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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.)

It was not one statement in one article - unfortunately no one article or video had everything. What I'd just done when I originally posted about it, is go through every article and video, with also the tweets in hand, and piece it all together. I was doing it for my own curiosity about wth happened, and so didn't notate which piece was where.

I will be going back through again, and I will note then what's where. It won't be tonight because I'm awfully tired. It may not be until Sunday because of the Casey Anthony trial. We're down to state's rebuttal tomorrow, and then closing arguments on Saturday for that!!! I can't believe it! It does take a lot of time though, so I'm slow on getting stuff done on the other cases I follow right now. I apologize.
 
It was not one statement in one article - unfortunately no one article or video had everything. What I'd just done when I originally posted about it, is go through every article and video, with also the tweets in hand, and piece it all together. I was doing it for my own curiosity about wth happened, and so didn't notate which piece was where.

I will be going back through again, and I will note then what's where. It won't be tonight because I'm awfully tired. It may not be until Sunday because of the Casey Anthony trial. We're down to state's rebuttal tomorrow, and then closing arguments on Saturday for that!!! I can't believe it! It does take a lot of time though, so I'm slow on getting stuff done on the other cases I follow right now. I apologize.

Oh, thanks BeanE. Please don't go to the trouble for my benefit though. What's bugging me is wondering if it is really a legal "gray" area, or if DN and KN's lawyers are really that uninformed. Or...is it possible that the ruling was in error? That does happen, of course, thus the existence of an appeals process. Although again, I'm not questioning his authority.

I know that in the end, the current court proceedings are a different issue from that of what happened to Gail....
 
“We understand the court’s ruling. … Chancellor Brown feels like the two cases are similar — the legal separation case and the case we have filed — are similar enough in nature that they should both be heard by the same chancellor, and we understand that,” Critchfield said.

I give up. What legal separation case? I thought Matt withdrew his. Had Gail actually filed? IIRC, Diane said they (plural) had filed for separation. I'm wondering if Gail actually had. How can it be Matt's if he withdrew it?


http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jun/30/judge-dissolves-palmgren-restraining-order

Matthew Palmgren filed for legal separation, exclusive use of the couple’s home and custody of the children. He withdrew the motions from Chancery Court on June 1.

Okay, I think I understand a little more now....the judge is probably trying to avoid the appearance of "judge shopping". Because the original case was assigned to a specific judge, this similar case will also be assigned to that judge. (Otherwise people could just file, see what judge they get, then dismiss and refile until they get someone they like.)

I also know think I understand the significance of the term "abandoned" since JB explained that this term is found in the court filings. Most likely that word came from MP's attorney. If that word was used in the context of asking for exclusive use of the marital residence, there is law in some jurisdictions where one of the ways to get exclusive use of the marital residence is to show that the other party abandoned the residence. It can also be a grounds for divorce, but I think you would need to be gone longer than a few days in either case. This was less likely an exaggeration by MP and more likely a strategic choice of words on the part of MP's attorney.
 
[bbm]

I've been mulling this over since I read it. I can't imagine that LE would allow what they believed to be a potential crime scene to be contaminated by volunteers. What if we can assume she is NOT within whatever parameters CB has been permitted to operate within? Does that get us anywhere?

What if we theorize for a while based on the assumption that LE is competent and clever? I know many don't believe that, but we've played other "what, if's," so why not try this one? Where would that lead, to assume they've not made any major mistakes?
Pearl,

Re: I am certain that he is provided with parameters with regards to the information exchanged and other activities related to the disappearance.
Upon reading your response, I want clarify "parameters" as referring to the information exchanged and other activities. Not as referring to a specific perimeter, property or geographic area.

...just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page. :) Also, since I am sure someone will ask at some point in the future....

Other than the locally organized search parties, I have been doing any almost daily combination of driving local roads up and down the mountain, the areas at the base of the mountain (ping area), as well as exhausting the public roads and parks on the mountain itself. This includes areas to north towards Dunlap, west into Marion, and north of the base as well following Mtn Creek road, 27 north, and Suck Creek Rd.

