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

[BeanE]

Good Morning fellow websleuthers. I have thought much about Gail's disappearance and tend to think first about foul play since things in the marriage were not on the up and up.

But I will take a moment and share something that is personally sad in my own life with a friend. My best friend from high school was in an abusive marriage and she would tell me and only a few others what was happening. She escaped with her kids with the help of church and I was very involved.

<snipped to reduce real estate I'm taking up>

So, I know that the mental frame of mind can change, especially under stress. Now some of us wonder if things really were what she said they were in her marriage, because of her state of mind.

I'm not saying any of this is true of Gail, but I was thinking about several people thinking she had been acting strangely and not herself. Is it possible that under stress, the framework of her mind changed. And if you are a friend, you for awhile are just thinking, "gee my friend really has some hard things going on here". With me, I found out my friend's thoughts were not reality, they were perceived fears that had taken over into a paranoid stronghold.

Just some thoughts

Excellent post, almino. Thanks so much for sharing with us.

 

[believe09]

Hope this helps BeanE

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_203035.asp

Arlene said it was unusual for her not to hear from Gail. She called her cellphone on Sunday, but uncharacteristically there was no answer. She said she called the Palmgren home and Matt answered. He told her, "She just dropped my kids off and left."

By Wednesday Arlene was getting really worried and she headed for Chattanooga. She stayed with a neighbor of the Palmgrens, who was also very concerned.

Arlene said she confronted Matt, asking him why he had waited two days to report her missing, why he was not involved in an active search, why the police were not working the case, why he was still going to work.

She said Matt told her, "You're making things very complicated."

Thank you for this. I am confused-by Wednesday AD was concerned, but GP was reported missing first by DN and then by MP on Monday, correct?

 

[JustToSeeYouSmile]

Trying to catch up here and have a question.

Does anyone have exact location on where the photo of the Jeep (the one with snow) was taken? Also any information on where and why and who took the photo?

 

[BeanE]

This is just one of the reasons I think MP won't let the children talk to LE. Ridiculous....and he and his lawyer are spouting they are doing everything to find her!!!

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.

 

[JustToSeeYouSmile]

BeanE this is something that I think might be important here. Reading up on the action in court for a GAL. An impartial party to talk with MP and GP's children in a safe and unbiased environment.
Why would that be denied?

 

[Emeralgem]

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

 

[BeanE]

BeanE this is something that I think might be important here. Reading up on the action in court for a GAL. An impartial party to talk with MP and GP's children in a safe and unbiased environment.
Why would that be denied?

We've got a legal/law questions thread now for Gail, and this is a great question for our verified attorneys:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142744"]TN Legal Questions for our Verified Attorneys - Gail Palmgren case - *No Discussion* - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]


My question (and I think the court's question) would be, why would that be necessary? The children have a parent, and they are in counseling. There are no reports of abuse or neglect.

 

[JustToSeeYouSmile]

We've got a legal/law questions thread now for Gail, and this is a great question for our verified attorneys:

TN Legal Questions for our Verified Attorneys - Gail Palmgren case - *No Discussion* - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


My question (and I think the court's question) would be, why would that be necessary? The children have a parent, and they are in counseling. There are no reports of abuse or neglect.

Thanks and what a good question. I have been looking here http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/subjectindex/default.aspx
for how this could have worked in court.

 

[Melodie]

Yes, I've heard that too. But she now has proof beyond an affair and he is on company time and company dime. I'm just thinking that a confrontation of I know what you are doing and I have/will be sharing that could have happened that night. If MP now believes his job is fleeting which would ruin his exit plan...who knows.

I believe that you may have something here. I know a woman who's husband had a very prominent position, such as MP, and he cheated on her relentlessly for years. Every time she found out about one of his affairs, that is the first thing she would use to threaten him, "I will tell everybody. You will lose your job. I'll tell your parents, the kids, your boss, etc". Obviously, this was a very dysfunctional relationship, but this is how it would go and he would get very upset at that threat. It was something she never did, but, would always use to hold over his head. Some people might not care, but to some, it can be a significant threat. I have thought that it was possible that Gail might have gotten to that point. JMO.

 

[Pearl*]

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

But what if you were present for the questioning? Would that have been reasonable to expect him to allow questioning as long as he were with them?

 

[hollyblue]

RSBM

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.

