PDA

View Full Version : TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #8


Pages : [1] 2 3

SheWhoMustNotBeNamed
07-22-2011, 12:49 AM
Gail Nowacki Palmgren is missing as of 4/30/11 from Signal Mountain TN.
She is driving a Jeep Rubicon, 4 door, Red, with AL license plate number "Eazy St" .
Gail is 5'8", blond hair, 135 lbs. Call Signal Mountain PD at 423-886-2124.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/signaturepics/sigpic3550_5.gif

WRCB TV (http://www.wrcbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=14595650)
http://wrcb.images.worldnow.com/images/14595650_BG1.JPG
http://wrcb.images.worldnow.com/images/14595650_BG2.JPG


Thread # 1 (http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135414&highlight=palmgren)
Thread # 2 (http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136407&highlight=palmgren)
Thread # 3 (http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136762&highlight=palmgren)
Thread # 4

Thread # 5

Thread # 6

Thread # 7



Gail Nowacki Palmgren Media Links (http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135941&highlight=palmgren)

Gail Nowacki Palmgren Timeline (http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136222&highlight=palmgren)


Please continue here...

Sleuthy1
07-22-2011, 05:48 AM
:twocents:♥ ♥ ♥ P L E A S E .... If ANYONE has information to SHARE regarding Gail Palmgren’s disappearance or anything leading up to her disappearance on April 30th 2011…Please contact : The Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office Criminal Investigations Division - @ # (423) 209-8940 or # (423) 622-0022 or submit a tip via email to investigations@hcsheriff.gov ♥ ♥ ♥ DON'T LET GAIL PALMGREN BECOME "JUST A STATISTIC" .... "JUST ANOTHER COLD CASE" ... P L E A S E !!!
:waitasec:

Sleuthy1
07-22-2011, 05:49 AM
:twocents:IT'S BEEN 2 1/2 MONTHS SINCE GAIL NOWACKI PALMGREN WENT MISSING.
WE ENCOURAGE ANYONE who even REMOTELY thinks they may have information about ANYTHING regarding this ongoing Missing Persons Case .... To PLEASE share that information with the investigators in charge of the GAIL PALMGREN CASE. YOU may know something that will HELP investigators BREAK this case wide open....YOU may know something with regard to ACTIVITIES THAT OCCURRED PRIOR TO GAIL GOING MISSING. YOU may know information that might be VERY HELPFUL to those investigating this case. YOU MAY NOT EVEN BE AWARE your information could break this case wide open. Please DO NOT SECOND GUESS YOURSELF!!! PLEASE for the sake of Gail and her children DO NOT be afraid to call investigators @ #423-622-0022 or #911 AND TELL THEM WHAT YOU THINK YOU MIGHT KNOW. Anything about Gail, Matt, Tammy, possible additional girlfriends Matt Palmgren may have been involved with. Someone may have wanted Gail out of the way...That someone could be the person you know about...PLEASE help us find Gail
:waitasec:

BeanE
07-22-2011, 07:51 AM
Body recovered from water
Updated: Jul 22, 2011 6:24 AM EDT

Authorities are not releasing anymore details at this time. But say more information should be released later this morning.

http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/15128276/body-recovered-from-water

Another article on Times Free Press says basically the same thing, but specifies Harrison Bay:

Body recovered from Harrison Bay
published Friday, July 22nd, 2011

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jul/22/body-recovered-harrison-bay/

Melodie
07-22-2011, 09:02 AM
Body recovered from water
Updated: Jul 22, 2011 6:24 AM EDT

Authorities are not releasing anymore details at this time. But say more information should be released later this morning.

http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/15128276/body-recovered-from-water

Another article on Times Free Press says basically the same thing, but specifies Harrison Bay:

Body recovered from Harrison Bay
published Friday, July 22nd, 2011

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jul/22/body-recovered-harrison-bay/

Oh my gosh, that's right near me. Harrison Bay is just a couple of miles down the road.

BeanE
07-22-2011, 09:16 AM
Google Map of Palmgren residence to Mountain Creek Rd (last Ping) to Harrison Bay

I'm bad with maps. Is this correct? TIA

http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=40+Ridgerock+Dr,+Signal+Mountain,+TN+37 377&daddr=Mountain+Creek+Road,+Chattanooga,+TN+to:Harr ison+Bay+TN&hl=en&sll=35.118565,-85.235945&sspn=0.154735,0.338173&geocode=FTVpGAIdn_jp-ik_9BxmufVgiDEqpNSgRdMSbA%3BFQoQGAIdukrq-in75JzsfPVgiDE4n82yt0X4Ow%3BFR5NGAIdTy7t-imf8DH9aYhgiDGf4KouwmEXHQ&mra=ls&t=h&z=12


16.2 miles Mountain Creek Rd to Harrison Bay. IIRC that's within ping range. Can anyone confirm? Ping range is 20 miles IIRC?

Melodie
07-22-2011, 09:20 AM
Google Map of Palmgren residence to Mountain Creek Rd (last Ping) to Harrison Bay

I'm bad with maps. Is this correct? TIA

http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=40+Ridgerock+Dr,+Signal+Mountain,+TN+37 377&daddr=Mountain+Creek+Road,+Chattanooga,+TN+to:Harr ison+Bay+TN&hl=en&sll=35.118565,-85.235945&sspn=0.154735,0.338173&geocode=FTVpGAIdn_jp-ik_9BxmufVgiDEqpNSgRdMSbA%3BFQoQGAIdukrq-in75JzsfPVgiDE4n82yt0X4Ow%3BFR5NGAIdTy7t-imf8DH9aYhgiDGf4KouwmEXHQ&mra=ls&t=h&z=12


16.2 miles Mountain Creek Rd to Harrison Bay. IIRC that's within ping range. Can anyone confirm? Ping range is 20 miles IIRC?

Yes, you are correct. Gail lived on the western edge of Hamilton County and Harrison Bay is about as far North East as you can go and still be in Hamilton County.

Oriah
07-22-2011, 09:22 AM
Someone is suffering pain and loss for the person recovered late last night. :(

mayqueen
07-22-2011, 09:31 AM
Someone is suffering pain and loss for the person recovered late last night. :(

Very true Oriah. I always feel sad when I see headlines like this. :(

BeanE
07-22-2011, 09:39 AM
You can follow all the local reporters and news stations on my list here:
http://twitter.com/#!/list/CaseSignal/gail-palmgren

You'll have to refresh that page every few minutes to get new tweets.

ETA:

CaseSignal Case Signal (BeanE)
@antwanharris @derrall @tfpcolumnist @billcolrus @jamesnooga Any word body found Harrison Bay Hamilton County last night male or female?
7 minutes ago

antwanharris Antwan Harris™
@CaseSignal We are getting more info. So far nothing suspicious is what I'm told.
3 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

JamesNooga James Harrison
@CaseSignal No word here. Sorry.

Some1Nose
07-22-2011, 09:45 AM
I've really grown to care for Gail...she seems like such a lovely person! When I read the above post and thought about that possibly being her, I got some "smoke" in my eyes...I hope and pray it is not her but it is Sad no matter who it may be!

Blessings,
Some1

I wasn't sure if I wanted to add this now or not, due to the discovery and no identification, as yet, but towards the very end of the last thread while reading posts about Gail's drive to SM on 4/30, I got to remembering that DN indicated she thought the reason Gail wanted the police to meet her at the SM home was because of MP.

mayqueen
07-22-2011, 09:46 AM
I also noticed this...

http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/15123847/police-investigating-suspicious-death-at-motel

CHATTANOOGA (WRCB) - Chattanooga Police say the body found in a motel room is likely the result of a suicide.

The body was found in room at the Super 8 Motel on Lee Highway.

Investigators are continuing to look into the case.

The body was found yesterday - I can't find any info re: male or female, etc...

Pearl*
07-22-2011, 09:48 AM
CaseSignal Case Signal (BeanE)
@antwanharris @derrall @tfpcolumnist @billcolrus @jamesnooga Any word body found Harrison Bay Hamilton County last night male or female?
7 minutes ago

antwanharris Antwan Harris™
@CaseSignal We are getting more info. So far nothing suspicious is what I'm told.3 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

JamesNooga James Harrison
@CaseSignal No word here. Sorry.

[bbm]

What on earth does that mean? Is there a body or not?

BeanE
07-22-2011, 09:50 AM
I also noticed this...

http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/15123847/police-investigating-suspicious-death-at-motel



The body was found yesterday - I can't find any info re: male or female, etc...

That was a man. May he rest in peace.

http://www.nooga.com/10502_man-found-dead-in-super-8-motel-committed-suicide/

BeanE
07-22-2011, 09:51 AM
[bbm]

What on earth does that mean? Is there a body or not?

I think there's a body, but I'm taking that to mean nothing suspicious about the death so far? No signs of foul play?

Pearl*
07-22-2011, 09:51 AM
I also noticed this...

http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/15123847/police-investigating-suspicious-death-at-motel



The body was found yesterday - I can't find any info re: male or female, etc...

I read on fb that it was a male and was a gunshot wound. Assuming this is the same case.

mayqueen
07-22-2011, 09:54 AM
That was a man. May he rest in peace.

http://www.nooga.com/10502_man-found-dead-in-super-8-motel-committed-suicide/

Thanks BeanE. Praying for his loved ones.

Pearl*
07-22-2011, 09:56 AM
I think there's a body, but I'm taking that to mean nothing suspicious about the death so far? No signs of foul play?

Probably so. Seems odd they would say that before saying male or female.

ETA: So sorry. I think I understand now.

Melodie
07-22-2011, 09:56 AM
I read on fb that it was a male and was a gunshot wound. Assuming this is the same case.

Unfortunately, around here, it could be one of many cases. This year there are shooting victims here almost daily. So sad.

BeanE
07-22-2011, 10:12 AM
I read on fb that it was a male and was a gunshot wound. Assuming this is the same case.

He was found in a hotel. Super 8. I think 3 in the afternoon yesterday?

This other body was found around midnight in Harrison Bay in the water.

believe09
07-22-2011, 10:29 AM
Thanks, BeanE. I thought they might be separate incidents, but I was confused!

believe09
07-22-2011, 10:31 AM
Just to clear up some other confusion-FB discussion needs to take place on the FB thread in the PL. The thread is closed when there isnt a moderator available to moderate it. Please hold off FB discussion until the thread is open. FB is viewed as rumor here at WS, but there is a lot of FB chatter about Gail's case, so we dedicated a thread for you...

ETA: Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

I opened the thread-please take a moment to read the initial posts so you are familiar with the rules of the Parking Lot. :)

fireflylink
07-22-2011, 10:57 AM
Body found was of an elderly gentleman. Prayers to his family and loved ones.

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_205625.asp

Oriah
07-22-2011, 11:38 AM
Thoughts and prayers for this elderly man and his loved ones.
Waterways claim a lot of lives every year. :(

It unfortunately draws me back to the direction of waterflow, the known pings from Gail's Blackberry,turbulence, water levels on and around the 30th-3rd.

Oh Gail, where are you?

Pearl*
07-22-2011, 12:01 PM
I flunked geography 101. Is Wolftever Creek the same as Harrison Bay? We ARE talking about the same incident.... Right?

Melodie
07-22-2011, 12:09 PM
I was reading the tail end of the previous thread and what Gail said to her sister when she spoke to her before she disappeared and why she may not have told Diane where she was going or exactly what she was afraid of has come up a lot. In my opinion, if Gail was heading to meet someone or go somewhere that may not have been safe, she may not have told Diane because she feared that Diane would tell her not to go. I know if I were in that situation and I was heading to meet someone in a possibly threatening situation and I called any of my loved ones, they would say, "Don't go! Don't go!". She may have been evasive in her discussion with Diane because she was determined to go wherever she was going and knew Diane would have tried to stop her. Just what I have been thinking when I try to put myself in her position. JMO

Melodie
07-22-2011, 12:09 PM
I flunked geography 101. Is Wolftever Creek the same as Harrison Bay? We ARE talking about the same incident.... Right?

Yes, it's the same place. All right along Hwy 58 in Harrison.

fireflylink
07-22-2011, 12:16 PM
I flunked geography 101. Is Wolftever Creek the same as Harrison Bay? We ARE talking about the same incident.... Right?

Yes, same incident. Wolftever Creek joins the Harrison Bay in the community of Harrison Bay.

Emeralgem
07-22-2011, 12:37 PM
:twocents:IT'S BEEN 2 1/2 MONTHS SINCE GAIL NOWACKI PALMGREN WENT MISSING.
WE ENCOURAGE ANYONE who even REMOTELY thinks they may have information about ANYTHING regarding this ongoing Missing Persons Case .... To PLEASE share that information with the investigators in charge of the GAIL PALMGREN CASE. YOU may know something that will HELP investigators BREAK this case wide open....YOU may know something with regard to ACTIVITIES THAT OCCURRED PRIOR TO GAIL GOING MISSING. YOU may know information that might be VERY HELPFUL to those investigating this case. YOU MAY NOT EVEN BE AWARE your information could break this case wide open. Please DO NOT SECOND GUESS YOURSELF!!! PLEASE for the sake of Gail and her children DO NOT be afraid to call investigators @ #423-622-0022 or #911 AND TELL THEM WHAT YOU THINK YOU MIGHT KNOW. Anything about Gail, Matt, Tammy, possible additional girlfriends Matt Palmgren may have been involved with. Someone may have wanted Gail out of the way...That someone could be the person you know about...PLEASE help us find Gail
:waitasec:

POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL GIRLFRIENDS?
:noooo::pullhair:

BeanE
07-22-2011, 01:33 PM
I was reading the tail end of the previous thread and what Gail said to her sister when she spoke to her before she disappeared and why she may not have told Diane where she was going or exactly what she was afraid of has come up a lot. In my opinion, if Gail was heading to meet someone or go somewhere that may not have been safe, she may not have told Diane because she feared that Diane would tell her not to go. I know if I were in that situation and I was heading to meet someone in a possibly threatening situation and I called any of my loved ones, they would say, "Don't go! Don't go!". She may have been evasive in her discussion with Diane because she was determined to go wherever she was going and knew Diane would have tried to stop her. Just what I have been thinking when I try to put myself in her position. JMO

I'm trying to think of why Gail would be going to meet with someone she knew was so unsavory that she didn't want her sister to know she was meeting them. Same with going to a place she knew was so awful.

What would Gail have been up to that she'd be meeting with such an awful person or going to such an awful place? I can't imagine her, e.g., going off to buy drugs or or an illegal gun or hire a hit man.

Can you explain what you have in mind she could have been doing?

hollyblue
07-22-2011, 01:53 PM
I was reading the tail end of the previous thread and what Gail said to her sister when she spoke to her before she disappeared and why she may not have told Diane where she was going or exactly what she was afraid of has come up a lot. In my opinion, if Gail was heading to meet someone or go somewhere that may not have been safe, she may not have told Diane because she feared that Diane would tell her not to go. I know if I were in that situation and I was heading to meet someone in a possibly threatening situation and I called any of my loved ones, they would say, "Don't go! Don't go!". She may have been evasive in her discussion with Diane because she was determined to go wherever she was going and knew Diane would have tried to stop her. Just what I have been thinking when I try to put myself in her position. JMO

Possible. I think Diane knows, but she's just keeping it between her and LE. So many conversations the children may have heard and could confirm, but not allowed. imo

Melodie
07-22-2011, 02:21 PM
I'm trying to think of why Gail would be going to meet with someone she knew was so unsavory that she didn't want her sister to know she was meeting them. Same with going to a place she knew was so awful.

What would Gail have been up to that she'd be meeting with such an awful person or going to such an awful place? I can't imagine her, e.g., going off to buy drugs or or an illegal gun or hire a hit man.

Can you explain what you have in mind she could have been doing?

I certainly wasn't suggesting Gail would be heading off to buy drugs or do something illegal. Actually, quite the opposite. We don't know all of the phone calls or texts Gail may have received on that day. She may have been headed to meet someone who called and threatened her. In my mind, that's definitely a possibility. Someone who may have told her that they had something that she wanted to collect. Maybe someone who wanted to "talk" to her. Maybe it was someone she knew. Her sister might have thought this was not a good idea and she may have anticipated that reaction. In my opinion, it is entirely possible that Gail was headed to meet someone who contacted her at some point either before she left AL, on the drive to SM or after she arrived. I think this idea could fit with any of the theories regarding Gail's disappearance, also. But, like I said, it's all just my opinion in thinking why would she not tell her sister exactly what was going on. But, it's also true that she may have told her sister everything and Diane does not want to reveal what was said.:twocents:

BeanE
07-22-2011, 02:39 PM
I certainly wasn't suggesting Gail would be heading off to buy drugs or do something illegal. Actually, quite the opposite. We don't know all of the phone calls or texts Gail may have received on that day. She may have been headed to meet someone who called and threatened her. In my mind, that's definitely a possibility. Someone who may have told her that they had something that she wanted to collect. Maybe someone who wanted to "talk" to her. Maybe it was someone she knew. Her sister might have thought this was not a good idea and she may have anticipated that reaction. In my opinion, it is entirely possible that Gail was headed to meet someone who contacted her at some point either before she left AL, on the drive to SM or after she arrived. I think this idea could fit with any of the theories regarding Gail's disappearance, also. But, like I said, it's all just my opinion in thinking why would she not tell her sister exactly what was going on. But, it's also true that she may have told her sister everything and Diane does not want to reveal what was said.:twocents:

No no. I didn't think you meant anything illegal, that's why I asked because I couldn't think of what it could be.

