TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #9

[BeanE]

What I posted from the documents is that he said she was having increasingly paranoid behavior, was in a manic state and suffering from delusions.
Since I am the one that posted what came from the documents this must be in reference to me. I did not state that Matt said she was psychotic in the documents.

No, it was not in reference to you, JBean. It was not.
<modsnip>

 

[glorias]

The court docs MP submitted and later withdrew are on that newschannel9 page, at least some of them are. I don't see "psychotic" in there but I do see "paranoid."

My concern is that there is a claim that people on Websleuths (and I believe this claim was directed at a specific group of people) were endlessly talking about MP calling Gail "psychotic" in documents, and that these documents showed that MP did no such thing. The implication was that these people (and/or this group) was proven wrong about some of the things they had been saying about MP. It seemed, in my honest and blunt opinion, to be a "gotcha!"

The problem I have with that is that no one on WS seems to have ever claimed MP filed documents calling Gail "psychotic". I honestly believe it was an innocent mistake confusing "psychotic" with "paranoid," although I still think it's important to clarify considering the implications made.

Maybe it has happened and I've forgotten, so don't be afraid to correct me. I have just been asking for links or examples of when it happened, and so far no one has provided any. When I searched, I did find one instance where I said MP claimed Gail was "psychotic" -- it was when I was discussing AD's claim in an interview that MP called Adderall an "antipsychotic" -- but nothing about any court documents.

That's all I wanted to say. I know some people think I'm being difficult, but I'm really just trying to straighten out a misconception, which I hope is allowed.

 

[hollyblue]

As I see it Gail may have intended on returning home at some point on Saturday April 30, 2011 but that doesn't mean she intended on leaving the lake house at the crack of dawn the next morning especially after she had just arrived at the lake house most probably in late afternoon on 29th of April...JMHO

Exactly Em, this was no mystery. We talked about this very early on maybe thread 1 or 2.

 

[JBean]

No, it was not in reference to you, JBean. It was not.

Jesus Christ.

I did not know that others had referenced the documents. I thought I was the only one that had them and was posting as to what was contained in them. My bad. No harm no foul.

But Matt's descriptions do paint the picture of a mentally ill person or someone on drugs.

 

[JBean]

The court docs MP submitted and later withdrew are on that newschannel9 page, at least some of them are. I don't see "psychotic" in there but I do see "paranoid."

My concern is that there is a claim that people on Websleuths (and I believe this claim was directed at a specific group of people) were endlessly talking about MP calling Gail "psychotic" in documents, and that these documents showed that MP did no such thing. The implication was that these people (and/or this group) was proven wrong about some of the things they had been saying about MP. It seemed, in my honest and blunt opinion, to be a "gotcha!"

The problem I have with that is that no one on WS seems to have ever claimed MP filed documents calling Gail "psychotic". I honestly believe it was an innocent mistake confusing "psychotic" with "paranoid," although I still think it's important to clarify considering the implications made.

Maybe it has happened and I've forgotten, so don't be afraid to correct me. I have just been asking for links or examples of when it happened, and so far no one has provided any. When I searched, I did find one instance where I said MP claimed Gail was "psychotic" -- it was when I was discussing AD's claim in an interview that MP called Adderall an "antipsychotic" -- but nothing about any court documents.

That's all I wanted to say. I know some people think I'm being difficult, but I'm really just trying to straighten out a misconception, which I hope is allowed.

Let's just clear it up right now so we can move forward!
Psychosis is a VERY generic term and is used to describe many different mental states.

The documents use words like manic state,delusions,and increasing paranoia.
He does not say the word psychotic but he describes a person that has had a break from reality which can be a descriptor for psychosis. I have a relative that is bipolar-schizo affective and when he is manic, delusional and paranoid he is said to be in a psychotic state.

So, some people may have interpreted the statements made by Matt P as describing mental illness and psychosis and that is a very reasonable interpretation.

 

[hollyblue]

She agreed herself the day before with LE - as we have, written by a LEO, on an official LE document - that she would only stay at the lake house for one night. I don't see any duress.

It could be the ballgame was on the kids schedule for the next night, but she did come home early. If she knew about the "conference" ordeal, she may have thought TH was in SM..still....and she could have been. Yet there was definitely something else going on with the call to DN and her wanting the involvement of local LE. IMO

 

[Emeralgem]

I have a friend who experienced a domestic incident during her divorce after she filed. When she called police, she and her children were separated from her ex husband and she was immediately given numbers to safe houses. She was offered the option of leaving with her children or having her ex taken from the home. She left in her vehicle and LE followed her to the state line while her ex was detained in the home.

