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

[Irish_Eyes]

I think SMM is coming at this from one perspective....it's crazy, but true, that DV allegations in the context of divorce are many times treated very differently by law enforcement. Studies have shown that false reports of DV in the context of divorce are rare, but there is a myth that even many judges and LE believe, that women make up allegations of DV during separation and divorce to try and get an upper hand in divorce/custody proceedings. SMM has met many women who have experienced this phenomenon. It's truly the worst form of sexism to think that yesterday you were just an average productive citizen and today you call the police and need help and you are treated like you must be crazy or a scheming, gold-digging liar. For no reason.

While I've had this happen to me, and I know of many other victims who have had the same complaint, I think because of the seriousness of this case, and GP being missing and obviously scared and leaving her kids behind, I think LE is actually taking this seriously. If they weren't looking for GP I would say she's doing what she has to do to shame them into action. But it does seem like they are working this case, so her actions are probably just angering and hindering them. Not only might this jeopardize finding GP, it certainly IMHO makes this LE dept. less likely to engage the services of a victim's advocate, which could hurt other victims down the road.

I am hoping to be a certified victim's advocate by the end of the year. It is my understanding that there is a fine line the advocate must walk between providing emotional support and general knowledge of the workings of the system, which are appropriate roles, and providing legal advice tailored to a specific situation, which can run afoul of laws regarding the unlicensed practice of law. Technically, AD is not the victim, and is not a party to any court action, so I guess that's the workaround here. Quite an unusual case, this is.

BTW, I'm sorry I don't remember which poster put up that timeline, but bravo. A few things jumped out at me.....after TH divorced in Feb, it was probably much easier for her to communicate with MP without worrying about being found out. Her divorce was one more hurdle out of the way for them to be together, and MP had to find that exciting. Seems like he let his guard down on St. Bart (or was it St. Martin?) and GP got suspicious, which was not in the plan. IMHO his perfect vision of life was about to become reality and GP was the only thing in the way....and he NEVER thought she had it in her to stand up and fight for herself the way she did....

 

[JBean]

Does that mean the other family members are deliberately kept out of the loop? Or there is just one family member LE is interested in speaking to?

bolded by me.

So is the family member who is working with LE sort of delegated by the other family members and they know that he or she can't share information?

I didn't say that very well LOL.What I mean is there is naturally a leader in the family when it comes to things like this. Information s being shared, but not all of it with everyone.
As you can see, word travels fast. I don't think anyone has any problems with it all and respect the process. They are trying to keep in on the down low and the ONLY way to do that is to not reveal information.

Mainly what I was driving at is when you read in the press that the LE has not done XXXXX, it would really need to come straight from a family member or LE.

 

[glorias]

Synopsis of the text and the follow up phone call as I understand it-AD was out interviewing people, the lead detective not only texted her to stop but followed up with a phone call.

Am I the only one who finds this NBD? She was interfering with the investigation. He wanted her to stop. She hasnt, and I guess we will see what kind of case is left. SMM cannot protect her from any consequences of her actions, regardless of AD's motivation. I realize she misses her friend. She is not the only one who is looking for her, she is not the only one who cares about her, and Gail's immediate biological family is handling it by working with LE. I dont get why their wishes should not be respected.

Thank you for saying this. I'm glad these concerns about AD are being brought up, and if I earlier sounded like I disagreed with you, I'm sorry. I do agree with you very much. IMVHO, this is something we definitely should be talking about, at least a little.

 

[Pearl*]

Synopsis of the text and the follow up phone call as I understand it-AD was out interviewing people, the lead detective not only texted her to stop but followed up with a phone call.

Am I the only one who finds this NBD? She was interfering with the investigation. He wanted her to stop. She hasnt, and I guess we will see what kind of case is left. SMM cannot protect her from any consequences of her actions, regardless of AD's motivation. I realize she misses her friend. She is not the only one who is looking for her, she is not the only one who cares about her, and Gail's immediate biological family is handling it by working with LE. I dont get why their wishes should not be respected.

Help? What's NBD? I looked at the abbreviations in the lingo thread but don't see it.

 

[Irish_Eyes]

NBD=No Big Deal

Here's what makes sense to me, though it's purely speculation. My guess is that AD contacted LE about her suspicions. He probably gave her his card with his cell phone on it and told her to call him if anything else developed. I would imagine she probably initiated a conversation with him via text since she had his cell. I would bet what he sent her was probably a reply text. I generally think LE would call, but if a party texted an officer, I could see an officer texting back.

 

[BeanE]

NBD=No Big Deal

Here's what makes sense to me, though it's purely speculation. My guess is that AD contacted LE about her suspicions. He probably gave her his card with his cell phone on it and told her to call him if anything else developed. I would imagine she probably initiated a conversation with him via text since she had his cell. I would bet what he sent her was probably a reply text. I generally think LE would call, but if a party texted an officer, I could see an officer texting back.

