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

[hollyblue]

Much of what she says unfortunately cannot be proven without Gail. I'm not saying none of it is true however most of it cannot and should not be considered "fact". For example...
AD is the only one who says that Gail wanted a divorce and was preparing for one. In my opinion she uses words that allude to the fact that Gail, too, was seeking a divorce. What if Gail had no intention of divorcing Matt? There is a PI, yes, but that could have been intended to confirm suspicions.
AD says she has this computer/tape..but nobody gets to see it. "I promised Gail I would only give it to her" and admitting that she thinks Gail is dead completely contradicting statements. She also says that LE is mucking everything up and has moved fast enough....a search warrant requires proof. I would think if AD had all this damming evidence, she would have not moved from LE office until someone paid this proof attention. She also could have supplied the family with it.
AD has frequently said she was the first to look and is the only one looking. Neither are true.
I think this is a friend of Gail's, yes, but I fail to believe she has all the answers.

Diane, Gail's sister stated they were in the middle of a legal separation. Also, the $17K GP sent to Diane.

 

[BeanE]

I think Law and Order might be correct on that.

But I'm no attorney!

Here's what gets me-
If LE cannot provide enough evidence to a judge to obtain a SW for property- then it seems there is a good chance that any possible evidence found of a crime would be subject to scrutiny in court.

If LE does not have enough evidence to obtain a SW; but then asks for permission to search property and is granted that- then evidence recovered seems like it would be much more admissable should that evidence be requested by a court.

But what up with having an attorney draft a SW??

Not blaming anyone for anything here, but imvho... well, here's a comparison (for me, anyway.) If I were to take a SAR dog to a residence to search for evidence of the location of a missing person under a SW issued by a judge- I'd feel a lot more confident should I have to testify about any evidence found in a court of law.

If I were to take a SAR dog to a residence to search for evidence of the location of a missing person without a SW or a blanket 'OK' from property owners...well, I'd be sweating the results of the search- whatever they might be. I'd be sweating the results even more if I had to work my dog under conditions dictated not by LE- but by anyone else.
Does that make any sense?

Your post made me think of two things (and if I'm lucky I'll remember both LOL!)

The car in Caylee's case. George gave permission to search it, but Yuri still got a search permission form, and made him sign it. I don't remember if anything was crossed out or any extras written in on it. But it seems to me with a voluntary search, there should be a signed agreement, which is acceptable to both parties (LE and the person who's property is being searched.)

The other thing (I DID remember! ) is that I thought the agreement was drawn up by both Matt's attorney *and* the D.A. IIRC. The DA would know what he would need in court regarding evidence if he ever had to prosecute something related, right?

 

[fran]

I believe AD talked with investigators from HCSO. She related that she ask why no searches of properties, etc and was told because no foul play had been found.

Personally, I'm little disheartened because I think it boils down to the cost of an investigation and a small LEA at the get go. I'm not a LE basher, but wondering if apparent mistakes were made very early on and the later dragging of feet may have been the reason.

hollyblue:

FWIW, I was in OC, with millions of people and good LE. There was a woman who disappeared in Anaheim, I believe, and LE said, 'no foul play suspected.' The case reeked of foul play and I wrote to the writer of the news article and he followed up with me in an email a few weeks later and just said, 'LE has had no leads and no foul play suspected.' I won't go onto the things that came out in this, but it was OBVIOUS, but LE didn't think that much because her husband said 'she's done this before, taken off.' Two years later or so they found her skeletal remains. Now they want to talk to the husband, but he disappeared shortly after his wife, and even left their 6 yo son behind.

This happens in some of the best LE agencies in the country. No evidence of foul play, IMHO because they didn't even bother to look at the BIG picture, and let it go cold......

I think that often times LE is overworked and underpaid and underfunded and just do the best they can. This local LE, no offense, but may not have been equipped to handle this type of a case and with no body, there's no crime so, voila...............The point here is that although the husband is willing to sit back and let the public forgetaboutit, GP's family isn't content with that result and wants to know 'WHERE IS GAIL?'

The only perfect crime, is where there's no crime to see. In other words, no body, no crime.

