TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren,44, Signal Mountain, 30 April, 2011 - #11

[KathyJ]

IMO I don't think AD was really to happy with LE from the get go after they sent a text to her early on. Maybe she lost trust. Didn't feel comfortable at that point, I don't know.

 

[Emeralgem]

You know what bothers me most about AD's involvement concerning LE and potential or actual evidence?
The 'come here, go away' aspect.
The 'look, I have something shiny, but I'm not gonna show it to you' aspect.

It's like some big taunt, or game. Maybe that's not the intent- but the approach sure isn't helpful in finding Gail.

I may certainly be wrong but I was under the impression she did present some type of evidence to SMPD and they were not interested in the evidence.. Am I wrong? If so please correct me...JMHO.

 

[glorias]

IMO, LE could have ASK for any of the computers...or even to have a nice look-see around the SM home, but they didn't. Even the security system if it was up and operational at the time. I've seen where LE has done that in other missing person's cases, and SMPD didn't bother or just wanted to take MP's word....even after all the domestic calls they had responded to for them. If MP or his attorneys later wanted to retrieve them, LE could have then secured a subpoena to keep possession of them because Gail IS/WAS missing. IMO

That reminds me, I always wanted to ask -- Did they ask to look around and were told no? MP had attorneys pretty early on. Is it possible LE did ask to look around, look at computers, etc. but were thwarted immediately by the lawyers?

I can't imagine what a lawyer would say to stop them though, what with the welfare call and the two 911 calls right before Gail disappeared. MP said she was paranoid and mentally unstable too, so surely a judge would have agreed to warrants, even a limited warrant. Why didn't LE try for one?

The only way I personally think this all makes sense is to believe LE didn't have much concern in the first place and, when MP put up resistance, didn't care to fight it. JMVHO

 

[Oriah]

I may certainly be wrong but I was under the impression she did present some type of evidence to SMPD and they were not interested in the evidence.. Am I wrong? If so please correct me...JMHO.

I don't know Em, to be honest.

I think that info (evidence was presented to LE, but they were not interested in it) comes from AD.

So it's hard to tell if if the statements made about that are valid. I'd like to hear LE say "Yeah, we heard about that- but we said nevermind."
You know?

 

[Melodie]

I may certainly be wrong but I was under the impression she did present some type of evidence to SMPD and they were not interested in the evidence.. Am I wrong? If so please correct me...JMHO.

:twocents:I think you are correct, Em. It was my understanding she offered it to them early on and they were not interested. Then, they came to her later and asked for it. I, like others have already said, believe that she may have turned it over to them, but she was told to keep quiet about it. That is just my opinion. She did say in the Jammer interview and other places that she was not going to turn it over except under her conditions. Her condition was that a copy would be made by her local LE and they would turn the copy over to the authorities here. She has definitely kept a much lower profile recently and it is my opinion that she was instructed to do that. If she did not turn a copy over by now, I do not understand that. The LE involved in this case seem to want to keep everything very quiet and out of the media. They may not want her to talk about the DVR anymore. This is all just my opinion.

 

[BeanE]

IMO I don't think AD was really to happy with LE from the get go after they sent a text to her early on. Maybe she lost trust. Didn't feel comfortable at that point, I don't know.

Arlene was down on LE from the git-go. The text from LE telling her that her actions were criminally negligent and they would press charges if she didn't stop interfering with the investigation came 30 days after Gail disappeared.

From her statements, it seems to me that Arlene was 'unhappy' with LE because she was "telling" them to do thing, and she thought they weren't doing them because they didn't drop everything and do them right then and there, and in her presence.

 

[grandmaj]

Let me say this once and if I have to say it again there will be a problem. We don't personalize posts. WE DO NOT TELL OTHER POSTERS THAT THEY DON'T KNOW THE CASE OR HAVEN'T READ THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. We don't suggest you know more. WE DON'T GO DOWN THAT ROAD!

Voice your opinion and move on without telling another poster what they do or do not understand. WE NEVER CATEGORIZE OTHER POSTERS INTO GROUPS. YOU vs. US.

And, we don't discuss other posters! NO SLEUTHING OTHER MEMBERS!

 

[BeanE]

Thank you, grammy. :grouphug:

 

[BeanE]

That reminds me, I always wanted to ask -- Did they ask to look around and were told no? MP had attorneys pretty early on. Is it possible LE did ask to look around, look at computers, etc. but were thwarted immediately by the lawyers?

