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

[JBean]

This isn't going to be popular, but it is what it is. Those kids are going through enough. Kids feel guilt and fear so easily. They blame themselves for everything, and they fear that the bad things that happen to others are going to happen to them too.

I don't think I would let LE question my child. I would, of course, cooperate fully with the investigation, and do everything in my power to help my missing spouse be found.

If and when my child talked to me, I would immediately relay the circumstantial details to LE, with my child's knowledge, but only the details my child was comfortable with someone else knowing.

I would put my child in counseling. If and when my child talked to the counselor, I would give permission for the counselor to immediately relay the circumstantial details to LE, with my child's knowledge and again, only those details my child was comfortable with someone else knowing.

I just don't think I would allow LE to directly question my child.

As much as I love my husband, we always put our son's well-being first when he was young, before our own. I think I would protect my child like a hawk from any LEO, family member, friend, neighbor, reporter, teacher, random stranger trying to question them.

I say this having a son who had a trauma as a child, and having gone through all that with him. Everybody's got an agenda, and those agendas don't always put the well-being of the child first. It's horribly painful as a parent, all the way around. There are painful, damned if you do damned if you don't decisions that have to be made. And always the weighing of the impact of your decisions, and the people and circumstances that are impacted. And always your child there, who you love, with their needs, counting on you.

Can't argue with any of that and respect that approach, but I would have done any and all of those things on May 2. That's the problem for me.

But for me,dealing with the loss of a mother would pretty much trump being interviewed by LE in terms of lifelong trauma,imo. From what I know about these children they are truly wonderful, loving kids. I think they would want to help if they could.

 

[Pearl*]

hollyblue, something you said just gave me an idea, total speculation: What if Gail wanted LE at the house when she returned on the 30th because she planned to drop the kids off and leave immediately, and wanted someone there to look after them until Matt arrived? That would explain why she asked Diane to call LE for her, because she didn't want to talk to LE about that on the phone in front of the kids.

I never thought about this before, but maybe she had the entire scenario planned out once something happened on the 29th/30th that made her go back to Signal Mountain. She wanted the police there for her kids while she drove off. In case anything happened to her, she deliberately left her credit card and driver's license so people would know she meant to return and to worry if she didn't.

This makes a lot of sense to me. And, after all, she did have a 4 hour drive to plan what to do. Your explanation of why she would not have wanted to call LE herself makes perfect sense. I've even done similar things, when I needed a message conveyed to somebody without little ears hearing from the back seat. My stuff is more insignificant, such as birthday gift surprises, etc., but the principle is the same.

The credit card and driver's license issue has always bugged me. She has been portrayed as such an organized person. I'm betting she might even have been able to win a "neat purse" award. I would just think she had those items in her wallet, in her purse, and the whole purse would have left with her on that last trip out. In fact, I'm NOT such a neat, organized person, but I have those items in a particular spot in my wallet, in my purse, and I have purse in hand when I walk out the door. Every time. Upset or not.

I'd have to look back through the threads and don't have time right now, in order to remember the details of the license and the card, as to whether they were left loose, in or out of the purse, and whether she took the purse with her. But the idea of being so flustered as to leave those behind? I don't think so. More likely for it to have been a signal--especially if they were loose rather than in a wallet.

I wonder if a verified person could comment about whether my neatness impression is correct--for both of them, in fact. I've never met either of them, but I just picture both of them being the "have a place for everything and everything in its place" personalities.

 

[confused]

Have we heard anything in reference to who Gail's PI is and when she hired him/her? IIRC MP's PI has been named in the MSM..Just wondering IF the PI took pictures of MP at the ATM and of MP and the unidentified person MP met at the coffee shop...I would think a PI would have pictures, and would turn them over to Gail.. Do we know IF Gail had those pictures with her when she disappeared? Does LE have these pictures? Where are those pictures?
Also, IF this information is true, he was in Chattanooga on Wednesday and not out of town...Also, does anyone know when the conference (he was supposed to attend) started and ended and do we know when the car was purchased? JMHO

I looked back to the post you are referring to about the meeting on the 28th, and I don't read it the same as you. I thought it meant that Gail met with the PI on the 28th and picked up the info he had collected, not that he had seen Matt on the 28th in Chattanooga. I think the wording of the original post (timeline) was a little misleading.

Just my :twocents:

 

[BeanE]

Can't argue with any of that and respect that approach, but I would have done any and all of those things on May 2. That's the problem for me.