I respect how you parent children BeanE, but I don't think I would handle this situation that way...personally.

I believe as you say, it is what it is. I would have no problem with a 12 year old talking to a LE representative/officer that had experience in talking with children. IMO, the non-talking about it may be more damaging. At 12 they are fully aware of what is going on---and may be getting mixed signals and more fear being embedded in them by not being allowed to talk, be with all of their friends, and their other relatives. They are off kilter already. Being able to talk may be a sort of catharsis, as in talking to a therapist. They would feel they are contributing to the situation instead of being avoided and feeling they should be avoided because they are not allowed contact, to talk, etc. with people who they could before. "Why can't I go to Linda's or Johnny's? It's not my fault moms missing? Did Aunt Diane or Uncle Kevin have something to do with it? Why won't you let me see them?"

You and your husband were on the same page in handling your child's trauma. This, unfortunately, doesn't allow for that...and as his prior actions show, he was putting himself and his relationship with TH ahead of his family and job responsiblities.....(not to mention a substance problem which undoubtedly effected his judgement) all of which the children's well being were dependent upon. I think again he is putting himself and his fears before the children's well being only because he's afraid what they will say--- and EVEN IF he did nothing in harming GP and making her disappear, he doesn't want the children to know that he had faults or was capable of making bad decisions. He's now in that "things will be better when your gone" mode with the kids--- and can try to control them now. I'm just wondering if the counseling for the kids requires his attendance at some point?

Just my opinion...only... Bean.

 

[Melodie]

LE has never stated in the media that they talked to GP on Saturday.....is that the missing piece? Has/did Diane question them about that when she was there? What did my sister convey to you? Did she tell you about being scared and followed? Did she describe the vehicle? Give you plate #'s? Where did all these "followings" take place?

I also want to know why Gail was so afraid to stay at the lake house? She would retreat there in times of trouble and then within a few hours take off again. Did she hear something? Was she getting calls from someone? This is just one of the reasons I think MP won't let the children talk to LE. Ridiculous....and he and his lawyer are spouting they are doing everything to find her!!! Who did MP hang with when he was down there? Was the lock placed on the entrance to the underside of the house just a decoy or was something really going on there?


I agree there are pieces missing ....or just a twist that's waiting to be turned over. IMO

I know she was generally afraid, at that time, pretty much wherever she was, but do we know that she was particularly afraid at the lake house? I guess Arlene did say Gail called her and begged her to come and get her when she was there. It has never surprised me that she came back to SM and I'll tell you why. My impression is that in the scheme of this mess, Gail is not the one that wanted a divorce or wanted to end the relationship. That may not be right, but just my opinion. I can't tell you how many friends and family members I have encountered during the awful time of a breakup and I will tell you that during this time, these people are almost impossible to deal with. Example: friend calls you in tears and tells you that her abusive husband is cheating on her and she's had enough and she can't take it anymore and she is leaving him forever and can she come to your house. She gets there and you sit up half the night comforting her and counseling her and making plans for the rest of her life after she leaves the jerk and you go to bed with her sleeping on the couch. When you awaken in the morning, she is gone, and you call and she's back with the guy and everything's fine. I have told so many friends, "Don't call him. Just wait until your mind is clearer. Stay away at least until you've had time to think about it. The last place you need to be is around him right now". But they just can't do it. They always go. They can't stay away when all they can think about is the situation and what they want to say and do. I could be way off, but if there is never a very specific reason for why she came back, this is plausible to me from my experience of dealing with the broken-hearted.

 

[Pearl*]

It has never surprised me that she came back to SM and I'll tell you why. My impression is that in the scheme of this mess, Gail is not the one that wanted a divorce or wanted to end the relationship. That may not be right, but just my opinion.

But for her to leave before taking the children to see AD's newborn foal as planned? I don't think so. Maybe afterward, but not before.

ETA: Mike's birthday party? Eh... That didn't impress me so much. If I was stressed out, I might want to skip a birthday party, and for a birthday party for an adult, I doubt the kids would have cared much. But they would have cared about the foal, and I think she would have too.

 

[Pearl*]

I'm not saying any of this is true of Gail, but I was thinking about several people thinking she had been acting strangely and not herself. Is it possible that under stress, the framework of her mind changed. And if you are a friend, you for awhile are just thinking, "gee my friend really has some hard things going on here". With me, I found out my friend's thoughts were not reality, they were perceived fears that had taken over into a paranoid stronghold.

Just some thoughts

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.

 

[BeanE]

But what if you were present for the questioning?

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.

Would that have been reasonable to expect him to allow questioning as long as he were with them?

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.

 

[Shelby1]

I haven't posted much here lately...you guys cover everything I'm usually thinking. :rocker:


I know the children have been instructed to keep quiet about their mother, but, the new school year is right around the corner. They are old enough to have or meet good friends in school. I have a hard time believing that they won't confide in anyone. And, I hope they are allowed to have friends. What if Matt keeps them out of school? I can see him home schooling them.....just my :twocents:

 

[Pearl*]

Originally Posted by Pearl*
Would that have been reasonable to expect him to allow questioning as long as he were with them?

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 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.

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.

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.

 

[JBean]

Arlene named them in the WGOW radio broadcast yesterday. Does audio MSM count?

No. I would prefer to wait until they are named in the msm and have their roles clarified.

 

[Melodie]

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 agree with you that LE questioning children is an awful prospect and could be very upsetting, but in this case I think it's necessary. I believe in this case, certainly early on, it could have been life or death. It's awful for children to testify in court, too, but when it's essential, it has to be done. 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. They are old enough to be aware of what's going on around them. There are answers to questions they could give that few other people could right now. Something they know could be the key to finding out what happened to Gail. To me, it is so important, that it would be necessary. Think of the younger sisters of Elizabeth Smart and Polly Klaas. Sometimes there's no way around it. I also think that LE can do this very carefully without causing too much upset. Also, I don't think the questions they would need to ask in this case are automatically upsetting like in the Klaas/Smart cases. For example, "Do you remember what your mom was wearing on that day you came back?" or "When your mom took you home, did she tell you where she was going when she left?" Most of the questions they would need to ask would be along those lines, I would think, and I believe that can be done by a seasoned LE officer with experience in dealing with children. I would also feel pretty comfortable with their ages. Too much younger and I might tend to agree with you more.


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 agree with you that LE questioning children is an awful prospect and could be upsetting, but in this case I think it's necessary. I believe in this case, certainly early on, it could have been life or death. It's awful for children to testify in court, too, but when it's essential, it has to be done.

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. They are old enough to be aware of what's going on around them. There are answers to questions they could give that few other people could right now. Something they know could be the key to finding out what happened to Gail. To me, it is so important, that it would be necessary. Think of the younger sister/friends of Elizabeth Smart and Polly Klaas. Sometimes there's no way around it. I also think that LE can do this very carefully without causing too much upset. Also, I don't think the questions they would need to ask in this case are automatically upsetting like in the Klaas/Smart cases. For example, "Do you remember what your mom was wearing on that day you came back?" or "When your mom took you home, did she tell you where she was going when she left?" Most of the questions they would need to ask would be along those lines, I would think, and I believe that can be done by a seasoned LE officer with experience in dealing with children. Maybe a female officer would be less intimidating. I would also feel pretty comfortable with their ages. Too much younger and I might tend to agree with you more. I also think it would be perfectly acceptable and actually preferable to have their father with them. That would make it less scary for them. I think children this age are aware and they worry and this could even help that. After answering questions, the officer could thank them and tell that what they have done is helpful in finding their mother and this would make them feel better and relieved.

If it is true, that MP is refusing to allow anyone to question or talk to the children about this at all, that is much more disturbing to me. Like so many things, this to me, just adds to the suspicions swirling around him. I don't think LE would put much stock in information he provided to them that came from the children. JMO.

 

[BeanE]

I believe as you say, it is what it is. I would have no problem with a 12 year old talking to a LE representative/officer that had experience in talking with children. IMO, the non-talking about it may be more damaging. At 12 they are fully aware of what is going on---and may be getting mixed signals and more fear being embedded in them by not being allowed to talk, be with all of their friends, and their other relatives. They are off kilter already. Being able to talk may be a sort of catharsis, as in talking to a therapist. They would feel they are contributing to the situation instead of being avoided and feeling they should be avoided because they are not allowed contact, to talk, etc. with people who they could before. "Why can't I go to Linda's or Johnny's? It's not my fault moms missing? Did Aunt Diane or Uncle Kevin have something to do with it? Why won't you let me see them?"

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.