I initially wondered if it was really LE texting, but then it occurred to me that someone may not answer their voice call, and if the LEO had to get an urgent message to them, they may very well text.

 

[glorias]

NBD=No Big Deal

Here's what makes sense to me, though it's purely speculation. My guess is that AD contacted LE about her suspicions. He probably gave her his card with his cell phone on it and told her to call him if anything else developed. I would imagine she probably initiated a conversation with him via text since she had his cell. I would bet what he sent her was probably a reply text. I generally think LE would call, but if a party texted an officer, I could see an officer texting back.

That makes a lot of sense. I'm glad you mentioned it. If they had been texting or communicating, it would be nice to hear about more of it than the one single text that got media attention.

 

[BeanE]

That makes a lot of sense. I'm glad you mentioned it. If they had been texting or communicating, it would be nice to hear about more of it than the one single text that got media attention.

I would like to know more too - I'd like to know what it was that she did that the LEO considered interfering with the investigation. He was specific in that it was something she did the day he sent the text ("what you did today").

I think he would have, whether by voice or text, have told her exactly what it was that was crossing the line.

I guess we don't *need* to know, but I am very curious what it was.

ETA: The reason for my curiosity is because it is not illegal to call phone numbers or to talk to people or to ask people questions or to drive down any street, but the LEO mentioned pressing charges.

It also would be an extremely rare thing for LE to tell someone not to talk about something. We have freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, and LE suppressing info and *telling* people not to talk about something is a big issue. LE may tell people that they prefer that they not mention something, or that they would appreciate if someone would keep something to themselves, but it would be very rare, if ever, they would say "do not talk about this to anyone" or "do not talk about this to the media".

I guess what I have in mind is that Arlene said she told Gail to put a tracker on Matt's car, and it is my understanding that it is illegal to put a tracker on someone's car. That makes me wonder what it was that Arlene may have done that would warrant possible charges.

Hope I explained that adequately. Haven't had coffee yet.

 

[Oriah]

I get copies of my emails at home, online,on my phone and in the office. If anyone had access to any of my email accounts, they could see all my mail and I would never be the wiser.

JBean- change your password FREQUENTLY, lol.

Many people have their emails sent to mutiple data sources these days. All are retrievable remotely with just a small amount of digging to access a password. I'm hoping that if this is the case with Gail, then she at least had different passwords for each device she may have used to communicate with friends/family in the week(s) before she went missing.

Which makes me think of something else.... I wonder if there were computers, laptops, or alternate phones at Gail and Matt's other properties?

 

[Emeralgem]

Wonder if any of the other searches have taken place? I keep trying MSM, but nothing there.

Not to my knowledge but I understand there will be a vigil held at Signal Point this weekend though..
Right now I am totally disheartened Gail has not been found and a POI has not been named... Hopefully, LE is on Mr. MP like white on rice...JMHO

 

[BeanE]

Oriah, could you read this when you get a chance, please? There are some search scenarios. Thanks :blowkiss:

===============================================

A few things...

- I've noticed that the wording consistently used is "dropped the kids off". Now even if Gail went into the house with the kids, fixed them sandwiches, and then went back out to the car, I may well still use the wording "dropped the kids off". But because the wording has been consistently used, for some reason, I maintain an impression of her pulling up the drive, the kids hopping out, and Gail driving off.

Do we know if Gail went into the house?

- Let's back up a bit. Matt proposed to meet Gail back at the house.

- When Gail got to the house, was she still under the impression Matt was at the house? Or did she think he had gone somewhere else? Or did she know he was elsewhere, but was going to arrive at a certain time, like 11:45 or 12:00 or 12:20 or 12:30 or 1pm?

- Matt said he'd proprosed to meet at the house. That may be perfectly honest. And he may have changed that, and not disclosed the change. That is, he may have called Gail and proposed a change to meeting in the area.

Has anyone taken Gail and Matt's pictures around to their usual restaurants in the area? Both the restaurants they may have gone to regularly together, as well as restaurants they may have tended to go to when not with each other?

- When Matt arrived at the home, Gail was gone already, indicating he'd been elsewhere for some time. I *think* there was a rumor he said he was at his mom's house? I can't find it now.

He seems to have had a proclivity for going to local hotels. Has anyone taken pics of Gail and Matt around to all the local hotels (let's say within range of the cell tower at the north base of the mountain/near Mountain Creek Rd)?

- Has anyone taken Gail and Matt's and the Jeep's picture around to all the storage places in range of the Mountain Creek cell tower? The storage places with bays large enough to fit a Jeep? How about to all the places within tower range where one can rent a garage?

- I don't think it would hurt to ask storage places and rental garages to please pop open every storage bay and garage rented out since, say, February or March.

