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

[glorias]

snipped...

Several pieces of information came out there, which made sense to me, although I know we cannot necessarily qualify all her statements as "fact." Jammer really took her to task for having taken the $17,000 in order to prepared for a possible choking off of funds while waiting for a court hearing, saying no judge would allow that to happen....

When you say "her" do you mean Gail? Just wanting to clarify.

If he meant Gail, I would be surprised at anyone saying that she shouldn't have taken her own $17K and done what she wanted with it.

 

[BeanE]

snipped...



When you say "her" do you mean Gail? Just wanting to clarify.

If he meant Gail, I would be surprised at anyone saying that she shouldn't have taken her own $17K and done what she wanted with it.

Even if she'd taken the $17k out of marital assets, I think Matt said in those 3 accounts there was $320k in marital assets. $17k is waaaaaayyyy less than 50% of that. I think there would only be a problem if, after figuring up the split in assets, Gail had taken more than 50%.

IMO IANAL

 

[Columbo]

snipped...



When you say "her" do you mean Gail? Just wanting to clarify.

If he meant Gail, I would be surprised at anyone saying that she shouldn't have taken her own $17K and done what she wanted with it.

I don't understand why the $17k was an issue at all with the Court (or this person on the radio) if it was Gail's own money.

 

[Pearl*]

snipped...
When you say "her" do you mean Gail? Just wanting to clarify.

If he meant Gail, I would be surprised at anyone saying that she shouldn't have taken her own $17K and done what she wanted with it.

I'm sorry. That wasn't very clear, was it?

What I really meant is that Jammer seemed to challenge AD to explain why such an odd amount. He wanted to know if that happened to be the balance of the account, and when she said no, he really pushed for a reason she would have chosen this amount. I don't remember if Jammer seemed satisfied with her explanation that Gail had figured out an estimate of 6 months (I think that was the time named) of expected expenses.

He also challenged Gail's motivation for taking the funds at all, since his position was that she would have needed no nest egg.

Jammer's tone and manner IMO became argumentative in that last half of the program.

ETA: I considered recording the program for further reference but decided against it because I didn't want even the chance I would consider another transcription project. That was a real pain, and Glorias, you do a much better job at transcription anyway.... I hope the program is archived for your convenience.

 

[glorias]

snipped...

It is a fact that GP dropped off the children in the home where MP could rightly be assumed to be in person at some point in the immediate future.

It is a fact that the P family has moved in order to obtain increasingly higher levels of employment that has led to their current level of living so by disallowing a move would be contrary to GP wishes for maintaining a family lifestyle.

Otherwise she would have just moved out with whatever they could carry and leave him and the “assets” behind.

They own several homes which they travel to frequently so to prohibit moving about freely when it is an established pattern is keeping the children from their routine.

(snipped)

Itemizing a coin collection in the same document as counseling for the children gives the appearance of trivializing the proceedings and takes the impact off of what is now an increasingly tragic situation as more time passes and GP and her jeep are still missing.

I am not personally sure those are "facts," to be honest. To say that Gail dropped the kids off where Matt could get to them easily is reductionist to the extreme and fails to include certain important things -- like the fact that Gail disappeared after that without her driver's license and credit cards, and has not been seen or heard from again. Because we don't know WHY Gail left when she did or where she is now, I don't know how far we can really go in claiming she dropped the kids off deliberately so Matt would have custody of them while she's gone.

The second "fact" isn't a fact at all. We don't know Gail's wishes in the least. We can speculate, but that's it.

I also personally disagree that putting family heirloom items in the same document as asking for a guardian somehow trivializes everything important about this case. I really don't see how it affects the search for Gail at all. Also, I would like to think lawyers who have experience and a good reputation (as reported by hollyblue, IIRC) would know more about how to file these motions than we do.

 

[glorias]

Yeah, I am puzzled by the stink over this $17K too. Clearly, $17K was not a huge chunk of any of their assets. A significant portion of their assets were Gail's alone -- and if AD's story is true that she was getting funds out of her retirement accounts for Matt, that proves that was HER money and not THEIR money.

So she gets that $17K and sends it to her sister for safe keeping, and the cashier's check apparently still hasn't been cashed. Yet the judge says the filings are improper because they didn't disclose this $17K, even though it was disclosed to LE. I assume the judge meant it needed to be disclosed specifically in the paperwork. Why? Surely knowing that LE knows about the check and it hasn't been cashed would show they aren't just grabbing for cash here.

