TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #6

[fireflylink]

Article posted this morning, sorry if it is a duplication.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/...missing-womans-siblings-file-restraini/?local

 

[Pearl*]

Sounds like things are getting a little more complicated for MP. imo. This would limit his future job hunting. Chattanooga needing a good pharmacist?

You bet! If I hear he is a pharmacist locally, I'll be VERY sure to do business elsewhere.

In one way, I can't blame the guy for wanting to move away (if that is the case). He's not held in very high regard on the mountain right now. And he does need to be earning a living somehow. He's got children to support.

I think I could make a decent argument on either side, as to whether it would be better for the children to be here or somewhere else. Honestly, would YOU allow your child to go over to MP's house for a sleepover? I sure wouldn't.

Unfortunately, the children are stuck in the middle of MP's mess. It's not fair, but I think that's the way it is.

 

[Pearl*]

Restraining order document (PDF format):

http://wrcb.images.worldnow.com/images/incoming/news/palmgrenrestrainingorder.pdf

I think it's interesting that this didn't hit the media until today. Once again, evidence that Gail's family is working in "stealth" mode, which I think is wise.

ETA: On a second look, I see a a write-in by the Chancellor for a $1,500 bond provision on the past page of the order. I don't know what that means. Can anybody clarify?

 

[Columbo]

first off, IMHO the kids probably have the best idea of anyone where Gail was heading, and her state of mind when she drove away. Anyone with a kid knows you don't drop them off and leave without answering a dozen questions from them. Kids are also very perceptive to their parents moods.

Also, in MHO this is an attempt by the siblings to keep the story in the media and tie Matt to SM for a while. until Gail disappeared, <modsnip>. Neither of them live close, so visitation would require travel by someone...the kids? It's fairly obvious to me that the siblings got some legal advice and are following it. seems very similar to the initial filings Matt made which he was heavily criticized for

I don't think Gail would have necessarily told her children where she was going. If the reason were too private or not for children to know, they could have asked all they wanted but not gotten an answer.

One of Gail's siblings has been working quietly with LE, and since this legal action follows in the wake of the house search, it leads me to believe that the legal action is based somewhat on LE findings or opinions. This legal action seems sensible, while Matt's restraining order, etc, filed just days after reporting Gail missing, seemed strange. JMO

 

[Pearl*]

Glorias, I'm not sure what you mean here.

The only reason I can think of not to look for a missing person, is if it is known for absolute sure that they left willingly, of their own accord, and they are safe and unharmed.

In every other circumstance I can think of, and unless and until the above is confirmed for an absolute fact, it is my understanding and opinion that it is imperative that every missing person be looked for, until they are found, or until sure evidence of what happened to them is discovered and confirmed.

Can you clarify what you meant?

Thanks.

I can't speak for Glorias, but since I posted a similar thought after her post, I'll clarify what I meant.

I've wondered if from near the beginning LE had convincing evidence that this was going to be a recovery effort rather than a rescue effort. Yes, they need to look for her either way, of course, but I can see that different tactics would be appropriate.

Again, we keep coming back to the idea that for LE not to tell all they know is probably smart.

I keep wishing we could reserve the harsh judgment of LE until we have more information, particularly for the actions (or inactions) that are in the past. The past can't be changed, and I keep thinking the people who aren't moving on from that are wasting time that could be spent looking for Gail.

There will be plenty of time pick apart our local LE later.

 

[Pearl*]

I dont know that the siblings of Gail have a losing hand here-at a minimum it is going to keep MP and the kids in the area for the next 30-60 days while it works its way through the courts. Then it is school again.

Beyond that, the kids are of an age that a judge will take into consideration their desires as well. The judge can question them, the judge can have a court appointed counselor question them, the judge can appoint a GAL for a period of time to evaluate Matt's fitness as a parent. I wondered early on if they would take this action-I wonder what has changed that they took it now.

As for the money angle-well they are protecting Gail's interests in her joint property by preventing the liquidation of it. MP must be pretty tight for money now, which is unfortunate. I am certain that his family in the area will help him get by.

[bbm]

I wonder if the intent could be to make sure the issues are still gummed up in Court when school starts.

 

[confused]

IMOO, if MP does have problems with subtance abuse as speculated, then their actions are valid. MP's quest of his filings in court didn't stand up to the smell test, imo. LE even stated they could find no reason for his psychiatric claims.