But for me,dealing with the loss of a mother would pretty much trump being interviewed by LE in terms of lifelong trauma,imo. From what I know about these children they are truly wonderful, loving kids. I think they would want to help if they could.

Most definitely, JBean, what's missing for me is that I'm not in the situation, I don't know these specific children, it's been a long time since my son was 12 or 9, and my related experience is one in which my son was traumatized by a criminal act.

What I do know for sure, is that this is a painful situation for everyone, and the decisions are painful and difficult to make.

 

[Pearl*]

We know for a fact that these children, ages 9 and 12, were two of the last known people to see Gail before she disappeared.

Another detail I had not thought about until your post, is that our mountain schools have a DARE officer in elementary schools and SRO in the middle and high schools. I don't think it's ever been said, whether the children attend our public schools (and this is not meant as a question in that regard).

But IF they do attend our mountain schools, this might have been one more reason to believe they could have been questioned by LE (him) in a setting that would not have been a scary experience.

 

[Shelby1]

Think MP will be at the balloon release tonight?

 

[fireflylink]

Think MP will be at the balloon release tonight?

IMO - unlikely. Based on previous lake of involvement in any other related activites, and the fact that it would mean exposing the children.

Besides, maybe he needs a weekend break from the media...???

 

[Melodie]

Another detail I had not thought about until your post, is that our mountain schools have a DARE officer in elementary schools and SRO in the middle and high schools. I don't think it's ever been said, whether the children attend our public schools (and this is not meant as a question in that regard).

But IF they do attend our mountain schools, this might have been one more reason to believe they could have been questioned by LE (him) in a setting that would not have been a scary experience.

After I posted my previous comment, I did think about it some more and I have one other concern. It presents a problem if the children do not know at this point that their mother is "missing". If MP has told them that "Mom is at the lake" or "On vacation; she needs some time by herself", etc, this would make questioning them a little more tricky, but still could be done. I thought of another method I have seen in other cases, whereby, a psychologist or counselor very experienced in dealing with children and trauma could take the children into a neutral place (not police station) and just kind of hang out with them and chat with a hidden camera. The counselor could subtly lead them into talking about their lives including their mom without them necessarily knowing they are being "questioned". It could even be done over more than one session to build trust. Afterward, LE could use the information obtained via video to do their job. In this way, it would lessen any negative impact on the children, maybe not let them in on the harsh truth of the situation, but also secure possible important information. And I definitely agree with you, schools often have the most experienced counselors and staff to help children with traumatic events.

 

[confused]

I've thought about that, but where it breaks down for me every time is that nobody except MP and his friends/attorneys have reported any strange behavior outside the range of "normal" for a stressed-out person.

MG obviously is no friend of GP, although unfortunately she had a different impression when she entrusted him and his wife with the jewelry.

First let me say that I don't know the friends/attorney, and don't know anything about the relationship Matt and Gail had with them. I do think that the general attitude about them is unfair. IF what they say is even remotely true, I can imagine they were fairly upset by what happened during Gail's visit.
They couldn't restain her there, even if they thought she needed to be, we don't know exactly what happened with the kids, but maybe they did try to let the kids stay with them for safety, and that is when Gail got upset and called the police. We don't have the details of that, but it doesn't sound like it was a pleasant visit. In their position, I most likely would have contacted the spouse also, in an effort to say "something is going on here and you may want to check it out". I also believe if a casual friend came by out of the blue, stayed and behaved like it sounded Gail did, then left $$$of jewelry with me, I would certainly contact the other party about it. The way Gail supposedly acted about the kids with them, what might she do about the jewelry.

had Gail been acting normally, and sat down to discuss her thoughts, etc. It might have not prompted them to go to her spouse. But, when someone shows up and is completely out of sorts, I think I would be doing what they did.

as I stated in the beginning, I don't have any info on these people, but I think they have been harshly viewed here because of the one offensive quote posted in the MSM. I don't talk like that, don't recall ever uttering that word, but for many, that is everyday language. judging the whole story to be false because we don't like that wording-well we could be missing some important info. I don't necessarily think they were bad friends to Gail, or more his than her's, etc. Maybe they were just friends who were suddenly brought into a really strange situation and did what they thought would be the best thing. JMO

 

[confused]

I hear you on that. Respectfully, I have a different viewpoint. I've very deliberately worked to make sure my children feel comfortable with LE, even to the point of us walking up to a police officer in a mall or parking lot and making a little conversation and asking him about his job. I hope and pray that if either of my children ever needed the help of LE, they would not be afraid to approach. I've always explained that they are the "good guys" who can help them when they are in a bad spot. Just me.