I hope Gail would not go and actually meet someone who was threatening her, or go to a bad area, but I guess I base my expected reaction from her on how I'd react - I'd hightail it to the PD, get a tap on my phone, etc.

But, yes, sometimes people do unwise things. It's just awfully hard to think that they might have. :(

BeanE
07-22-2011, 02:40 PM
Possible. I think Diane knows, but she's just keeping it between her and LE. So many conversations the children may have heard and could confirm, but not allowed. imo

Has LE asked to speak with the children?

hollyblue
07-22-2011, 05:27 PM
Matt Palmgren has not given a statement to detectives, nor have his two children.

http://timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jul/10/two-months-gail-palmgren-went-missing-and-no-signs/

http://casesignal.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/gail-palmgren-latest-news-articles-videos-july-2011-updated-78-645am-est/

Irish_Eyes
07-22-2011, 05:55 PM
hollyblue, I think BeanE was stating that she hasn't seen anything in the MSM that indicates that the police have requested to speak to the children. I can't see one reason why the police would NOT have asked. I think that would be standard procedure in a case like this, and I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are handling this investigation thoroughly and professionally.

BeanE
07-22-2011, 05:59 PM
Matt Palmgren has not given a statement to detectives, nor have his two children.

http://timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jul/10/two-months-gail-palmgren-went-missing-and-no-signs/

http://casesignal.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/gail-palmgren-latest-news-articles-videos-july-2011-updated-78-645am-est/

Yes, I know, but has LE asked to interview the children?

Despite what anyone else may think, LE may feel they have enough info from the children via Matt and/or Matt's attorneys.

hollyblue
07-22-2011, 07:53 PM
hollyblue, I think BeanE was stating that she hasn't seen anything in the MSM that indicates that the police have requested to speak to the children. I can't see one reason why the police would NOT have asked. I think that would be standard procedure in a case like this, and I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are handling this investigation thoroughly and professionally.

Thanks, I haven't seen anything in MSM either....and feel as you do...giving LE the BOTD they have requested (SOP) to speak to Matt and the children. I think LE and D&H have not come to a mutual agreement....on just what can be asked. IYKWIM. He lawyered up early (after reporting GP missing and pressure from Di and AD) and there was only mention of a face to face between LE and MM. imo. I believe it's all in the same link I provided about MP and children not making any statements.

Emeralgem
07-22-2011, 08:18 PM
Thanks, I haven't seen anything in MSM either....and feel as you do...giving LE the BOTD they have requested (SOP) to speak to Matt and the children. I think LE and D&H have not come to a mutual agreement....on just what can be asked. IYKWIM. He lawyered up early (after reporting GP missing and pressure from Di and AD) and there was only mention of a face to face between LE and MM. imo. I believe it's all in the same link I provided about MP and children not making any statements.

My understanding is he told Gail he had set up an appointment with an attorney before Gail disappeared.. Did he originally make an appointment with D and H, who are criminal defense attorneys to handle legal separation and divorce proceedings?

BeanE
07-22-2011, 08:25 PM
Thanks, I haven't seen anything in MSM either....and feel as you do...giving LE the BOTD they have requested (SOP) to speak to Matt and the children. I think LE and D&H have not come to a mutual agreement....on just what can be asked. IYKWIM. He lawyered up early (after reporting GP missing and pressure from Di and AD) and there was only mention of a face to face between LE and MM. imo. I believe it's all in the same link I provided about MP and children not making any statements.

BBM. Could you clarify all what is in the link? I don't see anything about LE & D/H not having come to a mutual agreement, or anything about a face to face. Is that what you meant? Or something else that's in there?

Irish_Eyes
07-22-2011, 08:37 PM
I know JBean has the divorce info and I think it was said that to protect the children's privacy that was not being posted here. However, I wonder if JBean can confirm from the filing which attorneys filed it? Because I would swear it was a different attorney originally who filed the divorce and that Davis only began handling the divorce after he retained them.

JBean?? :seeya:

hollyblue
07-22-2011, 08:40 PM
Here's link... and the mutual agreement between LE/D&H is just my speculation.

"From day one, we have provided both the Signal Mountain Police and the Hamilton County Sheriff's Department with physical evidence, investigative leads, financial information, personal information, DNA samples, access to all of Palmgren's real property and face to face meetings with his investigator, Mike Mathis. As his attorneys, both Lee (Davis) and I have met with law enforcement and been in constant contact with them throughout this process. We will continue to assist and cooperate in the missing person investigation of Gail Palmgren."

http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/15062575/police-missing-woman-case-could-turn-criminal-therefore-no-comment

hollyblue
07-22-2011, 08:45 PM
My understanding is he told Gail he had set up an appointment with an attorney before Gail disappeared.. Did he originally make an appointment with D and H, who are criminal defense attorneys to handle legal separation and divorce proceedings?

Good question.

Irish_Eyes
07-22-2011, 08:59 PM
Yes, I know, but has LE asked to interview the children?

Despite what anyone else may think, LE may feel they have enough info from the children via Matt and/or Matt's attorneys.

This sounds like a good question for AZLawyer and Gitana. I'll pop over there and post and see if they have any thoughts on the likelihood that LE asked for an interview.

Pearl*
07-22-2011, 09:08 PM
Thanks, I haven't seen anything in MSM either....and feel as you do...giving LE the BOTD they have requested (SOP) to speak to Matt and the children. I think LE and D&H have not come to a mutual agreement....on just what can be asked. IYKWIM. He lawyered up early (after reporting GP missing and pressure from Di and AD) and there was only mention of a face to face between LE and MM. imo. I believe it's all in the same link I provided about MP and children not making any statements.

HOLLYBLUE! :slap:

Do ya think you could've found any more acronyms to put in those FOUR sentences? We need glorias over here to do her transcription magic! First I'm trying to learn Twitter code, and then I come over here to THIS?

ETA: Mods, it doesn't count as bashing if it's just Hollyblue, does it? :D

cj1132
07-22-2011, 09:16 PM
This case reminded me a lot of Gail.

Found Deceased GA - Nique Leili, 44, Lawrenceville, 9 July 2011 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Melodie
07-22-2011, 09:26 PM
This case reminded me a lot of Gail.

Found Deceased GA - Nique Leili, 44, Lawrenceville, 9 July 2011 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144706)

Wow. Yes, you are correct. So similar and so sad. Thank you.

ETA I've said it before and I'll say it again, in my humble opinion, sadly, Gail's story is not unique.

Irish_Eyes
07-22-2011, 09:38 PM
This case reminded me a lot of Gail.

Found Deceased GA - Nique Leili, 44, Lawrenceville, 9 July 2011 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144706)

Wow. No kidding.

Melodie
07-22-2011, 09:51 PM
I have a question for those who know about search dogs. I didn't get a chance to ask this when it was brought up recently on the last thread. After the amount of time that has passed since Gail disappeared and the rain we have had, can they still pick up the scent with the same reliability? I mean, obviously, it would be best done right away, but is it hopeless? TIA

Emeralgem
07-22-2011, 09:56 PM
Wow. Yes, you are correct. So similar and so sad. Thank you.

ETA I've said it before and I'll say it again, in my humble opinion, sadly, Gail's story is not unique.

Makes me so mad... Who in the HELL-O do these guys think they are?

Irish_Eyes
07-22-2011, 10:07 PM
Makes me so mad... Who in the HELL-O do these guys think they are?

I don't know, but I just found this book and I think I'm going to order it....

Amazon.com: Erased: Missing Women, Murdered Wives (9780787996390): Marilee Strong, Mark Powelson: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/512VVYl%2BQtL.@@AMEPARAM@@512VVYl%2BQtL

glorias
07-22-2011, 10:15 PM
HOLLYBLUE! :slap:

Do ya think you could've found any more acronyms to put in those FOUR sentences? We need glorias over here to do her transcription magic! First I'm trying to learn Twitter code, and then I come over here to THIS?


I speak internet acronymese and even I didn't get a couple of them. :crazy: "SOP" is "standard operational procedure," I think. MSM is mainstream media. I don't know BOTD.

IYKWIM is one of my favorites: "If you know what I mean." My favorite variation is IYKWIM,AITYD: "If you know what I mean, and I think you do." I use it every chance I get.

glorias
07-22-2011, 10:29 PM
This case reminded me a lot of Gail.

Found Deceased GA - Nique Leili, 44, Lawrenceville, 9 July 2011 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144706)

I'm stunned. So many parallels: Waiting 2 days to call LE, filing for divorce and custody right after the wife disappears, not searching for the missing wife, refusing to let LE speak with kids, police saying there were no signs of foul play, husband releasing statement through his lawyers saying he's cooperating with LE despite reports to the contrary.

The difference sadly is that Nique's car was still there and the body was found within a few days. Without Gail's Jeep or Gail herself, I fear this case is going to go nowhere.

My heart just breaks for Gail and Nique and every other missing person out there, especially the missing wives who are never found because it's easier to believe she "just ran off". This really is common, isn't it? The more cases like this I hear about, the less likely I personally feel Gail's disappearance is something new and unique. I'm genuinely afraid it's the more of the same old thing.

hollyblue
07-22-2011, 10:50 PM
I speak internet acronymese and even I didn't get a couple of them. :crazy: "SOP" is "standard operational procedure," I think. MSM is mainstream media. I don't know BOTD.

IYKWIM is one of my favorites: "If you know what I mean." My favorite variation is IYKWIM,AITYD: "If you know what I mean, and I think you do." I use it every chance I get.

LOL:http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=botd

BOTD An acronym that stands for "Benefit of the Doubt"
.
Child- I'm telling you, I didn't do it!

Father- How can you expect me to believe you when there were al least seventeen witnesses!?

Child- Can't you give me the BOTD?

hollyblue
07-22-2011, 11:06 PM
I'm stunned. So many parallels: Waiting 2 days to call LE, filing for divorce and custody right after the wife disappears, not searching for the missing wife, refusing to let LE speak with kids, police saying there were no signs of foul play, husband releasing statement through his lawyers saying he's cooperating with LE despite reports to the contrary.

The difference sadly is that Nique's car was still there and the body was found within a few days. Without Gail's Jeep or Gail herself, I fear this case is going to go nowhere.

My heart just breaks for Gail and Nique and every other missing person out there, especially the missing wives who are never found because it's easier to believe she "just ran off". This really is common, isn't it? The more cases like this I hear about, the less likely I personally feel Gail's disappearance is something new and unique. I'm genuinely afraid it's the more of the same old thing.

Did you listen to the 911 call she made..and hubby took the phone from her? She then told the dispatch she would just stay home all day. How utterly sad and sickening. :maddening:

fireflylink
07-22-2011, 11:12 PM
I have a question for those who know about search dogs. I didn't get a chance to ask this when it was brought up recently on the last thread. After the amount of time that has passed since Gail disappeared and the rain we have had, can they still pick up the scent with the same reliability? I mean, obviously, it would be best done right away, but is it hopeless? TIA

BBMEarly on tracking dogs would be used to track recent scents to follow travel and movement of a missing person or suspect. It would be ineffective to use a tracking dog after time and weather.

However, Cadaver dogs, yes they can still be used. They are trained to hit on remains specifically.

This is based upon personal conversations with cadaver dog handlers and a couple of individuals affiliated with search organizations. There is a cost involved to bring them in, some will coordinate free but need expenses covered. LE or family requests are generally required.

Hope this helps.

Pearl*
07-23-2011, 12:31 AM
"SOP" is "standard operational procedure," I think.

Ya'll obviously not from the South. Down here, sop is what you do with your cornbread when ya got pinto beans....

hollyblue
07-23-2011, 02:40 AM
Ya'll obviously not from the South. Down here, sop is what you do with your cornbread when ya got pinto beans....

Or sop gravy in the mornin'.:great:

Irish_Eyes
07-23-2011, 02:53 AM
One thing I just got to wondering about....if it has already been discussed, and I missed it, feel free to ignore this, (or point me in the right direction), but....

If Gail left Wetumpka around 6:30...
And it's a roughly 4 hour drive to Signal Mountain....
That would put her in Signal Mountain at 10:30.
Granted she could have hit rush hour traffic.
Granted she and the kids could have stopped for breakfast.

However, if she got two kids up and packed and on the road by 6:30 a.m.....this suggests to me she was in a hurry to get back to SM...so I don't think she would have made long stops or many stops...

Or did she drive the backroads again?

That time period between roughly 10:30 and 12:15 might be important, no? Was she home longer than we thought? Did she run errands or have stops to make on the mountain? We haven't heard of people seeing her out and about on the mountain during that timeframe, but maybe LE has and just isn't releasing that?

Some1Nose
07-23-2011, 04:50 AM
This case reminded me a lot of Gail.

Found Deceased GA - Nique Leili, 44, Lawrenceville, 9 July 2011 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144706)

Eerily similar!

Some1Nose
07-23-2011, 05:00 AM
Some thoughts:

Some have hinted, or out-right stated, that Gail was, for lack of a better word, “flighty” when it came to making plans with someone to do one thing and then turning around to do another; but, maybe she was responding to MP’s actions.

MP certainly fit’s the above description, imo. For example, he reportedly took long, unexpected walks on the beach talking and/or texting on his phone while Gail sat alone on a recent get-away; and MP was due to arrive home in the late evening of 4/29 from a BCBS Company-paid conference in MN but arrived home unexpectedly at a much earlier time.

MP seems to be controlling, at least when it came to Gail. Controlling people, oftentimes, tend to want to “isolate” their victims via downing the victim’s friends and family members and discouraging, if not downright denying, the victim from access to those people the victim feels closest to. Controlling abusers like to keep the victim under their thumb, so to speak. I get the idea that although Gail is an independent thinker she also is a pleaser so if MP was vetoing Gail’s plans to visit with friends, etc. she may have deferred to him.

Also, MP’s ’truth-o-meter’ would not exactly win a prize for high readings. For instance, the comment he made to the police during a DV call about taking his boat to AL was disputed by some who said MP’s boat was already in AL and were certain he didn’t have a boat in TN, and MP telling BCBS he was attending the company-paid conference in MN but skipping the conference to go to PA, etc with TH, instead. One could reasonably infer from these types of misrepresentations by MP that there was a larger pattern of untruths occurring. imo

Further, the theory about Gail being abducted from her SM home upon returning from AL is possible, but how did it happen?

It has been stated on here that the SM home had a security system. Did that include surveillance cameras? If so, did LE look at any taped surveillance video? Well….since LE initially stated there was no probable cause that a crime had been committed (no evidence of foul play), it follows that LE did not remove and inspect cameras (if they existed, of course.) Hmmmm….if there were in-fact cameras, who do you suppose did remove them and go through the recorded footage?! (A bit of sarcasm inserted….but remember what happened to the computers?!) imo

Now, since there was a security system, at the very least, if someone tried to enter the home (perhaps including the garage or even the property perimeter depending on the complexity of the alarm system) why wasn’t the alarm system triggered and didn't alert authorities/neighbors? Was it disconnected? Turned-off? If so, why?! Was this common practice by members of the household? If not, was it deliberately turned-off on 4/30?

Was Gail a creature of habit around home? Did she follow set routines such as parking her Jeep in a particular place upon arrival from the Lake Home? If so, was that in the garage, driveway, or? Did the children usually go into the home right away and get involved with their particular interests or did they help Mom with unloading the Jeep, household chores, etc.? Could someone have observed their routines from a safe distance for awhile? And, what about the dogs…were there two of them or more? Were they kept in an outdoor kennel, dog run or inside? Did they roam the property freely or not? And even if they were usually friendly dogs, they would probably have barked at something or someone unexpectedly showing up in their territory. Why wouldn’t the children hear their dogs barking and check on Gail or even maybe hear a disturbance going on outside the house with their Mother and someone else, perhaps even shouting or screaming which should raise the ‘let’s go see what’s going on’ level! *(Certainly not implying that the children are at fault in any way, shape or form, would never do that, for the record!) Just trying to figure out how someone could commandeer Gail at the SM home?! Maybe they were hiding inside the home and waited until she was alone, but, again, how did someone access the home without triggering the alarm system unless…

If Gail was abducted from the SM home, maybe the abductor/s threatened Gail’s children or held a gun or knife to Gail. Surveillance cameras, unless disconnected, could certainly be of use, here. And, of course, interviews of the children by LE.

ThoughtFox
07-23-2011, 05:18 AM
I flunked geography 101. Is Wolftever Creek the same as Harrison Bay? We ARE talking about the same incident.... Right?