I initially undertook this myself immediately upon hearing of Gail's disappearance. As time went on, I made contact with CB via BGHN and another searcher and offered to add specific areas of interest to my "watch list" (at this point, HCSO LE had not taken over the case and tips were being handled primarily by the volunteers). Other than private property, or obvious terrain issues, there have never been any restrictions on where to search, geographical or otherwise. LE would immediately been contacted if the vehicle were located (especially at first when it was hoped that GP had merely had an accident so that she could get immediate help). Further on in time to present, should anything seem amiss the area would NOT be approached (in order to preserve potential evidence if necessary), and LE would immediately be contacted and provided with GPS coordinates (necessary to determine exact location on some of these mtn roads). I want to make it clear that anyone doing this must be prepared to observe and report only.

And, take your GPS with you or you can easily get lost, especially after a couple hours of wandering down and around and up roads that lead to other roads and even more roads... You locals will understand....it is mind boggling just how much is out there once you get off of the main roads.

It still bothers me a lot though, there are so many seemingly unused farms and barns and outbuildings and housed on deep property that have probably not been occupied for years. That, and all of the cliffs and bluffs off of the mountain roads. Especially on Roberts Mill where it is not populated.

Hope this does clarify my earlier post, and alleviate the concerns of some that volunteers could inadvertently destroy a potential crime scene or evidence.
 
Oh, thanks BeanE. Please don't go to the trouble for my benefit though. What's bugging me is wondering if it is really a legal "gray" area, or if DN and KN's lawyers are really that uninformed. Or...is it possible that the ruling was in error? That does happen, of course, thus the existence of an appeals process. Although again, I'm not questioning his authority.

I know that in the end, the current court proceedings are a different issue from that of what happened to Gail....

Oh no - I need to do it anyway for my own reference so I'm ready for the next go-round.

I don't think they're uninformed - from the hearings I watch on these cases, this stuff seems to happen a lot. The improper notice I've heard I don't know how many times, and on the non-disclosure, it's usually that the attorneys were relying on some kind of loophole not to disclose it. Maybe in this instance that the check wasn't yet cashed. I dunno.

And then yes, they go back on appeal or re-file the motion differently or whatever. It seems nothing is ever a one shot deal - it's a process of a series of hearings and it seems as if things are never really final. There's always another unexpected (or expected) filing and another hearing.

I've found, for me, the way to keep from getting too terribly upset is not to expect any hearing or motion or filing or whatever to be the last one, and for everything to be settled. It just seems most often, it's not that way. And this one I think will be plenty messy with lots and lots of hearings and motions and filings and delays and continuances and reschedulings and all that.
 
Hope this does clarify my earlier post, and alleviate the concerns of some that volunteers could inadvertently destroy a potential crime scene or evidence.

Fireflylink, thanks for your post, and please know my intent was not to criticize anybody. (I know I've done that in the past, but I'm trying to work on it :) )

I was trying to take a different approach to the original question of, "Where is Gail?"

Surely LE would rather search the most likely areas themselves. Heck, even LE gets accused of contaminating crime scenes. Even more so for volunteers. So could they be using the local parties more for decoy purposes? Just a thought I don't remember being mentioned before. I don't think they would recruit volunteers for this purpose, but hasn't this been a case where volunteers were somewhat forced on them? After all, look at the media headlines that resulted when Tizzio asked AD to stop whatever she was doing.

So, if the group were being dispersed into the more unlikely areas to find anything, I'd go back to the question of where AD was when she got the urgent message to stop what she was doing.
 
Surely LE would rather search the most likely areas themselves. Heck, even LE gets accused of contaminating crime scenes. Even more so for volunteers. So could they be using the local parties more for decoy purposes?

They may just not have the manpower to do all searching by themselves, and it's possible there is someone higher up who truly thinks Gail is alive and in hiding and doesn't want to expend much energy on this.
 
They may just not have the manpower to do all searching by themselves, and it's possible there is someone higher up who truly thinks Gail is alive and in hiding and doesn't want to expend much energy on this.

Yes, but I'm basing this idea on the complaint I've heard so often, that there were no official search parties on Signal. Is that true? I would think they would search up here somewhat if they thought she were up here.

ETA: Or... more to the point, they would have searched unless they had good reason to think she were NOT up here.
 
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.

I'm not sure what the deal is with the error. The main thing I found was the News Channel 9 article (link):

Theresa Critchfield, the attorney for Gail Palmgren's brother and sister who filed this petition on behalf of the two children, countered there may have been mistakes in procedure, but not facts.