Just another perspective...

My oldest daughter is close to Gail's age and she had a husband who did everything within his power to destroy her mind and her spirit. He was never physcially abusive but what he did to her, breaking her down mentally and emotionally as well as financially, was just as bad as being physically abusive. Somehow he convinced her to leave home one night, leave their son with him for the night and go stay in a motel, and when she did he immediately filed for divorce and full custody of their child siting her with abandonment...
Thankfully, he was not able to get full custody of their child and they were granted joint custody, but nevertheless he nearly destroyed my daughter..

BTW.. He was running around with another woman too...

I guess we can all be grateful he never hired anyone to get rid of my daughter... JMHO..

Let me add...I'm also thankful he married the woman he cheated with.. Now they live more than six hours away from my daughter and my grandson and my daughter now has full custody of my grandson...


What is it with these men and their mindset? Is it something in the water or is it the way they were raised? IMO..They have entitlement issues and EGO's run amok.JMHO

 

[KathyJ]

:seeya: to our lurkers-please sign on and help us try and sort out where this dear woman is...Peace to you all.

I posted a bit on this thread, but really had nothing else to offer so I have not posted in awhile. However, I am still following this everyday.

There is STILL so much speculation, but I still am not convinced Gail left on her own and just disappeared.

I am also very thrown by how some people that are close to Gail are acting. I am so used to people banding together to help find someone NO MATTER WHAT I am not used to seeing the anger and the attacks that I see on other sites. I understand anger is an emotion you will experience if someone you love is missing but I am seeing so much of it that I find it very troubling.

All this time and there is still nothing to go on, not one bit of evidence that shows foul play or that she left on her own. Whatever has happened to her has obviously been well planned out. IMO I believe there is a third party involved in this. Like I said it's just my opinion.

Again, I do not believe Gail just left on her own. I fear this is going to grow into a cold case eventually. It's just such a sad story and my heart breaks for her children.

 

[Snowbunny]

It would stand to reason that Gail would go to the Lake House with the children since the vehicle was already packed and they were already on their way when the incident with MP occurred and Gail called LE. If I had my vehicle packed, kids in the car and I had told my kids we were going to the Lake House then that's where I would go irregardless, but I would have been gone for the whole weekend and MP would have had to wait until I got back with the kids before he saw them unless he chose to come down there on his own. It sounds to me like that trip was planned to begin with since they were already on their way so I don't see where AD was stretching the truth there. JMHO.

 

[JBean]

I'm not seeing all the stuff Matt was supposed to have put in the documents about Gail being severely mentally ill and psychotic and all that stuff.

In the police report from 4/29, it states that Gail was to take the kids to the lake house for ONE night.

Very interesting.

The article does not link the Ex-Parte Motion for exclusive use and possesion of the marital residence.
In that document Matt states:
"Mother has been suffering from severe mental issues"

I just realized that the RO and Temp Custody documents by Matt were not linked either.
That is where he refers to her as having:
"severe psychological problems that have not been corrected by a psychiatrist. Her condition has gotten worse. She is now in a manic state and is suffering from delusions"

Make no mistake, Matt is describing what he considers to be a mentally ill woman.

 

[Melodie]

This was my first time to see the police reports and other court papers. When reading them, I was overwhelmed with sadness for Gail. How awful. Gail, where are you??

 

[Pearl*]

She agreed herself the day before with LE - as we have, written by a LEO, on an official LE document - that she would only stay at the lake house for one night. I don't see any duress.

[bbm]

I think the wording of the report is interesting. It says that MP "agreed" to "stay" at the Signal Mountain home and to "let" her take the children "for one night."

So...why no reference to what GP "agreed"? Why not that THEY agreed?

Maybe picky, and I don't know what it means, but the wording seems odd to me. It sounds like it was some sort of compromise to resolve an immediate conflict and to get the two of them apart as peacefully as possible, and a lot is left out.

The word "let" makes me bristle. As others have said, I don't think she was under an obligation to return after one night. And I don't think the report indicates the agreement was necessarily restricted to one night. If GP and MP had agreed for her to return the next day (although I don't think she would have been obligated to do so), I believe the report would have said "only" one night--especially if either of them had made a big deal over it.

It's understood, of course, that the wording was chosen by the officer who wrote the report, and that officers cannot include every detail in the report, but... Gail seems curiously missing from the report IMO--except in the passive sense that she was "given" numbers of a safe place to stay.

What did she SAY? What did she DO? Who called LE and why? A lot is missing from the report IMO. A lot that probably seemed very insignificant at the time.

ETA: If he "agreed" to stay, then my guess is that he wasn't naming up the terms. I think she must have wanted to go to Alabama with the children. Some have asked why HE would not have left instead. I think the answer is here.

 

[hollyblue]

My oldest daughter is close to Gail's age and she had a husband who did everything within his power to destroy her mind and her spirit. He was never physcially abusive but what he did to her, breaking her down mentally and emotionally as well as financially, was just as bad as being physically abusive. Somehow he convinced her to leave home one night, leave their son with him for the night and go stay in a motel, and when she did he immediately filed for divorce and full custody of their child siting her with abandonment...
Thankfully, he was not able to get full custody of their child and they were granted joint custody, but nevertheless he nearly destroyed my daughter..

BTW.. He was running around with another woman too...

I guess we can all be grateful he never hired anyone to get rid of my daughter... JMHO..

Let me add...I'm also thankful he married the woman he cheated with.. Now they live more than six hours away from my daughter and my grandson and my daughter now has full custody of my grandson...


What is it with these men and their mindset? Is it something in the water or is it the way they were raised? IMO..They have entitlement issues and EGO's run amok.JMHO

I don't know Em, but I ran into one of those too. Their actions are a lot like a snotty little boy getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar and turning around and acting disrespectful to the mother because he doesn't' want to deal with it, but unfortunately, your stuck trying to figure out why an adult would act so....especially since you didn't see any of the behavior early in the relationship. I think it's partly sadistic and sick...and involves mother issues. It takes a big jolt on you because you can't believe an adult would be so juvenile. BUT, JMO. Major hissy fit.

 

[hollyblue]

The article does not link the Ex-Parte Motion for exclusive use and possesion of the marital residence.
In that document Matt states:
"Mother has been suffering from severe mental issues"

I just realized that the RO and Temp Custody documents by Matt were not linked either.
That is where he refers to her as having:
"severe psychological problems that have not been corrected by a psychiatrist. Her condition has gotten worse. She is now in a manic state and is suffering from delusions"

Make no mistake, Matt is describing what he considers to be a mentally ill woman.

He certainly is. If that's not calling the kettle black. IMO

 

[believe09]

Emeralgem, I am so sorry for all that you and your dd went through. I hope the situation is far more stable now.

 

[Sleuthy1]

She agreed herself the day before with LE - as we have, written by a LEO, on an official LE document - that she would only stay at the lake house for one night. I don't see any duress.

The police report states she was going to Alabama Lake House with the children for THE night NOT ONE night:banghead:

 

[glorias]

Yes, I very definitely think that both Diane and LE have information that indicates Gail left on her own, willingly. I would not be the least bit surprised if others also have similar information. I've heard it myself.

Honest question: If they all know Gail just left on her own, why don't they inform the people who are doing physical searches and/or online work and searches? For example, fireflylink contacted LE about finding the Jeep and has an email regarding the Jeep that was approved by LE, so clearly they were involved in writing it. Why would they do that if everyone close to the case knows Gail just walked off willingly?

Why did the FBI get involved? Why did LE spend time, money, and effort on multiple searches?

What would be the motivation for not telling the press something? Surely having this drag out in the media, online, and in local rumors can't be doing anyone any good.

How does the restraining order that KN and DN filed fit into this scenario?

These are all honest questions, not rhetorical.

 

[Pearl*]

The police report states she was going to Alabama Lake House with the children for THE night NOT ONE night:banghead:

I looked back at the report after reading your post. I really think it's a case of sloppy handwriting. I could make a case for it being either word.... I must admit the word "the" makes more sense in the context of the sentence though.

 

[glorias]

The police report states she was going to Alabama Lake House with the children for THE night NOT ONE night

Good point, it does say "for the night."

Another point: On the last page of police reports, it says MP spoke to Gail over the phone about bringing the kids back to SM on the 30th, apparently before she dropped the kids off at noon.

 

[believe09]

Good point, it does say "for the night."

Another point: On the last page of police reports, it says MP spoke to Gail over the phone about bringing the kids back to SM on the 30th, apparently before she dropped the kids off at noon.

This is one of the reasons I am stuck on the whole "duress" thing. It is one thing to ask her to come home because you miss your children, or if there was a committment to some event. I guess only Gail, Matt P and perhaps DN know how it was all phrased.