Absolutely. His wishes don't mean anything to me at this point. But that parental authority thing seems hard to escape at this time. And it appears that as of NOW, the Court is unable to provide any help for the children. I can't tell you how much that upsets me.

Sounds like you are being smart about training your kids to talk with LE. We have done similar with our kids, but that takes training and it's too late for that in this case.

Of course it's JMO, but it appears the children are safe, staying busy, seeing a counselor, being loved, etc. I can't see where the court needs to provide any help to the kids. I am in complete agreement with EBean on this, I would not allow my children to be questioned.

 

[ThoughtFox]

I can see being protective of children, but I would want to teach my children to step forward and be helpful, especially at those ages when they are old enough to be observant without being fanciful.

And after all, this is their own mother who is missing, not some stranger whom they might or might not know.

The only thing they need to tell police is simply what happened that day when they arrived home in their own words. Time is of the essence here, so the longer this drags on, the less they might remember.

I personally can't think of any good reasons to shield children from questioning in this case. The kids are not in any trouble, the father and his attorneys could stay there with them, and all they need to do is tell the truth.

It's sort of a mixed message in this case to encourage families with children to go out and search through the forest and the gullies for Gail, but her own children who are obvious witnesses haven't been allowed to tell police whatever they know. :twocents: My opinion only, but it really doesn't help the public perception of MP either. :cow: Instead of protective, it just seems controlling - (my constitutionally protected opinion only).

 

[hollyblue]

I just want to point out that I only addressed the issue of the kids talking to LE, not these other issues. But in regards to these other issues, I don't have anything to tell me that the children aren't allowed to talk to anyone, including their own father. The children are in counseling. I find it difficult to believe that the children aren't permitted to talk to anyone.

It is not unreasonable, to me, to tell people not to question my children, and not to bring up their mother's disappearance, but to let it come from them. i would not be surprised if this is the sort of thing that was actually said, and has been Whisper-down-the-lane'd into they're not allowed to talk to anybody.

And yes, if I thought someone was going to pump my child for info, I would keep my child away from them. If I felt it was an important relationship for my child to maintain, then yes, I would arrange visits where I or someone I trusted was present.

It's been stated that the children were in a controlled environment when GP's family was there...and I believe in the beginning he would not let them see them at all. That was not their norm, I'm sure. Also, others have said they were not allowed---previously---to spend time with their friends of whom Gail and the mother/parent were friends. In reality tho, most of the changes they will notice and feel are inside of the home, imo.

I agree I'd ask the parents not to mention Gail and there may be some that are ill minded, need to be weary of and guarded, but I think most people would have respect and concern for the child...ie: parents reminding their children not to say anything to them about the mother...and the adults acting like adults and even protecting them from others with ill intent. I went thru a traumatic experience as a teen and not one peer or adult ever said anything distrubing or intruding to me. True, times have changed, but I hope for decency and decorum in most.

It's a fine line, I know, but the most important thing the children need to understand, imo, is they are not responsible for Gail being gone as well as decisons their parents make---good or bad.

 

[JBean]

After much thought, I am 100% confident in my own mind that I would give my children the ability and tools to help LE. I understand trying to protect them, but we cannot protect them from the fact that their mother is missing. They are not stupid, they know something is wrong and knowing what kind of children they are, I think they would want to help. This could also be a valuable coping tool that they may need in the future. They may imagine that they are the cause of their mother's disappearance and the sooner they understand that it has absolutely nothing to do with them the better.Arming our children with the skills to cope under different life circumstances is one of the most valuable gifts we can give them.
IMO, they are old enough and mature enough to understand that something is very wrong and it is important that they don't conjure up their own ideas of where mom really is. Why would it be a good thing to let the children think their mom is away and just doesn't want to see or talk to them? ouch! that would damage a child's psyche to be sure.
Obviously professional guidance would be critical here and gleaning info from them on day 1 would have been appropriate and necessary.

 

[Columbo]

No, I don't think that would be okay for me. The process is scary for children, and talking about the situation, which brings up all the emotions in them, is upsetting for them. Even the nicest LEO in the most non-threatening environment would still be upsetting to a child.

The children also need legal protection, and I'm not qualified to do that. That would mean an attorney there also. That increases the scariness and emotional upset for the child.

