided to take the kids to the lake house instead. She texted Arlene saying she wanted to do something fun.

The morning of the 30th around 6:30 AM, she called her sister Diane to say she was returning to Signal Mountain and asked her to ask LE to be there when she got back.

She left for Signal Mountain with the kids. We know she didn't tell Arlene she was leaving, but she did talk to LE at some point, either while on the road or before she left.

She arrives in TN. Media is stating it was about 12:00 to 12:15. (We don't know when she left the lake house specifically, so as far as we know, this time is correct.) LE was apparently not there. She drops off the kids and drives off as witnessed by Susie Button. There have been no confirmed sightings of her since, just a possible sighting later that afternoon on the trails on the mountain with a woman in the passenger seat.

So, knowing this, WHY didn't LE take her disappearance more seriously? They had the police incident reports from the 22nd and the 29th, they talked to her on the 30th the day she disappeared, they gave her the number of a safe house. By the 2nd, Diane (and maybe Arlene, I can't remember) had called LE. Then Matt did, too. But they didn't do any searches for weeks and they didn't look at the house until a few days ago.

This is my speculation on possible theories:

1. Gail told LE she was going into hiding, or someone in LE put together the info they had and decided that's probably what she did.

2. LE did a lot more searching early on than we have been told.

3. LE dropped the ball on this one and didn't do either preventative or follow up investigation until it was too late.

I don't know which to believe. I just can't get past the fact that Gail had been in contact with them THREE times in the week before she disappeared, yet they didn't exactly spring into action once she was officially reported missing on the 2nd. That doesn't sit well with me at all.

 

[Pearl*]

BBM If she (Diane) believes this, I hope it is true and I have no reason not to believe her, but I really think it may cause the opposite effect the family wants. I live here and work at BCBS and I can tell you that when these statements are made publicly by insiders, the people I talk to shrug their shoulders and say, "oh well". I heard statements like that today. People immediately refer to cases such as the runaway bride and the thought "frustrates" them. This is just my opinion from what I see and hear and I'm not saying that people only want to help or support if they think something horrible has happened, but this case has suffered from a lack of interest and IMO this doesn't help. I think it's better to leave it like LE does and make statements that suggest nothing has been ruled out. I think if people believe this, it is easier for them to say, "Well, I just don't want to get involved. It's a family thing". Harsh, I know, but this is what I am hearing. JMO.

[bbm]

What effect do you think the family wants?

They're being quiet.

My first thought when I read the comments is that this might be an effort to get LESS involvement from the public. As well as, at this point, to go along with Matt's story somewhat, to help the effort to see the children.

I think that, in the beginning, the focus was to get EVERYBODY involved. It was, at that point, a search and rescue, and time was critical.

But now, there's been so much interference. Many people out there absolutely refuse to follow the family's lead. It's hard for me to figure out their motivation in that. Why do they think their wishes trump the family, after all?

Whether Diane really believes Gail is still "out there" or not, I think the statement could be interpreted as a strategic move. JMO as usual.

 

[Pearl*]

Last I heard--and this was quite a while ago--MP and TH were being seen more in public now. I guess I'd better qualify that by saying it's rumor, because it hasn't been in MSM. I think a local here posted it.

If that is the case, it seems bizarre to me that she wouldn't run away from this whole mess.

 

[Melodie]

[bbm]

What effect do you think the family wants?

They're being quiet.

My first thought when I read the comments is that this might be an effort to get LESS involvement from the public. As well as, at this point, to go along with Matt's story somewhat, to help the effort to see the children.

I think that, in the beginning, the focus was to get EVERYBODY involved. It was, at that point, a search and rescue, and time was critical.

But now, there's been so much interference. Many people out there absolutely refuse to follow the family's lead. It's hard for me to figure out their motivation in that. Why do they think their wishes trump the family, after all?

Whether Diane really believes Gail is still "out there" or not, I think the statement could be interpreted as a strategic move. JMO as usual.

