TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #8

[Snowbunny]

Do we know if LE or the FBI have ever been granted access to view Gail's phone records? Who's to say that MP didn't have a throw away phone and was calling Gail on her trip home? He could have easily called her moments after she got home and told her to meet him somewhere out of ear shot of the children so they could talk after all he says he was running errands for his mother. That would make sense as to why she left her driver's license behind and other things. Maybe when she got to the point of destination where they were to meet there were other people waiting on her rather than MP. I was harrassed constantly by phone by my exhusband and his girlfriends and I told them if they had anything to say to me they could call my attorney. I refused to meet anyone anywhere because I didn't trust them. I wonder if Gail ever mentioned to AD that she was getting calls from strange phone numbers?

 

[BeanE]

Quick question. When Matt filed for the separation, possession of the home, the RO, and temp custody of the kids, I know he filed to dissolve those motions, but did he file to dissolve the temp custody or was he granted it?

The reason I ask is that I swear I saw an article that said the temp custody was granted, and there's an attorney's blog that says he was granted custody, and there's an article that says an order from that time period was extended.

If it wasn't temp custody, then what order would have been extended?

I can't find that article that said the chancellor had granted the temp custody, although I spent a significant amount of time searching for it yesterday. It was a very small article - just a few sentences in one or two short paragraphs IIRC.

Gimme a sec and I'll grab the attorney blog link and the other article link.

ETA: Scroll down to the May 11 entry. Sorry. I can't find a way to link to the individual post.
Matthew Palmgren now has obtained a court order for full custody of his two children.
http://www.riversidefamilylawattorneys.com/RiversideFamilyLawBlog/Categories/Family_Law.aspx

and
Sightings of missing Signal Mountain woman unconfirmed
http://timesfreepress.com/news/2011/may/18/sightings-missing-signal-mountain-woman-uncomfirme
Times Free Press – Wednesday, May 18th, 2011

On May 6, he filed for legal separation from her in Hamilton County Chancery Court and for temporary custody of their 12-year-old son, J, and 9-year-old daughter, L.

Palmgren’s attorney, Bryan Hoss, filed a motion Tuesday to continue the order because Gail has not been located and is considered a missing person by authorities. . A chancellor is scheduled to rule on the order on June 3.

That would have been May 17 the motion to continue the order was filed.

 

[carolinagirl56]

Yup-if the kids were in the car with Gail, and Gail transported them to the house, they probably have an idea of what she was wearing. I am still waiting to hear if they were carrying luggage. Did they pack bags on 4/29 and did they return with them? IE Did Gail have access to more clothing than whatever was on her back, and BTW what was on her back? Color of her purse, shoes etc...

Kids also heard all phone calls that were made and received during the trip. They know who the last person she talked to was and her demeanor afterwards.

 

[Oriah]

Well, suppose Gail hid a suicide note under her mattress, and after testing, the FBI determines it is authentic and unaltered, and that suicide note says "I'm going to Jordan Lake, take an overdose, and drive in."

That is worth finding, because it would likely lead to figuring out what happened to Gail and where she is, and give her children and other loved ones answers that will afford them an opportunity for closure and healing down the road.

Or suppose the FBI determines the note is not authentic, not written by Gail. Or had been written by Gail weeks before, and since been altered by someone else to make it look as if Gail committed suicide.

Or let's say they find a note from Tammy to Matt saying "I'm going to wait in the garage and leap in the Jeep and force Gail to drive to Jordan Lake, whack her on the head, and push the Jeep in the water."

And suppose after testing, they find that the note was not authentic, not written by Tammy, but in fact written by another girlfriend of Matt's - or by Matt himself. And say they couldn't use that in court.

These things are worth finding, because again, they lead to figuring out what happened to Gail and where she is, and give her loved ones an opportunity for closure.

And LE, with these things, I believe has probable cause, is able to get search warrants, and get other evidence that canbe used in court, and/or can then tie info they already have to the crime and use that in court.

I think I must be coming from a SAR dog approach too much!!