Things can awry in these situations. I feel capable of recognizing what info LE needs, I would certainly talk with them regularly, and ask their guidance, and I would pass the info along immediately.

What an awful situation it would be to be in.



I don't know if it's reasonable to expect of Matt, and much as I hate to admit it, I don't much care.

What's far important to me is what's needed, and what's fair, and what's least impactful, and all the issues, to the missing person (Gail) and to the children and their well-being. Gail needs to be found, and the kids need to be protected.

Matt is low man on this totem pole for me.

I wonder if it's possible the children might want to talk to LE of their own accord, in hopes of helping to get their mom back. They're old enough to know what is going on, and as siblings, when they are alone they might confide in each other about ways to bring their mom back. Just guessing, though.

ETA: JBean and Thoughtfox, before I posted this, I didn't see your posts which have a similar thought in them.

 

[confused]

I can see being protective of children, but I would want to teach my children to step forward and be helpful, especially at those ages when they are old enough to be observant without being fanciful.

And after all, this is their own mother who is missing, not some stranger whom they might or might not know.

The only thing they need to tell police is simply what happened that day when they arrived home in their own words. Time is of the essence here, so the longer this drags on, the less they might remember.

I personally can't think of any good reasons to shield children from questioning in this case. The kids are not in any trouble, the father and his attorneys could stay there with them, and all they need to do is tell the truth.

It's sort of a mixed message in this case to encourage families with children to go out and search through the forest and the gullies for Gail, but her own children who are obvious witnesses haven't been allowed to tell police whatever they know. :twocents: My opinion only, but it really doesn't help the public perception of MP either. :cow: Instead of protective, it just seems controlling - (my constitutionally protected opinion only).

You are right, children should be taught to be helpful, and searching for a missing cat, helping the elderly lady next door get her mail, etc. that is wonderful, but as you stated this is their mother. That completely changes everything. There is no indication that whatever information they may hold has not been passed to the LE. They are seeing a counselor, I am sure anything of help that is discussed there is also being given to the LE. Just because they haven't been taken down to the station, doesn't mean that they haven't provided info. Also, just because we aren't privy to that sort of info, doesn't mean the LE isn't.

As for the searching...I do not recall the LE, the Palmgren's or even the Nowackis asking anyone to go out on trails and search with or without kids. That appears to be the FB folks, and I think that even many on here have voiced concern of non-trained people searching in our unfriendly terrain.

When it comes to my children, I do not care what others think, I don't care at all about others perception of me, I do what I feel/know to be best for my children. I do make mistakes, as all parents do, but ultimately my children are my responsiblity.

 

[BeanE]

Candlelight Prayer Vigil And Balloon Release Planned For Gail Palmgren
posted July 2, 2011

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_204427.asp

 

[fireflylink]

First let me say that I don't know the friends/attorney, and don't know anything about the relationship Matt and Gail had with them. I do think that the general attitude about them is unfair. IF what they say is even remotely true, I can imagine they were fairly upset by what happened during Gail's visit.
They couldn't restain her there, even if they thought she needed to be, we don't know exactly what happened with the kids, but maybe they did try to let the kids stay with them for safety, and that is when Gail got upset and called the police. We don't have the details of that, but it doesn't sound like it was a pleasant visit. In their position, I most likely would have contacted the spouse also, in an effort to say "something is going on here and you may want to check it out". I also believe if a casual friend came by out of the blue, stayed and behaved like it sounded Gail did, then left $$$of jewelry with me, I would certainly contact the other party about it. The way Gail supposedly acted about the kids with them, what might she do about the jewelry.

had Gail been acting normally, and sat down to discuss her thoughts, etc. It might have not prompted them to go to her spouse. But, when someone shows up and is completely out of sorts, I think I would be doing what they did.

as I stated in the beginning, I don't have any info on these people, but I think they have been harshly viewed here because of the one offensive quote posted in the MSM. I don't talk like that, don't recall ever uttering that word, but for many, that is everyday language. judging the whole story to be false because we don't like that wording-well we could be missing some important info. I don't necessarily think they were bad friends to Gail, or more his than her's, etc. Maybe they were just friends who were suddenly brought into a really strange situation and did what they thought would be the best thing. JMO

BBM
confused, My opinion may differ slightly, but considering the information which has been reported via MP's own attorneys with regards to GP's visit, the incident at the store and what has been reported as their own opinion regarding the state of the visit, WHY did they not do the responsible thing by immediately demanding that MP or LE intervene for the sake of the children or their own personal safety? Why, would they not do everything within their power to make certain the children of their "freinds" were protected. Certainly over the course of two days there would have been ample time and opportunity for MP or even another friend of GP's available to neutralize the situation and get everybody home safely.