I do have to state that it is POSSIBLE GP is out there somewhere and until something truly indicates that's not NECESSARILY true, ie find her car abandoned somewhere, LE doesn't have a lot to work with. What MAY have been there, appears it's most likely removed as well. The most likely person, according to statistics, that MAY know what happened to GP, has walled himself behind the Constitution and there's not much anyone can do about it.

JMHO
fran

PS>....fwiw, I KNOW there are some who get concerned when many people first look at the spouse. Some may take issue, but that's the way these cases work. UNTIL the spouse has been RULED out, he's the #1 NON-SUSPECT OR NOT POI. That's why everything he does is scrutinized. Lawyering up and NOT talking to LE PERSONALLY, meaning not through lawyers and PI's and such, is the first thing MOST NON-SUSPECTS do in 95% of these cases.

IF someone has NOTHING to hide, they hide nothing. :twocents:

 

[CatFancier]

BBM. I've wondered about that too. Arlene says Gail had been telling Matt since November that she was leaving him. Then all the planning for divorce.

But... have you seen the video where Clive says Gail was fighting hard to *save* her marriage? Direct conflicts to what Arlene said.

Let me know if you want the link to the video if you haven't seen it.

It's been bugging the heck outta me ever since I saw it.)

BeanE, my response isn't really directed at you but at the reference to Arlene and Clive and the several responses to it.

It makes me think of my sister complaining about her husband to my mom or me...after a long time of it, it gets harder and harder to think kindly of him. I would think Arlene would have a perspective more like this.

Not because MP is hateful but because it became part of their relationship to complain to each other or just unload. I would think with a crumbling marriage, the bad comments outweighed the good.

And, as friends do, who's to really know that Gail told Arlene that she was leaving him in November? If I were complaining often to my friend, the suggestion could just as well come from her in an effort to be sympathetic or just in outrage at what she has heard from me. MOO

 

[BeanE]

I agree that was the end of that sentence and then he asked for further elaboration and she spoke again and clarified what she meant. Sorry, if I wasn't clear, that is what I meant. Let me be clearer: I think her next words after "If it's on my terms." are necessary to understand what she meant. She said "If it's on my terms." Jammer asked her to clarify and she finished the thought saying that she would turn over a copy of the DVR made by her local LEA. I think it's important to clarify that. I think it sounds bad for people to think he asked her if she would cooperate and she just said, if it's on my terms and that's it. I would never criticize Glorias' transcription. I'm sure it contains the full exchange.:twocents:

I don't need any other words, really. I expected "Yes" or "Of course". Not "If" anything. You're right - it does sound bad. It made me uncomfortable.

Let's face it. On May 2, when Arlene took the stuff to the PD, if they said they didn't want parts of it, and she felt it was important, all she had to do was put it on the desk and say "I'm leaving it with you anyway, because I think it's important."

She could have gone that day, had a copy made of the DVR, brought back the copy that day, put it on the desk, and said "I'm leaving this with you because I think it's important."

Here we are, weeks, no - months - later, and she still hasn't given LE the DVR, and for the past two weeks, has, quite publicly, been flat out refusing to.

It makes me uncomfortable.

 

[Oriah]

Your post made me think of two things (and if I'm lucky I'll remember both LOL!)

The car in Caylee's case. George gave permission to search it, but Yuri still got a search permission form, and made him sign it. I don't remember if anything was crossed out or any extras written in on it. But it seems to me with a voluntary search, there should be a signed agreement, which is acceptable to both parties (LE and the person who's property is being searched.)

The other thing (I DID remember! ) is that I thought the agreement was drawn up by both Matt's attorney *and* the D.A. IIRC. The DA would know what he would need in court regarding evidence if he ever had to prosecute something related, right?

Mmmhhh. I suppose so- especially if there was evidence of a crime that LE had already taken to the DA? :waitasec:

But how did the request for a SW of property bypass and go directly to the DA and Matt's attorney??

 

[BeanE]

My point is/was...if Gail didn't want out. I think if we are to cover all bases it should be considered.