Lee Davis has stated that within 15 minutes of being retained, which was very early on, he contacted LE and offered for them to search the property. LE turned him down.

I'll find the article and link it if anyone wants it. Just holler.

 

[BeanE]

I don't know Em, to be honest.

I think that info (evidence was presented to LE, but they were not interested in it) comes from AD.

So it's hard to tell if if the statements made about that are valid. I'd like to hear LE say "Yeah, we heard about that- but we said nevermind."
You know?

I would be more inclined to believe Arlene that she tried to give them information, if she were not now withholding information as she has been and continues to do with the DVR, which LE asked her for.

 

[ThoughtFox]

I personally think that AD has made herself a target in this case by giving the public so much information. Only time will tell if that was a good or bad idea.

She seems to have held onto this one piece of evidence that might or might not show something, but I personally feel that concentrating too much on AD is not going to solve this case. Gail didn't just disappear from Alabama - she brought the kids home to SM and then disappeared.

I think lots of information has been lost on the wiped computers. That had nothing to do with AD, but with the attorneys who sent them away in the middle of a missing persons case. They explained that away, but many of us are not satisfied with their explanation. :twocents:

It's a real shame when evidence is destroyed that way, but I think there might still be evidence we don't know about, or evidence that will turn up in the future. So I am not giving up hope. But I'm also not convinced that Gail is still alive somewhere. We have no sightings, no contact with family, no reason to believe she is in hiding. ETA: No Jeep. I'm sorry to say that, but I don't see the evidence that she disappeared of her own volition, therefore I do suspect foul play whether the police agree or not. JMO

 

[glorias]

Lee Davis has stated that within 15 minutes of being retained, which was very early on, he contacted LE and offered for them to search the property. LE turned him down.

Offered LE the option to search under the restrictions they outlined, I assume. Attorney LD didn't expand on the details in the news article, but I would find it VERY hard to believe that they first told LE they could search without limitations and then later changed their mind and demanded rules and restrictions to the search. Those rules and restrictions must have been there from their very first offer -- and in light of that, I personally don't blame LE for not taking them up on it.

 

[glorias]

I would be more inclined to believe Arlene that she tried to give them information, if she were not now withholding information as she has been and continues to do with the DVR, which LE asked her for.

And I would be more inclined to believe MP's lawyers when they say MP has always cooperated with LE, were they not responsible for limiting LE's ability to search properties and removing computers before LE had a chance to look at them, then telling the media "if something is deleted, it's deleted."

Tangentially, I would be a lot less confused about what LE is doing had they talked to the media about MP the same way they did about AD. I mentioned this a few days ago: Janice Atkinson couldn't comment when media asked about those missing computers, but when media asked about the DVR, she had plenty to say about AD. Sure would like to know the reason behind the difference.

 

[Oriah]

I personally think that AD has made herself a target in this case by giving the public so much information. Only time will tell if that was a good or bad idea.

She seems to have held onto this one piece of evidence that might or might not show something, but I personally feel that concentrating too much on AD is not going to solve this case. Gail didn't just disappear from Alabama - she brought the kids home to SM and then disappeared.

I think lots of information has been lost on the wiped computers. That had nothing to do with AD, but with the attorneys who sent them away in the middle of a missing persons case. They explained that away, but many of us are not satisfied with their explanation. :twocents:

It's a real shame when evidence is destroyed that way, but I think there might still be evidence we don't know about, or evidence that will turn up in the future. So I am not giving up hope. But I'm also not convinced that Gail is still alive somewhere. We have no sightings, no contact with family, no reason to believe she is in hiding. I'm sorry to say that, but I don't see the evidence that she disappeared of her own volition, therefore I do suspect foul play whether the police agree or not. JMO

Thanks, ThoughtFox- brings me back to direction of travel.
While I certainly think there is something odd about the trip to AL, and reports by friends surrounding it- doesn't really matter. I am as certain as I can be (given cell and vehicle pings) that Gail did indeed go to AL, return to SM, and then depart again.

Where 27 intersects/ turns into 24...south of there- does anyone know if any or all of the Cummings rd river accesses were flooded that day?