Pearl: The best way to visualize Wolfteaver is if you're driving up Hwy 58 and come to Harrison Bay on your left, Wolfteaver is the large creek on your right. I believe there's a boat ramp there.

Wolfteaver flows from there all the way through Ooltewah and Collegedale. If you've ever been to the Collegedale Greenway and Imagination Station, the big creek there is also Wolfteaver.

Oh, and someone said Harrison was as far east as you can go and still be in Hamilton County, but that's not true. Ooltewah and Collegedale are east of there as the crow flies. The Bradley county line is just through the White Oak Mt. Gap on Old Lee Hwy (64).

ThoughtFox
07-23-2011, 05:21 AM
This case reminded me a lot of Gail.

Found Deceased GA - Nique Leili, 44, Lawrenceville, 9 July 2011 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144706)

OMG - that gives me the creeps! It's like the same script of a movie! I was especially struck by the fact that the father quickly filed for custody and said the wife had "abandoned" the children. :maddening:

Oriah
07-23-2011, 06:57 AM
I have a question for those who know about search dogs. I didn't get a chance to ask this when it was brought up recently on the last thread. After the amount of time that has passed since Gail disappeared and the rain we have had, can they still pick up the scent with the same reliability? I mean, obviously, it would be best done right away, but is it hopeless? TIA

Hi Melodie- it depends a whole lot on what type of scent you're talking about, and what type of training a SAR dog has had.
(Nothing is hopeless!)

Emeralgem
07-23-2011, 07:37 AM
One thing I just got to wondering about....if it has already been discussed, and I missed it, feel free to ignore this, (or point me in the right direction), but....

If Gail left Wetumpka around 6:30...
And it's a roughly 4 hour drive to Signal Mountain....
That would put her in Signal Mountain at 10:30.Granted she could have hit rush hour traffic.
Granted she and the kids could have stopped for breakfast.

However, if she got two kids up and packed and on the road by 6:30 a.m.....this suggests to me she was in a hurry to get back to SM...so I don't think she would have made long stops or many stops...

Or did she drive the backroads again?

That time period between roughly 10:30 and 12:15 might be important, no? Was she home longer than we thought? Did she run errands or have stops to make on the mountain? We haven't heard of people seeing her out and about on the mountain during that timeframe, but maybe LE has and just isn't releasing that?

There is a one hour time difference.. IF she left Wetumpka at 6:30 in the am and it took 4 hours for her to drive to her home on Signal Mtn. She would have arrived on Signal around 11:30 in the am.

ETA..I would think driving backroads would take longer.. For certain the trip to Wetumpka is not a two hour drive like that attorney (friend) down in Hoover Alabama claimed it to be...JMHO

lalalu
07-23-2011, 08:01 AM
There is a one hour time difference.. IF she left Wetumpka at 6:30 in the am and it took 4 hours for her to drive to her home on Signal Mtn. She would have arrived on Signal around 11:30 in the am.

Trying to remember...is the 6:30 time when she first called her sister? If so, if the sister reported the call as approx 6:30, it would likely have been eastern standard time given her location, which means Gail would have been making the call central time at approx 5:30, which would put her in Chatt around 10:30 after all if she was already on the road and did not take long breaks or detours.

Emeralgem
07-23-2011, 08:06 AM
Trying to remember...is the 6:30 time when she first called her sister? If so, if the sister reported the call as approx 6:30, it would likely have been eastern standard time given her location, which means Gail would have been making the call central time at approx 5:30, which would put her in Chatt around 10:30 after all if she was already on the road and did not take long breaks or detours.

If it was 6:30 EST when the sister received the call it was 5:30 in Alabama.. And yes, she could have arrived back on Signal by 10:30 in the am..

BeanE
07-23-2011, 08:20 AM
Trying to remember...is the 6:30 time when she first called her sister? If so, if the sister reported the call as approx 6:30, it would likely have been eastern standard time given her location, which means Gail would have been making the call central time at approx 5:30, which would put her in Chatt around 10:30 after all if she was already on the road and did not take long breaks or detours.

In this article, Matt says Gail dropped the kids off about noon.

He said he did not know how long she had been there and that she dropped the children off with no one home at about noon.

http://buffaloprofessional.com/news/general/police-searching-for-missing-signal-woman-chattanooga-times-free-press

glorias posted yesterday or the day before that Susie said Gail dropped the kids off about noon. Let me see if I can find that post and see if it has a link.

ETA: Here it is. No link. Perhaps glorias will provide one.

We know she dropped the kids off about noon, both Susie Button and Matt said so.
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - TN TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #7

BeanE
07-23-2011, 08:48 AM
FBI will assist in Palmgren case
published Saturday, July 23rd, 2011

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jul/23/b1-fbi-will-assist-in-palmgren-case/?local

Cazzie
07-23-2011, 08:56 AM
Can someone please clarify something that has been eating away at me about Gail's disappearance?

AFIK, we do NOT have a description of what Gail was wearing when last seen (by MP, their children, even AD (!)).

Not slamming LE, but how in the he** does LE proceed in a MP investigation and expect the public to assist, without asking for and RELEASING THIS INFO TO THE PUBLIC?

Allegedly MP and the children have not given statements and have not been interviewed by LE...

I would think that a MP's vehicle (at least that info is out there) and what they were wearing when last seen would be standard info that LE would pursue (if not readily given by those who last saw the MP).

BeanE
07-23-2011, 09:15 AM
Can someone please clarify something that has been eating away at me about Gail's disappearance?

AFIK, we do NOT have a description of what Gail was wearing when last seen (by MP, their children, even AD (!)).

Not slamming LE, but how in the he** does LE proceed in a MP investigation and expect the public to assist, without asking for and RELEASING THIS INFO TO THE PUBLIC?

Allegedly MP and the children have not given statements and have not been interviewed by LE...

I would think that a MP's vehicle (at least that info is out there) and what they were wearing when last seen would be standard info that LE would pursue (if not readily given by those who last saw the MP).

It's a curious thing. Susie Button saw Gail in the Jeep, and should have seen or had an impression of the top she was wearing - was it light or dark? did it have sleeves or no? But... nothing.

I have had a few wild moments when I wondered if perhaps Gail drove away naked, and they don't want to release that.

In my better moments, I think perhaps the kids said she went to the bedroom and said she was going to change her clothes, and that they didn't see her after that, that the clothes they said she was wearing when they did last see her were found in the hamper, and that Susie just went blank on what Gail was wearing on top. *Really* hard for me to think Susie didn't at least have an impression of light/dark, sleeves or no though.

Cazzie
07-23-2011, 09:36 AM
It's a curious thing. Susie Button saw Gail in the Jeep, and should have seen or had an impression of the top she was wearing - was it light or dark? did it have sleeves or no? But... nothing.

I have had a few wild moments when I wondered if perhaps Gail drove away naked, and they don't want to release that.

In my better moments, I think perhaps the kids said she went to the bedroom and said she was going to change her clothes, and that they didn't see her after that, that the clothes they said she was wearing when they did last see her were found in the hamper, and that Susie just went blank on what Gail was wearing on top. *Really* hard for me to think Susie didn't at least have an impression of light/dark, sleeves or no though.
LOL.

I wonder if LE has asked Susie for this info? And I recall now that AD and her ex didn't see Gail when she left the lake. And she most likely changed clothes since their get-together Friday night.

So again, the children are the most likely to know what their mother was wearing when she dropped them off at the SM home (the most recent sighting of her). Is that one of the reasons that MP won't let them visit with anyone unless supervised by himself or his family member(s)?

Not accusing MP, but it sure seems like he is not doing ANYTHING to assist in finding Gail, the mother of his children. :(

Did CC give an account of what Gail was wearing when she spotted her 3 times on/near the mountain on Saturday?

BeanE
07-23-2011, 09:50 AM
Did CC give an account of what Gail was wearing when she spotted her 3 times on/near the mountain on Saturday?

Good question! She too should have at least seen Gail's top, and gotten an impression of whether it was light or dark, sleeveless or no. It would be interesting to compare Susie and Carol's descriptions of what Gail was wearing.

Also, how her hair was done. Both Susie and Carol should have some info. Was it down loose? Pinned up? Ponytail? Did she have a scarf on? Lipstick? Sunglasses?

Pearl*
07-23-2011, 09:51 AM
FBI will assist in Palmgren case
published Saturday, July 23rd, 2011

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jul/23/b1-fbi-will-assist-in-palmgren-case/?local

I don't know why LE isn't releasing certain things, but after reading this, I'm convinced more than ever that LE isn't sleeping on the job. We've got now FOUR agencies involved: SMPD, HCSO, TBI, FBI--what more could anybody ask?

I am frustrated with the lack of information as much as anybody else, but I think those who wanted to get LE attention front and center have now accomplished that purpose.

I sure hope the leaders of those private efforts can feel a measure of success in this and now back off and let the professionals to their jobs.

Cazzie
07-23-2011, 10:08 AM
I failed to mention the obvious: whether searching for Gail alive or not, a description of her last-seen apparel would help tremendously. Searching for her alive, it would have been vital for this info to be quickly disseminated. Although, theoretically, if Gail is still alive and "hiding out or whatever", she may re-wear some of those same articles of clothing.

I wonder if the search parties were informed of what apparel to look for (in case it had been discarded or strewn about)? On other cases, I have read that the searchers are sometimes given info not released to the public and are advised not to disclose that info.

BeanE
07-23-2011, 10:11 AM
Just noting it's been 2 1/2 weeks since LE searched Matt's mom's apartment. That was on July 6. There are still 2 of the 5 searches to go, 2 Alabama properties.

Search agreement signed June 8

Search one - first two of five properties - Palmgren residence and Red Bank storage shed - June 23 - 15 days from agreement signing

Search two - third of five properties - Matt's mom's apartment - July 6 - 13 days from Search one

It's now been 17 days since the last search on July 6

Links and more info:
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - TN TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #7

Melodie
07-23-2011, 10:52 AM
I failed to mention the obvious: whether searching for Gail alive or not, a description of her last-seen apparel would help tremendously. Searching for her alive, it would have been vital for this info to be quickly disseminated. Although, theoretically, if Gail is still alive and "hiding out or whatever", she may re-wear some of those same articles of clothing.

I wonder if the search parties were informed of what apparel to look for (in case it had been discarded or strewn about)? On other cases, I have read that the searchers are sometimes given info not released to the public and are advised not to disclose that info.

BBM Search parties? I wish there had been some. In the Holly Bobo case, they had thousands of volunteers out combing the woods for weeks. In Gail's case they had 1, maybe 2 days in the first few weeks where about 12 or so volunteers (organized by themselves) on ATVs, car and foot searched on a Saturday or Sunday for a few hours on Signal Mt. That's it. LE sent divers in to check Suck Creek one day. To my knowledge, LE has not arranged any volunteer searches at all. To add insult to injury, some of the volunteers wanted to do more searches and were asked not to. If someone knows of other searches that have been done, please correct me.

Emeralgem
07-23-2011, 10:57 AM
Hoping and praying The FBI will apply some real pressure to Mr. MP..JMHO

BeanE
07-23-2011, 11:02 AM
BBM Search parties? I wish there had been some. In the Holly Bobo case, they had thousands of volunteers out combing the woods for weeks. In Gail's case they had 1, maybe 2 days in the first few weeks where about 12 or so volunteers (organized by themselves) on ATVs, car and foot searched on a Saturday or Sunday for a few hours on Signal Mt. That's it. LE sent divers in to check Suck Creek one day. To my knowledge, LE has not arranged any volunteer searches at all. To add insult to injury, some of the volunteers wanted to do more searches and were asked not to. If someone knows of other searches that have been done, please correct me.

If you scroll way down on here to May 24, you can see pics of the Suck Creek search, and the reporter tweeting that an aerial search is planned. Never any MSM reports that was done. There were reports LE was going to search Lake Jordan, but no reports that was done either.

http://keepstream.com/CaseSignal/gail-palmgren-case-tweet-archive

The only other LE search I can think of, which really wasn't a search, was when LE checked the bottom of Big Fork or Insurance Bluff(?) - the place where lots of cars were pushed off a ridge or something. Based on Carol C's sighting.

I didn't realize LE had told the volunteers not to search. Maybe because they're not trained and the terrain in the SM area is too dangerous?

BeanE
07-23-2011, 11:07 AM
Future tense FBI will assist in Palmgren case

Present tense The FBI is lending resources to assist in the case of a missing Signal Mountain woman.

Past tense Two weeks later, the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office began investigating her disappearance and the FBI offered to lend its resources, said Special Agent Edward Galloway of the FBI's Chattanooga office.

The way that last is worded, it sounds like FBI has been on board since HCSO joined, which IIRC was May 17.

Hard to tell if they've been lending assisting or are going to lend assistance.

Pearl*
07-23-2011, 11:08 AM
I didn't realize LE had told the volunteers not to search. Maybe because they're not trained and the terrain in the SM area is too dangerous?

I don't know LE's reasons for a lot of decisions, but the terrain up here is DEFINITELY too dangerous for amateurs. Driving the roads and searching defined trails is one thing; but trailblazing remote areas is quite another.

Pearl*
07-23-2011, 11:33 AM
It's a curious thing. Susie Button saw Gail in the Jeep, and should have seen or had an impression of the top she was wearing - was it light or dark? did it have sleeves or no? But... nothing.


I don't know Susie Button, but I will have to say that I think awareness of these things is very different between individual people. Some people simply fail to pay attention and it doesn't register in their memory banks automatically. I'm one of them.

Some days, for instance, if I'm trying to spot my child in a group of people, I suddenly realize I have NO IDEA what color shirt I'm looking for. And it's not that I didn't see the child when she left the house. It's just my personality, I guess. I doubt she could say most days what I was wearing either.

BeanE
07-23-2011, 11:41 AM
Original recap of calls and Susie sighting is here:
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - TN TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #7


I revised my recap based on this article:

<snip> Nichols says she thinks back to the last conversation she had with Gail.

<snip> She told Eyewitness News hours before her sister was last seen, Gail begged her to call police while leaving the family's Alabama lake house. She wanted police at her Signal Mountain home when she arrived.

<snip> her sister never said why she wanted her to call police.

<snip> Police called Gail at her sister's request, but details of that conversation haven't been released, not even to Nichols.

<snip> "If she doesn't want to go home I understand," said Nichols,

http://www.wrcbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=14987811


All New and Improved Recap of April 30 calls and Susie Sighting!
Now With 11.3% More Stain Fighting Power!

Label Warning: This is my own personal recap, any part of which may be double dog WRONG!

- Unknown day/time, Fri Apr 29 or Sat Apr 30. Per his sworn affidavit, Matt calls Gail. Matt proposes they meet back at the SM house, asking Gail to bring the kids back to SM because he hasn't seen them since Friday. (Read by Arlene from document in 2nd Jammer interview)

- My personal speculation! Before talking with Diane, Gail called LE and asked them to meet her at SM house. They said no. This is the only reason I can think of why Gail would call Diane and ask her to call LE.

- 6:30 Gail and Diane talk. Unknown if Gail had talked with Matt at this point. Gail says she's going back to SM. Begs Diane to call LE and ask them to meet her at the SM house. Gail, per Arlene, begs and begs and begs and begs (I'm pretty sure it was 4 begs in 2nd Jammer interview that Arlene said).

- Before leaving lake house or during drive to SM. Diane calls SMPD and asks them to call Gail. Unknown if she also asked them to meet Gail back at SM house.

- Before leaving lake house or during drive to SM. SMPD calls Gail. Contents of this phone call have never been revealed, even to Diane, but per Clive on BGHN, Gail tells SMPD she's okay. Unknown where he got that info. Unknown if Gail asked SMPD to meet her back at SM house.

* Unknown if anyone conveyed to LE that Gail wanted them to meet her back at SM house.

- 12:00 Per Matt, Gail arrives at SM house.

- Time unknown. Gail (or possibly someone else) calls Matt and says kids are at the house and Gail is leaving. Per LE, the kids are the last persons to see Gail. LE (Tizzio via ADPS) reports time last seen simply as "afternoon".

- Approx 12:15, and prior to Susie's reported sighting. Gail calls Diane and says she's scared. Doesn't say what she's scared of except Diane makes out that she thinks she's being followed. Unknown if Diane calls LE again. This is the last reported phone contact with Gail.

- Approx 12:15. Susie sees Gail driving away. Susie runs up hill to say hi. Gail doesn't acknowledge Susie. Susie hasn't reported seeing anyone following Gail. This sighting has not been confirmed by LE.

- Approx 12:25. Matt arrives home after running errands with his mother for an unknown period of time.

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

Input, corrections, additions, opinions, :fish:, :cupcake:, :beagle:, and :popcorn: welcome! Holler if ya want the link for anything!