In addition, I can personally say that if someone I knew were to show up in an alleged similar state, I would go out of my way to make sure that when they left my home it was done safely, even if that meant involving LE at that time for the safelty of self, the friend, and the children.

Just saying, I find it difficult to believe two apparently educated individuals would devalue the lives of two children, their mother by permitting anyone to exit that situation without assistance or immediate follow-up.

In comparrison, if they had a guest at their home for a cocktail party for example...and this person had been in their home, perhaps drinking and acting as the claim GP was, would they have allowed that person to leave without assitance in a motor vehicle and two children in the car? IMO - no, not without risk of their own ethical and legal liability after this person was possibly injured or involved in a traffic fatality.

I am curious also, I may have missed this, but I am not aware of any police report or news regarding the incident at the store...would there not be security video available to confirm any in-store incident or altercation? If this had happened as we have read in MSM, I would have expected LE responding to a similar incident to take GP and the children into protective custody if for no other reason than to determine if she was capable of caring for her children, and/or if a true threat was perceived, to accompany her back the friends home to observe while GP and the children gathered their belongings and left.

JMHO of course.

 

[fireflylink]

After much thought, I am 100% confident in my own mind that I would give my children the ability and tools to help LE. I understand trying to protect them, but we cannot protect them from the fact that their mother is missing. They are not stupid, they know something is wrong and knowing what kind of children they are, I think they would want to help. This could also be a valuable coping tool that they may need in the future. They may imagine that they are the cause of their mother's disappearance and the sooner they understand that it has absolutely nothing to do with them the better.Arming our children with the skills to cope under different life circumstances is one of the most valuable gifts we can give them.
IMO, they are old enough and mature enough to understand that something is very wrong and it is important that they don't conjure up their own ideas of where mom really is. Why would it be a good thing to let the children think their mom is away and just doesn't want to see or talk to them? ouch! that would damage a child's psyche to be sure.
Obviously professional guidance would be critical here and gleaning info from them on day 1 would have been appropriate and necessary.

BBM
Thanks JBean. No real benefit for the children, just the remaing parent. The only "benefit" after all of this time would be to alienate, create distrust towards GP or erase good feelings between GP and the children. Thereby, creating a futher bond with the remaining parent of "I am still here even if nobody else loves you enough to be" and laying a foundation of fear that any loyalties towards their mother could result in rejection by him too. :banghead:

 

[Melodie]

As for the searching...I do not recall the LE, the Palmgren's or even the Nowackis asking anyone to go out on trails and search with or without kids. That appears to be the FB folks, and I think that even many on here have voiced concern of non-trained people searching in our unfriendly terrain.

... True, it doesn't specifically ask for people to scamper through the woods and mountains and it does not mention children helping, however, I have never seen a public request from families in missing person cases making a detailed plea. It's just a plea for help. A very sincere and heart-wrenching request for people to help in any way they can.

The origin of the request and the location it has been placed settles some frequently debated issues in my mind.

 

[fireflylink]

You are right, children should be taught to be helpful, and searching for a missing cat, helping the elderly lady next door get her mail, etc. that is wonderful, but as you stated this is their mother. That completely changes everything. There is no indication that whatever information they may hold has not been passed to the LE. They are seeing a counselor, I am sure anything of help that is discussed there is also being given to the LE. Just because they haven't been taken down to the station, doesn't mean that they haven't provided info. Also, just because we aren't privy to that sort of info, doesn't mean the LE isn't.

As for the searching...I do not recall the LE, the Palmgren's or even the Nowackis asking anyone to go out on trails and search with or without kids. That appears to be the FB folks, and I think that even many on here have voiced concern of non-trained people searching in our unfriendly terrain.

When it comes to my children, I do not care what others think, I don't care at all about others perception of me, I do what I feel/know to be best for my children. I do make mistakes, as all parents do, but ultimately my children are my responsiblity.

BBM
Just to clarify as it has been some time since the searches took place.
Initially there were no searches of any kind by LE. You are correct that the Palmgrens did not ask for participation in the searches, nor participate. However, DN was here and welcomed the support and search efforts of GP's friends and the community.

Hope this helps.