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

[BeanE]

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.

Yes, LE has never said Matt wasn't cooperating. And I agree it's interesting that the only comments LE has made in that regard, is about Arlene.

And I would include, in addition to Ms. Atkinson's comments, the text from LE to Arlene - we've certainly never seen anything like that about Matt - or his mother - or Tammy - or anyone else in this case.

Here's the message Arlene got from LE as I transcribed it when she read it out in that interview:

Your actions today were criminally negligent and interfering with a police investigation. Any further actions will result in criminal charges against you.

And then, of course, there are the requests from LE to Arlene for the DVR that she refuses to give them, where they commented in response to the reporter IIRC on whether they might press charges on Arlene for not turning it over. I *think* they said they didn't know at that time. I'm not finding the article atm. I'll keep looking.

 

[hollyblue]

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

If they did, they never put it out to the media...and we know they didn't take the puters. MP could have just no.....and then made contact with his attorney. I'm sure he had the number handy, because he told GP he was contacting them the next week. Probably the 2nd--- the day her phone stopped. IMO

 

[Melodie]

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)

Thanks! Good question. I don't know if they had a family plan, but I do know that if Gail had a cell plan in her own name, nobody could change or stop that plan for her without a death certificate. I know this because when my father passed, my mother wanted to change their plan to be for just one phone and end the service for his phone. The account was in his name and we had to take his death certificate to the Verizon store and the papers showing she was the personal representative of his estate to make the changes.

 

[glorias]

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.

Do you have a link that says those first searches were NOT subject to restrictions?

Do we know that 15 minutes comment wasn't hyperbole or a phrase, like saying "just a second" when you do not literally mean one second of time?

It doesn't seem like ANY lawyer would know enough about the case to offer ANYTHING to LE just 15 minutes after being retained, let alone a complete, unfettered, comprehensive search of multiple properties. I don't personally believe LD offered the searches 15 minutes after being hired. If LD is a decent lawyer, he didn't offer anything to LE until he had engaged in a lengthy, thorough investigation of the situation; I personally believe he said "15 minutes" as a figure of speech.

But if you know for sure that those first searches were offered by MP's attorneys without any restrictions, please, share that link! That is BIG news and we need to know it.

 

[Oriah]

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)

Good question- and no, but if the phone were still 'on' and functional it would be the last ping at the time of service being shut off.

And you made me think of something else, thank you- handsfree/bluetooth/etc.
Hmm.

 

[confused]

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.

Everyone seems to forget that Gail talked with LE on the 30th, as she was dropping the children off at home. Wonder what SHE said to LE. Did she tell LE her plans?? Would go far in explaining their reactions.

 

[BeanE]

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

I have no problem with people retaining an attorney. It's a smart thing to do in these cases.

In Gabriel Johnson's case, there certainly was never any suspicion on his father, but I recommended strongly and repeatedly that he retain an attorney, primarily because of the harassment he was subjected to, but also just to have someone to help answer the many questions that would come up within his family about the process, LE procedures, his victim's rights, etc. It's just a smart thing to do.

With Tammy hiring an attorney, on that one Susan Murphy Milano show where Arlene was being interviewed - the last one IIRC - Susan said "I know" why Tammy retained an attorney, and it wasn't anything to do with Gail's disappearance, but that it was because she was being harassed, receiving threatening phone calls.

Now, I don't put a whole lot of stock in Susan's information, because I know she's gotten a lot wrong, but I am curious, especially because she said "I know". That stuck in my mind.

Does anyone know anything about this harassment of Tammy? Who was harassing her? Who was making the threatening phone calls to her?

Also, about Tammy and her attorney, I looked him up, and he does employment law. I wondered if she consulted with him (I haven't seen anything saying she actually retained him) when she was fired from BCBS. He's in Chattanooga. She shortly after that moved back to Mississippi. So just wondered if she might have had a consultation with him to see what her rights were or whatever when she was fired, found out she was out of luck so to speak, and moved on.

 

[RT51]

Thanks! Good question. I don't know if they had a family plan, but I do know that if Gail had a cell plan in her own name, nobody could change or stop that plan for her without a death certificate. I know this because when my father passed, my mother wanted to change their plan to be for just one phone and end the service for his phone. The account was in his name and we had to take his death certificate to the Verizon store and the papers showing she was the personal representative of his estate to make the changes.

I was just thinking back to when my sis was on a plan with my ex. She stopped paying her part so I took over her number. Then I decided to leave the family plan and all it took was my ex to contact the provider since he was the main holder of the account.

 

[glorias]

And I would include, in addition to Ms. Atkinson's comments, the text from LE to Arlene - we've certainly never seen anything like that about Matt - or his mother - or Tammy - or anyone else in this case.

Yeah, probably because they're not talking to the media or searching for Gail like AD is. That's the context here: AD was investigating on her own and got that text, and we know about the text because she told the media about it.

If MP was doing his own investigating, we don't know about it. If he got texts, we would never know because he doesn't talk to the media.

And then, of course, there are the requests from LE to Arlene for the DVR that she refuses to give them, where they commented in response to the reporter IIRC on whether they might press charges on Arlene for not turning it over. I *think* they said they didn't know at that time. I'm not finding the article atm. I'll keep looking.

LE can get that DVR if they want it. No one will ever convince me otherwise. They're the ones with the power here.

Janice Atkinson said she could not comment on MP because the investigation was open.

WPLZ news spoke to Hamilton county sheriff’s department public information officer Janice Atkinson this morning.

She will only say that she cannot comment on the chain of possession, since it is, quote, an “ongoing investigation.”

http://chattanoogapulse.com/newsfea...tions-abound-over-missing-palmgren-computers/

There's another lengthier article somewhere where a journalist says they are waiting for Atkinson to return with more info, but no article followed that up so I don't know if Atkinson replied.

 

[BeanE]

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?

One should always assume that nothing is deleted. The FBI has some wickedly awesome software for pulling up stuff that's been deleted. I don't have any links for you on that. I just know it from my former profession and association with some... well... wickedly awesome people.

 

[BeanE]

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)

There was an article that said that when the reporter tried to call Matt, his number had been disconnected. I wondered if he'd had a work phone, and when he was fired, if he had to turn it in of course, and get a new (personal) phone.

As of the second Jammer interview, which was in late June, Gail's phone was still activated - according to Arlene it was still going to voicemail.

Holler if anyone would like links. Always happy to pull them.

 

[Oriah]

Thanks! Good question. I don't know if they had a family plan, but I do know that if Gail had a cell plan in her own name, nobody could change or stop that plan for her without a death certificate. I know this because when my father passed, my mother wanted to change their plan to be for just one phone and end the service for his phone. The account was in his name and we had to take his death certificate to the Verizon store and the papers showing she was the personal representative of his estate to make the changes.

Hmm. This is kind of interesting to me. We have a 'family plan' (it's actually used as a 'business' plan, so to speak- so as to provide phones for mutilple users) and any primary account holders can make changes to the account. We have multiple primary account holders. So in other words, I can cancel a number, suspend a number, place limitations on a number, upgrade a phone, transfer a number to a new phone etc- because I am one of the primary account holders on our plan. So could anyone else, who I -or any other primary account holder- has authorized as a primary account holder. :waitasec:

Food for thought. Thanks, Melodie.

 

[glorias]

Everyone seems to forget that Gail talked with LE on the 30th, as she was dropping the children off at home. Wonder what SHE said to LE. Did she tell LE her plans?? Would go far in explaining their reactions.

Someone give me a link on that? I don't have a link saying Gail specifically told LE she was dropping the kids off. We've heard multiple stories, that she called MP directly, called LE and told them to tell MP the kids were there, etc. Is there anything definite on that? Thanks.