Cazzie
07-23-2011, 11:49 AM
BBM Search parties? I wish there had been some. In the Holly Bobo case, they had thousands of volunteers out combing the woods for weeks. In Gail's case they had 1, maybe 2 days in the first few weeks where about 12 or so volunteers (organized by themselves) on ATVs, car and foot searched on a Saturday or Sunday for a few hours on Signal Mt. That's it. LE sent divers in to check Suck Creek one day. To my knowledge, LE has not arranged any volunteer searches at all. To add insult to injury, some of the volunteers wanted to do more searches and were asked not to. If someone knows of other searches that have been done, please correct me.
Oh, gee!

You're reminding me...I used to know that the searches were primarily volunteer-driven and thus wouldn't have had any guidance or inside info from LE. It get complicated when trying to follow multiple cases...easy to forget or confuse something.

You're also reminding me that I posted a while back that perhaps/allegedly/etc. MP has connections within LE or has power or standing in the community such that perhaps he has a Teflon coating, IYKWIM. NOT a slur on LE, although there have been instances of corrupted LE.

I maintain a positive attitude that LE is working diligently on Gail's case and has to keep certain info "on the down low". :)

My heart just breaks when thinking that Gail is missing her children, other family and friends, and likewise, they are all missing her too!

:heartbeat:

hollyblue
07-23-2011, 01:04 PM
Some thoughts:

Further, the theory about Gail being abducted from her SM home upon returning from AL is possible, but how did it happen?

It has been stated on here that the SM home had a security system. Did that include surveillance cameras? If so, did LE look at any taped surveillance video? Well….since LE initially stated there was no probable cause that a crime had been committed (no evidence of foul play), it follows that LE did not remove and inspect cameras (if they existed, of course.) Hmmmm….if there were in-fact cameras, who do you suppose did remove them and go through the recorded footage?! (A bit of sarcasm inserted….but remember what happened to the computers?!) imo

Now, since there was a security system, at the very least, if someone tried to enter the home (perhaps including the garage or even the property perimeter depending on the complexity of the alarm system) why wasn’t the alarm system triggered and didn't alert authorities/neighbors? Was it disconnected? Turned-off? If so, why?! Was this common practice by members of the household? If not, was it deliberately turned-off on 4/30?

Was Gail a creature of habit around home? Did she follow set routines such as parking her Jeep in a particular place upon arrival from the Lake Home? If so, was that in the garage, driveway, or? Did the children usually go into the home right away and get involved with their particular interests or did they help Mom with unloading the Jeep, household chores, etc.? Could someone have observed their routines from a safe distance for awhile? And, what about the dogs…were there two of them or more? Were they kept in an outdoor kennel, dog run or inside? Did they roam the property freely or not? And even if they were usually friendly dogs, they would probably have barked at something or someone unexpectedly showing up in their territory. Why wouldn’t the children hear their dogs barking and check on Gail or even maybe hear a disturbance going on outside the house with their Mother and someone else, perhaps even shouting or screaming which should raise the ‘let’s go see what’s going on’ level! *(Certainly not implying that the children are at fault in any way, shape or form, would never do that, for the record!) Just trying to figure out how someone could commandeer Gail at the SM home?! Maybe they were hiding inside the home and waited until she was alone, but, again, how did someone access the home without triggering the alarm system unless…

If Gail was abducted from the SM home, maybe the abductor/s threatened Gail’s children or held a gun or knife to Gail. Surveillance cameras, unless disconnected, could certainly be of use, here. And, of course, interviews of the children by LE.

I snipped for space but fully agree with everything you had stated. :)

This is my theory...so far with the little we know, but the surveillance systems is a good point. I believe it was fbx who said ADT was at the house a few days after GP's disappearance. Why? What was being done? Was it broken, damaged, being installed? Did they have one prior...like the house in AL---and it's now gone too? D & H? Vanished? AD stated that MP was not mechanically inclined, but that could be MP just not wanting to do it.

The dogs were labs, very docile and might not have even barked. If so it was prolly a "Hey pay attention to me" kind of bark vs a bark of warning. imo. They just got home too, so prolly wanting to frolick outside. To my knowledge, they had electronic collars and were allowed to roam the property. (See video of them in driveway)

My thoughts are someone was waiting hidden inside the garage, mudroom, etc or either outside the perimeter of the house---in the woods and surprised GP or slipped into the Jeep-- if she did go into house --forcing her to leave/drive. (I'm not at this time buying CC's story--deflection) I picture the children running to their rooms and getting back to some normalcy after all they had been through the previous day. It was around lunch time, so GP may have stopped to pick something up and the kids were in the kitchen or dining room. And yes, I have even thought that MP could have given someone access to house/garage. Drop off on Timesville road to access the property from the rear or he could have driven someone there earlier. I don't know what MP did/said, but whatever it was----GP fully believed he was capable of doing it. She was beyond just scared.

The trip to MN/PA is the catalyst, imo. Either MP had plans in the mist or the one call between them was GP telling MP that she had the goods (TH and the bogus trip) on him....and hinted of letting BCBS know. Ask him about PA when he said the conference was in MN. The argument on the 29th. At the moment, I'm going with MP had plans because he did return early. What man leaves his mistress early to return to the "hell house"? He could have spent the evening downtown Chatt enjoying himself and returned after his flight was due in. ??
JMO

hollyblue
07-23-2011, 01:22 PM
Hoping and praying The FBI will apply some real pressure to Mr. MP..JMHO

Yep, like "Turn over the puters BUCKO". Hopefully it's a different ballgame now. D & H will be busy answering questions or be a bit more lenient in allowing MP to. imo

Melodie
07-23-2011, 01:28 PM
I snipped for space but fully agree with everything you had stated. :)

This is my theory...so far with the little we know, but the surveillance systems is a good point. I believe it was fbx who said ADT was at the house a few days after GP's disappearance. Why? What was being done? Was it broken, damaged, being installed? Did they have one prior...like the house in AL---and it's now gone too? D & H? Vanished? AD stated that MP was not mechanically inclined, but that could be MP just not wanting to do it.

The dogs were labs, very docile and might not have even barked. If so it was prolly a "Hey pay attention to me" kind of bark vs a bark of warning. imo. They just got home too, so prolly wanting to frolick outside. To my knowledge, they had electronic collars and were allowed to roam the property. (See video of them in driveway)

My thoughts are someone was waiting hidden inside the garage, mudroom, etc or either outside the perimeter of the house---in the woods and surprised GP or slipped into the Jeep-- if she did go into house --forcing her to leave/drive. (I'm not at this time buying CC's story--deflection) I picture the children running to their rooms and getting back to some normalcy after all they had been through the previous day. It was around lunch time, so GP may have stopped to pick something up and the kids were in the kitchen or dining room. And yes, I have even thought that MP could have given someone access to house/garage. Drop off on Timesville road to access the property from the rear or he could have driven someone there earlier. I don't know what MP did/said, but whatever it was----GP fully believed he was capable of doing it. She was beyond just scared.

The trip to MN/PA is the catalyst, imo. Either MP had plans in the mist or the one call between them was GP telling MP that she had the goods (TH and the bogus trip) on him....and hinted of letting BCBS know. Ask him about PA when he said the conference was in MN. The argument on the 29th. At the moment, I'm going with MP had plans because he did return early. What man leaves his mistress early to return to the "hell house"? He could have spent the evening downtown Chatt enjoying himself and returned after his flight was due in. ??
JMO

BBM
:twocents: I agree. To me, the activities around that conference are very important. Something to me is not right with that. And I had not thought about it until reading your post, but yeah, why come back early when he was "cleared" to be gone for longer? In my opinion, there was an important reason behind that. As far as the dogs, I agree with you that if docile, they would not have barked or alerted anyone if they were not right there. However, someone mentioned on the previous thread that there was a theory that Gail might have been overtaken while in the vehicle with the children and dogs. I don't believe that. I don't believe 2 big labs would allow that. Not with the children and Gail in the car. Any signs of fear from them and those dogs would have protected. If the dogs are still around and fine, I don't believe Gail was abducted by a stranger while they were all in the vehicle. JMO

Oriah
07-23-2011, 01:52 PM
Just noting it's been 2 1/2 weeks since LE searched Matt's mom's apartment. That was on July 6. There are still 2 of the 5 searches to go, 2 Alabama properties.

Search agreement signed June 8

Search one - first two of five properties - Palmgren residence and Red Bank storage shed - June 23 - 15 days from agreement signing

Search two - third of five properties - Matt's mom's apartment - July 6 - 13 days from Search one

It's now been 17 days since the last search on July 6

Links and more info:
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - TN TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #7 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6883183&postcount=161)


Truthfully, I am still a bit perplexed about the 'search' situation.

What is being searched for?

BeanE
07-23-2011, 04:07 PM
Truthfully, I am still a bit perplexed about the 'search' situation.

What is being searched for?

hmmm... stuff? :floorlaugh:

Seriously, I dunno, Oriah. I'd love to see the whole consent agreement. Lemme poke around and see what I can find.

ETA: This article says "evidence leading to Gail". I think that's just the reporter's words. Has this additional info, which really doesn't tell us anything. I'm sticking with "stuff". :)

CONSENT ORDER

The consent order to search the Palmgrens’ Signal Mountain home included these parameters:

Mike Mathis, a former Chattanooga Police Department investigator, who has been hired by Palmgren, must be present during the searches.
Any documents that investigators wish to copy must be copied through Palmgren and his attorneys.
Testing of trace evidence is allowed as long as it does not damage the property.
Detectives must get permission to further test items from the house from Palmgren’s attorney and the Hamilton County District Attorney’s Office.
If investigators damage the property, the sheriff’s office must replace the property.
Source: Consent Order

SEARCH LOCATIONS
The consent order lists five locations for the search:
The Palmgren family residence at 40 Ridgerock Drive, Signal Mountain
439 Easy St., Wetumpka, Ala.
481 Jordan Lake Road, Titus Ala.
A public storage unit in Red Bank
Matt Palmgren’s mother’s residence in Chattanooga

Source: Consent Order

http://timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jun/22/search-order-matthew-palmgrens-properties-called-u/?print

obody
07-23-2011, 04:43 PM
Do we know the dogs are docile? I have a lab, and while he is friendly, good with kids and cats, he still barks up a storm whenever someone arrives, and I have little doubt he would go on the offensive if one of his peeps was threatened.

Oriah
07-23-2011, 06:59 PM
Yet more food for thought....

Yep that's the 'consent order'. But I am still somewhat perplexed (I know, lol... big surprise!) as to how this works regarding a LE based search (??).
Why would a judge need to grant an order for this? Subpoenas I can see, if consent is declined and there is enough evidence to support a search of private property. Blanket consent with LE (without involvment of an attorney) I can also see. And I can also see the value in protecting ones' property by having an attorney present during a search.

But this search situation doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

And what's up with the specificity of copying documents?

I am totally perplexed by this search situation. What the heck does one look for under a controlled-search situation??



hmmm... stuff? :floorlaugh:

Seriously, I dunno, Oriah. I'd love to see the whole consent agreement. Lemme poke around and see what I can find.

ETA: This article says "evidence leading to Gail". I think that's just the reporter's words. Has this additional info, which really doesn't tell us anything. I'm sticking with "stuff". :)

CONSENT ORDER

The consent order to search the Palmgrens’ Signal Mountain home included these parameters:

Mike Mathis, a former Chattanooga Police Department investigator, who has been hired by Palmgren, must be present during the searches.
Any documents that investigators wish to copy must be copied through Palmgren and his attorneys.
Testing of trace evidence is allowed as long as it does not damage the property.
Detectives must get permission to further test items from the house from Palmgren’s attorney and the Hamilton County District Attorney’s Office.
If investigators damage the property, the sheriff’s office must replace the property.
Source: Consent Order

SEARCH LOCATIONS
The consent order lists five locations for the search:
The Palmgren family residence at 40 Ridgerock Drive, Signal Mountain
439 Easy St., Wetumpka, Ala.
481 Jordan Lake Road, Titus Ala.
A public storage unit in Red Bank
Matt Palmgren’s mother’s residence in Chattanooga

Source: Consent Order

http://timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jun/22/search-order-matthew-palmgrens-properties-called-u/?print

believe09
07-23-2011, 08:06 PM
Can someone please clarify something that has been eating away at me about Gail's disappearance?

AFIK, we do NOT have a description of what Gail was wearing when last seen (by MP, their children, even AD (!)).

Not slamming LE, but how in the he** does LE proceed in a MP investigation and expect the public to assist, without asking for and RELEASING THIS INFO TO THE PUBLIC?

Allegedly MP and the children have not given statements and have not been interviewed by LE...

I would think that a MP's vehicle (at least that info is out there) and what they were wearing when last seen would be standard info that LE would pursue (if not readily given by those who last saw the MP).

BBM-what if they were not given the information? Clothing is MP 101. I think the description was never provided. JMO.

BeanE
07-23-2011, 08:06 PM
Yet more food for thought....

Yep that's the 'consent order'. But I am still somewhat perplexed (I know, lol... big surprise!) as to how this works regarding a LE based search (??).
Why would a judge need to grant an order for this? Subpoenas I can see, if consent is declined and there is enough evidence to support a search of private property. Blanket consent with LE (without involvment of an attorney) I can also see. And I can also see the value in protecting ones' property by having an attorney present during a search.

But this search situation doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

And what's up with the specificity of copying documents?

I am totally perplexed by this search situation. What the heck does one look for under a controlled-search situation??

I don't think a judge granted an order in relation to this. My understanding is that this is simply a search consent agreement that was drawn up between Matt's attorneys and the DA. An agreement for a consensual search.

The only thing I can think of for the document copying is that it either puts the copying expenses back on Matt's tab, or, more likely, that it ensures that whatever LE wants copies of, the attorneys will have a record of each page copied. They could then verify, e.g., that complete documents were copied to ensure context etc.

believe09
07-23-2011, 08:09 PM
The FB thread is open, fwiw. :)

hollyblue
07-23-2011, 09:48 PM
Do your think this is correct info: MP was last to talk to GP or just another error? The letter had her missing (last seen) as of the 29th..

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

In the letter, Cox specifies that Palmgren last spoke with her husband, Matthew Palmgren, that day and he writes that, since then, “no reported communication with her has existed.”

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jul/14/da-asks-haslam-palmgren-reward/

BeanE
07-23-2011, 10:11 PM
Do your think this is correct info: MP was last to talk to GP or just another error? The letter had her missing (last seen) as of the 29th..

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

In the letter, Cox specifies that Palmgren last spoke with her husband, Matthew Palmgren, that day and he writes that, since then, “no reported communication with her has existed.”

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jul/14/da-asks-haslam-palmgren-reward/

I dunno. I read that as 'Gail talked to Matt for the last time on Apr 30' versus 'the last person Gail talked to was Matt'.

Ordinarily LE says 'the last person so-and-so spoke to' or 'the last person to see so-and-so was' or 'X was the last person to see so-and-so'. It's very precise and clear.

It sure would help to have some clarification from LE.

rolltideroll
07-23-2011, 10:18 PM
I find it odd that a husband who is possibly headed into a divorce and a custody battle would not JUMP at the opportunity to call the police when he came home to find his kids left there unattended.

Cazzie
07-23-2011, 10:20 PM
BBM-what if they were not given the information? Clothing is MP 101. I think the description was never provided. JMO.
Yes, thus my frustration. :)

WHY wasn't it given? Wasn't it asked? What was the reason for a non-answer? (the kids probably know, but you're not allowed to question them?)

Thus my further frustration that apparently MP hasn't given a statement and the children have not been allowed to be interviewed by LE.

I would think that when anyone makes a missing person report, certain crucial questions are asked, and I would have expected that he would have been asked "what was she wearing?".

Since he apparently (or supposedly) didn't get to the house until Gail had already left, he wouldn't know what she was wearing. BUT THE KIDS PROBABLY DO...

believe09
07-23-2011, 10:44 PM
Yup-if the kids were in the car with Gail, and Gail transported them to the house, they probably have an idea of what she was wearing. I am still waiting to hear if they were carrying luggage. Did they pack bags on 4/29 and did they return with them? IE Did Gail have access to more clothing than whatever was on her back, and BTW what was on her back? Color of her purse, shoes etc...

Cazzie
07-23-2011, 11:10 PM
My belief is that Gail had much reason to be "paranoid", and she was reaching out for help to several people. But she "couldn't sit still". Plus for all we know, without witnesses or access to her cell phone activity, she could have been calling and receiving calls that necessitated revising her plan(s).

OMGosh, I feel like I am "channelling" her state of mind, which, btw, I think was quite sane and rational. Can you imagine...with your children in tow (and yes, your dogs), feeling like you are being hunted or stalked, or at the very minimum, having a hinky feeling that something bad is about to happen soon?

:(

glorias
07-23-2011, 11:35 PM
I find it odd that a husband who is possibly headed into a divorce and a custody battle would not JUMP at the opportunity to call the police when he came home to find his kids left there unattended.

