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

[fran]

My understanding is that everything was lumped into the single document which Frank Brown has now dissolved. The temporary order and request for hearing were together; the hearing was expedited; and all requests by Diane and Kevin were denied. Case closed for now.

I do not believe any hearing is scheduled, no court documents pending resolution, and all back to square one. Except for the provision that future filings would be heard by a different judge.

Does anybody have a different impression?

Well, IMHO, the relatives of GP lost a battle, but they MAY not have lost the war. Basing my opinion by this picture taken right after the judge dismissed the case, Gail's sibling's lawyer doesn't appear as if she's exactly throwing in the towel, as she speaks to the opposing attorney.

http://twitpic.com/5ioy75
Opposing sides chat after leaving hearing.

I hope this reporter is checking the last minute court filings TODAY!! IF not today, ASAP tomorrow!

Just a guess,

fran

 

[happy409]

I'm pretty sure it's verified--although I can't remember by whom. Now I feel bad for doubting that he even showed up. I knew that!!!! It seems like the more time goes by with no new information, the harder it is to keep the facts straight. :waitasec:

Don't feel bad, I still doubt it. I don't recall it being SB, maybe JBean confirmed, but not exactly by whom, as she confirmed SB without a doubt knew it was GP in the jeep driving away, and not possibly someone else, which was also speculated. But then why would MP make it sound like GP 'abandoned' the children dropping them off and back with MP within 10 minutes. :banghead:

 

[Pearl*]

I know the restraining order was resolved. The issue of the GAL was not in the restraining order (or did I miss it?) So did the judge deny that motion, or will THAT motion be heard by a different judge? I'm so puzzled.

You're right. It wasn't where I thought it was. So do we have another document or no?

 

[Pearl*]

So, now Matts bad, the PI is bad, his attorneys are bad, the SMPD and the HCSO are bad and the judge is bad. ???????

Not necessarily. But like TF said in the post you were responding to... today's hearing was "quick and dirty."

 

[Sleuthy1]

IF I were AD, I would have already taken that harddrive and had it copied. She can't afford to let it go without proof of what's on it.

I just got done following a case where a computer expert type guy, (it was his J O B), thought he'd erased certain evidence from his own computer. Too bad for him the FBI computer expert was a bit more in the know than he. His attorney was upset during the trial, because the FBI was able to withhold their method during court testimony. The FBI didn't want to tell everyone their secret!

IMHO, if someone thought they'd know more than most of how to delete stuff from their computer, they're no match for the FBI! Maybe someone is sweating it right about now!

JMHO
fran

:twocents:I know AD WOULD NOT have any problem turning the DVR over to an FBI forensic specialty person(s). But, the FBI has not yet involved themselves. Furthermore, I too would be hesitant to hand the DVR over the SMPD or HCSO, out of fear that the DVR might get lost or accidentally erased :maddening:~oops:banghead:~

For those of you who were wondering about GP's cell carrier...~ it's SPRINT.

Also, AD will be interviewed on the Jammer Scott Show tomorrow (Thursday) @ 2:30 pm on Chattanooga "Talk Radio" ~ 102.3 or you can LISTEN LIVE on the internet via this LINK. DN was invited but, I don't think Jammer has heard back from her to confirm any phone interview as yet. I don't know if DN will accept Jammer's request...we'll see.

http://www.wgow.com/home.asp

 

[fran]

Well, it seems things are happening in this case. Some activity we see and some is going on behind the scenes. I feel fairly confident that LE is taking care of business on this case.

I'll be interested to see what pop-ups in the radar over the next couple of days. Obviously, it would appear, per MP's own attorney, he's planning on going down to the lake over the holiday weekend. He must not be too stressed out if he can still bring himself to enjoy sun/and such...Hope they use sun block!

Wonder if there's any cameras down there? :slap:

:innocent:
fran

 

[fran]

Wonder if MP is upset over this little headline!?:waitasec:

just wonderin'
fran

PS......fwiw, the most dangerous time for a domestic violence victim, is the time of the SPLIT UP! ..............just sayin', fran


http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jun/29/signal-mountain-palmgren-friend-say-she-has-images/

Signal Mountain: Palmgren friend say she has images of couple arguing

She planned to use it as evidence in their divorce,

<<<<<<<<<<article at link>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[Columbo]

Don't feel bad, I still doubt it. I don't recall it being SB, maybe JBean confirmed, but not exactly by whom, as she confirmed SB without a doubt knew it was GP in the jeep driving away, and not possibly someone else, which was also speculated. But then why would MP make it sound like GP 'abandoned' the children dropping them off and back with MP within 10 minutes. :banghead:

I guess the children are the only ones who know for sure when MP arrived back at the SM house. A 12 year old and a 9 year old can be alone for 10 minutes (at least kids who are responsible and good kids like these seem to be)! I used to babysit when I was 12 yrs old. So what would be the big deal?