Well, I certainly don't think anyone's feelings "trump" the family. I was just assuming that any loved one of a missing person would want the help of everyone available to help them find that person. So you believe that it should just be kept a private family matter because of the actions of a few people that may have complicated or interfered with the case? And who are the people that have not followed the family's lead? If the family is only talking to LE, do we know their feelings about the actions of others? I am pretty sure that in any case of this type, once it hits the media, there are always people that mess things up. In an imperfect world, probably no way to avoid that. My belief is that if I were in this situation, I would not want anyone to hurt the investigation, but I would still want people to help me. I point to other cases like this such as Holly Bobo's, where her family has been very tight-lipped to the media, but have begged people to help. Sorry, I just don't get it. Time is always the enemy in cases like this. The more time that passes, the less valuable evidence available. In my opinion, the need for help is urgent, but hey, that's just me. To answer your first question, if the effect the family wants is for people to go into their houses and close the door and stay out of it, then that is what people will surely do. I'm confused by this. JMO.

 

[Irish_Eyes]

So here's a thought...
My girlfriend has that technology where she can make phone calls from her car just by saying "Call Irish_Eyes" or whatever...Perhaps Gail was not acknowledging SB because she was distracted by being on a call even if she wasn't holding a phone up to her ear. Maybe calling Matt who says "I'll be there in a minute" or maybe with LE.

And another thought to keep in mind....GP's family may be publicly assuming she is alive for strategic reasons. If they say publicly that they believe MP to be in any way involved in this situation, MP can use that in court to suggest that they might influence the children with their beliefs, further harming the children. Tennessee does appear to have grandparent visitation laws (see http://grandparents.about.com/od/grandparentsrights/qt/Grandparent_Rights_in_Tennessee.htm) but they seem pretty specific to grandparents and not other relatives. However, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in in Troxel (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/news/aa060500d.htm) that the rights of a natural parent to raise their child in the way they see fit, free from governement interference is a liberty right, and parents should be given wide latitude in considering how their children maintain their relationships with other family members. If Gail is still alive, she too has a liberty right to raise her children in the way she sees fit, which would presumably include a relationship with her family. If not, that right is Matt's alone, until and unless good cause can be shown why that would not be in the children's best interests. Of course I'm not an attorney but that's the way I see it.

 

[Columbo]

If that is the case, it seems bizarre to me that she wouldn't run away from this whole mess.

It is bizarre but seems so common. She's on the rebound from her ex-husband, she thinks she is in love, she thinks MP is a real catch, I guess.
It is a mess--it has to be "love" making her stick around. (Yes, that is slight sarcasm there!)

 

[Pearl*]

Well, I certainly don't think anyone's feelings "trump" the family. I was just assuming that any loved one of a missing person would want the help of everyone available to help them find that person. So you believe that it should just be kept a private family matter because of the actions of a few people that may have complicated or interfered with the case? And who are the people that have not followed the family's lead? If the family is only talking to LE, do we know their feelings about the actions of others? I am pretty sure that in any case of this type, once it hits the media, there are always people that mess things up. In an imperfect world, probably no way to avoid that. My belief is that if I were in this situation, I would not want anyone to hurt the investigation, but I would still want people to help me. I point to other cases like this such as Holly Bobo's, where her family has been very tight-lipped to the media, but have begged people to help. Sorry, I just don't get it. Time is always the enemy in cases like this. The more time that passes, the less valuable evidence available. In my opinion, the need for help is urgent, but hey, that's just me. To answer your first question, if the effect the family wants is for people to go into their houses and close the door and stay out of it, then that is what people will surely do. I'm confused by this. JMO.

[bbm]

I won't name people who haven't followed the family's lead. They have already drawn quite a bit of attention to themselves, in my opinion.

I'm just not sure what "help" looks like at this point. I haven't heard the family asking for any lately.

I'm not seeing much common ground between this case and the Holly Bobo case, other than that they are both Tennessee missing person cases.