Excellent point. By all accounts, it was a contentious divorce. Matt finds the kids left alone and he doesn't say a word? Not even to document it for the upcoming divorce case? He was so keen very early on to tell the media in a phone interview that Gail would leave all the time, was paranoid and writing down license plates. Since her disappearance, his lawyers have released info from the G's who claim Gail was very mentally unstable, plus they told Jammer Scott that Gail's brother killed herself so he could imply Gail was stressed (and also imply a family history of suicide, IMVHO). Yet the day she left the kids unattended, not a word. Didn't call LE until Diane did first and urged him to do so.

So very curious.

ThoughtFox
07-24-2011, 01:42 AM
Oh thank God ~ at last!

Chatt. Times Free Press: FBI Will Assist in Palmgren Case (http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jul/23/b1-fbi-will-assist-in-palmgren-case/)

The FBI is not taking a lead role in the investigation, Galloway said, but is offering technical support and letting local authorities access its lab to process any evidence collected in the case.

"We'll help in any way we can and lend any assets," he said.

The federal agency also is reviewing the case along with Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, which came onboard earlier this month.

Annie_61
07-24-2011, 02:54 AM
I know at the moment the thread is focused pretty much on the FBI involvement but I have spent a long time pondering over the situation of Gail’s siblings and to be honest I feel for them so badly because they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

Imagine being in their shoes, if they come out all guns blazing accusing Matt of foul play and it turns out in the long run that he was innocent, they will have burned any bridges re being part of their niece and nephews life. At this stage nobody can confirm that Gail is missing because she met with foul play or she left on her own accord, then there is the accident theory. If either of the last two scenarios are the case and they have come out claiming Matt was behind Gail’s disappearance the children would have a hard time understanding why they publicly bashed their father.

Their public silence could be from looking at the big picture and what the future hold for their sister’s two children. They could believe they don’t have enough information on any of the possible scenarios to publicly come out and say anything, instead they are quietly working with the right people to hopefully get the answers.

I just think that although their silence now might seem wrong, it could be that their silence will be right for future involvement with two precious parts of Gail’s life. Who else will be able to tell the children about their mother when she was little, or about their grandparents on Gail’s side of the family, even family medical history and who else will be able to tell them family stories?

Without a doubt Matt holds all the cards on the subject of who can have contact with the children now and who would blame him from cutting D & K out of the children’s lives if they were out there publicly bashing him and it turned out he had nothing to do with the disappearance. God forbid if this becomes a cold case and as the children grow up they may search for answers on their own re their mum, how would it look to them to find articles on the net from aunty and uncle bashing their father. If the children were kept from D & K in younger years but later they researched family they might be more inclined to make contact if there is no hostility being shown in the media towards their father.

When you look at what D & K have already lost as far as family goes it might just be for the best they use the gentle silent way to go forward if they are to stand any chance of being part of their nieces and nephews lives.

Sometimes silence might be the only choice if people want a voice in the future.

But their silence can be judged by so many… so again I say they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

To all of Gail’s loved ones I hope there are answers soon.

I apologize for my long ramblings and as always if this post contains anything out of line please let me know and I will remove.

hollyblue
07-24-2011, 03:59 AM
Very nice post Annie61. I keep wondering if the children know Matt is not talking to LE. I've even wondered if they may have ask him if he has--- or ask the so many questions a young child might have? Are they too afraid to ask? Because of Matt...and/or what the answer may be. Maybe they have compartmentalized it and are just trying to go on taking each day at a time. Everytime I have these thoughts I have to tell myself surely the counseling involves Matt along with children as much as needed. If not, it's just one more compartment that has to be dealt with at some point. Too, I just can't imagine a mother deliberately putting her children through this kind of situation. Gail's family should be able to give them just as many hugs and express their love for them as Matt's. :( How can anyone say this is right and not fault him.... Let's get real. JMO

Some1Nose
07-24-2011, 04:19 AM
Interesting MSM info to revisit imo:
www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_203035.asp

(Note by me: “she” refers to AD in first sentence.)
“However, she said the sudden drop in the family's income to one paycheck escalated the problems. She said in November when Gail got her last paycheck there was an incident where their dog, Dottie, got loose and Matt became enraged. She said Gail told her she had told her husband that she "couldn't take it any more" and she was thinking of moving out. She said Gail told her she retreated to her bedroom and her husband broke the bedroom door down.

She said on a more recent occasion Gail showed up with a black eye. She said Gail maintained that she had run into a door. Arlene said she did not quiz her any further.

Arlene said Gail confided that the marriage continued to bottom as the Palmgrens went to St. Martin for a wedding in March. She said Gail told of Matt drinking heavily and of taking long strolls on the beach out of her earshot.”

More interesting MSM info to revisit:

http://m.newschannel9.com/news/palmgren-1001216-nichols-last.html


“Nichols says neighbors last saw Gail Palmgren dropping off her 9-year-old and 12-year-old children at home on the 30th. No one has heard from her since. Nichols says that is highly uncharacteristic of her sister. "She has her doctorate degree. She's sharp, she's well balanced and she loved her children."
Gail Palmgren's whereabouts are a mystery that has only been intensified by her last conversation with her sister Diane, moments before Palmgren was last seen.
"She was nervous. She was anxious. She sounded scared," says Diane Nichols. Palmgren wouldn't say why she was scared but the Nichols made out this much, "She just thought she was being followed."
It was a bizzare conversation and Diane wonders if it's in any way connected to Gail's husband, Matthew Palmgren. "I know they had some marriage problems."
Nichols says Gail and Matthew recently filed for a legal separation. Police came to the Palmgren residence the day before she was last seen, responding to a domestic dispute call.”

Also, I looked up some K9 SAR groups located in Tennessee. I think most, if not all, of you will find the info of interest…I certainly did. These are both volunteer groups requiring no payments.

http://trustterra.org

http://cumberlandk9sar.org

Wonder where LE’s thinking is on utilizing this type of resource??? Soon???

IMO...the top two contender scenarios are accident or non-stranger foul play (maybe made to look like an accident...hmmmm).

Some1Nose
07-24-2011, 04:48 AM
I snipped for space but fully agree with everything you had stated. :)

This is my theory...so far with the little we know, but the surveillance systems is a good point. I believe it was fbx who said ADT was at the house a few days after GP's disappearance. Why? What was being done? Was it broken, damaged, being installed? Did they have one prior...like the house in AL---and it's now gone too? D & H? Vanished? AD stated that MP was not mechanically inclined, but that could be MP just not wanting to do it.

She was beyond just scared.

The trip to MN/PA is the catalyst, imo. Either MP had plans in the mist or the one call between them was GP telling MP that she had the goods (TH and the bogus trip) on him....and hinted of letting BCBS know. Ask him about PA when he said the conference was in MN. The argument on the 29th. At the moment, I'm going with MP had plans because he did return early. What man leaves his mistress early to return to the "hell house"? He could have spent the evening downtown Chatt enjoying himself and returned after his flight was due in. ??
JMO

Thanks Holly...it's good to feel appreciated! :great:

I'm going to do some more thinking about all of this...I've pretty much boiled my theories down to either an accident or foul play (or even foul play to look like an accident :crazy:), but then every time I think about the possiblity of MP having been directly and deliberately involved in Gail's disappearance, I so don't want that to be the case, even though I'm quite familiar with the statistics involving controlling/abusive people going through a separation/divorce, there is that possibilty that it did involve MP but evolved from momentary rage vs. premeditation...anyone?

(The Queen of run-on sentences... :-)

Some1Nose
07-24-2011, 04:53 AM
To add to my last post...and then there are such things as very possessive gfs?? I haven't really narrowed down a theory, yet, as to who is/are involved if, in fact, Gail's disappearance is due to foul play. Of course, I have my suspicions.

Oriah
07-24-2011, 05:45 AM
Yup-if the kids were in the car with Gail, and Gail transported them to the house, they probably have an idea of what she was wearing. I am still waiting to hear if they were carrying luggage. Did they pack bags on 4/29 and did they return with them? IE Did Gail have access to more clothing than whatever was on her back, and BTW what was on her back? Color of her purse, shoes etc...

I cannot understand this either, believe09.

What was Gail wearing when she was last seen? What clothing and accessories are missing from which home? What type of footwear was she wearing? Does she wear anything all the time- such as a watch, a ring, a necklace?

Such important information when trying to locate a missing person.

Oriah
07-24-2011, 06:07 AM
I don't think a judge granted an order in relation to this. My understanding is that this is simply a search consent agreement that was drawn up between Matt's attorneys and the DA. An agreement for a consensual search.

The only thing I can think of for the document copying is that it either puts the copying expenses back on Matt's tab, or, more likely, that it ensures that whatever LE wants copies of, the attorneys will have a record of each page copied. They could then verify, e.g., that complete documents were copied to ensure context etc.

I see, Bean.

But how (and why) would that work under a search consent for searches that are preplanned??

It seems to me that nothing gleaned from a 'search' of this sort would hold up in court due to the arrangement of the 'agreement'- so why even bother? :waitasec:

The DA essentially consented to searches that would have no merit in court, should Gail's case become a criminal investigation. :waitasec:

Oiy. Ok- I'm going back to trying to locate Gail's Jeep.

Do we know if there are any other storage facilities that either MP or GP had access to (other than the one on the search agreement)?

glorias
07-24-2011, 07:28 AM
Oh thank God ~ at last!

Chatt. Times Free Press: FBI Will Assist in Palmgren Case (http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jul/23/b1-fbi-will-assist-in-palmgren-case/)

The FBI is not taking a lead role in the investigation, Galloway said, but is offering technical support and letting local authorities access its lab to process any evidence collected in the case.

"We'll help in any way we can and lend any assets," he said.

The federal agency also is reviewing the case along with Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, which came onboard earlier this month.

Finally. Gail's brother Kevin said he contacted them back on May 11.

http://www.wkbw.com/home/Day-12-in-Search-for-Missing-Tennessee-Woman-From-Williamsville-121662839.html

May 11 is when he said they contacted the FBI. They may have actually called before the 11th.

Oriah
07-24-2011, 07:39 AM
I am truly banging my head against a wall here.

If Gail dropped off the children at approximately 12:15pm; and then immediately left the SM residence- WHICH direction did she go? Looking at maps and wondering- up, down, or both??

I am back at the conundrum of possible sightings- and how they relate to pings.

BeanE
07-24-2011, 07:51 AM
I see, Bean.

But how (and why) would that work under a search consent for searches that are preplanned??

It seems to me that nothing gleaned from a 'search' of this sort would hold up in court due to the arrangement of the 'agreement'- so why even bother? :waitasec:

The DA essentially consented to searches that would have no merit in court, should Gail's case become a criminal investigation. :waitasec:


BBM. Why even bother to search for Gail if they can't get proof they can use in court to prosecute Matt Palmgren for her murder?

I wish it was simply because all missing persons are human beings, and all human beings matter, but it's not.

It's because LE has a job obligation that we pay our taxes for to find all missing persons - no matter what happened to them - homicide, suicide, natural death, accident, ran off to join the circus.

By searching those properties they may not, to the gross disappointment of some, find evidence that will hold up in court that Matt Palmgren murdered Gail - but they just might find something that gives them a lead on what happened to Gail, and where she is. And that is their job - to find Gail no matter what happened to her.

It's certainly the job I pay my taxes for, and I'd be infuriated if I found out any LE on any missing persons case was only expending effort on activities that would lead them to prosecuting one person for homicide. Especially if they had no evidence of foul play, and don't even know that the person is dead, and that person has two children who need them!

Cazzie
07-24-2011, 07:58 AM
I see, Bean.

But how (and why) would that work under a search consent for searches that are preplanned??

It seems to me that nothing gleaned from a 'search' of this sort would hold up in court due to the arrangement of the 'agreement'- so why even bother? :waitasec:

The DA essentially consented to searches that would have no merit in court, should Gail's case become a criminal investigation. :waitasec:

Oiy. Ok- I'm going back to trying to locate Gail's Jeep.

Do we know if there are any other storage facilities that either MP or GP had access to (other than the one on the search agreement)?
Perhaps that is why a criminal defense attorney was hired and orchestrated this deal?

So once again, is it possible that we (the people) are letting an alleged criminal have more rights and more power than an alleged victim?

God bless the USA. And God help the USA. And God bless and help us all.

BeanE
07-24-2011, 08:01 AM
This indicates the FBI has been involved since HCSO joined the team, which was on May 17. That would align with Kevin's call to the FBI on or before May 11.

Two weeks later, the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office began investigating her disappearance and the FBI offered to lend its resources, said Special Agent Edward Galloway of the FBI's Chattanooga office.

Links upthread.

Very typical for FBI to offer its resources early on in a missing person case. I think I've seen that on just about every missing person case I've followed.

(May 17 may not seem early on in this missing person case, since Gail went missing Apr 30, but it seems it didn't become a missing person case until the 17th.)

Oriah
07-24-2011, 08:15 AM
BBM. Why even bother to search for Gail if they can't get proof they can use in court to prosecute Matt Palmgren for her murder?

I wish it was simply because all missing persons are human beings, and all human beings matter, but it's not.

It's because LE has a job obligation that we pay our taxes for to find all missing persons - no matter what happened to them - homicide, suicide, natural death, accident, ran off to join the circus.

By searching those properties they may not, to the gross disappointment of some, find evidence that will hold up in court that Matt Palmgren murdered Gail - but they just might find something that gives them a lead on what happened to Gail, and where she is. And that is their job - to find Gail no matter what happened to her.

It's certainly the job I pay my taxes for, and I'd be infuriated if I found out any LE on any missing persons case was only expending effort on activities that would lead them to prosecuting one person for homicide. Especially if they had no evidence of foul play, and don't even know that the person is dead, and that person has two children who need them!

BBM- I agree, Bean.

Respectfully, I am just concerned about the 'search' aspect of this.

If documents (or anything) are retrieved and/or taken in for evidence- how would that work in court? Is the expectation at this point that nothing will go to court? Is it simply Matt protecting his and Gail's assets?

Anything could have been altered by anyone at this point. So I guess that's my confusion. :waitasec:

BeanE
07-24-2011, 09:16 AM
BBM- I agree, Bean.

Respectfully, I am just concerned about the 'search' aspect of this.

If documents (or anything) are retrieved and/or taken in for evidence- how would that work in court? Is the expectation at this point that nothing will go to court? Is it simply Matt protecting his and Gail's assets?

Anything could have been altered by anyone at this point. So I guess that's my confusion. :waitasec:

Well, suppose Gail hid a suicide note under her mattress, and after testing, the FBI determines it is authentic and unaltered, and that suicide note says "I'm going to Jordan Lake, take an overdose, and drive in."

That is worth finding, because it would likely lead to figuring out what happened to Gail and where she is, and give her children and other loved ones answers that will afford them an opportunity for closure and healing down the road.

Or suppose the FBI determines the note is not authentic, not written by Gail. Or had been written by Gail weeks before, and since been altered by someone else to make it look as if Gail committed suicide.

Or let's say they find a note from Tammy to Matt saying "I'm going to wait in the garage and leap in the Jeep and force Gail to drive to Jordan Lake, whack her on the head, and push the Jeep in the water."

And suppose after testing, they find that the note was not authentic, not written by Tammy, but in fact written by another girlfriend of Matt's - or by Matt himself. And say they couldn't use that in court.

These things are worth finding, because again, they lead to figuring out what happened to Gail and where she is, and give her loved ones an opportunity for closure.

And LE, with these things, I believe has probable cause, is able to get search warrants, and get other evidence that canbe used in court, and/or can then tie info they already have to the crime and use that in court.

believe09
07-24-2011, 09:19 AM
Oh thank God ~ at last!

Chatt. Times Free Press: FBI Will Assist in Palmgren Case (http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jul/23/b1-fbi-will-assist-in-palmgren-case/)

The FBI is not taking a lead role in the investigation, Galloway said, but is offering technical support and letting local authorities access its lab to process any evidence collected in the case.

"We'll help in any way we can and lend any assets," he said.

The federal agency also is reviewing the case along with Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, which came onboard earlier this month.

Perhaps this includes analyzing the DVR AD has stated she has in her possession. I wonder if she turned it over to LE?

believe09
07-24-2011, 09:21 AM
My understanding was that the FBI had a role in Mid May as well, even though they did not publicize it at the time. I suspect that the same holds true for TBI.

Emeralgem
07-24-2011, 10:14 AM
Perhaps that is why a criminal defense attorney was hired and orchestrated this deal?

So once again, is it possible that we (the people) are letting an alleged criminal have more rights and more power than an alleged victim?

God bless the USA. And God help the USA. And God bless and help us all.

IMO.. Most definitely... VICTIM'S RIGHTS HAVE BEEN KIDNAPPED AND HIDDEN IN THE LAW TO PROTECT THE PERPETRATORS ...JMHO

ThoughtFox
07-24-2011, 10:31 AM
Perhaps this includes analyzing the DVR AD has stated she has in her possession. I wonder if she turned it over to LE?
God, I hope so. The last I read from Arlene she still had it in her possession, but perhaps she has been visited by the FBI since then. She was also going to give a copy of something to the local police in Wetumpka, so maybe they wanted to give it to the FBI?