 

[Pearl*]

But then why would MP make it sound like GP 'abandoned' the children dropping them off and back with MP within 10 minutes. :banghead:

That's easy. "Abandoned" serves his purposes more effectively than "dropped off."

 

[happy409]

I think you have summed things up perfectly. I also think, to expand on this, that if it was a close family member leading the outspoken types we would have a whole different level of community co-operation.

Can you offer some explanation why this isn't being done?

 

[BeanE]

My understanding is that everything was lumped into the single document which Frank Brown has now dissolved. The temporary order and request for hearing were together; the hearing was expedited; and all requests by Diane and Kevin were denied. Case closed for now.

I do not believe any hearing is scheduled, no court documents pending resolution, and all back to square one. Except for the provision that future filings would be heard by a different judge.

Does anybody have a different impression?

I don't think it's over:

Although Chancellor Frank Brown dissolved the restraining order against Palmgren, instead of closing the case, he transferred it to Chancellor Jeffrey Atherton for further review. The date for this hearing has not yet been set.


http://www.nooga.com/8393_chancello...gainst-restraining-order-for-matthew-palmgren


The case will move forward in Chancery Court, Brown ruled, but all aspects of it now will be heard by Chancellor Jeff Atherton, who has been involved with the case in the past.


http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jun/29/chancery-court-chancellor-review-order-today-submi


ETA: One more:

Chancellor Brown III moved the remaining issues to Chancery Court II. Those issues are petitions filed by the siblings to be guardian ad litem for the two children and conservator of certain shared property

http://www.newschannel9.com/news/palmgren-1002532-order-restraining.html

 

[happy409]

I guess the children are the only ones who know for sure when MP arrived back at the SM house. A 12 year old and a 9 year old can be alone for 10 minutes (at least kids who are responsible and good kids like these seem to be)! I used to babysit when I was 12 yrs old. So what would be the big deal?

None at all, they can legally based on law, be alone. Self-serving, like has been speculated.

 

[happy409]

:twocents:I know AD would have any problem turning the DVR over to an FBI forensic specialty person(s). But, the FBI has not yet involved themselves. Furthermore, I too would be hesitant to hand the DVR over the SMPD or HCSO, out of fear that the DVR might get lost or accidentally erased :maddening:~oops:banghead:~

For those of you who were wondering about GP's cell carrier...~ it's SPRINT.

Also, AD will be interviewed on the Jammer Scott Show tomorrow (Thursday) @ 2:30 pm on Chattanooga "Talk Radio" ~ 102.3 or you can LISTEN LIVE on the internet via this LINK. DN was invited but, I don't think Jammer has heard back from her to confirm any phone interview as yet. I don't know if DN will accept Jammer's request...we'll see.

http://www.wgow.com/home.asp

This confirms shotty coverage out of St Ives neighborhood, black areas on Miles road, then all the way down the W road, passed the roundabout (complete black area), and finally a signal emerges near Mountain Creek Road and Signal Mountain Road (possibly near the ping). I have sprint and a smartphone, this is my experience, you wait to make a call until you are beyond this area, because 9 out of 10 times you cannot carry on a conversation (hear the other person at all). This also is a reason to have a home phone, it appears the coverage isn't as great as Verizon (but my Verizon friends also have issues on the mountain). FWIW!

 

[happy409]

:twocents:I know AD would have any problem turning the DVR over to an FBI forensic specialty person(s). But, the FBI has not yet involved themselves. Furthermore, I too would be hesitant to hand the DVR over the SMPD or HCSO, out of fear that the DVR might get lost or accidentally erased :maddening:~oops:banghead:~

For those of you who were wondering about GP's cell carrier...~ it's SPRINT.

Also, AD will be interviewed on the Jammer Scott Show tomorrow (Thursday) @ 2:30 pm on Chattanooga "Talk Radio" ~ 102.3 or you can LISTEN LIVE on the internet via this LINK. DN was invited but, I don't think Jammer has heard back from her to confirm any phone interview as yet. I don't know if DN will accept Jammer's request...we'll see.

http://www.wgow.com/home.asp

BBM RED - I hope there is another copy! :twocents:

 

[Sleuthy1]

I know the restraining order was resolved. The issue of the GAL was not in the restraining order (or did I miss it?) So did the judge deny that motion, or will THAT motion be heard by a different judge? I'm so puzzled.

A <mod snip> vehicle? If it had been the Jeep, surely someone would have noticed.

As for the rest of your post--Wowza is all I can say. It doesn't seem like tire slashing crimes are a common occurrence at the lake--what a coincidence MP was there.....NOT...I wonder if he would have done this if the kids were viewing, though. I wonder if TH was also there...I wouldn't put it past a woman to do something like this, too.

:waitasec:Not really sure of the actual color of the CAR (not a JEEP)....I edited the original post...I have checked with AD for verification on the color and she was not sure as to color, because she was not there to see the actual CAR MP got out of and re-entered upon leaving the "A" frame, I misspoke with regard to the color of the CAR, but I can tell you it was not a Jeep. I wonder if any1 knows what TH's new car looks like???

 

[happy409]

I don't think it's over:

Although Chancellor Frank Brown dissolved the restraining order against Palmgren, instead of closing the case, he transferred it to Chancellor Jeffrey Atherton for further review. The date for this hearing has not yet been set.


http://www.nooga.com/8393_chancello...gainst-restraining-order-for-matthew-palmgren


The case will move forward in Chancery Court, Brown ruled, but all aspects of it now will be heard by Chancellor Jeff Atherton, who has been involved with the case in the past.


http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jun/29/chancery-court-chancellor-review-order-today-submi


ETA: One more:

Chancellor Brown III moved the remaining issues to Chancery Court II. Those issues are petitions filed by the siblings to be guardian ad litem for the two children and conservator of certain shared property

http://www.newschannel9.com/news/palmgren-1002532-order-restraining.html[/QUOTE]

"Matthew Palmgren's attorney, Lee Davis, was visibly upset through the proceedings for what he deemed lack of notice and information withheld in the restraining order. "A phone call would've gone a long way to clearing up a lot of this misinformation in this paper provided to the court," Davis said."

JMHO - I bet he was upset, and I just bet a friendly conversation between DN and Davis would have taken place with no issues....seriously?? :twocents:

 

[Sleuthy1]

BBM RED - I hope there is another copy! :twocents:

CORRECTION TO MY EARLIER POST REGARDING THE DVR & AD:I meant to say I know AD WOULD NOT have any problem turning the DVR over to the FBI alone, for thier forensic ppl to retrieve audio/video data from the DVR. Sorry...should have "proofed" it before I hit post. ~ my bad!:loser:

 

[glorias]

http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/14997857/sheriffs-office-requests-evidence-in-palmgren-case

Police request evidence two months into missing woman case


CHATTANOOGA (WRCB) - A friend of missing Signal Mountain mother Gail Palmgren says authorities want her to turn over evidence in the case.

Arlene Durham, who saw Gail the day before she went missing, says Hamilton County investigators called her Wednesday demanding a hard drive taken from the Palmgren's lake house in Alabama.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,more at link>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Oh this is nice. I log on today to find the court threw out the order Kevin and Diane were seeking for specious reasons.

Edit: I see now that the case has been referred rather than completely thrown out. That's nice. Wonder if there was a solid legal reason for the judge to hand it off or if he just wanted to not be involved in this mess?

NOW the police want the DVR we've been talking about for over a month? The one that was referenced in the media multiple times?

A day or so ago I said that maybe LE knew something that kept them from looking for Gail earlier or maybe they dropped the ball. With all due respect to those who disagree, I'm going with "LE dropped the ball" here. This is ridiculous. I'm pretty torqued off right now.

 

[glorias]

I respectfully disagree with you on this. I don't think you know Matt or Gail for that matter, and you have no reason other than what you read on the net to think that he would "snap his fingers and make Gail hop". If the facts were really known, it could have been just the opposite.

He didn't decide when the hearing would held, his attorney's asked for a change and THE JUDGE decided when it would be.

(snipped)

Justice for Gail-she doesn't need justice, she needs to come home or be found.

With respect, we don't know that you know Matt or Gail, either, kwim?

And the attorneys he pays for do what he wants, and as we already established yesterday, Matt and his lawyers wanted the hearing today. He's not at the mercy of some renegade lawyers and judges who do things without his input.

Gail DOES need justice. Maybe you don't think she does until the body is found, but I personally think she needs it NOW.

 

[fran]

I don't think it's over:

Although Chancellor Frank Brown dissolved the restraining order against Palmgren, instead of closing the case, he transferred it to Chancellor Jeffrey Atherton for further review. The date for this hearing has not yet been set.


http://www.nooga.com/8393_chancello...gainst-restraining-order-for-matthew-palmgren


The case will move forward in Chancery Court, Brown ruled, but all aspects of it now will be heard by Chancellor Jeff Atherton, who has been involved with the case in the past.


http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jun/29/chancery-court-chancellor-review-order-today-submi


ETA: One more:

Chancellor Brown III moved the remaining issues to Chancery Court II. Those issues are petitions filed by the siblings to be guardian ad litem for the two children and conservator of certain shared property

http://www.newschannel9.com/news/palmgren-1002532-order-restraining.html[/QUOTE]



JMHO - I bet he was upset, and I just bet a friendly conversation between DN and Davis would have taken place with no issues....seriously?? :twocents:

Aha! So there may STILL be a guardian ad litem assigned and a conservator of the 'certain shared property.' :cheerup:

Well, well, well, .................................THIS puts a whole new spot-light on it! :sunshine:

Well, Matt can take the kids to the Lake home. But, LOL, ahhhhh...........he MAY have some restrictions on the 'shared marital properties' until the hearing! :thud:

Not all bad news, IMHO. Guess someone better be careful what they tell the kids. They have LOOOOOOnnnnnnggggg memories.:clock:

I thought the siblings lawyer looked rather serious!

fran