TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #5

[hollyblue]

snipped...

Not only that, but apparently AD was at the police station on the 1st with paperwork, showing it to LE. She says they weren't concerned. On the 2nd MP and Diane called LE. So LE knew there had been domestic calls as recently as the 29th, that Gail was given a safe place number, then just 2 days later a friend said she was missing. The day after that, her sister and husband on the 2nd. I don't think it seems weird at all to question whether things were thoroughly looked over in the beginning, because it seems like there was a progressive line of incidents that could point to a specific scenario that needed LE investigation.

glorias, I must have missed the info on AD going to LE on 5/1? Do you remember what article? Thanks.

 

[Pearl*]

snipped...


Do we need to have all media articles vetted before we talk about them? That's an honest question. I'm asking because I'm the one who transcribed the video and posted screen captures, etc. I did so entirely because it was a media article and I thought that was fair game, so to speak.

And what a ton of work that must have been.

snipped...

Thank you. You're exactly right. Emotions are running high and suddenly everyone is the enemy to everyone else. I guess the news about AD being threatened early in the investigation has caused a lot of concerns amongst everyone.

I just had a chance to check in and I'm completely overwhelmed with this negativity, the confusing who we can and can't quote, hints at rumors and allegations that can't be completely spelled out. I feel like if I stay here and follow the case which I am genuinely concerned about, I'm hurting certain people who are angry we're even here in the first place.

[bbm]

I think this is a huge issue that needs some fast damage control.

If I can just send a plea to anybody here who might have an angle to bring down the negativity here and elsewhere.... Nobody is at their best when they feel their efforts aren't appreciated.

Seriously, aren't we all on the same team? Do we really want to alienate ANYBODY who is trying to help? I think this site sure does bring together a lot of intelligent minds. Besides the thoughts expressed, I can't remember seeing on any site such a collection of well-written, grammatically correct posts.

And what about LE? Don't we think they read postings on the various sites? Do we really want to send them the message that we think they aren't up to the challenge but hope they'll go out there and give it their best shot anyway?

They're human too. Seems to me that most anything positive would be more effective than giving a list of all the mistakes we can find, past and present. Like, if we can't say anything nice, then bake something nice and take it over?

 

[glorias]

glorias, I must have missed the info on AD going to LE on 5/1? Do you remember what article? Thanks.

In this article:

http://www.wrcbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=14878595

The video says Arlene started investigating "the day after" Gail disappeared, but the text of the article says "30 days after." Maybe I didn't hear the video right?

 

[JBean]

snipped...



In this instance, I'm assuming they mean the news story on Arlene's "threatening" (as the media put it) text from LE. Do we need to have all media articles vetted before we talk about them? That's an honest question. I'm asking because I'm the one who transcribed the video and posted screen captures, etc. I did so entirely because it was a media article and I thought that was fair game, so to speak.

So I'm asking about having articles approved first because what happens the next time a news station reports that someone is accusing LE of not doing their job? It very likely could happen again.

No you do not need to have articles vetted before you post them.
I will take a look at the video transcription and make sure it is ok.

 

[JBean]

The best damage control is to get back to discussion about gail!

 

[hollyblue]

In this article:

http://www.wrcbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=14878595

The video says Arlene started investigating "the day after" Gail disappeared, but the text of the article says "30 days after." Maybe I didn't hear the video right?

TY. The video is sputtering right now...stops every few seconds, etc. It's not your link, it their's. I'll catch it later, tho..thanks again.

I'm having trouble on WS in general tonight...real slow when refreshing. Anyone else?

 

[glorias]

I'm having trouble on a lot of websites actually. WS is pretty fast compared to the WRCBTV page, which I can't get to load all the way at all (and no video so I can't re-listen to that part I may have misheard, argh). But a couple of completely unrelated forums I go to are very very slow. Maybe a router is down somewhere?

I'll try the video later tonight too. It was kind of distorted yesterday so it's possible they said AD gave paperwork to LE "thirty days" after instead of "the day", which makes a huge difference.

 

[Snowbunny]

I'm having trouble on a lot of websites actually. WS is pretty fast compared to the WRCBTV page, which I can't get to load all the way at all (and no video so I can't re-listen to that part I may have misheard, argh). But a couple of completely unrelated forums I go to are very very slow. Maybe a router is down somewhere?

I'll try the video later tonight too. It was kind of distorted yesterday so it's possible they said AD gave paperwork to LE "thirty days" after instead of "the day", which makes a huge difference.

Do you know if Arlene knew who Gail's PI was? I'm just curious beings I've read that Gail was seen with a lady with dark hair. Its pretty obvious that you are truly concerned about Gail and that I appreciate.

 

[fireflylink]

In this article:

http://www.wrcbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=14878595

The video says Arlene started investigating "the day after" Gail disappeared, but the text of the article says "30 days after." Maybe I didn't hear the video right?

FYI - The article was updated last night because: The original article and video inacurately stated 1 day after, the text was corrected to reflect 30 days after. The video is NOT correct, but you can't change video like you can text! Hope this helps.

I should probably clarify that I was personally involved in the correction process, not something I just "heard".

 

[glorias]

FYI - The article was updated last night because: The original article and video inacurately stated 1 day after, the text was corrected to reflect 30 days after. The video is NOT correct, but you can't change video like you can text! Hope this helps.

I should probably clarify that I was personally involved in the correction process, not something I just "heard".

Great, thanks! I'm glad we got that cleared up.

 

[glorias]

Investigators said they were waiting on an official cause of death from the medical examiner’s office.

Deputies said the victim's family has been notified.

No further information was immediately available.

Read more: http://www.koco.com/news/28064772/detail.html#ixzz1OvlhO2tD

ETA: This is getting a little confusing. The above article is dated 5/29, but this article from yesterday says she is still missing. ????

http://www.kfor.com/kfor-body-found-in-logan-county-20110608,0,4830118.story

Interesting. I wonder if the Oklahoma LE issued a standard statement saying no info could be released until the family was notified, then discovered that they couldn't ID the woman at all. Or maybe it was a mistake in the first news article. We're seeing quite a few mistakes in the Gail articles lately, with the date and location of that insurance meeting MP skipped out on and other stuff.

 

[JBean]

does anyone know if Gail's hair would be described as reddish at all?


[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139785"]FL FL Unidentified Woman's Body Found in Gulf 2011.06.09 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[redfish]

Oh my. I am very familiar with that area. Anxious to hear more. Whatever came of the sighting of the jeep in SanDestin? Any entry into the gulf along that shoreline might have a drowning victim winding up in the bayou in Callaway. It would take some time to travel there with the tides.

 

[hollyblue]

She could be called a strawberry blonde, imo, from her pic that you have there JBean.

Panama City is between the AL line and Tallahassee. Remember way back at the beginning of Gail's thread, there was a woman who posted she worked at a resort and thought she had seen the jeep that morning in the parking lot? That was in the same area. I want to say Destin, but not 100% on that. I think I even posted a map. I'll dig.

ETA: Thanks redfish for confirming Destin.

Here's map of the resort in Sandestin, Panama City and Tallahassee.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&sou...1102,-85.374756&spn=2.183342,3.504639&t=h&z=8

 

[hollyblue]

Interesting. I wonder if the Oklahoma LE issued a standard statement saying no info could be released until the family was notified, then discovered that they couldn't ID the woman at all. Or maybe it was a mistake in the first news article. We're seeing quite a few mistakes in the Gail articles lately, with the date and location of that insurance meeting MP skipped out on and other stuff.

They must have identified the body because they said the family had been notified. They just can't release the COD because they don't have all the info yet.

Maybe whoever updated the first article just forgot to change the date on the update and the second article just hasn't caught up with news? ??

 

[believe09]

They must have identified the body because they said the family had been notified. They just can't release the COD because they don't have all the info yet.

Maybe whoever updated the first article just forgot to change the date on the update and the second article just hasn't caught up with news? ??

Last time I checked the thread, the media article was incorrect and the UID was still unidentified.

Unless there were fingerprints of Gail's on file, and one's sucessfully lifted from the UID, it would take dental records and/or DNA to rule her out. The exception might be if there is a characteristic of the UID that has not been released....a tattoo, a bone break, an implant. Something like that.

 

[believe09]

I am wondering how to get back to focusing on Gail. It is her case, she is missing, there are criminal investigators working on it, and it is an active case.

We still have a UID that has some similarities to Gail.

If anyone is confused about posting rules, there is a long and short version of the TOS here and posting etiquette:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=159"]The Rules - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

If you arent sure about something you want to share, please feel free to pm a moderator and we can help. We, all of us, want the same thing. We all want Gail found and some kind of resolution for her family.

 

[JBean]

The second UID has been ID'ed and it is not Gail.
http://www.wmbb.com/Global/story.asp?S=14867276

 

[ThoughtFox]

I think it's pretty easy to distinguish a rumor from a real fact of the case.

Just because someone writes something on the internet doesn't make it true, no matter how well-meaning they are. It may or may not be true.

We don't have to be like that guy in Spinal Tap and "believe virtually everything we read" or it leads to confusion. That's what being here on Websleuths has taught me, and I think there are valid reasons for the rules we have.

Personally, I think if someone is making a timeline, they should verify everything with the police because that's what will stand up in court. Other sightings should be listed as "unverified," just as the police would do it, because otherwise it's not going to help at all. People who want to go off searching on wild goose chases are welcome to it, but they shouldn't put down people who can't do it, or who prefer to leave this up to the police.

"Sightings" of missing people happen in every case. What distinguishes them from rumors is whether the police have investigated it or not.

Some sightings are ruled out as misidentification. How many blonde women are there on Signal Mtn? Hundreds? Did anyone see her jeep? Did anyone write down a license number? If someone saw her in a store, what was she buying, and if that store wasn't on the mountain, then they should be aware that there are thousands of tall blonde women in Chattanooga and the surrounding area.

Some people might have their days mixed up too - we saw that in the Hailey Dunn case, even though the people making the reports were well-meaning.

In the Madelyn McCann and Kyron Horman cases, there have been some huge misidentifications of children who merely looked like them. Multiple sightings of each child, to the point that some parents felt harrassed by the press and well-meaning people. So to me, it's a slippery slope to think that just because there was a "sighting" somewhere then it has to be that person. Often that is not the case at all.

Sightings should be treated just like the unidentified deceased woman - if it isn't verified, then it isn't her. That seems simple to me.

A comment on a blog or newspaper, while it may turn out to be true in the future, should be taken at first with a grain of salt. Rumors can turn into facts given time, but some rumors turn out to be completely untrue.

What bloggers write is considered opinion, not fact. If anyone here has a blog, they know what I mean. Bloggers have no limits on what they write, and even though they may have sources just like the MSM, and they may have insider knowledge, and eventually they may be proven right. But here on WS, it's treated like a rumor or a comment, not a fact. Why? Because the bottom line has to be "just the facts ma'am."

 

[believe09]

I know we arent the average site-we are heavily moderated. We support law enforcement where and when we can. Some posters love it, and some dont.

You own your words here and everywhere on the www, and if you out yourself there is nothing we can do to maintain your anonymity, of course. Anyone can say they are anyone...I could say that I am the Queen of England for example. We do the best we can to verify insiders when possible and with limited means as we are all volunteers here.

I know that people are upset-I wish we could make everyone happy. But if we have to pick, we will fall on the side of Gail and her case. I think everyone has done their best to stand up for her. Everyone. JMVHO.

I wonder what LE has in store for this weekend and I wonder if we will see anything further from BCBS of TN??