Snowbunny
07-24-2011, 10:42 AM
Do we know if LE or the FBI have ever been granted access to view Gail's phone records? Who's to say that MP didn't have a throw away phone and was calling Gail on her trip home? He could have easily called her moments after she got home and told her to meet him somewhere out of ear shot of the children so they could talk after all he says he was running errands for his mother. That would make sense as to why she left her driver's license behind and other things. Maybe when she got to the point of destination where they were to meet there were other people waiting on her rather than MP. I was harrassed constantly by phone by my exhusband and his girlfriends and I told them if they had anything to say to me they could call my attorney. I refused to meet anyone anywhere because I didn't trust them. I wonder if Gail ever mentioned to AD that she was getting calls from strange phone numbers?

BeanE
07-24-2011, 12:47 PM
Quick question. When Matt filed for the separation, possession of the home, the RO, and temp custody of the kids, I know he filed to dissolve those motions, but did he file to dissolve the temp custody or was he granted it?

The reason I ask is that I swear I saw an article that said the temp custody was granted, and there's an attorney's blog that says he was granted custody, and there's an article that says an order from that time period was extended.

If it wasn't temp custody, then what order would have been extended?

I can't find that article that said the chancellor had granted the temp custody, although I spent a significant amount of time searching for it yesterday. It was a very small article - just a few sentences in one or two short paragraphs IIRC.

Gimme a sec and I'll grab the attorney blog link and the other article link.

ETA: Scroll down to the May 11 entry. Sorry. I can't find a way to link to the individual post.
Matthew Palmgren now has obtained a court order for full custody of his two children.
http://www.riversidefamilylawattorneys.com/RiversideFamilyLawBlog/Categories/Family_Law.aspx

and
Sightings of missing Signal Mountain woman unconfirmed
http://timesfreepress.com/news/2011/may/18/sightings-missing-signal-mountain-woman-uncomfirme
Times Free Press – Wednesday, May 18th, 2011

On May 6, he filed for legal separation from her in Hamilton County Chancery Court and for temporary custody of their 12-year-old son, J, and 9-year-old daughter, L.

Palmgren’s attorney, Bryan Hoss, filed a motion Tuesday to continue the order because Gail has not been located and is considered a missing person by authorities. . A chancellor is scheduled to rule on the order on June 3.

That would have been May 17 the motion to continue the order was filed.

carolinagirl56
07-24-2011, 12:49 PM
Yup-if the kids were in the car with Gail, and Gail transported them to the house, they probably have an idea of what she was wearing. I am still waiting to hear if they were carrying luggage. Did they pack bags on 4/29 and did they return with them? IE Did Gail have access to more clothing than whatever was on her back, and BTW what was on her back? Color of her purse, shoes etc...

Kids also heard all phone calls that were made and received during the trip. They know who the last person she talked to was and her demeanor afterwards.

Oriah
07-24-2011, 01:35 PM
Well, suppose Gail hid a suicide note under her mattress, and after testing, the FBI determines it is authentic and unaltered, and that suicide note says "I'm going to Jordan Lake, take an overdose, and drive in."

That is worth finding, because it would likely lead to figuring out what happened to Gail and where she is, and give her children and other loved ones answers that will afford them an opportunity for closure and healing down the road.

Or suppose the FBI determines the note is not authentic, not written by Gail. Or had been written by Gail weeks before, and since been altered by someone else to make it look as if Gail committed suicide.

Or let's say they find a note from Tammy to Matt saying "I'm going to wait in the garage and leap in the Jeep and force Gail to drive to Jordan Lake, whack her on the head, and push the Jeep in the water."

And suppose after testing, they find that the note was not authentic, not written by Tammy, but in fact written by another girlfriend of Matt's - or by Matt himself. And say they couldn't use that in court.

These things are worth finding, because again, they lead to figuring out what happened to Gail and where she is, and give her loved ones an opportunity for closure.

And LE, with these things, I believe has probable cause, is able to get search warrants, and get other evidence that canbe used in court, and/or can then tie info they already have to the crime and use that in court.

I think I must be coming from a SAR dog approach too much!!

If I were told to come out and search specific areas at specific times- and those places were announced to the public well in advance- no matter what my dog 'found' at one of those searches... everything would be questionable for me (and my dog); because the possibility of tampering would be enormous.

I suppose that might not be the case with other types of searches. :waitasec:

hollyblue
07-24-2011, 02:04 PM
I see, Bean.

But how (and why) would that work under a search consent for searches that are preplanned??

It seems to me that nothing gleaned from a 'search' of this sort would hold up in court due to the arrangement of the 'agreement'- so why even bother? :waitasec:

The DA essentially consented to searches that would have no merit in court, should Gail's case become a criminal investigation. :waitasec:

Oiy. Ok- I'm going back to trying to locate Gail's Jeep.

Do we know if there are any other storage facilities that either MP or GP had access to (other than the one on the search agreement)?

BBM

Why wouldn't anything they found be allowed in court?? Seems the only thing that is happening is the "discovery" would be made known....very early? Much of what is being searched for would be valuable in their investigation..and not just what they could take to court. ie: an up close and personal looksee into who Gail and Matt are. imo

Oriah
07-24-2011, 02:19 PM
BBM

Why wouldn't anything they found be allowed in court?? Seems the only thing that is happening is the "discovery" would be made known....very early? Much of what is being searched for would be valuable in their investigation..and not just what they could take to court. ie: an up close and personal looksee into who Gail and Matt are. imo

I didn't mean 'allowed' exactly. I meant not torn apart by an attorney should anything 'found' be brought forward as evidence in a civil or criminal case.

Absolutely it would be good to find anything in a property search that might help locate Gail!

BeanE
07-24-2011, 02:29 PM
Kids also heard all phone calls that were made and received during the trip. They know who the last person she talked to was and her demeanor afterwards.

They wouldn't know who the last person she talked to was if she talked to someone after she dropped the kids off though.

She talked to Diane about 12:15, about the same time Susie claims to have seen her, and I'm thinking that that phone call with Diane was after the kids were already in the house, and Gail was in the Jeep. Just guessing though really.

BeanE
07-24-2011, 02:30 PM
I think I must be coming from a SAR dog approach too much!!

If I were told to come out and search specific areas at specific times- and those places were announced to the public well in advance- no matter what my dog 'found' at one of those searches... everything would be questionable for me (and my dog); because the possibility of tampering would be enormous.

I suppose that might not be the case with other types of searches. :waitasec:

Ah, okay, from purely a SAR perspective, then yes, I see what you're saying, Oriah. :grouphug:

BeanE
07-24-2011, 05:26 PM
More info and now a named POI (it's not the guy people thought it was) in the Melissa Ward case that was discussed in Gail's case maybe a week ago where LE was searching for remains and said it was a possible serial killer.

'I think I'm married to a serial killer'
published Saturday, July 23rd, 2011

Chris Johnson, 46, is a "person of interest" in connection with a search for human remains in Lookout Valley and the slaying of 33-year-old Missy Ward in 2004.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jul/23/a1-i-think-im-married-to-a-serial-killer/?local

Irish_Eyes
07-24-2011, 06:31 PM
Wow. In the article it's so odd that she says "I think I'm married to a serial killer." He's charged with kidnapping and rape, and a person of interest in one murder. Seriously disturbing, to say the least, but I wonder why she feels there are more? Gut instinct or is there more we don't know?

Emeralgem
07-24-2011, 08:03 PM
Wow. In the article it's so odd that she says "I think I'm married to a serial killer." He's charged with kidnapping and rape, and a person of interest in one murder. Seriously disturbing, to say the least, but I wonder why she feels there are more? Gut instinct or is there more we don't know?

I am trying to think of others who are missing, believed murdered in the area for LE to think there is a serial killer amongst us... Wonder IF this guy ever hung out in the Ross-Vegas area... And he originally hails from Sand Mtn? Hmmmm...JMHO.

confused
07-24-2011, 08:13 PM
I think I must be coming from a SAR dog approach too much!!

If I were told to come out and search specific areas at specific times- and those places were announced to the public well in advance- no matter what my dog 'found' at one of those searches... everything would be questionable for me (and my dog); because the possibility of tampering would be enormous.

I suppose that might not be the case with other types of searches. :waitasec:

totally off topic, but when I read your post, I wondered what breed of dog you have. We met some SAR and Cadaver dogs at the county fair a few years ago. They were blue tick and red Bone hounds (don't know if those are the actual breed names, but that's what they called them). They were beautiful and so sweet. so, I just wondered what yours is? Hope it's ok to ask.

BeanE
07-24-2011, 08:23 PM
Wow. In the article it's so odd that she says "I think I'm married to a serial killer." He's charged with kidnapping and rape, and a person of interest in one murder. Seriously disturbing, to say the least, but I wonder why she feels there are more? Gut instinct or is there more we don't know?

This is a follow-on article to the ones discussed where LE was looking for remains and said they could have a possible serial killer. The links are posted previously where it was discussed.

What may be confusing is that people thought the murdered woman, Mellissa Ward's, old boyfriend was the person of interest who wasn't named at the time. Pages were devoted to sleuthing him and his home address and tying him to Matt's father's old bar and on and on and on and there was this whole MFH plot built around it.

As we see from this article, the POI wasn't even that boyfriend at all, but instead, this woman's husband.

Sleuthy1
07-24-2011, 08:35 PM
This is a follow-on article to the ones discussed where LE was looking for remains and said they could have a possible serial killer. The links are posted previously where it was discussed.

What may be confusing is that people thought the murdered woman, Mellissa Ward's, old boyfriend was the person of interest who wasn't named at the time. Pages were devoted to sleuthing him and his home address and tying him to Matt's father's old bar and on and on and on and there was this whole MFH plot built around it.

As we see from this article, the POI wasn't even that boyfriend at all, but instead, this woman's husband.

:waitasec:Just wondering BeanE...Did MW's b/f lawyer up and not give a statement or did he cooperate and interview with the police and then possibly was ruled out for the time being as a suspect in Melissa Ward's disappearance back then?:twocents:

JBean
07-24-2011, 09:01 PM
I have been doing a lot of soul searching and thinking on this case. I am close to this case and really had to back away to look at it more clearly.

Everything Matt did was counter intuitive to someone that might be concerned about the safety of the mother of his children. I can't seem to get beyond his limited,almost non existant cooperation with LE and lack of any kind of urgency as it relates to finding Gail. It is just nonsensical. As much as I hold out hope that he is not involved,I cannot reconcile any of his behavior..at all.

As for LE, I think if this was done professionally,there probably is no evidence linking him to Gail. As we all know too well, it is one thing to feel strongly that someone is involved, but it quite another to have evidence to prove it. I have come to believe that LE just has to wait and hope that someone made a mistake and left a single clue that could lead to a break in this case.
But now, I do not think Gail will be found,I think her car is long gone and that the lack of information from Matt will make this case difficult to solve.

Not to say that I am not holding out hope and I will look forward to being wrong. But for now,I can only look at what he has done or not done since Gail disappeared and if he is not involved, he is getting some really bad advice.

Irish_Eyes
07-24-2011, 09:07 PM
This is a follow-on article to the ones discussed where LE was looking for remains and said they could have a possible serial killer. The links are posted previously where it was discussed.

What may be confusing is that people thought the murdered woman, Mellissa Ward's, old boyfriend was the person of interest who wasn't named at the time. Pages were devoted to sleuthing him and his home address and tying him to Matt's father's old bar and on and on and on and there was this whole MFH plot built around it.

As we see from this article, the POI wasn't even that boyfriend at all, but instead, this woman's husband.

Who is confused? (as in the state of confusion and not the WS member)

JBean
07-24-2011, 09:12 PM
Excellent point. By all accounts, it was a contentious divorce. Matt finds the kids left alone and he doesn't say a word? Not even to document it for the upcoming divorce case? He was so keen very early on to tell the media in a phone interview that Gail would leave all the time, was paranoid and writing down license plates. Since her disappearance, his lawyers have released info from the G's who claim Gail was very mentally unstable, plus they told Jammer Scott that Gail's brother killed herself so he could imply Gail was stressed (and also imply a family history of suicide, IMVHO). Yet the day she left the kids unattended, not a word. Didn't call LE until Diane did first and urged him to do so.

So very curious.
He did use it as part of the foundation for the separation filing. Stating that she had "abandoned her children and her home".

ETA: he also used it as a basis for the RO and temporary custody filing; stating that she 'had left the 2 minor children by themselves without any supervision".
He may not have called the police, but he acted on the information pretty quickly considering the papers were filed less than a week after she disappeared.

BeanE
07-24-2011, 09:13 PM
Who is confused? (as in the state of confusion and not the WS member)

The way I read your post, I thought you didn't realize it was the same case. If you did, then I misunderstood.

glorias
07-24-2011, 10:13 PM
He did use it as part of the foundation for the separation filing. Stating that she had "abandoned her children and her home".

ETA: he also used it as a basis for the RO and temporary custody filing; stating that she 'had left the 2 minor children by themselves without any supervision".
He may not have called the police, but he acted on the information pretty quickly considering the papers were filed less than a week after she disappeared.

Absolutely. But he seems IMVHO to be inconsistent on this point. On the one hand, he's saying Gail leaves all the time but stays in touch with the kids as though it's relatively normal. On the other hand, in this case she leaves and doesn't stay in touch with the kids which is not usual -- both Matt and Susie Button said so in media interviews. So this disappearance early on seemed different than the other times she allegedly left for cooling off periods. (Also, since we now know Matt and Gail were separating, her leaving for a while doesn't seem particularly odd in my opinion.)

We know Matt is upset by Gail's last disappearance early on because of his alone "without supervision" comment and the court docs he later filed, yet he doesn't contact LE until Diane does first. Why not? He knew this was not the usual cooling off situation. Or is he claiming he didn't know it was unusual? Honest question. Maybe we don't know the answer.

My questions on this should be taken as similar to the ones I asked a couple of weeks ago: If Arlene was speaking with Gail so often, what are the odds that on the day she disappeared, Arlene was out of cell range and didn't speak to Gail or see her at all? Why that day of all days?

I cannot shake the feeling that something unusual was going on that weekend. Between Matt skipping out on the conference with his gf who bought a new car during that weekend, him coming home early on the same day of the 911 incident the day before Gail disappeared, and Arlene being out of cell range, something really hinky is going on. A lot of coincidences going on here that cannot be easily explained IMVHO.

glorias
07-24-2011, 10:47 PM
At the risk of getting too personal, I want to say something about a particular argument I've heard all over the 'net regarding Matt: No one should consider him involved because it hurts his kids who need him. A few weeks ago I saw someone on another forum say even if he was guilty, he shouldn't be prosecuted, it would hurt the kids and they've been through enough already. There are comments elsewhere saying that no matter what happened, this is a private matter and everyone should stop talking about it for the sake of the kids.

I want to address this -- and mods, if this is too off topic, please delete. And please forgive me for not naming names, because doing so would probably out my identity. Several years ago, I was close to a man who ended up being charged with the murder of his ex-wife in a case that made national news. I knew the ex-wife a little, too. Many people I knew said the man should not be bothered by rumors, LE, or accusations because he had a daughter who needed him. This was based on their emotions, in my opinion, not on logic... and I lost most of my professional friends during this time because I personally felt that if he had done something wrong to his ex-wife, he sure as heck should not be around his daughter. They considered anyone who felt the man was involved to be a rumormonger who just wanted to make him look bad for some personal agenda.

In Gail's case, the same arguments are sometimes made, and I don't think they're entirely fair. I see people who have questions and concerns for justice AND the kids AND the rest of Gail's family. But the "leave Matt alone because of the kids" comments often come with implications and accusations that people who want LE to look closely at Matt are, in some way, insincere.

No, we don't know many solid facts in Gail's case. No, there is no hard evidence against Matt (or for accident, suicide, 3rd party involvement, etc.) But to say Matt should not be subjected to investigation or speculation for the sake of the kids... I don't know. That doesn't seem to be in the kids' best interests. To me, personally, it seems like Matt has done/said enough that is questionable that he should be at least ruled out as a suspect so the family CAN get on with their lives.

Kiln Wood
07-24-2011, 10:57 PM
At the risk of getting too personal, I want to say something about a particular argument I've heard all over the 'net regarding Matt: No one should consider him involved because it hurts his kids who need him. A few weeks ago I saw someone on another forum say even if he was guilty, he shouldn't be prosecuted, it would hurt the kids and they've been through enough already. There are comments elsewhere saying that no matter what happened, this is a private matter and everyone should stop talking about it for the sake of the kids.