You have given me food for thought, MacKat. I hadn't considered that angle, but now I'm going to noodle on it. Thank you.

 

[MacKat]

Diane, Gail's sister stated they were in the middle of a legal separation. Also, the $17K GP sent to Diane.

I am not attempting to be difficult but cannot find where that claim( middle of a legal separation) has come from Diane. I've seen comments on the marriage being rocky but cannot remember seeing Diane say separation or divorce.

The $17,000 could have been a lot of things. I do not believe that DN has ever made a public statement about the money. If memory serves..AD stated that it was to be a retainer for a lawyer and has also stated that it was to be six months living expenses.

 

[ThoughtFox]

“From day one, we have provided both the Signal Mountain Police and the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Department with physical evidence, investigative leads, financial information, personal information, DNA samples, access to all of Palmgren’s real property and face to face meetings with his investigator, Mike Mathis. As his attorneys, both Lee (Davis) and I have met with law enforcement and been in constant contact with them throughout this process. We will continue to assist and cooperate in the missing person investigation of Gail Palmgren.”

It really sounds to me - and I'm not gullible by a long shot regarding how defense attorneys work - that Matt is cooperating, the attorneys and PI are turning things over and talking with LE. I mean, that's quite a laundry list there of what they've provided - more than I usually see.

I'm not going down the slippery slope of trying to debate semantically who is "cooperating" or "not cooperating," or what the word "cooperate" entails, because what I learned the hard way from the Kyron Horman case is that we cannot know that for sure from the outside what is really going on. And as with that case and Terri Horman, all of the spin is coming from a defense attorney who wants to make their client look good - they are being paid to say good things.

I could pay someone to say good things about me, but I wouldn't expect everyone to buy it. :crazy:

To me, it's obvious that the PI has to talk to the police. It is not up to the Defense Att's to grant permission for that. As a citizen, either the PI talks or he doesn't, and that's on him.

I can see an attorney wanting to delay searches as long as possible to protect a client, but not at the expense of a missing woman who has committed no crime except ticking off her husband. Time is of the essence, but they stonewalled on these searches for weeks, and we still have no proof that MP or the kids have actually made statements to police. That's absurd, in my opinion.

And wiping those computers in the name of "information retrieval" is probably unethical. That is not cooperation, and might even be obstruction. :twocents:

 

[hollyblue]

It's not LE's job to stop suspicion if they didn't start it. They've said, quite clearly, this is a missing person investigation, and there’s been no evidence of foul play.

The suspicion is not coming from LE. There's nothing for them to 'fix'.

True, but you would think it would have solidified their ongoing statement it's just a missing person's investigation.

I don't think legally LE needs proof of foul play only for a search warrant, as mentioned by the law professor, Oliver in an earlier article. The reports of domestic issues and the amount of time having passed with no contact, no financial movement, etc, would have been enough, imo. But, ianal, either.

Now there is speculation in the media that the investigation is going into other directions. TBI had being asked to take a looksee. Hopefully, it's gaining some speed.

 

[BeanE]

You all have me thinking-what if Gail hired her PI to confirm suspicions. We have read that Matt hired MM three weeks after she went missing...did he have another PI prior to this?

I guess I was under the impression that they were watching each other....

Matt hired his PI on the same day he hired his attorneys, which I have reason to believe was on May 3 :angel:, but we know it by May 6, because that's the day his attorneys filed docs on his behalf. So it was the first week Gail went missing, rather than three.

I also wonder if he had a PI prior to Gail disappearing, but haven't seen any indications yet that he did. Except *maybe* if Gail actually was being followed as she reported to several people.

I have to be honest regarding Gail's PI. I am not 100% sure she had one. We only have one source on that, and that's Arlene, and I've listened carefully to Arlene's interviews specifically to hear, but haven't heard anything indicating she ever met the PI.

If you listen closely to Arlene's interviews, you'll hear her say repeatedly, regarding both Gail and LE, "I told her to do such and such.", "I told them to go do whatever."

Back to what I'd posted about possible assertions of control on Gail's part by not being where she'd agreed to be with Arlene, it could also be, if Arlene was "telling" Gail to get a PI, along with everything else she was "telling" her to do, that perhaps Gail agreed, told Arlene she had, but never actually did.

Does anyone know if anyone has any of the reports Arlene said the PI turned over to Gail on the 28th? Any letters or documents with letterhead maybe that would confirm Gail indeed had a PI?

While on this subject, the same applies to the tracker on Matt's car. Is there anything or anyone that could substantiate that Gail actually did put the tracker on Matt's car like Arlene "told" her to?

 

[BeanE]

Diane, Gail's sister stated they were in the middle of a legal separation. Also, the $17K GP sent to Diane.

Who filed for the separation and when?

We've only seen Matt filing for separation on May 6. If Gail had already filed, then he would not have needed to, would he?

I wish we knew why Diane made that statement. If Gail had already filed, prior to disappearing, that's important to know.

Would Matt's documents filed on May 6 show they were a response to a separation filing by Gail?

 

[ThoughtFox]

PS>....fwiw, I KNOW there are some who get concerned when many people first look at the spouse. Some may take issue, but that's the way these cases work. UNTIL the spouse has been RULED out, he's the #1 NON-SUSPECT OR NOT POI. That's why everything he does is scrutinized. Lawyering up and NOT talking to LE PERSONALLY, meaning not through lawyers and PI's and such, is the first thing MOST NON-SUSPECTS do in 95% of these cases.

IF someone has NOTHING to hide, they hide nothing. :twocents:

Well said. LE almost always tries to "rule out" the husband, not rule him in. The last thing they want to do is traumatize Gail's children further by arresting the husband on scant evidence, and so the searches and investigation continues.

I think right now the heat is on, literally and figuratively. Since the TBI got involved, I'm sure there is more pressure on MP to talk and to give them more information. And it's 100 degrees (or more) today in Chattanooga, and the police would love to find Gail's body, if there is a body to be found, before all evidence is lost.

 

[BeanE]

[/B]

Mmmhhh. I suppose so- especially if there was evidence of a crime that LE had already taken to the DA? :waitasec:

But how did the request for a SW of property bypass and go directly to the DA and Matt's attorney??

Well, LE said just the other day there's no evidence of foul play. And not just no *physical* evidence - they flat out said no evidence. Along with that, they've said consistently that this is a missing person case, it's not a recovery effort, it's not a criminal investigation. All that takes evidence of a crime taken to the DA off the plate for me. Along with the fact that if they did have evidence of a crime, they would have gotten a search warrant, instead of doing the consensual search.

Good question about the DA. Maybe the DA and the attorney have worked together well before and the attorney approached him? I dunno.

 

[BeanE]

we still have no proof that MP or the kids have actually made statements to police. That's absurd, in my opinion.

And wiping those computers in the name of "information retrieval" is probably unethical. That is not cooperation, and might even be obstruction. :twocents:

We do have proof that Matt has made statements to the police. (We'll each have to decide, of course, whether or not we accept them.)

- On the HCSO website, it states that Matt filed the missing person report. You can't file a missing person report without making statements to LE about the circumstances of that person's disappearance.

- Yesterday in Arlene's radio interview, she was reading off what she claimed were, from an official LE document, statements made by Matt Palmgren to LE regarding Gail's disappearance.


Regarding wiping the disks - I haven't seen it said anywhere that anyone wiped any disks - except from you on this forum.

 

[Oriah]

Well, LE said just the other day there's no evidence of foul play. And not just no *physical* evidence - they flat out said no evidence. Along with that, they've said consistently that this is a missing person case, it's not a recovery effort, it's not a criminal investigation. All that takes evidence of a crime taken to the DA off the plate for me. Along with the fact that if they did have evidence of a crime, they would have gotten a search warrant, instead of doing the consensual search.

Good question about the DA. Maybe the DA and the attorney have worked together well before and the attorney approached him? I dunno.

This is something I've been pondering.

PI's. Attorneys. LE. DA involvement. No evidence of a crime. Searches conducted under 'agreements' to search.

Why is the DA involved at all, if there is no evidence of a crime?

 

[hollyblue]

I am not attempting to be difficult but cannot find where that claim( middle of a legal separation) has come from Diane. I've seen comments on the marriage being rocky but cannot remember seeing Diane say separation or divorce.

The $17,000 could have been a lot of things. I do not believe that DN has ever made a public statement about the money. If memory serves..AD stated that it was to be a retainer for a lawyer and has also stated that it was to be six months living expenses.

"She was nervous. She was anxious. She sounded scared," says Diane Nichols. Palmgren wouldn't say why she was scared but the Nichols made out this much, "She just thought she was being followed."

It was a bizzare conversation and Diane wonders if it's in any way connected to Gail's husband, Matthew Palmgren. "I know they had some marriage problems."

Nichols says Gail and Matthew recently filed for a legal separation. Police came to the Palmgren residence the day before she was last seen, responding to a domestic dispute call.


http://m.newschannel9.com/news/palmgren-1001216-nichols-last.html

 

[BeanE]

This is something I've been pondering.

PI's. Attorneys. LE. DA involvement. No evidence of a crime. Searches conducted under 'agreements' to search.

Why is the DA involved at all, if there is no evidence of a crime?

I'll see if I can find a past relationship between the attorneys and the DA.

 

[hollyblue]

I'm not going down the slippery slope of trying to debate semantically who is "cooperating" or "not cooperating," or what the word "cooperate" entails, because what I learned the hard way from the Kyron Horman case is that we cannot know that for sure from the outside what is really going on. And as with that case and Terri Horman, all of the spin is coming from a defense attorney who wants to make their client look good - they are being paid to say good things.

I could pay someone to say good things about me, but I wouldn't expect everyone to buy it. :crazy:

To me, it's obvious that the PI has to talk to the police. It is not up to the Defense Att's to grant permission for that. As a citizen, either the PI talks or he doesn't, and that's on him.

I can see an attorney wanting to delay searches as long as possible to protect a client, but not at the expense of a missing woman who has committed no crime except ticking off her husband. Time is of the essence, but they stonewalled on these searches for weeks, and we still have no proof that MP or the kids have actually made statements to police. That's absurd, in my opinion.

And wiping those computers in the name of "information retrieval" is probably unethical. That is not cooperation, and might even be obstruction. :twocents:

I agree with everythig you have said except this last part TF. It hasn't been clarified that a wipe of the hard drive has been done by MP, the attorneys or their forensics. But, AZ put her :twocents: on the legal thread and says LE should be asking for the puters and just what actions were requested by D & H's firm of the technicians in the forensic search.

If the FBI ever gets involved, I'd bet they have ways of finding all what's been done with those hard drives. IMO.

 

[MacKat]

"She was nervous. She was anxious. She sounded scared," says Diane Nichols. Palmgren wouldn't say why she was scared but the Nichols made out this much, "She just thought she was being followed."

It was a bizzare conversation and Diane wonders if it's in any way connected to Gail's husband, Matthew Palmgren. "I know they had some marriage problems."

Nichols says Gail and Matthew recently filed for a legal separation. Police came to the Palmgren residence the day before she was last seen, responding to a domestic dispute call.


http://m.newschannel9.com/news/palmgren-1001216-nichols-last.html

Thanks for the reply. I'm going to go out on a limb here. It doesn't make sense.
First, Diane says "I know they had some marriage problems"
Then, she says "Gail and Matt recently filed for a legal separation", the article continues...Police came to the Palmgren residence the day before she was last seen, responding to a domestic dispute call.
The whole line, to me, seems out of place. Just wondering if this is in print in multiple papers. I wonder if someone heard or overheard something. I would think a copy would be out there if it was legit. Just doesn't add up to me.

Bare with me, but if "they" had filed, Matt and Gail, together, for a separation why would Matt then file again

Husband Of Missing Signal Mountain Woman Files For Legal Separation
posted May 10, 2011

The husband of a missing Signal Mountain woman has filed for a legal separation and obtained a court order giving him custody of their two children.
http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_200931.asp

If there was a standing order of separation or if the order was dissolved surely that would have made headlines.