Then of course is the whole thing about referring this filing to another judge because it's similar to the separation filing. WHAT separation filing? The one Matt withdrew nearly a month ago?

 

[Sleuthy1]

snipped...



Yeah, C said she did a phone interview and also went out with them to the trails. So you're saying SMPD has no report but HCSO might? Or that neither have a report?

Edited to add that I should ask if you mean they don't even have any record of C reporting the sighting at all, either in official report or just notes?

:twocents:
I don't know....I was just thinking out loud...It is my understanding that CC does not have a copy of any police report, so I am assuming,(and that gets me into trouble everytime...lol) that No report was ever filed. Maybe... BeanE is correct (I think it was BeanE who wrote)....maybe they(PD) just looked at her alleged sighting as a "tip". But, HCSO investigators did followup on her tip and take the trip with her to see the spot on the trails (as reported by MSM).

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_203258.asp.

Then it was reported through(via) MSM as a "confirmed" sighting. So if it was a confirmed sighting...wouldn't that warrant an official police report with all the particulars, the alleged witness (CC) could recall? Just saying ... Any thoughts?:twocents:

 

[glorias]

ETA: I considered recording the program for further reference but decided against it because I didn't want even the chance I would consider another transcription project. That was a real pain, and Glorias, you do a much better job at transcription anyway.... I hope the program is archived for your convenience.

Heh. I'll try to get to it tonight if it's online somewhere, seriously.

Edit: I can't find any archives for the show anywhere. Do they have any?

 

[BeanE]

I don't understand why the $17k was an issue at all with the Court (or this person on the radio) if it was Gail's own money.

If I understand what they're saying in the articles and videos, it's because the filing was about $$$, protecting $$$, but this wasn't disclosed. It just needed to be disclosed.

With that and the lack of notice being the other issue, I'm thinking (although IANAL) that they probably can just re-file for the new chancellor to review, and give the proper notice, and include the $17k info. (and leave out the counseling since that was resolved).

 

[BeanE]

I'm sorry. That wasn't very clear, was it?

What I really meant is that Jammer seemed to challenge AD to explain why such an odd amount. He wanted to know if that happened to be the balance of the account, and when she said no, he really pushed for a reason she would have chosen this amount. I don't remember if Jammer seemed satisfied with her explanation that Gail had figured out an estimate of 6 months (I think that was the time named) of expected expenses.

He also challenged Gail's motivation for taking the funds at all, since his position was that she would have needed no nest egg.

Jammer's tone and manner IMO became argumentative in that last half of the program.

ETA: I considered recording the program for further reference but decided against it because I didn't want even the chance I would consider another transcription project. That was a real pain, and Glorias, you do a much better job at transcription anyway.... I hope the program is archived for your convenience.

Why did he expect Arlene to explain it? And why is any explanation necessary at all? Even if it was part of marital assets, it's a pittance - we have amounts right from Matt. It was nowhere near half. It was a drop in the Bucket O' Assets. But for all he knows, it was money that was Gail's own - perhaps from before marriage, or that was a gift or an inheritance.

Now I'm all ticked and I didn't even watch the show lol.

(I'm very funny about my money and personal possessions. I insist on being able to do with them wth I want, and God help anybody who dares question me. LOL! I want that for all women. Autonomy. Hence my ire. )

 

[hollyblue]

Jammer's demeanor seemed to change completely in the 2nd half IMO. He began playing a "game" of Gotcha with AD, which I found unfair to her.

And his statement (supposedly information from Lee Davis this morning) that Gail was seeing a psychologist.... He made a big deal out of that, as if it proved mental instability. I can't even guess how many perfectly sane people I know who go or have gone to talk with a professional during difficult times in their lives. Typically, these professionals are psychologists who provide counseling services. Personally, I think that is a very "sane" choice, especially if insurance covers it.

So, now the children are supposedly in counseling too. Does that indicate they are mentally unstable? I think not.

I really figured this would happen and why I didn't listen to the broadcast.

I agree with your statement about counseling. Gail was going through some pretty rough stuff, imo and the next inevitable steps would be involving a big change for the children and their counseling also; which she had discussed with AD.

 

[Pearl*]

Heh. I'll try to get to it tonight if it's online somewhere, seriously.

Edit: I can't find any archives for the show anywhere. Do they have any?