 

[KathyJ]

Lee Davis has stated that within 15 minutes of being retained, which was very early on, he contacted LE and offered for them to search the property. LE turned him down.

I'll find the article and link it if anyone wants it. Just holler.

Ugh! I don't understand that, and maybe I am not supposed to. Maybe with all the domestic calls LE just chalked it up to a domestic dispute.

Anyone with LE background that could give me an "opinion" on what the thought process is when your called about someone's wife missing after there have been domestic calls in the past? Even as a human your first thought might be the person left but wouldn't human nature also say check into things a bit further?

Then again I am speculating on the conversation LE had with MP and for all I know MP could have been very convincing that she left on her own.

 

[Melodie]

That reminds me, I always wanted to ask -- Did they ask to look around and were told no? MP had attorneys pretty early on. Is it possible LE did ask to look around, look at computers, etc. but were thwarted immediately by the lawyers?

I can't imagine what a lawyer would say to stop them though, what with the welfare call and the two 911 calls right before Gail disappeared. MP said she was paranoid and mentally unstable too, so surely a judge would have agreed to warrants, even a limited warrant. Why didn't LE try for one?

The only way I personally think this all makes sense is to believe LE didn't have much concern in the first place and, when MP put up resistance, didn't care to fight it. JMVHO

I think retaining a criminal defense attorney from the get go makes a big difference in the investigation. This is one thing that has bothered me so much. Why does everyone involved need a criminal lawyer? In my opinion, it's one of many huge red flags in this case. I know there are some famous cases where innocent people hired a criminal attorney, but that is usually after LE has put a lot of pressure and heavy suspicion on them. I haven't seen that situation here. Certainly speculation and suspicion from the public, but not from LE that we have seen. JMO

 

[BeanE]

I think lots of information has been lost on the wiped computers. That had nothing to do with AD, but with the attorneys who sent them away in the middle of a missing persons case. They explained that away, but many of us are not satisfied with their explanation. :twocents:

It's a real shame when evidence is destroyed that way, but I think there might still be evidence we don't know about, or evidence that will turn up in the future. So I am not giving up hope. But I'm also not convinced that Gail is still alive somewhere. We have no sightings, no contact with family, no reason to believe she is in hiding. ETA: No Jeep. I'm sorry to say that, but I don't see the evidence that she disappeared of her own volition, therefore I do suspect foul play whether the police agree or not. JMO

What wiped computers? I haven't seen anything that says any computers were wiped.


Here's what Matt's attorney's said:

Davis said in an interview Thursday that the computer hard drives have been sent to technicians to see if any files or history can be recovered that might lead to Gail Palmgren.

“We’ve sent them off to see what’s on them,” he said. “Obviously, if files have been deleted, they’ve been deleted.”

http://timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jul/08/missing-palmgren-computers-turned-over-defense-att/

What we don't know - because the reporter left it out - is what the context was of his statement - what question the reporter asked - what they were talking about that Davis was responding to.

From the little context that is provided - that they were trying to recover files or history that might lead to Gail - I always wondered if he may have meant that Gail may have deleted information from the computers - emails or search history or whatever - that may have indicated what she was doing in the days and weeks leading up to her disappearance.

 

[BeanE]

Offered LE the option to search under the restrictions they outlined, I assume. Attorney LD didn't expand on the details in the news article, but I would find it VERY hard to believe that they first told LE they could search without limitations and then later changed their mind and demanded rules and restrictions to the search. Those rules and restrictions must have been there from their very first offer -- and in light of that, I personally don't blame LE for not taking them up on it.

Those 'restrictions' came much, much later. I sincerely doubt that even Davis, as good an attorney as he's reputed to be, could come up with a set of criteria - which he didn't develop alone at that later time, but with the DA - all in a mere 15 minutes of having just been hired.

That's just not logical to me.

 

[KathyJ]

Are files really ever deleted? That's an honest question. I know I may delete something off my computer, but can't experts pretty much recover a lot files that we "believe" are deleted?

 

[RT51]

Lurked through all 11 threads, and I have one thought concerning the phone:

Wasn't it said that MP changed his number and got the kids new phones on the 30th? Was GP on a family plan with MP? When he changed numbers etc., did he request her's removed from the plan and the pin on the 2nd was a disconnect? The 2nd would be the first business day after the weekend right?

(Not sure if disconnects would cause a ping. JMO)