However, Chancellor Frank Brown III threw his own order out, ruling the petitioner's (Gail Nowacki Palmgen's brother and sister: Kevin Nowacki and Diane Nowacki Nichols) had little chance of success.

That doesn't seem to show much cause and effect. "Mistakes in procedure" wasn't the issue Brown cited, it was that they would have little success. The Nooga article (link) and the WRCB article (link) say basically the same thing:

During the hearing, Davis claimed Gail Palmgren sent her sister $17,000 in a travelers checks five days before she disappeared. He said Palmgren's sister Diane has not confirmed that this event took place.

(snip)

In his reasoning for his ruling, Brown explained that the court did not believe the petitioners would be successful in their attempts for a restraining order against Palmgren under Tennessee law.

Also, he said, since this was a missing persons case and not a divorce case, he could not grant them their demands.

However, I would like to note somewhat tangentially that the tweet that used the word "unbelievable" about this was quoting Matt's attorney Davis (link to newschannel9.com article here):

Davis argued, "Here's something I find frankly unbelievable. Diane Nowacki Nichols refuses to acknowledge to the court and tell you that five days before Gail Palmgren went missing she sent a cashier's check for $17,000 to her sister in upstate New York."

I think Davis is the one making a big deal about the $17K. I haven't seen a thing indicating the judge was.

Edited to add a new paragraph and the links, which I forgot to include.
 
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.

Maybe GP recently went to discuss the upcoming divorce, meet a counselor, explaining her concern for the kids and it was only found out through BCBS EOB's MP may have received in the mail, assuming he had family coverage. To me that would explain the location in Birmingham, since it appears AD mentioned GP planned to relocate to the A-Frame house, since she would wait until after the last day of school on May 24th. Showing she had no intention of leaving to go anywhere until then. IMO and confirmed by AD in the radio interview.

More annoying is Davis' need to tell Jammer so he could throw that at AD? I am questioning his scruples! :loser:
IMO.
 
I hope I'm not stepping on toes. I know BeanE said she would give links, but I just happened to be logged in specifically to take notes over the news from the 28th and 29th, so I'm finding stuff that might be interesting.

Note a few things Davis said at the hearing Wednesday mentioned in the Times Free Press (link):

They also noted that the week before she went missing, Gail Palmgren gave Diane Nichols a cashier’s check for $17,000. They said Gail Palmgren was mentally unstable during this time and thought people were following her.

Davis said Gail Palmgren asked a couple to look after her children and then later accused the same couple of trying to take her children away.

The first paragraph shows MP's lawyers are pushing forward with the "Gail was mentally unstable" defense, although I don't really know how that helps Matt. Seems like it would hurt him to say she was unstable yet he was gallivanting all over the country with a girlfriend and leaving kids in Gail's care. But anyway, I think this is pretty solid proof that's where MP's attorneys are going.

That second paragraph about the G's: That's not quite the same thing we've been hearing before, is it? Did Gail really give the kids to this couple?
 
Fireflylink, thanks for your post, and please know my intent was not to criticize anybody. (I know I've done that in the past, but I'm trying to work on it :) )

I was trying to take a different approach to the original question of, "Where is Gail?"

Surely LE would rather search the most likely areas themselves. Heck, even LE gets accused of contaminating crime scenes. Even more so for volunteers. So could they be using the local parties more for decoy purposes? Just a thought I don't remember being mentioned before. I don't think they would recruit volunteers for this purpose, but hasn't this been a case where volunteers were somewhat forced on them? After all, look at the media headlines that resulted when Tizzio asked AD to stop whatever she was doing.

So, if the group were being dispersed into the more unlikely areas to find anything, I'd go back to the question of where AD was when she got the urgent message to stop what she was doing.

I am sure someone can clarify specifically to that instance, but AD was traveling all over to LE's handing out flyers, (even to Batesville, MS) and I recall had to have the LE in Batesville call Signal Mountain PD since they had never heard of GP! At that time, we all knew about Batesville from a hotel receipt and TH's new home town....one would think SMPD would, maybe, for the heck of it, contact them and let them know, just in case they see a Red Rubicon...just saying! IMHO as always!
 
That doesn't seem to show much cause and effect. "Mistakes in procedure" wasn't the issue Brown cited, it was that they would have little success. The Nooga article says basically the same thing.

