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

[Kiln Wood]

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.

BBM.

glorias, I could not agree with you more!

 

[Irish_Eyes]

I've also been following the case of Laura Jean Ackerson here. She disappeared from Raleigh earlier this month. I'm so sad tonight because they are awaiting confirmation, but believe she has been found in Houston, TX. Surely not where any of us following the case would have suspected to find her. Just goes to show how important it could be to get out the word about Gail - everywhere we can!

 

[confused]

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.

First I have to say that you are very brave to say that, and even though we have not always agreed (well, hardly ever, LOL) I respect you for saying this. Everyone here pretty much knows how I feel about the case. I wont go into that...but I will say that I agree with you on this point. LE has every right and reason to look at Matt. I don't think that having the children is any reason or excuse for someone to get away with a crime like this. If he was caught stealing food at the grocery to feed the kids, that would be different, but in a situation like this, the kids are not a reason to excuse him. Having said that, I don't think that he should be unfairly targeted just because he is the spouse, or just because he doesn't let the kids be interviewed. Many think that he is keeping the children from being interviewed to hide something, that could be the case, but I don't think so. I think he is enduring more bashing and negativity aimed at him, for keeping the children away from a potentially upsetting situation. IF Matt had something to do with Gail's disappearance and the LE have the hard evidence to prove it, he should be punished! No question. Until the police declare that he is a suspect or foul play was involved and he is a POI, it would be good to see some people back down a little.

 

[Irish_Eyes]

First I have to say that you are very brave to say that, and even though we have not always agreed (well, hardly ever, LOL) I respect you for saying this. Everyone here pretty much knows how I feel about the case. I wont go into that...but I will say that I agree with you on this point. LE has every right and reason to look at Matt. I don't think that having the children is any reason or excuse for someone to get away with a crime like this. If he was caught stealing food at the grocery to feed the kids, that would be different, but in a situation like this, the kids are not a reason to excuse him. Having said that, I don't think that he should be unfairly targeted just because he is the spouse, or just because he doesn't let the kids be interviewed. Many think that he is keeping the children from being interviewed to hide something, that could be the case, but I don't think so. I think he is enduring more bashing and negativity aimed at him, for keeping the children away from a potentially upsetting situation. IF Matt had something to do with Gail's disappearance and the LE have the hard evidence to prove it, he should be punished! No question. Until the police declare that he is a suspect or foul play was involved and he is a POI, it would be good to see some people back down a little.

We haven't always agreed either, but I respect this post. (and glorias above it). Thank you both for saying what you did.

 

[Snowbunny]

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.

For the sake of his children I would have thought that he would have done everything in his power to prove to the world that he wasn't involved and made sure that he was ruled out as a suspect. If Gail is never found, just what does he think his children are going to think of him and his actions as they grow up and start searching for answers on their own, which I'm almost certain they will? He certainly has not gone out of his way to help LE get to the bottom of this. He'd much rather tell the world Gail was looney tooneys and went off the deep end. Sooner or later these children are going to want real answers and they are not going to be able to hold this all in forever. My heart breaks for these to young children. It sounded like they were really close to their mother and their father hasn't shown much concern for her. Poor kids! Prayers for Gail and her two young children.

 

[fireflylink]

Some thoughts:

snipped for space
It has been stated on here that the SM home had a security system. Did that include surveillance cameras? If so, did LE look at any taped surveillance video? Well….since LE initially stated there was no probable cause that a crime had been committed (no evidence of foul play), it follows that LE did not remove and inspect cameras (if they existed, of course.) Hmmmm….if there were in-fact cameras, who do you suppose did remove them and go through the recorded footage?! (A bit of sarcasm inserted….but remember what happened to the computers?!) imo

snipped for space

BBM
Allow me clarify about the video surveillance system (personal knowlege).

The Lakehouse at Wetumpka did have a video surveillance system. It was not operational immediately before or at the time GP disappeared. This is because GP had removed the DVR and taken in to have a technician retrieve data off the harddrive. GP authorized AD, as her agent to retrieve the DVR from the technician on her behalf, and specifically requested AD retain the DVR and not release it to anyone but her (GP). This is tha same DVR that AD has arranged with AL LE for them to provide a copy of the drive to HCSO.

The SM house did not have a video surveilance system at the time of GP's disappearance. ADT was at the SM home in the couple of weeks following when she disappeared.

 

[hollyblue]

My power just came back on from 2 hours ago...big thunderstorm and RAIN finally blessed NM!!

 

[hollyblue]

Has it ever been mentioned when this argument that was caught by the surveillance camera actually took place? I can't remember a date for it being stated by AD. ?? TIA

 

[Some1Nose]

The SM house did not have a video surveilance system at the time of GP's disappearance. ADT was at the SM home in the couple of weeks following when she disappeared.

(snipped for space)

Thank you Firefly for the clarification.

Well, that means I can forget about some of my follow-up questions regarding a security system on the SM premises prior to Gail's disappearance. Which leaves me with a reason I came up with as to why ADT was at the home after Gail disappeared (in the scenario (now fact) that there was not a security system at the SM home prior to Gail's disappearance,): Maybe the children believed their mother was abducted from their residence, and; therefore, were terrified that the same thing might happen to them.

 

[poppyfrock]

Law Enforcement can rule a person out and be able to fully spend their time looking for the real person responsible. I'm sure they're looking at all possibilities, but if they can rule ANYONE out they can narrow in on the person who harmed Gail. (if she was harmed) Who wouldn't want that? If it was my loved one I would talk the policemen's ears off so they could find the sob responsible. You better believe I would want that person caught. Clamming up and not giving statements and only talking through lawyers is stalling catching someone who possibly harmed (or worse) your loved one. Now, why would you NOT want that person caught?

 

[Some1Nose]

(snipped for space)

My thoughts are someone was waiting hidden inside the garage, mudroom, etc or either outside the perimeter of the house---in the woods and surprised GP or slipped into the Jeep-- if she did go into house --forcing her to leave/drive. (I'm not at this time buying CC's story--deflection) I picture the children running to their rooms and getting back to some normalcy after all they had been through the previous day. It was around lunch time, so GP may have stopped to pick something up and the kids were in the kitchen or dining room. And yes, I have even thought that MP could have given someone access to house/garage. Drop off on Timesville road to access the property from the rear or he could have driven someone there earlier. I don't know what MP did/said, but whatever it was----GP fully believed he was capable of doing it. She was beyond just scared.

The trip to MN/PA is the catalyst, imo. Either MP had plans in the mist or the one call between them was GP telling MP that she had the goods (TH and the bogus trip) on him....and hinted of letting BCBS know. Ask him about PA when he said the conference was in MN. The argument on the 29th. At the moment, I'm going with MP had plans because he did return early. What man leaves his mistress early to return to the "hell house"? He could have spent the evening downtown Chatt enjoying himself and returned after his flight was due in. ??JMO

BBM
That's a good point Holly, the jig was up...maybe he returned early to try to conduct some damage control or to try to get her under his thumb again...

I go back and forth....I'm leaning toward thinking Gail was going to a pre-planned meeting (not necessarily far in advance, could have been arranged on her way home from AL) with someone when she left the SM home at approx. 12:15 pm on 4/30. Now, this is where things get very murky...who was she rushing off to see and why? I believe emotions were running exceptionally high for both Gail and MP, on 4/29 and during the earlier part of 4/30! I think it quite possible that there was some messaging going on between the two while Gail and the children were enroute from the AL lake house to SM on 4/30. I believe it quite likely that heated exchanges of words were taking place and possible threats...things were obviously coming to a head! Gail had incriminating information regarding MP's extra-curricular activities and excessive expenditures while MP learned from the B'ham G's that Gail was on to him and was gathering pertinent evidence to present in court against MP which might result in MP losing custody of the children and being mandated to pay hefty child support fees!

I'm not so certain that evil plans were deliberately hatched prior to MP's return to SM; (or after, for that matter, I think more in terms of heat of the moment rage, if he's even involved) but, then I'm always one that finds it hard to believe a significant other could ever harm a single, solitary hair on the head of someone they've cared for...even though logically I know it happens all the time! And, in the beginnings of this case, I was truly imagining it highly possible to be mfh! imo

I'm with JBean...I've done alot of soul searching on this case, too....and, as much as I'd like for it not to be MP, and it may not be, I keep coming back to MP due to his seeming lack of concern for Gail, and overabundance of concern for himself with a staff of legal professionals (must be costing a fortune) to dot every i and cross every t. Confiscating the computers was the final straw for me...that was Outrageous conduct! imo

 

[Oriah]

A question for any locals: if you were to take 127 (south) to just north of Suck Creek (heading around toward Middle Creek-can't recall the name of the road) are there any truck pullouts once you are circling back toward SM?

 

[BeanE]

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.

BBM. I'm assuming because of the "if you can't link it, you can't discuss it" rule that these aren't private or banned forums, and it's difficult to discuss something without having read it for context etc, so could we have the links to these other forums so we can all read it?

I'll wait to read the other forums, but briefly, so far as if someone murders their spouse they shouldn't be prosecuted because they have kids - that's just nuts. Sounds like trolling rather than any real attempt at discussion.

And generally, of course LE has to, and should, investigate everyone around a missing person, and every possibility of what might have happened to that person - homicide, suicide, accident, natural death. It's what we pay LE our tax dollars to do.

ETA: Okay, didn't want y'all to think I'm lazy. I just used my best Google-fu and can't find any other forums where Gail's case is being discussed. The ones I found are all just posting news articles. Need links to read, please. TIA

 

[BeanE]

BBM
The SM house did not have a video surveilance system at the time of GP's disappearance. ADT was at the SM home in the couple of weeks following when she disappeared.

Do you know what they were there for?

TIA

 

[BeanE]

Has it ever been mentioned when this argument that was caught by the surveillance camera actually took place? I can't remember a date for it being stated by AD. ?? TIA

Omg it's too early in the morning to do brain data retrievals lol. :floorlaugh:

Let's see. March is popping into my head. Arlene saying that in March, Matt erased the video? So I'm thinking it would have to be after that? I don't think she gave a date for the argument, but I think if we listened to her interviews - we might be able to nail down a timespan.

Which interview was it where Arlene was saying she let Gail's little boy and her own little boy watch the argument on the video? I think it's Jammer #1. I'm thinking with that and one of the SMM interviews where she talks about Matt erasing the video (sorry, I don't remember if that's SMM #1 or SMM #2), there's enough info to piece together a timeframe.

 

[BeanE]

(snipped for space)

Thank you Firefly for the clarification.

Well, that means I can forget about some of my follow-up questions regarding a security system on the SM premises prior to Gail's disappearance. Which leaves me with a reason I came up with as to why ADT was at the home after Gail disappeared (in the scenario (now fact) that there was not a security system at the SM home prior to Gail's disappearance,): Maybe the children believed their mother was abducted from their residence, and; therefore, were terrified that the same thing might happen to them.

I think firefly was saying there was no video security system, rather than there was no security system at all. i.e. did the house have a non-video alarm system prior to Gail's disappearance? If so, perhaps it just needed resetting, or maybe Matt was having the code changed since he was concerned Gail would come back and take the children, possibly even out of the country.

 

[Emeralgem]

A question for any locals: if you were to take 127 (south) to just north of Suck Creek (heading around toward Middle Creek-can't recall the name of the road) are there any truck pullouts once you are circling back toward SM?

Do you mean Mountain Creek Road at Signal Mtn Blvd?

 

[BeanE]

From Twitter:

@BRING_GAIL_HOME BringGailHomeNow
facebook.com/BRINGGAILNOWAC… ~OFFICIAL FB Page Bring Gail Home Now~Gail Palmgren~Missing Since April 30th 2011~44 yrs~Blonde/Brown eyes~#135~5' 8".
19 minutes ago

http://twitter.com/#!/BRING_GAIL_HOME/statuses/95463063033094145

What? Official? Who in the family gave it the designation of official? Diane? Kevin? Matt? I had no idea.

 

[Emeralgem]

I think firefly was saying there was no video security system, rather than there was no security system at all. i.e. did the house have a non-video alarm system prior to Gail's disappearance? If so, perhaps it just needed resetting, or maybe Matt was having the code changed since he was concerned Gail would come back and take the children, possibly even out of the country.

Changing a code can be done over the telephone with ADT..Resetting the system can be done over the phone too..All you need is your password.
I lost two tv's and had to have my thermostat on my AC/Heating system replaced after the storms on the 27th. My ADT security system wasn't working either..
In the first couple of weeks after the storms I had to call an electrician, the a/c man, the power board, roofers, tree cutters and they all had to come out to fix the problem. The only people who didn't have to come out and who was able to fix the problem over the phone was ADT...

 

[Oriah]

Do you mean Mountain Creek Road at Signal Mtn Blvd?

Yes, that's the one. Thanks Emeralgem.