If I were told to come out and search specific areas at specific times- and those places were announced to the public well in advance- no matter what my dog 'found' at one of those searches... everything would be questionable for me (and my dog); because the possibility of tampering would be enormous.

I suppose that might not be the case with other types of searches. :waitasec:

 

[hollyblue]

I see, Bean.

But how (and why) would that work under a search consent for searches that are preplanned??

It seems to me that nothing gleaned from a 'search' of this sort would hold up in court due to the arrangement of the 'agreement'- so why even bother? :waitasec:

The DA essentially consented to searches that would have no merit in court, should Gail's case become a criminal investigation. :waitasec:

Oiy. Ok- I'm going back to trying to locate Gail's Jeep.

Do we know if there are any other storage facilities that either MP or GP had access to (other than the one on the search agreement)?

BBM

Why wouldn't anything they found be allowed in court?? Seems the only thing that is happening is the "discovery" would be made known....very early? Much of what is being searched for would be valuable in their investigation..and not just what they could take to court. ie: an up close and personal looksee into who Gail and Matt are. imo

 

[Oriah]

BBM

Why wouldn't anything they found be allowed in court?? Seems the only thing that is happening is the "discovery" would be made known....very early? Much of what is being searched for would be valuable in their investigation..and not just what they could take to court. ie: an up close and personal looksee into who Gail and Matt are. imo

I didn't mean 'allowed' exactly. I meant not torn apart by an attorney should anything 'found' be brought forward as evidence in a civil or criminal case.

Absolutely it would be good to find anything in a property search that might help locate Gail!

 

[BeanE]

Kids also heard all phone calls that were made and received during the trip. They know who the last person she talked to was and her demeanor afterwards.

They wouldn't know who the last person she talked to was if she talked to someone after she dropped the kids off though.

She talked to Diane about 12:15, about the same time Susie claims to have seen her, and I'm thinking that that phone call with Diane was after the kids were already in the house, and Gail was in the Jeep. Just guessing though really.

 

[BeanE]

I think I must be coming from a SAR dog approach too much!!

If I were told to come out and search specific areas at specific times- and those places were announced to the public well in advance- no matter what my dog 'found' at one of those searches... everything would be questionable for me (and my dog); because the possibility of tampering would be enormous.

I suppose that might not be the case with other types of searches. :waitasec:

Ah, okay, from purely a SAR perspective, then yes, I see what you're saying, Oriah. :grouphug:

 

[BeanE]

More info and now a named POI (it's not the guy people thought it was) in the Melissa Ward case that was discussed in Gail's case maybe a week ago where LE was searching for remains and said it was a possible serial killer.

'I think I'm married to a serial killer'
published Saturday, July 23rd, 2011

Chris Johnson, 46, is a "person of interest" in connection with a search for human remains in Lookout Valley and the slaying of 33-year-old Missy Ward in 2004.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jul/23/a1-i-think-im-married-to-a-serial-killer/?local

 

[Irish_Eyes]

Wow. In the article it's so odd that she says "I think I'm married to a serial killer." He's charged with kidnapping and rape, and a person of interest in one murder. Seriously disturbing, to say the least, but I wonder why she feels there are more? Gut instinct or is there more we don't know?

 

[Emeralgem]

Wow. In the article it's so odd that she says "I think I'm married to a serial killer." He's charged with kidnapping and rape, and a person of interest in one murder. Seriously disturbing, to say the least, but I wonder why she feels there are more? Gut instinct or is there more we don't know?

I am trying to think of others who are missing, believed murdered in the area for LE to think there is a serial killer amongst us... Wonder IF this guy ever hung out in the Ross-Vegas area... And he originally hails from Sand Mtn? Hmmmm...JMHO.

 

[confused]

I think I must be coming from a SAR dog approach too much!!

If I were told to come out and search specific areas at specific times- and those places were announced to the public well in advance- no matter what my dog 'found' at one of those searches... everything would be questionable for me (and my dog); because the possibility of tampering would be enormous.

I suppose that might not be the case with other types of searches. :waitasec:

totally off topic, but when I read your post, I wondered what breed of dog you have. We met some SAR and Cadaver dogs at the county fair a few years ago. They were blue tick and red Bone hounds (don't know if those are the actual breed names, but that's what they called them). They were beautiful and so sweet. so, I just wondered what yours is? Hope it's ok to ask.

 

[BeanE]

Wow. In the article it's so odd that she says "I think I'm married to a serial killer." He's charged with kidnapping and rape, and a person of interest in one murder. Seriously disturbing, to say the least, but I wonder why she feels there are more? Gut instinct or is there more we don't know?

This is a follow-on article to the ones discussed where LE was looking for remains and said they could have a possible serial killer. The links are posted previously where it was discussed.

What may be confusing is that people thought the murdered woman, Mellissa Ward's, old boyfriend was the person of interest who wasn't named at the time. Pages were devoted to sleuthing him and his home address and tying him to Matt's father's old bar and on and on and on and there was this whole MFH plot built around it.

As we see from this article, the POI wasn't even that boyfriend at all, but instead, this woman's husband.

 

[Sleuthy1]

This is a follow-on article to the ones discussed where LE was looking for remains and said they could have a possible serial killer. The links are posted previously where it was discussed.

What may be confusing is that people thought the murdered woman, Mellissa Ward's, old boyfriend was the person of interest who wasn't named at the time. Pages were devoted to sleuthing him and his home address and tying him to Matt's father's old bar and on and on and on and there was this whole MFH plot built around it.

As we see from this article, the POI wasn't even that boyfriend at all, but instead, this woman's husband.

:waitasec:Just wondering BeanE...Did MW's b/f lawyer up and not give a statement or did he cooperate and interview with the police and then possibly was ruled out for the time being as a suspect in Melissa Ward's disappearance back then?:twocents:

 

[JBean]

I have been doing a lot of soul searching and thinking on this case. I am close to this case and really had to back away to look at it more clearly.

Everything Matt did was counter intuitive to someone that might be concerned about the safety of the mother of his children. I can't seem to get beyond his limited,almost non existant cooperation with LE and lack of any kind of urgency as it relates to finding Gail. It is just nonsensical. As much as I hold out hope that he is not involved,I cannot reconcile any of his behavior..at all.

As for LE, I think if this was done professionally,there probably is no evidence linking him to Gail. As we all know too well, it is one thing to feel strongly that someone is involved, but it quite another to have evidence to prove it. I have come to believe that LE just has to wait and hope that someone made a mistake and left a single clue that could lead to a break in this case.
But now, I do not think Gail will be found,I think her car is long gone and that the lack of information from Matt will make this case difficult to solve.

Not to say that I am not holding out hope and I will look forward to being wrong. But for now,I can only look at what he has done or not done since Gail disappeared and if he is not involved, he is getting some really bad advice.

 

[Irish_Eyes]

This is a follow-on article to the ones discussed where LE was looking for remains and said they could have a possible serial killer. The links are posted previously where it was discussed.

What may be confusing is that people thought the murdered woman, Mellissa Ward's, old boyfriend was the person of interest who wasn't named at the time. Pages were devoted to sleuthing him and his home address and tying him to Matt's father's old bar and on and on and on and there was this whole MFH plot built around it.

As we see from this article, the POI wasn't even that boyfriend at all, but instead, this woman's husband.

Who is confused? (as in the state of confusion and not the WS member)

 

[JBean]

Excellent point. By all accounts, it was a contentious divorce. Matt finds the kids left alone and he doesn't say a word? Not even to document it for the upcoming divorce case? He was so keen very early on to tell the media in a phone interview that Gail would leave all the time, was paranoid and writing down license plates. Since her disappearance, his lawyers have released info from the G's who claim Gail was very mentally unstable, plus they told Jammer Scott that Gail's brother killed herself so he could imply Gail was stressed (and also imply a family history of suicide, IMVHO). Yet the day she left the kids unattended, not a word. Didn't call LE until Diane did first and urged him to do so.

So very curious.

He did use it as part of the foundation for the separation filing. Stating that she had "abandoned her children and her home".

ETA: he also used it as a basis for the RO and temporary custody filing; stating that she 'had left the 2 minor children by themselves without any supervision".
He may not have called the police, but he acted on the information pretty quickly considering the papers were filed less than a week after she disappeared.

 

[BeanE]

Who is confused? (as in the state of confusion and not the WS member)

The way I read your post, I thought you didn't realize it was the same case. If you did, then I misunderstood.

 

[glorias]

He did use it as part of the foundation for the separation filing. Stating that she had "abandoned her children and her home".

ETA: he also used it as a basis for the RO and temporary custody filing; stating that she 'had left the 2 minor children by themselves without any supervision".
He may not have called the police, but he acted on the information pretty quickly considering the papers were filed less than a week after she disappeared.

Absolutely. But he seems IMVHO to be inconsistent on this point. On the one hand, he's saying Gail leaves all the time but stays in touch with the kids as though it's relatively normal. On the other hand, in this case she leaves and doesn't stay in touch with the kids which is not usual -- both Matt and Susie Button said so in media interviews. So this disappearance early on seemed different than the other times she allegedly left for cooling off periods. (Also, since we now know Matt and Gail were separating, her leaving for a while doesn't seem particularly odd in my opinion.)

We know Matt is upset by Gail's last disappearance early on because of his alone "without supervision" comment and the court docs he later filed, yet he doesn't contact LE until Diane does first. Why not? He knew this was not the usual cooling off situation. Or is he claiming he didn't know it was unusual? Honest question. Maybe we don't know the answer.

My questions on this should be taken as similar to the ones I asked a couple of weeks ago: If Arlene was speaking with Gail so often, what are the odds that on the day she disappeared, Arlene was out of cell range and didn't speak to Gail or see her at all? Why that day of all days?

I cannot shake the feeling that something unusual was going on that weekend. Between Matt skipping out on the conference with his gf who bought a new car during that weekend, him coming home early on the same day of the 911 incident the day before Gail disappeared, and Arlene being out of cell range, something really hinky is going on. A lot of coincidences going on here that cannot be easily explained IMVHO.

 

[glorias]

At the risk of getting too personal, I want to say something about a particular argument I've heard all over the 'net regarding Matt: No one should consider him involved because it hurts his kids who need him. A few weeks ago I saw someone on another forum say even if he was guilty, he shouldn't be prosecuted, it would hurt the kids and they've been through enough already. There are comments elsewhere saying that no matter what happened, this is a private matter and everyone should stop talking about it for the sake of the kids.

I want to address this -- and mods, if this is too off topic, please delete. And please forgive me for not naming names, because doing so would probably out my identity. Several years ago, I was close to a man who ended up being charged with the murder of his ex-wife in a case that made national news. I knew the ex-wife a little, too. Many people I knew said the man should not be bothered by rumors, LE, or accusations because he had a daughter who needed him. This was based on their emotions, in my opinion, not on logic... and I lost most of my professional friends during this time because I personally felt that if he had done something wrong to his ex-wife, he sure as heck should not be around his daughter. They considered anyone who felt the man was involved to be a rumormonger who just wanted to make him look bad for some personal agenda.

In Gail's case, the same arguments are sometimes made, and I don't think they're entirely fair. I see people who have questions and concerns for justice AND the kids AND the rest of Gail's family. But the "leave Matt alone because of the kids" comments often come with implications and accusations that people who want LE to look closely at Matt are, in some way, insincere.

No, we don't know many solid facts in Gail's case. No, there is no hard evidence against Matt (or for accident, suicide, 3rd party involvement, etc.) But to say Matt should not be subjected to investigation or speculation for the sake of the kids... I don't know. That doesn't seem to be in the kids' best interests. To me, personally, it seems like Matt has done/said enough that is questionable that he should be at least ruled out as a suspect so the family CAN get on with their lives.