 

[Columbo]

So here's a thought...
My girlfriend has that technology where she can make phone calls from her car just by saying "Call Irish_Eyes" or whatever...Perhaps Gail was not acknowledging SB because she was distracted by being on a call even if she wasn't holding a phone up to her ear. Maybe calling Matt who says "I'll be there in a minute" or maybe with LE.

And another thought to keep in mind....GP's family may be publicly assuming she is alive for strategic reasons. If they say publicly that they believe MP to be in any way involved in this situation, MP can use that in court to suggest that they might influence the children with their beliefs, further harming the children. Tennessee does appear to have grandparent visitation laws (see http://grandparents.about.com/od/grandparentsrights/qt/Grandparent_Rights_in_Tennessee.htm) but they seem pretty specific to grandparents and not other relatives. However, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in in Troxel (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/news/aa060500d.htm) that the rights of a natural parent to raise their child in the way they see fit, free from governement interference is a liberty right, and parents should be given wide latitude in considering how their children maintain their relationships with other family members. If Gail is still alive, she too has a liberty right to raise her children in the way she sees fit, which would presumably include a relationship with her family. If not, that right is Matt's alone, until and unless good cause can be shown why that would not be in the children's best interests. Of course I'm not an attorney but that's the way I see it.

bolded by me.

Good theory! This could very well be the case.

 

[Melodie]

So here's a thought...
My girlfriend has that technology where she can make phone calls from her car just by saying "Call Irish_Eyes" or whatever...Perhaps Gail was not acknowledging SB because she was distracted by being on a call even if she wasn't holding a phone up to her ear. Maybe calling Matt who says "I'll be there in a minute" or maybe with LE.

And another thought to keep in mind....GP's family may be publicly assuming she is alive for strategic reasons. If they say publicly that they believe MP to be in any way involved in this situation, MP can use that in court to suggest that they might influence the children with their beliefs, further harming the children. Tennessee does appear to have grandparent visitation laws (see http://grandparents.about.com/od/grandparentsrights/qt/Grandparent_Rights_in_Tennessee.htm) but they seem pretty specific to grandparents and not other relatives. However, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in in Troxel (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/news/aa060500d.htm) that the rights of a natural parent to raise their child in the way they see fit, free from governement interference is a liberty right, and parents should be given wide latitude in considering how their children maintain their relationships with other family members. If Gail is still alive, she too has a liberty right to raise her children in the way she sees fit, which would presumably include a relationship with her family. If not, that right is Matt's alone, until and unless good cause can be shown why that would not be in the children's best interests. Of course I'm not an attorney but that's the way I see it.

BBM I completely agree. I don't think they should say that, either. Definitely not publicly. I guess I just thought maybe it would be better to be vague because when she speaks, everyone around here listens very carefully. They repeat what she says to each other and discuss it. I hate to hear people say, "Well, I guess she just took off". "She must have run off with someone she met on the internet". "Her sister must know". (these are things I've heard said). This is sad to me because I don't believe that to be true. JMO

 

[glorias]

Well, I certainly don't think anyone's feelings "trump" the family. I was just assuming that any loved one of a missing person would want the help of everyone available to help them find that person. So you believe that it should just be kept a private family matter because of the actions of a few people that may have complicated or interfered with the case? And who are the people that have not followed the family's lead? If the family is only talking to LE, do we know their feelings about the actions of others? I am pretty sure that in any case of this type, once it hits the media, there are always people that mess things up. In an imperfect world, probably no way to avoid that. My belief is that if I were in this situation, I would not want anyone to hurt the investigation, but I would still want people to help me. I point to other cases like this such as Holly Bobo's, where her family has been very tight-lipped to the media, but have begged people to help. Sorry, I just don't get it. Time is always the enemy in cases like this. The more time that passes, the less valuable evidence available. In my opinion, the need for help is urgent, but hey, that's just me. To answer your first question, if the effect the family wants is for people to go into their houses and close the door and stay out of it, then that is what people will surely do. I'm confused by this. JMO.