I can't find it. Darn.... Maybe somebody else can. The only "hit" from my various googles was the SMM archive from last week. [Shudder...]

 

[Pearl*]

Why did he expect Arlene to explain it? And why is any explanation necessary at all? Even if it was part of marital assets, it's a pittance - we have amounts right from Matt. It was nowhere near half. It was a drop in the Bucket O' Assets. But for all he knows, it was money that was Gail's own - perhaps from before marriage, or that was a gift or an inheritance.

Now I'm all ticked and I didn't even watch the show lol.

(I'm very funny about my money and personal possessions. I insist on being able to do with them wth I want, and God help anybody who dares question me. LOL! I want that for all women. Autonomy. Hence my ire. )

I think he was delusional and thought he was taking a deposition.... :crazy:

 

[Pearl*]

I agree with your statement about counseling. Gail was going through some pretty rough stuff, imo and the next inevitable steps would be involving a big change for the children and their counseling also; which she had discussed with AD.

Considering his employment, surely she would have had the best insurance in town. It would have been a smart move to use it.

 

[BeanE]

Yeah, I am puzzled by the stink over this $17K too. Clearly, $17K was not a huge chunk of any of their assets. A significant portion of their assets were Gail's alone -- and if AD's story is true that she was getting funds out of her retirement accounts for Matt, that proves that was HER money and not THEIR money.

So she gets that $17K and sends it to her sister for safe keeping, and the cashier's check apparently still hasn't been cashed. Yet the judge says the filings are improper because they didn't disclose this $17K, even though it was disclosed to LE. I assume the judge meant it needed to be disclosed specifically in the paperwork. Why? Surely knowing that LE knows about the check and it hasn't been cashed would show they aren't just grabbing for cash here.

Then of course is the whole thing about referring this filing to another judge because it's similar to the separation filing. WHAT separation filing? The one Matt withdrew nearly a month ago?

Great post. Thanks for sharing it.

I found the info - right from Matt - with the amounts I was referring to earlier.

the accounts contain approximately $420000. He said at least two of the accounts totaling over $320000 "are marital property."

That means he acknowledges that $100,000 was Gail's. If she wanted to use $17,000 for toilet tissue, it's her business, and her business alone.

I can see where it needs to be disclosed, because all monies and assets have to be disclosed in marital financial stuff to ensure that everything is accounted for, and disbursed appropriately. But it's the *amounts* that need to be disclosed, if I understand correctly, and not what one does with one's *own* money.

Even if Gail happened to take the money out of a marital account, I don't think that's a problem, because she could easily transfer back $$ from her own accounts to a marital account. In the end, it just comes down to one party or the other writing a check, or the attorneys issuing a check to each party. Everybody ends up getting new accounts anyway.

And yeah, that comment about the separation filing is driving me crazy too. What separation filing???

(I hope everyone recognizes that quote, because I accidentally hit the X and closed the window before grabbing the link.)

 

[BeanE]

:twocents:
I don't know....I was just thinking out loud...It is my understanding that CC does not have a copy of any police report, so I am assuming,(and that gets me into trouble everytime...lol) that No report was ever filed. Maybe... BeanE is correct (I think it was BeanE who wrote)....maybe they(PD) just looked at her alleged sighting as a "tip". But, HCSO investigators did followup on her tip and take the trip with her to see the spot on the trails (as reported by MSM).

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_203258.asp.

Then it was reported through(via) MSM as a "confirmed" sighting. So if it was a confirmed sighting...wouldn't that warrant an official police report with all the particulars, the alleged witness (CC) could recall? Just saying ... Any thoughts?:twocents:

I saw tips in both Caylee's and Gabe's cases that came out in discovery, and didn't have related police reports, even where the info ended up being investigated and developed further (versus info that's proved false).

Has CC asked for a copy of whatever kind of report was written up? She may have to wait until there's any kind of discovery release to get it, but she could ask, and see if they give her anything.

 

[Pearl*]

[snip for relevance] ... he acknowledges that $100,000 was Gail's. If she wanted to use $17,000 for toilet tissue, it's her business, and her business alone.

I can see where it needs to be disclosed, because all monies and assets have to be disclosed in marital financial stuff to ensure that everything is accounted for, and disbursed appropriately. But it's the *amounts* that need to be disclosed, if I understand correctly, and not what one does with one's *own* money.

I question whether the disclosure was necessary at all for the filings that were argued yesterday. That continues to irritate me. I don't think GN and KN's lawyer agreed to any impropriety. I thought she just said that even IF it were the case that procedures were not followed, it did not alter the facts. I thought she was working toward an alternative argument to preserve the case rather than admitting error.

I want to know if the attorneys really DID make an error after all. It's hard for me to believe they would not have known proper procedure.

 

[BeanE]

I question whether the disclosure was necessary at all for the filings that were argued yesterday. That continues to irritate me. I don't think GN and KN's lawyer agreed to any impropriety. I thought she just said that even IF it were the case that procedures were not followed, it did not alter the facts. I thought she was working toward an alternative argument to preserve the case rather than admitting error.

I want to know if the attorneys really DID make an error after all. It's hard for me to believe they would not have known proper procedure.

It seemed to me that everyone there agreed that procedure wasn't followed, most importantly, the judge.

Knowing proper procedure and following it are two different things.

Actually, it's not so much a matter of whether or not procedure is followed even, it's a matter of whether the judge rules that it wasn't, or in giving his ruling, gives it as one of his/her reasons for his/her ruling.

Again, IANAL, and just putting together the info from all the articles and tweets and videos. It would have been nice to get one comprehensive article on the hearing.

 

[Pearl*]

It seemed to me that everyone there agreed that procedure wasn't followed, most importantly, the judge.

BeanE, that's what I never did see, though. Where was it indicated that everyone agreed? TIA!

(not questioning the judge's authority, of course. Just trying to get a feel for the attorneys involved.)

 

[Melodie]

BBM- I have been wanting to ask this for a while, so this gives me a good opportunity. MP's handling of things has been a source of frustration for a lot of people, but most of us came into this knowing it as a "missing person" case. We now know that their marriage was crumbling and both parties were making preparations for separation/divorce. Has he known this was a missing person case from the beginning?

What if he is a guy who is facing the end of his marriage and a deteriorating relationship with his wife and one day she takes off? If he had nothing to do with her disappearance, why would he run to the police to report her missing? When he realizes she isn't coming back and no one can get in touch with her... maybe he starts to wonder if he is being set-up. I know that I would certainly get a defense attorney at that point. I know that I had an affair, I know that things have been going downhill and I know that everyone's eyes are pointed right at me. Filing the motion in court to keep her from taking off with the kids and marital assets without due process of a divorce would also be a reasonable action if you are in a position where you feel like you are being set-up. Once things start to sink in, maybe he looked back and realized that things had gotten worse than he had thought. Her behaviors that seemed odd may now point to something else. I have stated before that hindsight is 20/20...

I don't want everyone to jump on the "MP is innocent" bandwagon, I am only trying (once again) to point out that such scenarios are plausible.

A lot of people have asked for proof before they will believe that GP was having issues with mental illness and that is a completely valid request. I think that we should also require proof before we believe that MP asked GP for $40k and that the money was actually used by him before we believe that as well.

I realize that you are not necessarily saying this is your opinion of what happened to Gail, but rather a theory as to what could have happened. I have seen the "he may have been set up" theory tossed around several places online and it really bothers me. First of all, I think it is insulting for people to suggest that Gail, who did nothing more than disappear, would go into hiding in order to set up her husband or make people think he has harmed her. In my opinion, it's not only insulting but ludicrous and would be a dumb idea. I don't think Gail was that dumb.

I think most people could figure out that to do something like this would hurt themselves so much more than the intended target. As a mother, if I thought up this kind of wacky idea, while tempting, I would never carry it out because I would be terrified that I would lose my children possibly forever. I mean, think about it. She disappears and everyone suspects he's done something to her and then....what? She reappears and everyone knows he didn't do anything and then...what? The whole community is ticked at her and she tries to get her kids and then...what? She could possibly face some sort of charges for something they would try to scrape together and a family court Judge would be very hesitant to let her have custody of her children. She'd be lucky to get supervised visitation. Or maybe she would just teach him a lesson and stay gone forever so that people would always think he harmed her and maybe he would go to prison. Meanwhile, she gives up her whole life, her children, her family and friends, living as a fugitive? I think that could be called a very severe case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Sorry, I'm not criticizing you personally at all, I just selected your quote to make my point. I have seen this theory several times in many different places and I just don't see it as a serious possibility. :twocents: