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

[believe09]

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.

Would you link the forum, glorias? Thank you.

 

[JBean]

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

We can discuss the comment out of context. Linking the forum would be great for us to read. But if for some reason it is an unlinkable forum, it is fine to discuss the philosophy of the comment. IOW, it is not a foundation for fact nor is it a rumor that is being perpetuated relative to what we know about Gail's disappearance. It is just an attitude or philosophy.
It is a school of thought that some may subscribe to. So, if glorias's comments could stand on their own, then linking to the original is not as critical an issue. If this comment was being attributed to someone in particular or if the assertion was that this was the prevailing attitude in the town then you are 100% correct we would need to link it before we could dig into it.

But it is fine for this discussion to respond to the argument that, for the sake of the children, it is reasonable to avoid prosecution of a father that harmed a mother.

Hope that helps.

 

[BeanE]

We can discuss the comment out of context. Linking the forum would be great for us to read. But if for some reason it is an unlinkable forum, it is fine to discuss the philosophy of the comment. IOW, it is not a foundation for fact nor is it a rumor that is being perpetuated relative to what we know about Gail's disappearance. It is just an attitude or philosophy.
It is a school of thought that some may subscribe to. So, if glorias's comments could stand on their own, then linking to the original is not as critical an issue. If this comment was being attributed to someone in particular or if the assertion was that this was the prevailing attitude in the town then you are 100% correct we would need to link it before we could dig into it.

But it is fine for this discussion to respond to the argument that, for the sake of the children, it is reasonable to avoid prosecution of a father that harmed a mother.

Hope that helps.

Thanks, JBean.

Then in that case, I have to go back to my original thought. The philosophy that it's reasonable not to prosecute a parent that harmed the other parent because they have kids just immediately struck me as a trolling sort of thing. I've just never seen anyone espouse that philosophy at all, let alone espouse it seriously. It's kind of scary to think anyone would think that way.

 

[Emeralgem]

Thanks, JBean.

Then in that case, I have to go back to my original thought. The philosophy that it's reasonable not to prosecute a parent that harmed the other parent because they have kids just immediately struck me as a trolling sort of thing. I've just never seen anyone espouse that philosophy at all, let alone espouse it seriously. It's kind of scary to think anyone would think that way.

I've been under the impression for quite some time the children were/are being used as an excuse to defend MP and his actions/non actions..JMHO

 

[confused]

I've been under the impression for quite some time the children were/are being used as an excuse to defend MP and his actions/non actions..JMHO

I completely disagree. I think that rather than the children being used to protect Matt, Matt has endured unbelieveable bashing and hatred to protect his children.

Guess it's just a matter of opinion and we may have to agree to disagree!

 

[hollyblue]

I've been under the impression for quite some time the children were/are being used as an excuse to defend MP and his actions/non actions..JMHO

I agree, the supposition he is being quiet to protect the children is a little hard to swallow. Especially, when MP is allowing his lawyers (in both SM & AL) to make statements in the media regarding GP being mentally unstable. So....this is the "explanation" given to the children for her disappearance? Prolly, imo.

 

[fedfan4life]

Embezzeling money (via false expense reports) from an employer is not behavior indicative of a person who considers his/her children a priority. Take my word for it (my father was convicted of similar activities when I was a child), this type of illegal behavior puts children @ great risk and is done 'in spite of' being a parent.

Therefore, it is next-to-impossible for me personally to believe that Mr. Palgren's behavior now is because he is protecting his children above all else (aka himself).

 

[Irish_Eyes]

I completely disagree. I think that rather than the children being used to protect Matt, Matt has endured unbelieveable bashing and hatred to protect his children.

Guess it's just a matter of opinion and we may have to agree to disagree!

I guess this is how I look at the whole Matt protecting them by not letting them talk to the police thing.

My son is terrified of needles and getting shots. Say he came down with some rare ailment - one where he got migraines every day. I took him to a doctor and the doctor said there is a shot I can give him. It only works some of the time, but in those cases, it cures them. There are no physical side effects to this drug, the only side effect in either case would be the trauma my son would feel due to his extreme fear of needles. I could argue that my son is in enough pain with migraines every day that I don't want him to go through further trauma and thus decide to forego a possible cure. Or I could take the chance that even though he hates needles, a one time exposure to a needle might actually save him from daily pain.

It's not a perfect analogy, but that's kind of how I see this. I'm sure these children love their mother and desperately want her home. They may not have any information to break this case open. They may know exactly what direction the police should be looking. Or they may know something that they think is insignificant or unrelated, that in fact is very important. Presumably, if Matt is innocent, and really doesn't know what happened to Gail, then LE probably knows more from tips and leads about the situation then Matt does. So even something he wouldn't think was important might be very important to LE. However upsetting it might be to have to discuss that day and the days leading up to it with police, if there is a chance that experience helps find their mom, isn't that worth it to these kids?

 

[BeanE]

Then in that case, I have to go back to my original thought. The philosophy that it's reasonable not to prosecute a parent that harmed the other parent because they have kids just immediately struck me as a trolling sort of thing. I've just never seen anyone espouse that philosophy at all, let alone espouse it seriously. It's kind of scary to think anyone would think that way.

I've been under the impression for quite some time the children were/are being used as an excuse to defend MP and his actions/non actions..JMHO

By whom?

ETA: Ya know what? Never mind. What you posted here has nothing to do with what I said. I was talking about what JBean said, a philosophy of not prosecuting a spouse who harms a spouse because they have a child.

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.

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.

But it is fine for this discussion to respond to the argument that, for the sake of the children, it is reasonable to avoid prosecution of a father that harmed a mother.

Thanks, JBean.

Then in that case, I have to go back to my original thought. The philosophy that it's reasonable not to prosecute a parent that harmed the other parent because they have kids just immediately struck me as a trolling sort of thing. I've just never seen anyone espouse that philosophy at all, let alone espouse it seriously. It's kind of scary to think anyone would think that way.

There's the conversation string I was involved in. Hope that helps.

 

[Oriah]

Forgive my constant questions for locals, ya'll- this is for anyone who might be good with coordinates.

If you were to head southeast from the Palmgren residence in order to intersect with 8 just north of the 'space shuttle house' (vs Palisades) then you would intersect about here: 35.06.22.15/85.20.56.56. Is that correct?

If so, how many homes would you pass?
TIA.

 

[Emeralgem]

Forgive my constant questions for locals, ya'll- this is for anyone who might be good with coordinates.

If you were to head southeast from the Palmgren residence in order to intersect with 8 just north of the 'space shuttle house' (vs Palisades) then you would intersect about here: 35.06.22.15/85.20.56.56. Is that correct?

If so, how many homes would you pass?
TIA.

I'm not understanding what intersect with 8 is...

 

[Oriah]

I'm not understanding what intersect with 8 is...

Sorry- the loop just south of Balmoral...

 

[believe09]

Oriah, I want to thank you for focusing on narrowing down possible search locations for Gail. ((hugs))

 

[Oriah]

Oriah, I want to thank you for focusing on narrowing down possible search locations for Gail. ((hugs))

You are more than welcome, believe09.

There is not much sense (imvho) in discussing guilt or innocence of people who may have been involved in a crime that may or may not have occurred. I suppose I have seen too many assumptions made in cases that turned out completely differently than expected. While I believe there is huge value in investigation of all aspects of missing persons cases- I am somewhat biased toward simply locating the missing person- or any possible evidence that might point to their location.

Gail, where are you? People are missing you terribly.

 

[BeanE]

You are more than welcome, believe09.

There is not much sense (imvho) in discussing guilt or innocence of people who may have been involved in a crime that may or may not have occurred. I suppose I have seen too many assumptions made in cases that turned out completely differently than expected. While I believe there is huge value in investigation of all aspects of missing persons cases- I am somewhat biased toward simply locating the missing person- or any possible evidence that might point to their location.

Gail, where are you? People are missing you terribly.

I'm still sending out my Jeep tweets every day, hoping somebody will see something.

I'm going to write up a post and put it in the Jeep thread on how to find my Jeep posts. If anyone would please retweet them or copy them and tweet them out yourself, I would really appreciate it.

ETA: Here's the post on the Jeep thread, including a request that if you are tweeting out Gail's Jeep info, to please post how to find your tweets, and I am happy to retweet them. Thanks!

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6950942&postcount=82"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - TN TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 **Jeep Project**[/ame]

 

[ThoughtFox]

I completely disagree. I think that rather than the children being used to protect Matt, Matt has endured unbelieveable bashing and hatred to protect his children.

Guess it's just a matter of opinion and we may have to agree to disagree!

It just doesn't work like that under the law.

All this is JMOO. :cow:

Gangsters like to protect their own children too. Mafia members protect their children. Terrorists protect their own children - Bin Laden kept his in the family compound with him behind a big wall.

Protection of loved ones doesn't absolve anyone from being under suspician either by the police or the public.

Some parents lie on the witness stand to "protect their child," as we just saw in the Anthony case. That doesn't make it right under the law, or right in any code of ethics.

Keeping a child from discussing the day his or her mother disappeared could be seen as "protection" or it could be seen as "control." Maybe it is both. Only MP knows, but you would think if it would help find his child's mother, it would be helpful if they could tell police what she was wearing or where she said she was going on the day she disappeared.

What I'm getting at is, one good trait (protecting children) doesn't take the heat off of someone if there is something fishy going on. It is unfortunately balanced out by MP's reputation as a liar concerning his extra-marital affair. I realize his love for his children is separate from that, but we have to realize that maybe he has compartmentalized his life and not everything he does is as noble as protecting his children (a basic instinct in most humans anyway).

There are people under suspician for many other crimes here on WS even though they used to be "Homeroom Mother of the Year" (Terri Horman) or "Policeman of the Year" (Drew Peterson). Scott Peterson was an ex-Boy Scout who helped old ladies across the street and he loved his Mommy, but that didn't win him any points with the public, the police, or the Jury system.

 

[Emeralgem]

Sorry- the loop just south of Balmoral...

http://mapq.st/qhp7NG

I have never had reason to enter that road when going up or coming down the mtn...Don't have aclue where it leads to or how many residences can be reached by that road..JMHO

 

[Oriah]

I have another question.

There are several navigation buoys in between the 27 route and the Cash Canyon route (at the conjuntion of waterways.)

Does anyone know if they were operational between the 28th and the 3rd? (By operational, I mean stationary.)

TIA.

ETA: Nevermind, answered my own question!
http://www.tva.gov/river/navigation_aids.pdf

 

[confused]

It just doesn't work like that under the law.

All this is JMOO. :cow:

Gangsters like to protect their own children too. Mafia members protect their children. Terrorists protect their own children - Bin Laden kept his in the family compound with him behind a big wall.

Protection of loved ones doesn't absolve anyone from being under suspician either by the police or the public.

Some parents lie on the witness stand to "protect their child," as we just saw in the Anthony case. That doesn't make it right under the law, or right in any code of ethics.

Keeping a child from discussing the day his or her mother disappeared could be seen as "protection" or it could be seen as "control." Maybe it is both. Only MP knows, but you would think if it would help find his child's mother, it would be helpful if they could tell police what she was wearing or where she said she was going on the day she disappeared.

What I'm getting at is, one good trait (protecting children) doesn't take the heat off of someone if there is something fishy going on. It is unfortunately balanced out by MP's reputation as a liar concerning his extra-marital affair. I realize his love for his children is separate from that, but we have to realize that maybe he has compartmentalized his life and not everything he does is as noble as protecting his children (a basic instinct in most humans anyway).

There are people under suspician for many other crimes here on WS even though they used to be "Homeroom Mother of the Year" (Terri Horman) or "Policeman of the Year" (Drew Peterson). Scott Peterson was an ex-Boy Scout who helped old ladies across the street and he loved his Mommy, but that didn't win him any points with the public, the police, or the Jury system.

So....are you agreeing with me or disagreeing or just naming all the other cases to hit the media in the past few years. I don't think Matt is involved with gangsters, mafia, or terrorist, and I am going to take a huge leap and say that I am 100% positive he wasn't involved with Bin Laden.

My original statement was that no one should be protected from investigation because of their children. I do think that parents have the right and responsibility to protect their children, and I believe that Matt has done so. So, I am not understanding what you are getting at with all the other case reference.

 

[carolinagirl56]

Sorry- the loop just south of Balmoral...

I think that you are talking about Sunset. I don't remember how many houses are there. Seems that they are a bit private if I remember. I will drive over and let you know in a bit.