I think a lot of us feel we're past the window of opportunity for finding Gail. Either she's in very deep hiding and will have to return on her own or she's lost, so keeping her name in the media probably won't help find her. It might help keep pressure on LE, but in my own opinion (can't speak for anyone else) I don't know if it really helps or not. LE seems to be slow and operating on a logic I cannot personally decipher. Gail being in the media for so long didn't make them search her house any faster, for example.

Again, speaking for myself, I see the family giving very few interviews and using the courts to their advantage to try to protect Gail and her children's interests. That tells me they are controlling their part of information-sharing the way they want to. Meanwhile, friends and others are publicly asking people to share evidence with them, going on rather heated interviews, telling the media everything they know. If the family wanted that, wouldn't they be doing the same thing?

Even if they don't want to go on sensationalist interviews, that doesn't mean they want "people to go into their houses and close the door and stay out of it" either. There's a spectrum here, and it's not an either-or situation at all. So when I personally say I wonder if AD is giving out too much info, I am NOT saying she shouldn't be allowed to talk at all.

 

[Irish_Eyes]

Well, I certainly don't think anyone's feelings "trump" the family. I was just assuming that any loved one of a missing person would want the help of everyone available to help them find that person. So you believe that it should just be kept a private family matter because of the actions of a few people that may have complicated or interfered with the case? And who are the people that have not followed the family's lead? If the family is only talking to LE, do we know their feelings about the actions of others? I am pretty sure that in any case of this type, once it hits the media, there are always people that mess things up. In an imperfect world, probably no way to avoid that. My belief is that if I were in this situation, I would not want anyone to hurt the investigation, but I would still want people to help me. I point to other cases like this such as Holly Bobo's, where her family has been very tight-lipped to the media, but have begged people to help. Sorry, I just don't get it. Time is always the enemy in cases like this. The more time that passes, the less valuable evidence available. In my opinion, the need for help is urgent, but hey, that's just me. To answer your first question, if the effect the family wants is for people to go into their houses and close the door and stay out of it, then that is what people will surely do. I'm confused by this. JMO.

I get where you are coming from, and I get where Pearl is coming from. I honestly don't think your views are that far apart IMHO. Gail's family did request public assistance with the search in the beginning. I don't think the family has ever asked people not to help. I do imagine they believe that there are ways of helping that may be more productive than other ways.

 

[Pearl*]

It is bizarre but seems so common. She's on the rebound from her ex-husband, she thinks she is in love, she thinks MP is a real catch, I guess.
It is a mess--it has to be "love" making her stick around. (Yes, that is slight sarcasm there!)

Well, they have so much in common as well! Both having criminal defense attorneys and all....

Until the case is solved, I'd be a little concerned for my safety if I were her. I don't get it.

ETA: To look at the other side of the coin, from confused's perspective perhaps, TH must surely be confident Matt is innocent, to stay with him, despite the fact that her involvement with him has forced her to hire a criminal defense attorney. I don't know what it all means...just thinking it through and trying to see if that leads to any theories.

 

[glorias]

By the way, some people were asking about the Twitter comment ATRUEFRIEND posted on a news article. I think what ATRUEFRIEND was saying is that someone on Twitter sent them a link to this post:

http://missingpersonsblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/gail-palmgren-missing-husband-files-for.html

The whole quote ATRUEFRIEND posted is from that blog. So that's why the quote goes on for more characters than Twitter allows

 

[glorias]

People were asking where the 10 minutes figure came from regarding how long the kids were home before MP arrived on the 30th. ATRUEFRIEND says a neighbor knew they were only alone 10 minutes before Matt arrived:

http://timesfreepress.com/news/2011/may/12/missing-womans-husband-seeks-custody-children/

It's down in the comments:

And they was only left for 10min before the dad came home, according to the neighbor.

I don't think we know who the neighbor was. If someone else verified this here on WS, I can't find it, but that doesn't mean it's not here.

 

[MacKat]

It seems to me the family is doing everything in their power to be privately productive and proactive, in their search for Gail while protecting the integrity of the investigation and moreover protecting the children. They seem to be thinking of long-term scenarios, with and unfortunately without Gail. I mean, I would think that, in light of the latest court development, they are on their best behavior, especially with the media. With no evidence of foul play, it might not go over too well in court if they were seen trashing MP or speculating of things that cannot (hopefully just yet) be proven. I would think that a judge would have better listening ears for the family if they are playing nicely. Going public to speculate what may or may not have happened could hurt them, even more than their current pain.

Also, in my opinion some of the loudest voices are confusing at best. AD, I hear her pain and the loss when she speaks of Gail. But, and I may be wrong, but most of the details she has given...can they hold up in court if Gail is never found? And I think the community search leader tends to tread on some scary water as well. He gives me the impression that he works very closely with the LE, but does that make sense? Tips should go directly to the police and not to a volunteer. I shudder to think that a tip would go into the wrong hands and then either not be taken seriously or broadcasted to the media destroying its credibility.

I cannot imagine feeling like any choice I made to find and hold my family together could be the wrong one.

 

[fireflylink]

By the way, some people were asking about the Twitter comment ATRUEFRIEND posted on a news article. I think what ATRUEFRIEND was saying is that someone on Twitter sent them a link to this post:

http://missingpersonsblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/gail-palmgren-missing-husband-files-for.html

The whole quote ATRUEFRIEND posted is from that blog. So that's why the quote goes on for more characters than Twitter allows

This comment was extracted from the the original comment posted at timesfreepress.com COMMENT section, and is only one is a string of several comments following this article. http://timesfreepress.com/news/2011/may/12/missing-womans-husband-seeks-custody-children/

It is out of context, being quoted as is at http://missingpersonsblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/gail-palmgren-missing-husband-files-for.html May be time for an update to that page....

 

[glorias]

If I understand right, fireflylink, you're saying that Missing Persons Blog quoted ATRUEFRIEND? I don't think that's the case. The blog posted that at 10:08 AM on May 12, and ATRUEFRIEND quoted it over on Times Free Press at 11:03 PM on May 12, which was 13 hours later.

Only if the time stamps on the blog and/or the comments are off would the blog be quoting ATRUEFRIEND. Instead, I think it's the other way around, that ATRUEFRIEND is quoting the blog.

But I might be misunderstanding you, so let me know if I am.

 

[Pearl*]

Also, in my opinion some of the loudest voices are confusing at best. AD, I hear her pain and the loss when she speaks of Gail. But, and I may be wrong, but most of the details she has given...can they hold up in court if Gail is never found? And I think the community search leader tends to tread on some scary water as well. He gives me the impression that he works very closely with the LE, but does that make sense? Tips should go directly to the police and not to a volunteer. I shudder to think that a tip would go into the wrong hands and then either not be taken seriously or broadcasted to the media destroying its credibility.

I couldn't agree more. AD's position is understandable, although I'm not sure the "tell all" stance has been the best path.

The community search leader's position has been more perplexing to me. He DOES give the impression of working closely with the police, and I think that's very odd and presumptuous. He doesn't present as having a badge, PI license, or history of working with SMPD, as far as I know, but has indeed become the unofficial spokesperson, giving interviews, soliciting tips, etc. Indications are that he has no prior connection with the family, having never met Gail according to statements I have read.

Does anybody know how this scenario developed in the first place?

 

[fireflylink]

If I understand right, fireflylink, you're saying that Missing Persons Blog quoted ATRUEFRIEND? I don't think that's the case. The blog posted that at 10:08 AM on May 12, and ATRUEFRIEND quoted it over on Times Free Press at 11:03 PM on May 12, which was 13 hours later.

Only if the time stamps on the blog and/or the comments are off would the blog be quoting ATRUEFRIEND. Instead, I think it's the other way around, that ATRUEFRIEND is quoting the blog.

But I might be misunderstanding you, so let me know if I am.

Thanks glorias for clarifying, you are definitely correct and I apologize for the confusioin. And please, everyone else disregard my backwards thinking! Sort of a "reverse" epiphany of sorts...

 

[glorias]

No need to apologize! It's definitely a confusing situation trying to sort all these comments and stuff out.