- When going around to all the hotels in range of the tower, I think I would also drive through the parking lots, and I would look around the edges of each parking lot for any ravines or bodies of water or anything a car could be pushed to that was out of ready sight.

- There was a plan to search Lake Jordan. Has that been done? Is it still planned?

- I don't how to say this, other than to just say it. The storage places and garages would also help cover a suicicde scenario, in addition to a foul play scenario.


Just some thoughts and ideas that were on my mind last night. Had a hard time sleeping.

 

[Oriah]

Thank you for saying this. I'm glad these concerns about AD are being brought up, and if I earlier sounded like I disagreed with you, I'm sorry. I do agree with you very much. IMVHO, this is something we definitely should be talking about, at least a little.

It's interesting to me- the reported text message to AD, and follow up phone call.

I know PD's and SO's handle things differently everywhere- but a text message as such was the one sent to AD, by a detective actively working a criminal investigation, still seems odd to me... Was there a relationship established between LE and AD prior to Gail's disappearence? That's the only way I can see such a comfort factor (texting) on the part of LE.

 

[Oriah]

Oriah, could you read this when you get a chance, please? There are some search scenarios. Thanks :blowkiss:

===============================================

A few things...

- I've noticed that the wording consistently used is "dropped the kids off". Now even if Gail went into the house with the kids, fixed them sandwiches, and then went back out to the car, I may well still use the wording "dropped the kids off". But because the wording has been consistently used, for some reason, I maintain an impression of her pulling up the drive, the kids hopping out, and Gail driving off.

Do we know if Gail went into the house?

- Let's back up a bit. Matt proposed to meet Gail back at the house.

- When Gail got to the house, was she still under the impression Matt was at the house? Or did she think he had gone somewhere else? Or did she know he was elsewhere, but was going to arrive at a certain time, like 11:45 or 12:00 or 12:20 or 12:30 or 1pm?

- Matt said he'd proprosed to meet at the house. That may be perfectly honest. And he may have changed that, and not disclosed the change. That is, he may have called Gail and proposed a change to meeting in the area.

Has anyone taken Gail and Matt's pictures around to their usual restaurants in the area? Both the restaurants they may have gone to regularly together, as well as restaurants they may have tended to go to when not with each other?

- When Matt arrived at the home, Gail was gone already, indicating he'd been elsewhere for some time. I *think* there was a rumor he said he was at his mom's house? I can't find it now.

He seems to have had a proclivity for going to local hotels. Has anyone taken pics of Gail and Matt around to all the local hotels (let's say within range of the cell tower at the north base of the mountain/near Mountain Creek Rd)?

- Has anyone taken Gail and Matt's and the Jeep's picture around to all the storage places in range of the Mountain Creek cell tower? The storage places with bays large enough to fit a Jeep? How about to all the places within tower range where one can rent a garage?

- I don't think it would hurt to ask storage places and rental garages to please pop open every storage bay and garage rented out since, say, February or March.

- When going around to all the hotels in range of the tower, I think I would also drive through the parking lots, and I would look around the edges of each parking lot for any ravines or bodies of water or anything a car could be pushed to that was out of ready sight.

- There was a plan to search Lake Jordan. Has that been done? Is it still planned?

- I don't how to say this, other than to just say it. The storage places and garages would also help cover a suicicde scenario, in addition to a foul play scenario.


Just some thoughts and ideas that were on my mind last night. Had a hard time sleeping.

Absolutely, BeanE.
I am wondering (since the SW covered the one storage unit that MP and GP had together) if there may have been others opened under different names, or perhaps recently, that may need attention paid to.

I'll look into the Mountain Creek Rd area, and the Lake Jordan search.

 

[lalalu]

In response to Oriah's recent question, (and I don't know how to quote hers and my past quote in the same response)

I was thinking from her statements that she may have already had a texting relationship w/ Tizzio. She noted that she knew who it was when he sent the text. The Tizzio text may have been in response to a text she sent him regarding something she had just done that he thought was out of line. I don't really know - just speculating.

(i am to lazy to retype - only reason I quoted myself)

 

[Oriah]

That makes a lot of sense. I'm glad you mentioned it. If they had been texting or communicating, it would be nice to hear about more of it than the one single text that got media attention.

This scenario sort of makes sense to me, also.... but (and this is NOT bashing LE at all) if that's the case, I would think there would have to be a pre-existing relationship between the LEO who texted the message to AD- or else it's really just not a good idea for LE working an active investigation.

If this case ends up in a criminal court, I would think the actions of the detective are going to be shredded by defense. It just seems like a bad idea, in todays' techno era. Kwim?

 

[BeanE]

I'm flummoxed by LE not vetting Susie Button's sighting of Gail at 12:15pm. It seems to straightforward. Was she not close enough to the Jeep that they are comfortable vetting her I.D. of Gail? Is it that Gail was not turned full face to her and they're not comfortable with vetting a partial face view?

Also, surely, Susie would be able to say if Gail was wearing a light or dark color top, spaghetti straps or long sleeves. Yet there is no clothing description. I'm sure she would have told this to LE. Yet it's not included.

The kids would have been able to give even a general description of the top and pants she was wearing. But not included.

I can't figure this one out, and had to get it off my chest.

 

[Oriah]

I'm flummoxed by LE not vetting Susie Button's sighting of Gail at 12:15pm. It seems to straightforward. Was she not close enough to the Jeep that they are comfortable vetting her I.D. of Gail? Is it that Gail was not turned full face to her and they're not comfortable with vetting a partial face view?

Also, surely, Susie would be able to say if Gail was wearing a light or dark color top, spaghetti straps or long sleeves. Yet there is no clothing description. I'm sure she would have told this to LE. Yet it's not included.

The kids would have been able to give even a general description of the top and pants she was wearing. But not included.

I can't figure this one out, and had to get it off my chest.

This has bugged me to no end as well.
Why such the description of the vehicle, but absolutely none of what Gail was last seen wearing??

 

[EllaMae]

I actually had one from each state here as I wasn't sure where the old one was. I didn't apply for the TN one until it was missing and then later when it was found I wanted to keep it as a souvenir.

Not trying to be argumentative - just that there are always exceptions.

My real point was that just because a drivers license was found, it wasn't solidly indicative of any particular scenario.

Plus, (I am told) you can drive without your license as long as you can recite the number. I haven't wanted to test this statement though...

In my state of AL....not exactly. You do have to show it at a later date.
My teenaged son was stopped a few weeks ago while driving home from a friend's house. He had dropped his ipod, and was trying to reach it while driving instead of pulling over....and he ran over a curb.:banghead: He had forgotten his wallet, of course, because he's a teenager:banghead:, but luckily the policeman did not actually ticket him. He received a piece of paper that he had to take to the courthouse with his license as proof that he actually had one to keep from having a ticket issued later. It cost a minimal amount of money, but he was not in any trouble...except with me, just a little...:frown:



Just IMHO...but I think that Gail was so preoccupied with her troubles that grabbing her license was just not something that occurred to her. More than likely she never realized that it was sitting back at her home until it was too late, if she thought about it at all. I think she either met with foul play, or her car went off the side of the road somewhere and hasn't been found yet. This time of year in the South the vegetation is heavy, and it would be hard to spot something down in a ravine. When winter comes someone may spot her car then if she did have an accident.

 

[BeanE]

BBM

There were 2 different conversations ...okay:waitasec:... I will try to clear up any misunderstanding there may be with regard to my CORRECTION post I sent to BeanE.
Here goes::innocent:
It is my understanding that AD actually had her LAST conversation with GP on the evening of April 29th, after arriving in Alabama, BUT the conversation in which GP told AD that MP would be coming down to the Lake to take the children fishing & boating, and at that same time tell them that their parents planned on separating etc. ...that conversation about "the plan to separate" ...that conversation between AD and GP took place a few days before April 29th (on the phone), approximately on the 26th. We now know that the "plan" to discuss w/ the children, the future of their parents marriage ...did not take place as previously discussed with AD. On April 29th GP drove down to the Lake in Alabama with the 2 children and 2 dogs in the JEEP, only to return the next day to drop them all off in Signal Mountain, according to SB at around 12:noon ...and you all know what did or did not happen after that. I hope this clear things up a little for all.

There are articles that say the trip to the lake house was "unexpected", and my impression has always been that Gail decided that morning to go to the lake house when LE came for the 911 call.

If the conversation was on the 26th, then the trip to the lake house was planned, not because of the argument, and not unexpected.

I looked around yesterday, but couldn't find anything to confirm the conversation took place earlier. I'm going to listen again to the 2nd SMM radio show today (probably tonight because I'll be listening to the Casey Anthony trial today) and see if I can pick up something from Arlene in there.

The SMM radio shows are hard to pick info out of, because SMM interrupts Arlene and talks over her. It's very frustrating. I have to keep listening over and over and trying to hear Arlene underneath SMM. Takes forever.

Thank you so much for this info, Sleuthy. I appreciate it. Anything else you have that can point to the timeframe or date things happened, I would be very grateful for.

 

[BeanE]

I need to ask for some help with this. This is a full raw video of the press conference on May 17, recorded by Callie Starnes of WRCB. It also includes the Q&A afterwards.

The audio is very low, and I don't hear as well as I used to. If others could listen and help pick out any nuggets of info, I would be so grateful.

TIA!

http://twitcasting.tv/calliestarnes/movie/1606773