So... does it make sense that Brown would dismiss, essentially without a hearing (considering that he did not give DN and KN the chance to attend and be heard), based on his thought that they would have little chance of success if they WERE allowed their day in Court?

Unless I'm mistaken, few of the issues addressed in the petition were addressed in Court at all. Therefore even more reason to say dismissed without a hearing.... because they had little chance? I'm having trouble here.

And the attorney said there MAY have been mistakes in procedure. I don't read this as an admission.

I don't know how relevant it all is, but it bothers me.
 
Just want to note that this article:

http://timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jun/30/judge-dissolves-palmgren-restraining-order/

is chock full of info. I have Google News alerts and it didn't include this article when I got the email, so I thought maybe some of you might have missed it as well. Definitely worth a read.

Thanks, glorias. After the read, I wonder essentially the same questions. What was the reason that compeled the Court to move the date of the hearing and why does the perceived need to move the hearing to Chancellor Atherton mean the Order must be dissolved without a hearing?

Brown must have believed the issues addressed in the petition to be worthy in order to sign the Order on Friday.

I know for a FACT that ex parte orders are not necessarily signed by the same judge who ultimately hears the case.
 
So... does it make sense that Brown would dismiss, essentially without a hearing (considering that he did not give DN and KN the chance to attend and be heard), based on his thought that they would have little chance of success if they WERE allowed their day in Court?

Unless I'm mistaken, few of the issues addressed in the petition were addressed in Court at all. Therefore even more reason to say dismissed without a hearing.... because they had little chance? I'm having trouble here.

And the attorney said there MAY have been mistakes in procedure. I don't read this as an admission.

Well, the more I read these articles, the more I am thinking Brown sent it to Chancellor Jeff Atherton in Chancery II specifically because he thought they would have a chance there instead of in his area, Chancery III. Because the order is asking for restrictions that are similar to divorce restrictions, he sent it to the other judge who already heard MP's separation filing before it was withdrawn:

Because the issues brought up in the case are similar to a legal separation Matthew Palmgren had previously filed, Chancellor Brown says another judge will have to hear future motions on the case. (Link.)

I don't think D and K's lawyer admitted anything, either, and I don't see a lot (so far) about the error, just what I quoted already. This is speculation, but maybe Brown was saying the error was that this should have gone to Chancery II in the first place?
 
Well, the more I read these articles, the more I am thinking Brown sent it to Chancellor Jeff Atherton in Chancery II specifically because he thought they would have a chance there instead of in his area, Chancery III. Because the order is asking for restrictions that are similar to divorce restrictions, he sent it to the other judge who already heard MP's separation filing before it was withdrawn:



I don't think D and K's lawyer admitted anything, either, and I don't see a lot (so far) about the error, just what I quoted already. This is speculation, but maybe Brown was saying the error was that this should have gone to Chancery II in the first place?

If I'm not mistaken, it was withdrawn without a hearing.
 
Unless I'm mistaken, Atherton was involved only to the extent of Matt's ex parte order, ordering a continuance, and then Matt withdrew the petitions. I don't think there was an actual hearing on any issues. Regardless, transferring the case to Atherton's court is not my problem. My problem is the dissolving of DN and KN's ex parte order without a hearing on their issues, and giving them the opportunity to be present.
 
Just to add to the link above that said the case is moving forward, I notice Callie Starnes' tweets say:

Davis says order should be dissolved under rule 6503, he says opposing attorneys didn't present facts or give reasons.

Davis says 5 days before Gail Palmgren sent a cashier's check to sister for $17,000. Says it was Gail removing "marital assets".

Chancellor dissolves temp restraining order.

Chancellor Frank Brown says legal guidelines weren't met by attorneys representing Gail Palmgren's siblings. "This is not a divorce case."

B/c relief in this case too similar to legal separation filed previous by Matthew Palmgren, future cases to be heard by other judge.

Those aren't all of her tweets but the ones I snipped out of her whole account (link here) and copied down in order. I'm thinking the $17K was an issue for Davis only, and that Judge Brown decided that TN law wouldn't help the siblings in his chancery, but that TN law might help them in Chancery II because the wording was similar to the divorce case. Jmho.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
98
Guests online
1,914
Total visitors
2,012

Forum statistics

Threads
599,456
Messages
18,095,638
Members
230,861
Latest member
jusslikeme
Back
Top