On the other part, let's say she told LE her plans -- did they follow up on them? Why hasn't someone released that info to help with searches? It would help a LOT to know that Gail was headed for X and never made it there.

 

[confused]

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?

Oh, I can answer this one pretty well. Yes and no. When you delete something, it doesn't always remove everything from the computer. There are usually some files or pieces of files left. The only way that it would be really gone is if you write back over the area where it was stored. When computer gurus go in to recover stuff, they use programs that go back and pull the leftover bits and try to piece them back together, then fill in the missing parts with 'assumptions' taken from similar files. It is possible many times to recover most of anything that has been deleted, but it doesn't always work. It all depends on the amount of activity on the computer after the deletion.

Then of course there are 'shredder' programs which obliviate files as they delete them. If those are used, the info is pretty much gone.

All that is of course as a general user.. and FBI agent can probably get more than your average Joe.

 

[KathyJ]

Everyone seems to forget that Gail talked with LE on the 30th, as she was dropping the children off at home. Wonder what SHE said to LE. Did she tell LE her plans?? Would go far in explaining their reactions.

I hear what you are saying and your right always have to look at both sides.
But if what your speculating is true, we would not be discussing this right now. FBI would not be involved, criminal lawyers would not be involved. This thread would have stopped a long time ago. No one is going to put on a dog and pony show if they have the knowledge that she did indeed take off.

 

[hollyblue]

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.

TBH, I'm a little confused on your perceptions of what AD states. It seems some things she has stated you don't put alot of faith in....and other times like this with the DVR it's taken full heartedly. ?? If doubting AD...I would doubt this also, in theory. imo. As, stated previously, I think she turned it over, but is just not allowed to tell that she did. JMO Of course, much could be resolved if we heard something....anything... from LE, but this is the first case I've seen where hardly any info is forthcoming from LE..except in the very beginning of her missing. I'd like to know how they feel about the Big Fork sighting....do they feel it has any merit? If so, give us and the people in the community a description of that pick up. jmo

 

[KathyJ]

Oh, I can answer this one pretty well. Yes and no. When you delete something, it doesn't always remove everything from the computer. There are usually some files or pieces of files left. The only way that it would be really gone is if you write back over the area where it was stored. When computer gurus go in to recover stuff, they use programs that go back and pull the leftover bits and try to piece them back together, then fill in the missing parts with 'assumptions' taken from similar files. It is possible many times to recover most of anything that has been deleted, but it doesn't always work. It all depends on the amount of activity on the computer after the deletion.

Then of course there are 'shredder' programs which obliviate files as they delete them. If those are used, the info is pretty much gone.

All that is of course as a general user.. and FBI agent can probably get more than your average Joe.

That's what I thought. I thought you could always find "something" on there. Then again putting pieces of the puzzle together of the things you find is not always easy either.

 

[glorias]

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?

They often can, which is why it would be SUPER if the computers would be handed over to LE. To my knowledge, they have not been.

 

[confused]

Yes, LE has never said Matt wasn't cooperating. And I agree it's interesting that the only comments LE has made in that regard, is about Arlene.

And I would include, in addition to Ms. Atkinson's comments, the text from LE to Arlene - we've certainly never seen anything like that about Matt - or his mother - or Tammy - or anyone else in this case.

Here's the message Arlene got from LE as I transcribed it when she read it out in that interview:

Your actions today were criminally negligent and interfering with a police investigation. Any further actions will result in criminal charges against you.
And then, of course, there are the requests from LE to Arlene for the DVR that she refuses to give them, where they commented in response to the reporter IIRC on whether they might press charges on Arlene for not turning it over. I *think* they said they didn't know at that time. I'm not finding the article atm. I'll keep looking.

Did anyone ever learn what her actions were?

 

[KathyJ]

They often can, which is why it would be SUPER if the computers would be handed over to LE. To my knowledge, they have not been.

Which gives the people who have the computers more time to clean them out.:banghead: