TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #7

[Emeralgem]

Oh believe me I agree. But that isnt the yardstick AD should use, I would think. I am not saying I even slightly agree that she is a POI or a prospective POI. She has a lot of inside knowledge that she is alleging-hopefully she has ruled herself out so no one will spend any time wondering.

My understanding from what Sleuty has stated is...

AD is having a copy of the DVR's hard drive made by Elmore County Sheriff's office to give to Hamilton County's Sheriff's office because she has faith and trust in her local officials and has very little, if any at all in the Hamilton County Sheriff's Official(we won't even mention Signal Mountain guys and Tizzio).

 

[fran]

In all fairness to Jammer, I listened yesterday after AD's interview and he had callers calling in and talking about the Palmgren case. Sorry, now I can't recall all that was said, I was in the middle of getting ready to go out,................but...................at the end of the day, Jammer and his side-kick both said they couldn't see this case ending well.

fwiw,
fran

PS...oh, and they also talked about the last two callers on when AD was still on the phone. They did NOT like that one guy at all! He was just plain rude, imho. fran

 

[Oriah]

Many of these large companies have policies in place regarding dating in the workplace. It seems that is the a general rule that you can date within the company outside your area, but not a direct report. From what I hear, TH was a direct report to MP. I think that may be where the line was crossed and BCBS started investigating.

This makes sense. But leads me to wonder... How does one 'date' while still married??! :waitasec:

In all seriousness, however- it asks the question of when exactly did BCBS begin each investigation? While TN is an at-will state, BCBS is essentially not, if I understand correctly. I'm thinking of it as a franchise. Parent guidelines need to be followed by individual owners, kwim?

And that leads me to think BCBS was protecting itself from something that might cause either financial or reputational harm.

AND then brings me back to wondering about the exact time frame of BCBS's investigation- what spurred it- and when. :waitasec:

(Sorry for my ramblings, mods!)

 

[hollyblue]

Not trying to speak for AZ, but she'd just come to this case, and I think she was saying that was the only article she could find at that time.

There are other articles that list the reasons for the termination. My impression from the articles has never been that Matt was fired unfairly because his wife went missing. My impression has been that Matt was fired because he misused company time, money, emails, equipment, travel funds, was not working at times when he was being paid to work, etc.

Now I'm wondering how much control D & H have over the media? Seriously, since D & H are representing MP against BCBS for wrongful dismissal. Hence, tone down what is being reported.

It's clear BCBS did a thorough investigation into both of their activities before letting them go a month after being on paid leave. Besides what you mentioned above (which was enough) if they were as blatant with their affair as mentioned PLUS the fact if she worked directly under him......ummmmm no pun intended--- then the environment was not productive either. She would have been seen as having privileges.

 

[Oriah]

We are quite an inquisitive bunch, aren't we.

Now I am wandering in thought back to the PI's involved- and the time frame (again!)

And I am also wondering if BCBS will be subject to a subpeona at some point re: the information gathered during their investigations.

 

[hollyblue]

Has MP taken a LDT with LE? IMO..All MP has done is hide behind his attorneys..And their actions from what has been revealed and their refusal to answer any questions presented to them is suspect to say the least...JMHO

I agree. The whole LE situation with Arlene began when she was torked about them waving her off. Not interested in the DVR plus not interested in what she had to say. She told them ask me anything....I know, so I don't think a LDT would be a problem with her...just who administers it. Can't say I blame her. MP and his family have nothing to add or aid in finding GP...just hiring defense attorneys. AD hasn't felt the need, apparently. IMO

 

[hollyblue]

We are quite an inquisitive bunch, aren't we.

Now I am wandering in thought back to the PI's involved- and the time frame (again!)

And I am also wondering if BCBS will be subject to a subpeona at some point re: the information gathered during their investigations.

We are. Could you expand on thoughts bolded?

MOO, but BCBS would have been open with LE in sharing what info they gleaned in GP's disappearance. Now, when it comes time for BCBS and MP to face off in court about his being fired....the subpeonas will fly.

 

[believe09]

We have given a lot of latitude on the threads here regarding discussing MP and his actions, and what we think they mean. LE has not named a POI. It is only fair to explore the actions of others, including AD, and what those actions might mean. In the interest of balance.

So is AD stating, via Sleuthy, that HCSO is not to be trusted and that SMPD is also not to be trusted? Where is the evidence that they are not to be trusted? We dont bash LE here, but if there is verifiable evidence that HCSO and SMPD are incapable of performing an impartial investigation, I would be interested to read about it.

Does anyone know if AD has been offered and has taken a LDT? Can anyone point to anything that shows AD has fully cooperated with LE? I am also curious simply because on the other side of the coin, we have picked MP apart for cooperating so late into the investigation...assuming that he didnt cooperate while the case was initially unfolding.

 

[almino]

Sleuthy1 - do you mean bright and early today?! Or they were on the BGHN webpage early on when it started:

"MP's brother KP and his wife SP have been on the BGHN page bright and early claiming that it is AD that should be considered a suspect/person of interest and not their brother MP."

Thanks!

 

[confused]

I've been pondering a few things:

4) How can MP not be considered a suspect when he hasn't even been officially interviewed by LE, yet, let alone his children, and other family members and friends not being interviewed, as yet, either?

ALL IMOO

So the way you are thinking, Matt hasn't officially been interviewed, so he is a suspect And the children haven't been interviewed either, so they are suspects too. How far would you extend this? His mom, brother, people he went to school with. Maybe all of us need to go to the SMPD and be interviewed-we are discussing it and I certainly don't want to be a suspect

 

[confused]

I agree with them! I have thought from the beginning that she hath "protest to much". I'm glad they had the nerve to say it.

:twocents:MP's brother KP and his wife SP have been on the BGHN page bright and early claiming that it is AD that should be considered a suspect/person of interest and not their brother MP. They stated that AD has not been cooperating at all with the police and is in possession of evidence that their brother requested be returned over 1 month ago. So in their eyes, AD is exhibiting suspicious behavior and is not been cooperating at all with law enforcement.:waitasec: I had to laugh (although it really is not at all funny) but AD is having a copy of the DVR's hard drive made by Elmore County Sheriff's office to give to Hamilton County's Sheriff's office because she has faith and trust in her local officials and has very little, if any at all in the Hamilton County Sheriff's Official(we won't even mention Signal Mountain guys and Tizzio). Anyway, my point being is...they consider AD a person of interest and say she has not cooperated with LE at all. Are they in their right minds? I mean really ....did they actually throw that out there?:twocents::banghead:

 

[confused]

I don't think your response answered the question that believe asked. So I will answer it. No, AD has not given the dvr to the LE to speed the investigation along. She has stated that she doesn't trust anyone with it except her, and agreed to get a copy made for them. I don't know if that has been done yet. She did state on Jammers show that she allowed her son AND Matt and Gail's son to watch the DVR which is supposed to contain footage of Matt and Gail having a disagreement!

Has MP taken a LDT with LE? IMO..All MP has done is hide behind his attorneys..And their actions from what has been revealed and their refusal to answer any questions presented to them is suspect to say the least...JMHO

 

[Melodie]

This makes sense. But leads me to wonder... How does one 'date' while still married??! :waitasec:

In all seriousness, however- it asks the question of when exactly did BCBS begin each investigation? While TN is an at-will state, BCBS is essentially not, if I understand correctly. I'm thinking of it as a franchise. Parent guidelines need to be followed by individual owners, kwim?

And that leads me to think BCBS was protecting itself from something that might cause either financial or reputational harm.

AND then brings me back to wondering about the exact time frame of BCBS's investigation- what spurred it- and when. :waitasec:

(Sorry for my ramblings, mods!)

I don't think BCBS of TN is a franchise. It is an independent not for profit company using the Blue Cross-Blue Shield name. It is not related to the other Blue Cross Blue Shield companies across the US. I don't understand what you mean about the company not being "at will". The at will law in TN, as I understand, applies to all employees in TN. It is set up in this state to protect the employer above the employee regarding termination of employment. My prediction is we will hear little more about a wrongful termination lawsuit in this case. May be a red herring. In this case, in this state, useless waste of time to try. If his attorney is as good as some say, he knows this. :twocents:

 

[believe09]

believe09, would it be possible to have a separate thread in the PL for the FB stuff as we've done on other cases?

Gail Facebook Thread

 

[confused]

I agree. The whole LE situation with Arlene began when she was torked about them waving her off. Not interested in the DVR plus not interested in what she had to say. She told them ask me anything....I know, so I don't think a LDT would be a problem with her...just who administers it. Can't say I blame her. MP and his family have nothing to add or aid in finding GP...just hiring defense attorneys. AD hasn't felt the need, apparently. IMO

Something popped out at me when I read this statement... AD says that she was willing to give this information over and the LE didn't seem interested and didn't want it, so AD is considered a hero by many. Matt and his attorneys say that they were open to searches and interviews from the start, but the LE wasn't interested. They are called liars, manipulators, etc. Seems the LE responded the same to both groups

 

[BeanE]

Gail Facebook Thread

Thank you so very much, believe. I really appreciate it.

 

[Oriah]

We have given a lot of latitude on the threads here regarding discussing MP and his actions, and what we think they mean. LE has not named a POI. It is only fair to explore the actions of others, including AD, and what those actions might mean. In the interest of balance.

So is AD stating, via Sleuthy, that HCSO is not to be trusted and that SMPD is also not to be trusted? Where is the evidence that they are not to be trusted? We dont bash LE here, but if there is verifiable evidence that HCSO and SMPD are incapable of performing an impartial investigation, I would be interested to read about it.

Does anyone know if AD has been offered and has taken a LDT? Can anyone point to anything that shows AD has fully cooperated with LE? I am also curious simply because on the other side of the coin, we have picked MP apart for cooperating so late into the investigation...assuming that he didnt cooperate while the case was initially unfolding.

Questions, questions, questions. Ugh.

BBM: I agree, believe09. I'd be interested to find verifiable evidence of this as well. But I wouldn't think that would be possible, given the nature of LE- based investigations? How could verification of this be had during an open investigation?

I guess that's why I am wondering so much about the specific PI's involved- because they are not bound to the same code that LE is.

Why so much investigation into legal/financial issues, and not into locating Gail, at this point? Gail would be the person who could best answer these questions.

I have no idea as to who cooperated with whom, or at what point in this investigation. But the time frame of Gail hiring her PI (for a singular purpose) and Matt hiring his PI (for a singular purpose) does not mesh up for me. Does that make any sense?

Of course, we have no idea what LEA's are involved here- but I would think both PI's would have already cooperated with whatever LEA they were asked to cooperate with- as would all other parties involved, such as friends and family. Right?

If anyone did not comply, it does give pause for thought. :waitasec:

 

[believe09]

I have a friend who is a PI, Oriah. I asked him about this very case. He tells me that in the state he lives in, if LE wants info from you most PI's will copy it and turn over the copies. Attorney/client privilege extends to the PI if they are hired by an attorney, not if they are hired by a civilian. A judge's order trumps everything, but most PI's will cooperate because the truth is the truth is the truth. Which means even if the PI finds damning evidence regarding his client, it is fair game.

But that is just him. And he is former LE as well.

 

[fran]

Something popped out at me when I read this statement... AD says that she was willing to give this information over and the LE didn't seem interested and didn't want it, so AD is considered a hero by many. Matt and his attorneys say that they were open to searches and interviews from the start, but the LE wasn't interested. They are called liars, manipulators, etc. Seems the LE responded the same to both groups

No, not the same at all.

You see, at first Matt let LE do a walk through the house. In an initial walk through, LE is not allowed to even open a drawer or move a chair. Everything they cannot see, like in a drawer or under a bed, is not subject for their search. ONLY what is in PLAIN SITE as they pass through a room.

IMHO, and I know others here disagree with me, there was enough probable cause in the VERY BEGINNING to warrant a SW. But this LE didn't do that, they waited almost two months.

Then, when LE did say they wanted a search, the spouse had his CRIMINAL defense attorney draw up the SPOUSE'S TERMS, before LE could do the search. And then, the spouse had his OWN PI accompany LE.

Sorry, suspect. IMHO. NOT to mention the fact that there's witnesses who are willing to testify under oath the the PI took out BOXES AND BOXES of miscellaneous stuff. Which was kinda' verified when it was revealed LE didn't find any computers and the spouse's CRIMINAL def attorney told the MEDIA that he had the computer and had pulled the harddrive.

From what I understand, LE has AD's phone #. They might try calling her. That might work wonders. :slap:

JMHO
fran

 

[believe09]

HCSO and SMPD are respected jurisdictions. If there is malfeasance on their part, or influence peddling, I would think that this would be excellent food for discussion with the amount of local media involved in this case.

There is no question in my mind that MP is not interested in finding Gail because he loves her-JMO. There appears to be enough that has been reported regarding his actions that indicates he has something he is hiding...although it may not be Gail.

As for AD-I hear a lot from her regarding her statements of affection for her friend. But I still see a disconnect between her statements and her behavior. So the question is why?

If she feels that the LE handling the case is working in cahoots with MP, I would like to get some evidence of that, that's all.