With all the reports of MP not letting the children to talk to LE...don't you find this troubling? Why not let children talk to help glean anything they might have seen or heard over that day...or w/e?
IMO

No, I don't find it troubling, because I don't find it true.

Also, we don't know the truth of Matt and his alleged substance abuse... AD is the one yelling that...we have been told numerous times, just on this forum, how aggrivating the SMPD is about stopping people driving on the Mtn, for any tiny thing. Do we really believe that if Matt were driving around the Mtn. THAT intoxicated (AD's description of Matt drinking a 36 pack-I believe that is what she said) someone would not stop him?

His filings were exactly what every attorney would tell anyone in a similar situation to do.

 

[Jade]

Hi, Jade-I re read the comment and it appears that ATRUEFRIEND was quoting a twitter from somone else who was commenting that if Gail showed erratic behavior, Matt should have gotten her help. That is how I read it, fwiw.

BUT that clarification does not change this:

I was set this comment for someone on Twitter I think it hits the nail on the head.

So obviously she agrees that GP "may be showing erratic behavior" and "instead of getting help" for GP since the phase hitting the nail on the head indicates what was said was exactly right. No?

IMO

 

[Pearl*]

No, I don't find it troubling, because I don't find it true.

Also, we don't know the truth of Matt and his alleged substance abuse... AD is the one yelling that...we have been told numerous times, just on this forum, how aggrivating the SMPD is about stopping people driving on the Mtn, for any tiny thing. Do we really believe that if Matt were driving around the Mtn. THAT intoxicated (AD's description of Matt drinking a 36 pack-I believe that is what she said) someone would not stop him?

His filings were exactly what every attorney would tell anyone in a similar situation to do.

[bbm]

Do we have confirmation of your first statement? (related to whether LE questioned the children)

As for your second paragraph, I do believe it is a fair statement that the substance abuse allegation is exactly that--an allegation and suspicion based on other facts we do have.

Despite the heavy patrolling of SMPD, they can't see everything. I believe if this were a repeated behavior over a long enough period of time, he would be pulled over eventually.

I strongly question the truth of the last bolded statement.

 

[Sleuthy1]

BUT that clarification does not change this:



So obviously she agrees that GP "may be showing exhibiting erratic behavior" and "instead of getting help" for GP since the phase hitting the nail on the head indicates what was said was exactly right. No?

BBM
IMO

I cannot find the QUOTE from ATRUEFRIEND you are all referring to about the "twitter" thingy and "erratic behavior". Any1 help me out here?:waitasec:

 

[Pearl*]

Quote:
Originally Posted by believe09

Hi, Jade-I re read the comment and it appears that ATRUEFRIEND was quoting a twitter from somone else who was commenting that if Gail showed erratic behavior, Matt should have gotten her help. That is how I read it, fwiw.

Quote:
I was set this comment for someone on Twitter I think it hits the nail on the head.

BUT that clarification does not change this:

So obviously she agrees that GP "may be showing exhibiting erratic behavior" and "instead of getting help" for GP since the phase hitting the nail on the head indicates what was said was exactly right. No?

IMO

I'm having a lot of trouble deciphering the logic here. I read the top quote as an "if, then" statement. I read the second quote as an agreement that IF she were exhibiting erratic behavior THEN Matt should have gotten help for her.

I find no statement in either quote, indicating that she truly WAS exhibiting the erratic behavior. The statements indicate to me a very good argument to the contrary.

O/T...I had much difficulty with the formatting of the quotes. If there is a better way, maybe a mod can help me out?

 

[confused]

[bbm]

Do we have confirmation of your first statement? (related to whether LE questioned the children)

As for your second paragraph, I do believe it is a fair statement that the substance abuse allegation is exactly that--an allegation and suspicion based on other facts we do have.

Despite the heavy patrolling of SMPD, they can't see everything. I believe if this were a repeated behavior over a long enough period of time, he would be pulled over eventually.

I strongly question the truth of the last bolded statement.

Good morning Pearl. First I would like to say that I don't know if you got to see it, but I posted a rather long response to your post the other day about my position in all of this and how difficult, etc. it is. My post was deleted because I sort of forgot that I was posting to the open forum, and replied mostly to you, including several more personal statements. So, if you did not see the post, let me say thank you for your observations and your comments. They are appreciated.

As for confirmation of my first statement...I can't tell you anything that I know...I will say that it is my opinion, if LE wanted to question the kids, it would be done. JMHO

Thank you for your agreement about the substance abuse. I also agree with you that he might get away with it a time or two, but if he were repeatedly doing so, he would be caught. And my guess would be that most of the officers on the Mtn now know who he is and what his vehicle looks like, and would be watching closer than ever. Again JMO.

As for the last statement, I can't be certain, I have never hired an attorney for anything like this case, but do know that even when I have gone to one for having a will drawn up, etc. You walk in the door and instantly they are saying- first we need to do this, then this, etc. My assumption would be that these attorneys operate the same way.

 

[believe09]

Good morning Pearl. First I would like to say that I don't know if you got to see it, but I posted a rather long response to your post the other day about my position in all of this and how difficult, etc. it is. My post was deleted because I sort of forgot that I was posting to the open forum, and replied mostly to you, including several more personal statements. So, if you did not see the post, let me say thank you for your observations and your comments. They are appreciated.

As for confirmation of my first statement...I can't tell you anything that I know...I will say that it is my opinion, if LE wanted to question the kids, it would be done. JMHO

Thank you for your agreement about the substance abuse. I also agree with you that he might get away with it a time or two, but if he were repeatedly doing so, he would be caught. And my guess would be that most of the officers on the Mtn now know who he is and what his vehicle looks like, and would be watching closer than ever. Again JMO.

As for the last statement, I can't be certain, I have never hired an attorney for anything like this case, but do know that even when I have gone to one for having a will drawn up, etc. You walk in the door and instantly they are saying- first we need to do this, then this, etc. My assumption would be that these attorneys operate the same way.

I think we tried to figure out early on whether or not LE could question a minor non suspects without permission of the parent. It appeared to be a grey area. What we do know, per JBean, is that in the first most critical weeks into the investigation, LE was not allowed access to the children. This is beyond puzzling. There is no logical reason in my mind that this would happen.

We still have no last known clothing information-easy to update and some what critical when looking for evidence associated with Gail's disappearance. So either LE has squashed that information (ie they found clothing already that matched the kids description, IF the kids have given LE the information) or they do not know it still. HMM. This is an easy point to be stuck on imo.

IF MP has had a long term substance abuse issue that was known to PD, well then how was he treated in the past when he was discovered in the throws of it? For example, what if one or more of the 911 calls was substance driven? I keep returning to the 911 call involving Gail not wanting Matt to drive separately. Sorry, but this only makes sense to me if MP was impaired. The solution appeared to have been that he jumped from the vehicle and walked away. I dont know that for sure-the incident report would be nice to read.

I am not pointing fingers at him, this is JMO. Is he driving around sloshed with the kids? Who knows-I dont know how accurate AD's interviews have been to date or statements. We dont know if there has been any exaggeration-which is not unheard of when someone is desperate to find the friend that they love so dearly. If he is, he will be caught. He is not the only person who lives in SM, and I would think LE has to walk a very, very fine line with him so that his criminal defense attorney does not cry harrassment.

 

[Pearl*]

Good morning Pearl. First I would like to say that I don't know if you got to see it, but I posted a rather long response to your post the other day about my position in all of this and how difficult, etc. it is. My post was deleted because I sort of forgot that I was posting to the open forum, and replied mostly to you, including several more personal statements. So, if you did not see the post, let me say thank you for your observations and your comments. They are appreciated.

<snipping portions not related to my response>

Thank you for your agreement about the substance abuse. I also agree with you that he might get away with it a time or two, but if he were repeatedly doing so, he would be caught. And my guess would be that most of the officers on the Mtn now know who he is and what his vehicle looks like, and would be watching closer than ever. Again JMO.

As for the last statement, I can't be certain, I have never hired an attorney for anything like this case, but do know that even when I have gone to one for having a will drawn up, etc. You walk in the door and instantly they are saying- first we need to do this, then this, etc. My assumption would be that these attorneys operate the same way.

Thank you, confused. I did get a quick scan of your response. I was in a hurry and went back to read it later and found that it had been deleted. I saw enough, however, to get the general message and to know you put a lot of time into writing your post. I appreciate that.

On the comments relating to SMPD patrolling, my guess is that they would have had little reason to particularly notice him before Gail disappeared, but would indeed be watching closely now. Matt, on the other hand, IF he has issues in this regard, would certainly know he is being scrutinized and be behaving himself at this point. I think the question of whether a substance abuse issue exists could be reasonably tabled for the time being.

As for the lawyer issue, my observation has been that shrewd attorneys don't file documents automatically. As to whether the filings by Matt's attorney were wise, I'm just not sure.

 

[believe09]

One other thing I have been pondering-did Gail drop off any of the luggage she was traveling with...if she was traveling with it? Perhaps locals who know her can weigh in on whether or not the lake house was fully kitted out with sets of clothing etc so that packing was not needed.

 

[BeanE]

What we do know, per JBean, is that in the first most critical weeks into the investigation, LE was not allowed access to the children.

And it is up to each of us, as individuals, to use our own personal criteria to determine for our own selves, how much or how little weight we give to statements made under those circumstances, and whether or not we, personally, accept what is stated as fact - correct?

Each of us can decide for ourselves whether or not we believe what is stated, or how much or how little we believe of what's stated - correct?

And we each need to understand that even if we decide to accept the statement as fact, that others may not, and they have the right not to, and we need to respect that - correct?

I'm verified on Gabe's case, and that's always been my understanding - that I can relay information (with the family's permission of course), but that no one has to accept what I say as fact - each member can decide for themselves how much or how little weight to give it, and they can form their own opinion.

Do I understand this correctly?

ETA: Please note that I have not expressed whether or not I accept what JBean has said in this circumstance. I'm not asking anything about JBean. or this particular statement. I'm just trying to ascertain if there's been a change in the rules, or if I misunderstand the rules.

Thanks.

 

[Jade]

Here is the link to the article with the comments by Arlene who is using the hat ATRUEFRIEND:

http://timesfreepress.com/news/2011/may/12/missing-womans-husband-seeks-custody-children/

It is the 7th comment down.

 

[BeanE]

Here is the link to the article with the comments by Arlene who is using the hat ATRUEFRIEND:

http://timesfreepress.com/news/2011/may/12/missing-womans-husband-seeks-custody-children/

It is the 7th comment down.

But we have no way to know that is Arlene using that hat, right?

I say that particularly because some time back, someone went on a news article, and used my name to post nasty stuff solely to harrass me.

How would we know for sure that's Arlene?

 

[believe09]

And it is up to each of us, as individuals, to use our own personal criteria to determine for our own selves, how much or how little weight we give to statements made under those circumstances, and whether or not we, personally, accept what is stated as fact - correct?

Each of us can decide for ourselves whether or not we believe what is stated, or how much or how little we believe of what's stated - correct?

And we each need to understand that even if we decide to accept the statement as fact, that others may not, and they have the right not to, and we need to respect that - correct?

I'm verified on Gabe's case, and that's always been my understanding - that I can relay information (with the family's permission of course), but that no one has to accept what I say as fact - each member can decide for themselves how much or how little weight to give it, and they can form their own opinion.

Do I understand this correctly?

ETA: Please note that I have not expressed whether or not I accept what JBean has said in this circumstance. I'm not asking anything about JBean. or this particular statement. I'm just trying to ascertain if there's been a change in the rules, or if I misunderstand the rules.

Thanks.

I dont understand your post BeanE. Are you saying you read my comment as an instruction as to what you need to think?

 

[BeanE]

Siblings Of Gail Palmgren Seek Restraining Order Against Matt Palmgren
Court Hearing Set For July 11
posted June 28, 2011

Chancellor Brown signed an order directing Mr. Palmgren not to transfer or conceal any marital property or property of Ms. Palmgren, not use any marital or separate assets for anything except for "ordinary" expenses, keep all insurance policies current, not hide or destroy any evidence that might be stored on hard drives, not relocate the children without a court order, restore electrical service to the couple's lake home in Alabama, and immediately provide the children with counseling.

The petition says Ms. Palmgren just prior to her disappearance on April 30 left some jewelry with friends and the jewelry, it is believed, has been given to Mr. Palmgren.

It asks for an accounting of a collection of rare coins Ms. Palmgren had gotten from her father and grandfather.


http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_204140.asp