TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #7
- Thread starter JBean
- Start date
- Status
BeanE
Inactive
Diane Nichols of New York, contacted the district attorneys office, asking for a review.
http://timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jul/06/tbi-reviewing-case-missing-woman-Palmgren
Times Free Press published Wednesday, July 6th, 2011
hollyblue
It may be the *advertiser censored* that crows, but it is the hen t
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2010
- Messages
- 9,113
- Reaction score
- 38
BeanE
Inactive
My understanding, just from following cases, and which of course could be dead wrong, is that with adults, it works the opposite way - they have to assume it's of the person's own accord, and that the person is fine, unless/until they have indications it may be otherwise, that is, that it wasn't of the person's free will, or that the person is not okay (good physical and mental health).
If they do get any of those 'otherwise' indications, they can do certain things they couldn't previously, but there are limitations unless/until they come across indications that a crime has been committed.
They have no evidence of foul play per Atkinson, HCSO, the other day. They seem to have classified Gail as endangered per the HCSO and CPD BOLOs and ADPS alert on or about May 17. The Endangered status opened a few doors for them, but the lack of any evidence of foul play leaves other closed.
My opinion based on the info available to date.
happy409
New Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2011
- Messages
- 266
- Reaction score
- 0
BBM - Interesting. So through Matt, his attorney's, and AL friend's statements of a mental illness regarding GP, could they have possibly been trying to open up for more help in investigating GP based on your statement? Or not?
Everyone is defending GP, although there were some issues there, but is it possible their agenda was to actually help? JMHO
glorias
Active Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 738
- Reaction score
- 100
Clive also mentioned it on Facebook. I quoted it around here somewhere a couple of days ago, but since I'm not sure we're supposed to talk about Facebook on this thread anymore, I won't re-quote it.
glorias
Active Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 738
- Reaction score
- 100
What does that mean? "Defending GP although there were some issues." If you mean it's odd people are defending GP despite some issues, then I would be curious to know what issues you mean. And of course if that's not what you meant, let me know. If you were speaking about the mental issues, I guess my question is: Do we have proof she had mental issues or are we still relying entirely on Matt and his lawyers on that?
glorias
Active Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 738
- Reaction score
- 100
There is an article out there that states her children were the last to see her on the 30th, completely missing Susie seeing her just after she dropped off the children. I remember we discussed this and wondered if that meant LE hadn't even talked to Susie to confirm the sighting. It would not surprise me to know they haven't confirmed anything with Susie about the 30th or Arlene about later the 29th.
The information stating she spoke with Matt on the 30th would seem to corroborate the rumor that she called Matt right after dropping the kids off.
Melodie
R.N.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2011
- Messages
- 251
- Reaction score
- 0
No way on her going there. BCBS has veeeerrrrry tight security. If you don't work there, you can't go there. Even to the parking lots/garages. For a non-employee (guest) to get anywhere on the property, you have to go through a major ordeal. You have to go through security and a manager or supervisor has to personally come to the security checkpoint and sign you in. A regular employee can't even check in their own guest. If you wanted your spouse or child to visit, your boss would have to go sign them in. It would be impossible to go there and just drive up and fool with someone's car.
happy409
New Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2011
- Messages
- 266
- Reaction score
- 0
I was actually asking Bean, based on her statement she had made. But I do want to clarify, many are defending GP that she had no mental issues (no one clinically has stated or confirmed anything), and I wasn't saying it was odd at all for people to defend her state of mind, actually expected.
Nonetheless, it has been discussed that she did have fear, depression, upset over impending divorce, dealing with husband's affair, hiring PI's, possible stress, etc., and based on that, could the attorney statements, possibly making them appear worse, be an attempt to help, if in fact, LE does more if it is a dire situation (e.g., endangered status), than not. Does that help? :twocents:
ThoughtFox
Expecting the Unexpected
I agree she had "issues." If my husband was cheating and lying to me and threatening a separation, I would have issues, too.
But I have still seen no proof of mental illness, and the police haven't made any other statement about it since the SMPD said they found no evidence of any.
The only person accusing Gail of these mental issues is her (ex-wannabe) husband.
In literary circles, we would call him an "unreliable narrator."
But I have still seen no proof of mental illness, and the police haven't made any other statement about it since the SMPD said they found no evidence of any.
The only person accusing Gail of these mental issues is her (ex-wannabe) husband.
In literary circles, we would call him an "unreliable narrator."
BeanE
Inactive
It depends.
If you're referring to the statements made in the separation filings, e.g., then no - the purpose of those statements was to get a legal separation. Client tells attorney what's been going on in the marriage that has led them to seek a separation. Attorney takes all that and cooks it up into attorney-speak/legal-speak/court-speak and spits it out into documents to file with the courts so the client can seek a separation. Has nothing to do with Gail's disappearance.If you're referring to the statements made by the attorneys in the media, e.g., then no - the purpose of those statements was for the attorneys to do their job and defend their client from the vilification and accusations they are receiving at the hands of the media and the public. Has nothing to do with Gail's disappearance.
If you're referring to the statements made by Gail & Matt's Birmingham friends to the attorneys (not those in the press) e.g., then yes and no - the purpose of those statements were to help both Gail who had disappeared by providing info on her state of mind from their perspective, and to help Matt who's being vilified and accused in the media and public eye.
If you're referring to the statements most likely made by Matt and his attorneys to LE regarding Gail's state of mind, e.g., then yes and no - I'm sure Matt retains some feeling for Gail despite the state of their marriage and was trying to help her, and I'm sure Matt also was trying to convey to LE that he had no involvement in Gail's disappearance. The attorneys would have been doing their job to act in their client's best interest by cooperating with LE, and conveying to LE that their client had no involvement in Gail's disappearance.
In all of that, I don't mean to portray the attorneys as sociopaths with no feeling for Gail. I was just talking about what they were mostly doing. I'm sure they're fine, compassionate, kind human beings who feel for Gail, as would any of us, and would like to help her. All I was trying to convey above is that they are being paid to do a job, and that is likely their priority in their actions.
That would be my short answer lol.
My shortest answer to whether all those people were trying to help would be - yes and no. lol.
What I think might be more helpful though is to sort of look at it in reverse. That is, what was LE doing (rather than what were these people doing.)
LE was talking to people and collecting information, hearing *both* that Gail was absolutely fine *and* that Gail had mental or emotional issues. Their job was to determine whether she did or did not. It appears to me that, based on the Endangered status, as well as just the info available, that they determined at a certain point that she did.
All of the above is my personal opinion.
glorias
Active Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 738
- Reaction score
- 100
Thanks for clarifying. I think -- and this is my own opinion of course -- that people are reluctant to buy the idea that Gail had mental issues because of the info we've been given, and that reluctance may come across as defending her from accusations.
Since the lawyers have used the phrase "flat f-- up" when describing Gail's alleged mental illness, that tells me personally that they are NOT trying to help anyone. No one here has been that callous in describing potential mental concerns, so why would they? How can calling Gail "flat f-- up" HELP anyone? Just my personal questions here.
As for her having mental issues, for me, it boils down to these things:
1. Matt is the one telling people she was paranoid, etc. He has lied in one case and exaggerated things in many other instances, and he has a motive for lying about this.
2. The only other people who MIGHT have said Gail had mental problems were the G's, and they were not spoken to directly. Matt's lawyer relayed what he claims they said, which is the "flat f-- up" quote. That's not particularly convincing.
3. JBean confirmed a list of meds Gail was on, and while we can't go too much into it because of confidentiality reasons, she confirmed there was nothing on there for psychoses, merely meds for depression.
I'm not saying Gail didn't have a break and possibly harm herself. It's definitely a possibility, but like so many things in this case, I don't feel personally that we have enough evidence to make a solid case for that scenario.
BeanE
Inactive
Do you mean that Matt lied and exaggerated about Gail experiencing paranoia? If so, could you share what it is he lied and exaggerated about?
TIA
BeanE
Inactive
J: Well, okay, the weekend after. Sorry. Alright. Yeah, that's right. Okay. To this day, as we sit here on the last day of June of 2011, you have not spoken to her since when?
A: The 29th.
J: Which was the Friday night that she was at your house?
A: At my ex-husband's house.
J: At your ex-husband's house in Alabama.
A: Yes.
J: No phone calls? No missed calls? No attempt by her under any other phone number anywhere?
A: If she tried to call me that Saturday, I didn't know it because where I was, my signal would be sketchy.
J: Okay.
A: But yes, as far as my knowledge, it was on that Friday night when she left the driveway [or "to drive away"?]
Question - If your cell phone goes out like that (BBM above), and somebody tries to call you, will it show in your phone records? Can Arlene get her phone records and check for calls like that? Anybody know?
(I am really bad on cell phone knowledge. I hate them lol. I like rotary phones.)
A: The 29th.
J: Which was the Friday night that she was at your house?
A: At my ex-husband's house.
J: At your ex-husband's house in Alabama.
A: Yes.
J: No phone calls? No missed calls? No attempt by her under any other phone number anywhere?
A: If she tried to call me that Saturday, I didn't know it because where I was, my signal would be sketchy.
J: Okay.
A: But yes, as far as my knowledge, it was on that Friday night when she left the driveway [or "to drive away"?]
Question - If your cell phone goes out like that (BBM above), and somebody tries to call you, will it show in your phone records? Can Arlene get her phone records and check for calls like that? Anybody know?
(I am really bad on cell phone knowledge. I hate them lol. I like rotary phones.
)
happy409
New Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2011
- Messages
- 266
- Reaction score
- 0
It depends.
If you're referring to the statements made by the attorneys in the media, e.g., then no - the purpose of those statements was for the attorneys to do their job and defend their client from the vilification and accusations they are receiving at the hands of the media and the public. Has nothing to do with Gail's disappearance.
If you're referring to the statements made by Gail & Matt's Birmingham friends to the attorneys (not those in the press) e.g., then yes and no - the purpose of those statements were to help both Gail who had disappeared by providing info on her state of mind from their perspective, and to help Matt who's being vilified and accused in the media and public eye.
If you're referring to the statements most likely made by Matt and his attorneys to LE regarding Gail's state of mind, e.g., then yes and no - I'm sure Matt retains some feeling for Gail despite the state of their marriage and was trying to help her, and I'm sure Matt also was trying to convey to LE that he had no involvement in Gail's disappearance. The attorneys would have been doing their job to act in their client's best interest by cooperating with LE, and conveying to LE that their client had no involvement in Gail's disappearance.
In all of that, I don't mean to portray the attorneys as sociopaths with no feeling for Gail. I was just talking about what they were mostly doing. I'm sure they're fine, compassionate, kind human beings who feel for Gail, as would any of us, and would like to help her. All I was trying to convey above is that they are being paid to do a job, and that is likely their priority in their actions.
That would be my short answer lol.
My shortest answer to whether all those people were trying to help would be - yes and no. lol.
What I think might be more helpful though is to sort of look at it in reverse. That is, what was LE doing (rather than what were these people doing.)
LE was talking to people and collecting information, hearing *both* that Gail was absolutely fine *and* that Gail had mental or emotional issues. Their job was to determine whether she did or did not. It appears to me that, based on the Endangered status, as well as just the info available, that they determined at a certain point that she did.
All of the above is my personal opinion.
Thank you so much for explaining that. I was just hoping that LE would have the opportunity to do MORE without evidence of foul play if in fact GP (even based on MP's statements) was considered to have mental issues, could be a harm to herself (or other's) and they could get the computer's, look through cell phone records, for her own safety, despite of her disappearance. But with SO many others (and I get why) defending she was perfectly normal under these circumstances they would tend to back off and not pursue these particular avenues. :twocents:
glorias
Active Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 738
- Reaction score
- 100
No. I mean Matt lies and exaggerates, and that makes me question if what he claims about Gail being paranoid is true or not. There's no confirmation. In fact, we have direct contradictions from Diane, Arlene, and LE, plus JBean's confirmation she was prescribed only antidepressants.
I mentioned Matt's exaggerations quite some time ago, in early May I think, right around the time of the press conference. See, Matt had said in the press conference that the Jeep had been spotted a few times. Callie Starnes asked the spokeswoman for clarification but got no answer, and only 1-2 days later did we find out that the Jeep had NOT been spotted, but there had been sightings of other Jeeps that were not Gail's.
Prior to that, Matt would say things like the kids were left alone without supervision by Gail, which of course implies a problem -- that's why he included it in the paperwork he initially filed with the court. However, what we have been told is that he had already proposed to meet Gail (presumably with the kids) at the house anyway, and it's likely he was called by Gail when she dropped them off. The recent letter about the reward adds credence to that particular theory, as it says Gail spoke to Matt on the 30th. Besides, the kids apparently were only alone for a few minutes.
Another example is that he said Gail changed PINs on marital assets when it was confirmed by JBean that it was PINs on her own personal retirement accounts. Arlene also mentioned it in a Jammer interview, IIRC.
The lie was that he claimed he didn't know how long Gail was at the lake house when he clearly did. I won't repeat myself on that, it's been said enough.
I have NEVER discounted the fact that Gail may have harmed herself. I just don't feel Matt's and his lawyer's word that she was mentally ill is enough to prove anything, for me personally.
glorias
Active Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 738
- Reaction score
- 100
snipped
I can't speak for getting phone records, but I can tell you my experience: If I try to call my husband or he tries to call me when he's at work in the back room (which is heavily lined and gets almost no reception), the person receiving the call gets no notification at all. Even if a voice mail is left, it usually doesn't arrive. However, on the phone that was making the call, the attempt is listed in the "recent calls" screen.
We have older cells from 2-3 years ago, not iPhones or anything newer which probably work differently.
I can't speak for getting phone records, but I can tell you my experience: If I try to call my husband or he tries to call me when he's at work in the back room (which is heavily lined and gets almost no reception), the person receiving the call gets no notification at all. Even if a voice mail is left, it usually doesn't arrive. However, on the phone that was making the call, the attempt is listed in the "recent calls" screen.
We have older cells from 2-3 years ago, not iPhones or anything newer which probably work differently.
happy409
New Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2011
- Messages
- 266
- Reaction score
- 0
<snipped for space>
A: If she tried to call me that Saturday, I didn't know it because where I was, my signal would be sketchy.
J: Okay.
A: But yes, as far as my knowledge, it was on that Friday night when she left the driveway [or "to drive away"?]
Question - If your cell phone goes out like that (BBM above), and somebody tries to call you, will it show in your phone records? Can Arlene get her phone records and check for calls like that? Anybody know?(I am really bad on cell phone knowledge. I hate them lol. I like rotary phones.
I am under the impression GP had Sprint, but I do not know what AD has. I have Sprint and my children tell me they tried to call me and I hit a bad service area and never knew it. They showed me on their phones (with times) they were calling, but it did not register on my phone as receiving the call (or even cell records). ONE point though, if they texted me or left a message, as soon as I get back into service, they catch up. So not sure if GP called AD, I would assume it would show on GP's dialed, but not on AD's incoming, unless GP left a message, then AD would have known for sure. But at that time, I would assume she needed to talk to someone and leaving messages wasn't on the agenda. JMHO
O/T Found this and it seems we all should have it. (from a police officer)
Cool free utility to recover stolen laptops (and Iphones, Wii's, most with an Internet connection, too)
There is a free open source program that you can use to track your laptop, should it become stolen. It is similar to Gadgetrak and LoJack for Laptops, with the exception that the information is reported directly to you via a web based "control panel".
It is very useful, it even will plot the stolen computer's location on a map, as well as take screenshots and pictures if the computer has a web camera embedded or attached. Just trying to get the word out, I am tired of working cases in which people leave their valuable laptops with valuable data in easily pilferable locations with no security or recovery software.
http://www.preyproject.com
happy409
New Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2011
- Messages
- 266
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't believe that AD realized Tennessee is an equitable distribution state, so marital assets do include: "the value of vested pension, retirement, or other fringe benefit rights accrued during the period of the marriage."
I recall 10 years of marriage and it starts at 50/50, then argued from there, if there is not a settlement between parties. I am sure GP was annoyed (and I do recall afterwards AD stating the PINS MP gave GP were in fact correct, then said he probably switched them back or something), but I imagine GP got to her funds when she handed MP over $40K weeks prior to 4/30, as well as send $17K to Diane.
I can also imagine at one time that all the money was 'their' money, as in most cases, until the talk of divorce arises, regardless of who's name was on an account. JMHO
http://www.divorcenet.com/states/tennessee/tn_faq02
- Status