I want to address this -- and mods, if this is too off topic, please delete. And please forgive me for not naming names, because doing so would probably out my identity. Several years ago, I was close to a man who ended up being charged with the murder of his ex-wife in a case that made national news. I knew the ex-wife a little, too. Many people I knew said the man should not be bothered by rumors, LE, or accusations because he had a daughter who needed him. This was based on their emotions, in my opinion, not on logic... and I lost most of my professional friends during this time because I personally felt that if he had done something wrong to his ex-wife, he sure as heck should not be around his daughter. They considered anyone who felt the man was involved to be a rumormonger who just wanted to make him look bad for some personal agenda.

In Gail's case, the same arguments are sometimes made, and I don't think they're entirely fair. I see people who have questions and concerns for justice AND the kids AND the rest of Gail's family. But the "leave Matt alone because of the kids" comments often come with implications and accusations that people who want LE to look closely at Matt are, in some way, insincere.

No, we don't know many solid facts in Gail's case. No, there is no hard evidence against Matt (or for accident, suicide, 3rd party involvement, etc.) But to say Matt should not be subjected to investigation or speculation for the sake of the kids... I don't know. That doesn't seem to be in the kids' best interests. To me, personally, it seems like Matt has done/said enough that is questionable that he should be at least ruled out as a suspect so the family CAN get on with their lives.

BBM.

glorias, I could not agree with you more!

Irish_Eyes
07-24-2011, 11:01 PM
I've also been following the case of Laura Jean Ackerson here. She disappeared from Raleigh earlier this month. I'm so sad tonight because they are awaiting confirmation, but believe she has been found in Houston, TX. Surely not where any of us following the case would have suspected to find her. Just goes to show how important it could be to get out the word about Gail - everywhere we can!

confused
07-25-2011, 12:18 AM
At the risk of getting too personal, I want to say something about a particular argument I've heard all over the 'net regarding Matt: No one should consider him involved because it hurts his kids who need him. A few weeks ago I saw someone on another forum say even if he was guilty, he shouldn't be prosecuted, it would hurt the kids and they've been through enough already. There are comments elsewhere saying that no matter what happened, this is a private matter and everyone should stop talking about it for the sake of the kids.

I want to address this -- and mods, if this is too off topic, please delete. And please forgive me for not naming names, because doing so would probably out my identity. Several years ago, I was close to a man who ended up being charged with the murder of his ex-wife in a case that made national news. I knew the ex-wife a little, too. Many people I knew said the man should not be bothered by rumors, LE, or accusations because he had a daughter who needed him. This was based on their emotions, in my opinion, not on logic... and I lost most of my professional friends during this time because I personally felt that if he had done something wrong to his ex-wife, he sure as heck should not be around his daughter. They considered anyone who felt the man was involved to be a rumormonger who just wanted to make him look bad for some personal agenda.

In Gail's case, the same arguments are sometimes made, and I don't think they're entirely fair. I see people who have questions and concerns for justice AND the kids AND the rest of Gail's family. But the "leave Matt alone because of the kids" comments often come with implications and accusations that people who want LE to look closely at Matt are, in some way, insincere.

No, we don't know many solid facts in Gail's case. No, there is no hard evidence against Matt (or for accident, suicide, 3rd party involvement, etc.) But to say Matt should not be subjected to investigation or speculation for the sake of the kids... I don't know. That doesn't seem to be in the kids' best interests. To me, personally, it seems like Matt has done/said enough that is questionable that he should be at least ruled out as a suspect so the family CAN get on with their lives.

First I have to say that you are very brave to say that, and even though we have not always agreed (well, hardly ever, LOL) I respect you for saying this. Everyone here pretty much knows how I feel about the case. I wont go into that...but I will say that I agree with you on this point. LE has every right and reason to look at Matt. I don't think that having the children is any reason or excuse for someone to get away with a crime like this. If he was caught stealing food at the grocery to feed the kids, that would be different, but in a situation like this, the kids are not a reason to excuse him. Having said that, I don't think that he should be unfairly targeted just because he is the spouse, or just because he doesn't let the kids be interviewed. Many think that he is keeping the children from being interviewed to hide something, that could be the case, but I don't think so. I think he is enduring more bashing and negativity aimed at him, for keeping the children away from a potentially upsetting situation. IF Matt had something to do with Gail's disappearance and the LE have the hard evidence to prove it, he should be punished! No question. Until the police declare that he is a suspect or foul play was involved and he is a POI, it would be good to see some people back down a little.

Irish_Eyes
07-25-2011, 12:23 AM
First I have to say that you are very brave to say that, and even though we have not always agreed (well, hardly ever, LOL) I respect you for saying this. Everyone here pretty much knows how I feel about the case. I wont go into that...but I will say that I agree with you on this point. LE has every right and reason to look at Matt. I don't think that having the children is any reason or excuse for someone to get away with a crime like this. If he was caught stealing food at the grocery to feed the kids, that would be different, but in a situation like this, the kids are not a reason to excuse him. Having said that, I don't think that he should be unfairly targeted just because he is the spouse, or just because he doesn't let the kids be interviewed. Many think that he is keeping the children from being interviewed to hide something, that could be the case, but I don't think so. I think he is enduring more bashing and negativity aimed at him, for keeping the children away from a potentially upsetting situation. IF Matt had something to do with Gail's disappearance and the LE have the hard evidence to prove it, he should be punished! No question. Until the police declare that he is a suspect or foul play was involved and he is a POI, it would be good to see some people back down a little.

We haven't always agreed either, but I respect this post. (and glorias above it). Thank you both for saying what you did.

Snowbunny
07-25-2011, 12:37 AM
At the risk of getting too personal, I want to say something about a particular argument I've heard all over the 'net regarding Matt: No one should consider him involved because it hurts his kids who need him. A few weeks ago I saw someone on another forum say even if he was guilty, he shouldn't be prosecuted, it would hurt the kids and they've been through enough already. There are comments elsewhere saying that no matter what happened, this is a private matter and everyone should stop talking about it for the sake of the kids.

I want to address this -- and mods, if this is too off topic, please delete. And please forgive me for not naming names, because doing so would probably out my identity. Several years ago, I was close to a man who ended up being charged with the murder of his ex-wife in a case that made national news. I knew the ex-wife a little, too. Many people I knew said the man should not be bothered by rumors, LE, or accusations because he had a daughter who needed him. This was based on their emotions, in my opinion, not on logic... and I lost most of my professional friends during this time because I personally felt that if he had done something wrong to his ex-wife, he sure as heck should not be around his daughter. They considered anyone who felt the man was involved to be a rumormonger who just wanted to make him look bad for some personal agenda.

In Gail's case, the same arguments are sometimes made, and I don't think they're entirely fair. I see people who have questions and concerns for justice AND the kids AND the rest of Gail's family. But the "leave Matt alone because of the kids" comments often come with implications and accusations that people who want LE to look closely at Matt are, in some way, insincere.

No, we don't know many solid facts in Gail's case. No, there is no hard evidence against Matt (or for accident, suicide, 3rd party involvement, etc.) But to say Matt should not be subjected to investigation or speculation for the sake of the kids... I don't know. That doesn't seem to be in the kids' best interests. To me, personally, it seems like Matt has done/said enough that is questionable that he should be at least ruled out as a suspect so the family CAN get on with their lives.

For the sake of his children I would have thought that he would have done everything in his power to prove to the world that he wasn't involved and made sure that he was ruled out as a suspect. If Gail is never found, just what does he think his children are going to think of him and his actions as they grow up and start searching for answers on their own, which I'm almost certain they will? He certainly has not gone out of his way to help LE get to the bottom of this. He'd much rather tell the world Gail was looney tooneys and went off the deep end. Sooner or later these children are going to want real answers and they are not going to be able to hold this all in forever. My heart breaks for these to young children. It sounded like they were really close to their mother and their father hasn't shown much concern for her. Poor kids! Prayers for Gail and her two young children.

fireflylink
07-25-2011, 12:38 AM
Some thoughts:

snipped for space
It has been stated on here that the SM home had a security system. Did that include surveillance cameras? If so, did LE look at any taped surveillance video? Well….since LE initially stated there was no probable cause that a crime had been committed (no evidence of foul play), it follows that LE did not remove and inspect cameras (if they existed, of course.) Hmmmm….if there were in-fact cameras, who do you suppose did remove them and go through the recorded footage?! (A bit of sarcasm inserted….but remember what happened to the computers?!) imo

snipped for space

BBM
Allow me clarify about the video surveillance system (personal knowlege).

The Lakehouse at Wetumpka did have a video surveillance system. It was not operational immediately before or at the time GP disappeared. This is because GP had removed the DVR and taken in to have a technician retrieve data off the harddrive. GP authorized AD, as her agent to retrieve the DVR from the technician on her behalf, and specifically requested AD retain the DVR and not release it to anyone but her (GP). This is tha same DVR that AD has arranged with AL LE for them to provide a copy of the drive to HCSO.

The SM house did not have a video surveilance system at the time of GP's disappearance. ADT was at the SM home in the couple of weeks following when she disappeared.

hollyblue
07-25-2011, 12:56 AM
My power just came back on from 2 hours ago...big thunderstorm and RAIN finally blessed NM!!

hollyblue
07-25-2011, 02:41 AM
Has it ever been mentioned when this argument that was caught by the surveillance camera actually took place? I can't remember a date for it being stated by AD. ?? TIA

Some1Nose
07-25-2011, 03:09 AM
The SM house did not have a video surveilance system at the time of GP's disappearance. ADT was at the SM home in the couple of weeks following when she disappeared. (snipped for space)

Thank you Firefly for the clarification.

Well, that means I can forget about some of my follow-up questions regarding a security system on the SM premises prior to Gail's disappearance. Which leaves me with a reason I came up with as to why ADT was at the home after Gail disappeared (in the scenario (now fact) that there was not a security system at the SM home prior to Gail's disappearance,): Maybe the children believed their mother was abducted from their residence, and; therefore, were terrified that the same thing might happen to them.

poppyfrock
07-25-2011, 03:57 AM
Law Enforcement can rule a person out and be able to fully spend their time looking for the real person responsible. I'm sure they're looking at all possibilities, but if they can rule ANYONE out they can narrow in on the person who harmed Gail. (if she was harmed) Who wouldn't want that? If it was my loved one I would talk the policemen's ears off so they could find the sob responsible. You better believe I would want that person caught. Clamming up and not giving statements and only talking through lawyers is stalling catching someone who possibly harmed (or worse) your loved one. Now, why would you NOT want that person caught? :(

Some1Nose
07-25-2011, 04:01 AM
(snipped for space)

My thoughts are someone was waiting hidden inside the garage, mudroom, etc or either outside the perimeter of the house---in the woods and surprised GP or slipped into the Jeep-- if she did go into house --forcing her to leave/drive. (I'm not at this time buying CC's story--deflection) I picture the children running to their rooms and getting back to some normalcy after all they had been through the previous day. It was around lunch time, so GP may have stopped to pick something up and the kids were in the kitchen or dining room. And yes, I have even thought that MP could have given someone access to house/garage. Drop off on Timesville road to access the property from the rear or he could have driven someone there earlier. I don't know what MP did/said, but whatever it was----GP fully believed he was capable of doing it. She was beyond just scared.

The trip to MN/PA is the catalyst, imo. Either MP had plans in the mist or the one call between them was GP telling MP that she had the goods (TH and the bogus trip) on him....and hinted of letting BCBS know. Ask him about PA when he said the conference was in MN. The argument on the 29th. At the moment, I'm going with MP had plans because he did return early. What man leaves his mistress early to return to the "hell house"? He could have spent the evening downtown Chatt enjoying himself and returned after his flight was due in. ??JMO
BBM
That's a good point Holly, the jig was up...maybe he returned early to try to conduct some damage control or to try to get her under his thumb again...

I go back and forth....I'm leaning toward thinking Gail was going to a pre-planned meeting (not necessarily far in advance, could have been arranged on her way home from AL) with someone when she left the SM home at approx. 12:15 pm on 4/30. Now, this is where things get very murky...who was she rushing off to see and why? I believe emotions were running exceptionally high for both Gail and MP, on 4/29 and during the earlier part of 4/30! I think it quite possible that there was some messaging going on between the two while Gail and the children were enroute from the AL lake house to SM on 4/30. I believe it quite likely that heated exchanges of words were taking place and possible threats...things were obviously coming to a head! Gail had incriminating information regarding MP's extra-curricular activities and excessive expenditures while MP learned from the B'ham G's that Gail was on to him and was gathering pertinent evidence to present in court against MP which might result in MP losing custody of the children and being mandated to pay hefty child support fees!

I'm not so certain that evil plans were deliberately hatched prior to MP's return to SM; (or after, for that matter, I think more in terms of heat of the moment rage, if he's even involved) but, then I'm always one that finds it hard to believe a significant other could ever harm a single, solitary hair on the head of someone they've cared for...even though logically I know it happens all the time! And, in the beginnings of this case, I was truly imagining it highly possible to be mfh! imo

I'm with JBean...I've done alot of soul searching on this case, too....and, as much as I'd like for it not to be MP, and it may not be, I keep coming back to MP due to his seeming lack of concern for Gail, and overabundance of concern for himself with a staff of legal professionals (must be costing a fortune) to dot every i and cross every t. Confiscating the computers was the final straw for me...that was Outrageous conduct! imo

Oriah
07-25-2011, 05:20 AM
A question for any locals: if you were to take 127 (south) to just north of Suck Creek (heading around toward Middle Creek-can't recall the name of the road) are there any truck pullouts once you are circling back toward SM?

BeanE
07-25-2011, 06:59 AM
At the risk of getting too personal, I want to say something about a particular argument I've heard all over the 'net regarding Matt: No one should consider him involved because it hurts his kids who need him. A few weeks ago I saw someone on another forum say even if he was guilty, he shouldn't be prosecuted, it would hurt the kids and they've been through enough already. There are comments elsewhere saying that no matter what happened, this is a private matter and everyone should stop talking about it for the sake of the kids.

I want to address this -- and mods, if this is too off topic, please delete. And please forgive me for not naming names, because doing so would probably out my identity. Several years ago, I was close to a man who ended up being charged with the murder of his ex-wife in a case that made national news. I knew the ex-wife a little, too. Many people I knew said the man should not be bothered by rumors, LE, or accusations because he had a daughter who needed him. This was based on their emotions, in my opinion, not on logic... and I lost most of my professional friends during this time because I personally felt that if he had done something wrong to his ex-wife, he sure as heck should not be around his daughter. They considered anyone who felt the man was involved to be a rumormonger who just wanted to make him look bad for some personal agenda.

In Gail's case, the same arguments are sometimes made, and I don't think they're entirely fair. I see people who have questions and concerns for justice AND the kids AND the rest of Gail's family. But the "leave Matt alone because of the kids" comments often come with implications and accusations that people who want LE to look closely at Matt are, in some way, insincere.

No, we don't know many solid facts in Gail's case. No, there is no hard evidence against Matt (or for accident, suicide, 3rd party involvement, etc.) But to say Matt should not be subjected to investigation or speculation for the sake of the kids... I don't know. That doesn't seem to be in the kids' best interests. To me, personally, it seems like Matt has done/said enough that is questionable that he should be at least ruled out as a suspect so the family CAN get on with their lives.

BBM. I'm assuming because of the "if you can't link it, you can't discuss it" rule that these aren't private or banned forums, and it's difficult to discuss something without having read it for context etc, so could we have the links to these other forums so we can all read it?

I'll wait to read the other forums, but briefly, so far as if someone murders their spouse they shouldn't be prosecuted because they have kids - that's just nuts. Sounds like trolling rather than any real attempt at discussion.

And generally, of course LE has to, and should, investigate everyone around a missing person, and every possibility of what might have happened to that person - homicide, suicide, accident, natural death. It's what we pay LE our tax dollars to do.

ETA: Okay, didn't want y'all to think I'm lazy. I just used my best Google-fu and can't find any other forums where Gail's case is being discussed. The ones I found are all just posting news articles. Need links to read, please. TIA

BeanE
07-25-2011, 07:01 AM
BBM
The SM house did not have a video surveilance system at the time of GP's disappearance. ADT was at the SM home in the couple of weeks following when she disappeared.

Do you know what they were there for?

TIA

BeanE
07-25-2011, 07:06 AM
Has it ever been mentioned when this argument that was caught by the surveillance camera actually took place? I can't remember a date for it being stated by AD. ?? TIA

Omg it's too early in the morning to do brain data retrievals lol. :floorlaugh:

Let's see. March is popping into my head. Arlene saying that in March, Matt erased the video? So I'm thinking it would have to be after that? I don't think she gave a date for the argument, but I think if we listened to her interviews - we might be able to nail down a timespan.

Which interview was it where Arlene was saying she let Gail's little boy and her own little boy watch the argument on the video? I think it's Jammer #1. I'm thinking with that and one of the SMM interviews where she talks about Matt erasing the video (sorry, I don't remember if that's SMM #1 or SMM #2), there's enough info to piece together a timeframe.

BeanE
07-25-2011, 07:10 AM
(snipped for space)

Thank you Firefly for the clarification.

Well, that means I can forget about some of my follow-up questions regarding a security system on the SM premises prior to Gail's disappearance. Which leaves me with a reason I came up with as to why ADT was at the home after Gail disappeared (in the scenario (now fact) that there was not a security system at the SM home prior to Gail's disappearance,): Maybe the children believed their mother was abducted from their residence, and; therefore, were terrified that the same thing might happen to them.

I think firefly was saying there was no video security system, rather than there was no security system at all. i.e. did the house have a non-video alarm system prior to Gail's disappearance? If so, perhaps it just needed resetting, or maybe Matt was having the code changed since he was concerned Gail would come back and take the children, possibly even out of the country.

Emeralgem
07-25-2011, 07:56 AM
A question for any locals: if you were to take 127 (south) to just north of Suck Creek (heading around toward Middle Creek-can't recall the name of the road) are there any truck pullouts once you are circling back toward SM?

Do you mean Mountain Creek Road at Signal Mtn Blvd?

BeanE
07-25-2011, 08:21 AM
From Twitter:

@BRING_GAIL_HOME BringGailHomeNow
facebook.com/BRINGGAILNOWAC… ~OFFICIAL FB Page Bring Gail Home Now~Gail Palmgren~Missing Since April 30th 2011~44 yrs~Blonde/Brown eyes~#135~5' 8".
19 minutes ago

http://twitter.com/#!/BRING_GAIL_HOME/statuses/95463063033094145

What? Official? Who in the family gave it the designation of official? Diane? Kevin? Matt? I had no idea.

Emeralgem
07-25-2011, 08:28 AM
I think firefly was saying there was no video security system, rather than there was no security system at all. i.e. did the house have a non-video alarm system prior to Gail's disappearance? If so, perhaps it just needed resetting, or maybe Matt was having the code changed since he was concerned Gail would come back and take the children, possibly even out of the country.

Changing a code can be done over the telephone with ADT..Resetting the system can be done over the phone too..All you need is your password.
I lost two tv's and had to have my thermostat on my AC/Heating system replaced after the storms on the 27th. My ADT security system wasn't working either..
In the first couple of weeks after the storms I had to call an electrician, the a/c man, the power board, roofers, tree cutters and they all had to come out to fix the problem. The only people who didn't have to come out and who was able to fix the problem over the phone was ADT...

Oriah
07-25-2011, 09:43 AM
Do you mean Mountain Creek Road at Signal Mtn Blvd?

Yes, that's the one. Thanks Emeralgem.

believe09
07-25-2011, 09:43 AM
At the risk of getting too personal, I want to say something about a particular argument I've heard all over the 'net regarding Matt: No one should consider him involved because it hurts his kids who need him. A few weeks ago I saw someone on another forum say even if he was guilty, he shouldn't be prosecuted, it would hurt the kids and they've been through enough already. There are comments elsewhere saying that no matter what happened, this is a private matter and everyone should stop talking about it for the sake of the kids.

I want to address this -- and mods, if this is too off topic, please delete. And please forgive me for not naming names, because doing so would probably out my identity. Several years ago, I was close to a man who ended up being charged with the murder of his ex-wife in a case that made national news. I knew the ex-wife a little, too. Many people I knew said the man should not be bothered by rumors, LE, or accusations because he had a daughter who needed him. This was based on their emotions, in my opinion, not on logic... and I lost most of my professional friends during this time because I personally felt that if he had done something wrong to his ex-wife, he sure as heck should not be around his daughter. They considered anyone who felt the man was involved to be a rumormonger who just wanted to make him look bad for some personal agenda.

In Gail's case, the same arguments are sometimes made, and I don't think they're entirely fair. I see people who have questions and concerns for justice AND the kids AND the rest of Gail's family. But the "leave Matt alone because of the kids" comments often come with implications and accusations that people who want LE to look closely at Matt are, in some way, insincere.

No, we don't know many solid facts in Gail's case. No, there is no hard evidence against Matt (or for accident, suicide, 3rd party involvement, etc.) But to say Matt should not be subjected to investigation or speculation for the sake of the kids... I don't know. That doesn't seem to be in the kids' best interests. To me, personally, it seems like Matt has done/said enough that is questionable that he should be at least ruled out as a suspect so the family CAN get on with their lives.

Would you link the forum, glorias? Thank you. :)

JBean
07-25-2011, 10:15 AM
BBM. I'm assuming because of the "if you can't link it, you can't discuss it" rule that these aren't private or banned forums, and it's difficult to discuss something without having read it for context etc, so could we have the links to these other forums so we can all read it?

I'll wait to read the other forums, but briefly, so far as if someone murders their spouse they shouldn't be prosecuted because they have kids - that's just nuts. Sounds like trolling rather than any real attempt at discussion.

And generally, of course LE has to, and should, investigate everyone around a missing person, and every possibility of what might have happened to that person - homicide, suicide, accident, natural death. It's what we pay LE our tax dollars to do.

ETA: Okay, didn't want y'all to think I'm lazy. I just used my best Google-fu and can't find any other forums where Gail's case is being discussed. The ones I found are all just posting news articles. Need links to read, please. TIA
We can discuss the comment out of context. Linking the forum would be great for us to read. But if for some reason it is an unlinkable forum, it is fine to discuss the philosophy of the comment. IOW, it is not a foundation for fact nor is it a rumor that is being perpetuated relative to what we know about Gail's disappearance. It is just an attitude or philosophy.
It is a school of thought that some may subscribe to. So, if glorias's comments could stand on their own, then linking to the original is not as critical an issue. If this comment was being attributed to someone in particular or if the assertion was that this was the prevailing attitude in the town then you are 100% correct we would need to link it before we could dig into it.

But it is fine for this discussion to respond to the argument that, for the sake of the children, it is reasonable to avoid prosecution of a father that harmed a mother.

Hope that helps.

BeanE
07-25-2011, 10:22 AM
We can discuss the comment out of context. Linking the forum would be great for us to read. But if for some reason it is an unlinkable forum, it is fine to discuss the philosophy of the comment. IOW, it is not a foundation for fact nor is it a rumor that is being perpetuated relative to what we know about Gail's disappearance. It is just an attitude or philosophy.
It is a school of thought that some may subscribe to. So, if glorias's comments could stand on their own, then linking to the original is not as critical an issue. If this comment was being attributed to someone in particular or if the assertion was that this was the prevailing attitude in the town then you are 100% correct we would need to link it before we could dig into it.

But it is fine for this discussion to respond to the argument that, for the sake of the children, it is reasonable to avoid prosecution of a father that harmed a mother.

Hope that helps.

Thanks, JBean.

Then in that case, I have to go back to my original thought. The philosophy that it's reasonable not to prosecute a parent that harmed the other parent because they have kids just immediately struck me as a trolling sort of thing. I've just never seen anyone espouse that philosophy at all, let alone espouse it seriously. It's kind of scary to think anyone would think that way.

Emeralgem
07-25-2011, 10:43 AM
Thanks, JBean.

Then in that case, I have to go back to my original thought. The philosophy that it's reasonable not to prosecute a parent that harmed the other parent because they have kids just immediately struck me as a trolling sort of thing. I've just never seen anyone espouse that philosophy at all, let alone espouse it seriously. It's kind of scary to think anyone would think that way.

I've been under the impression for quite some time the children were/are being used as an excuse to defend MP and his actions/non actions..JMHO

confused
07-25-2011, 11:19 AM
I've been under the impression for quite some time the children were/are being used as an excuse to defend MP and his actions/non actions..JMHO

I completely disagree. I think that rather than the children being used to protect Matt, Matt has endured unbelieveable bashing and hatred to protect his children.

Guess it's just a matter of opinion and we may have to agree to disagree!

hollyblue
07-25-2011, 11:50 AM
I've been under the impression for quite some time the children were/are being used as an excuse to defend MP and his actions/non actions..JMHO

I agree, the supposition he is being quiet to protect the children is a little hard to swallow. Especially, when MP is allowing his lawyers (in both SM & AL) to make statements in the media regarding GP being mentally unstable. So....this is the "explanation" given to the children for her disappearance? Prolly, imo.

fedfan4life
07-25-2011, 11:59 AM
Embezzeling money (via false expense reports) from an employer is not behavior indicative of a person who considers his/her children a priority. Take my word for it (my father was convicted of similar activities when I was a child), this type of illegal behavior puts children @ great risk and is done 'in spite of' being a parent.

Therefore, it is next-to-impossible for me personally to believe that Mr. Palgren's behavior now is because he is protecting his children above all else (aka himself).

Irish_Eyes
07-25-2011, 12:10 PM
I completely disagree. I think that rather than the children being used to protect Matt, Matt has endured unbelieveable bashing and hatred to protect his children.

Guess it's just a matter of opinion and we may have to agree to disagree!

I guess this is how I look at the whole Matt protecting them by not letting them talk to the police thing.

My son is terrified of needles and getting shots. Say he came down with some rare ailment - one where he got migraines every day. I took him to a doctor and the doctor said there is a shot I can give him. It only works some of the time, but in those cases, it cures them. There are no physical side effects to this drug, the only side effect in either case would be the trauma my son would feel due to his extreme fear of needles. I could argue that my son is in enough pain with migraines every day that I don't want him to go through further trauma and thus decide to forego a possible cure. Or I could take the chance that even though he hates needles, a one time exposure to a needle might actually save him from daily pain.

It's not a perfect analogy, but that's kind of how I see this. I'm sure these children love their mother and desperately want her home. They may not have any information to break this case open. They may know exactly what direction the police should be looking. Or they may know something that they think is insignificant or unrelated, that in fact is very important. Presumably, if Matt is innocent, and really doesn't know what happened to Gail, then LE probably knows more from tips and leads about the situation then Matt does. So even something he wouldn't think was important might be very important to LE. However upsetting it might be to have to discuss that day and the days leading up to it with police, if there is a chance that experience helps find their mom, isn't that worth it to these kids?

BeanE
07-25-2011, 12:21 PM
Then in that case, I have to go back to my original thought. The philosophy that it's reasonable not to prosecute a parent that harmed the other parent because they have kids just immediately struck me as a trolling sort of thing. I've just never seen anyone espouse that philosophy at all, let alone espouse it seriously. It's kind of scary to think anyone would think that way.

I've been under the impression for quite some time the children were/are being used as an excuse to defend MP and his actions/non actions..JMHO

By whom?

ETA: Ya know what? Never mind. What you posted here has nothing to do with what I said. I was talking about what JBean said, a philosophy of not prosecuting a spouse who harms a spouse because they have a child.

A few weeks ago I saw someone on another forum say even if he was guilty, he shouldn't be prosecuted, it would hurt the kids and they've been through enough already.


I'll wait to read the other forums, but briefly, so far as if someone murders their spouse they shouldn't be prosecuted because they have kids - that's just nuts. Sounds like trolling rather than any real attempt at discussion.

And generally, of course LE has to, and should, investigate everyone around a missing person, and every possibility of what might have happened to that person - homicide, suicide, accident, natural death. It's what we pay LE our tax dollars to do.



But it is fine for this discussion to respond to the argument that, for the sake of the children, it is reasonable to avoid prosecution of a father that harmed a mother.


Thanks, JBean.

Then in that case, I have to go back to my original thought. The philosophy that it's reasonable not to prosecute a parent that harmed the other parent because they have kids just immediately struck me as a trolling sort of thing. I've just never seen anyone espouse that philosophy at all, let alone espouse it seriously. It's kind of scary to think anyone would think that way.

There's the conversation string I was involved in. Hope that helps.

Oriah
07-25-2011, 12:30 PM
Forgive my constant questions for locals, ya'll- this is for anyone who might be good with coordinates.

If you were to head southeast from the Palmgren residence in order to intersect with 8 just north of the 'space shuttle house' (vs Palisades) then you would intersect about here: 35.06.22.15/85.20.56.56. Is that correct?

If so, how many homes would you pass?
TIA.

Emeralgem
07-25-2011, 01:10 PM
Forgive my constant questions for locals, ya'll- this is for anyone who might be good with coordinates.

If you were to head southeast from the Palmgren residence in order to intersect with 8 just north of the 'space shuttle house' (vs Palisades) then you would intersect about here: 35.06.22.15/85.20.56.56. Is that correct?

If so, how many homes would you pass?
TIA.

I'm not understanding what intersect with 8 is...

Oriah
07-25-2011, 01:14 PM
I'm not understanding what intersect with 8 is...
Sorry- the loop just south of Balmoral...

believe09
07-25-2011, 01:53 PM
Oriah, I want to thank you for focusing on narrowing down possible search locations for Gail. ((hugs))

Oriah
07-25-2011, 02:15 PM
Oriah, I want to thank you for focusing on narrowing down possible search locations for Gail. ((hugs))

You are more than welcome, believe09.

There is not much sense (imvho) in discussing guilt or innocence of people who may have been involved in a crime that may or may not have occurred. I suppose I have seen too many assumptions made in cases that turned out completely differently than expected. While I believe there is huge value in investigation of all aspects of missing persons cases- I am somewhat biased toward simply locating the missing person- or any possible evidence that might point to their location.

Gail, where are you? People are missing you terribly. :(

BeanE
07-25-2011, 02:22 PM
You are more than welcome, believe09.

There is not much sense (imvho) in discussing guilt or innocence of people who may have been involved in a crime that may or may not have occurred. I suppose I have seen too many assumptions made in cases that turned out completely differently than expected. While I believe there is huge value in investigation of all aspects of missing persons cases- I am somewhat biased toward simply locating the missing person- or any possible evidence that might point to their location.

Gail, where are you? People are missing you terribly. :(

I'm still sending out my Jeep tweets every day, hoping somebody will see something.

I'm going to write up a post and put it in the Jeep thread on how to find my Jeep posts. If anyone would please retweet them or copy them and tweet them out yourself, I would really appreciate it.

ETA: Here's the post on the Jeep thread, including a request that if you are tweeting out Gail's Jeep info, to please post how to find your tweets, and I am happy to retweet them. Thanks!

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - TN TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 **Jeep Project**

ThoughtFox
07-25-2011, 02:31 PM
I completely disagree. I think that rather than the children being used to protect Matt, Matt has endured unbelieveable bashing and hatred to protect his children.

Guess it's just a matter of opinion and we may have to agree to disagree!

It just doesn't work like that under the law.

All this is JMOO. :cow:

Gangsters like to protect their own children too. Mafia members protect their children. Terrorists protect their own children - Bin Laden kept his in the family compound with him behind a big wall.

Protection of loved ones doesn't absolve anyone from being under suspician either by the police or the public.

Some parents lie on the witness stand to "protect their child," as we just saw in the Anthony case. That doesn't make it right under the law, or right in any code of ethics.

Keeping a child from discussing the day his or her mother disappeared could be seen as "protection" or it could be seen as "control." Maybe it is both. Only MP knows, but you would think if it would help find his child's mother, it would be helpful if they could tell police what she was wearing or where she said she was going on the day she disappeared.

What I'm getting at is, one good trait (protecting children) doesn't take the heat off of someone if there is something fishy going on. It is unfortunately balanced out by MP's reputation as a liar concerning his extra-marital affair. I realize his love for his children is separate from that, but we have to realize that maybe he has compartmentalized his life and not everything he does is as noble as protecting his children (a basic instinct in most humans anyway).

There are people under suspician for many other crimes here on WS even though they used to be "Homeroom Mother of the Year" (Terri Horman) or "Policeman of the Year" (Drew Peterson). Scott Peterson was an ex-Boy Scout who helped old ladies across the street and he loved his Mommy, but that didn't win him any points with the public, the police, or the Jury system.

Emeralgem
07-25-2011, 02:36 PM
Sorry- the loop just south of Balmoral...

http://mapq.st/qhp7NG

I have never had reason to enter that road when going up or coming down the mtn...Don't have aclue where it leads to or how many residences can be reached by that road..JMHO

Oriah
07-25-2011, 02:44 PM
I have another question.

There are several navigation buoys in between the 27 route and the Cash Canyon route (at the conjuntion of waterways.)

Does anyone know if they were operational between the 28th and the 3rd? (By operational, I mean stationary.)

TIA.

ETA: Nevermind, answered my own question!
http://www.tva.gov/river/navigation_aids.pdf

confused
07-25-2011, 03:17 PM
It just doesn't work like that under the law.

All this is JMOO. :cow:

Gangsters like to protect their own children too. Mafia members protect their children. Terrorists protect their own children - Bin Laden kept his in the family compound with him behind a big wall.

Protection of loved ones doesn't absolve anyone from being under suspician either by the police or the public.

Some parents lie on the witness stand to "protect their child," as we just saw in the Anthony case. That doesn't make it right under the law, or right in any code of ethics.

Keeping a child from discussing the day his or her mother disappeared could be seen as "protection" or it could be seen as "control." Maybe it is both. Only MP knows, but you would think if it would help find his child's mother, it would be helpful if they could tell police what she was wearing or where she said she was going on the day she disappeared.

What I'm getting at is, one good trait (protecting children) doesn't take the heat off of someone if there is something fishy going on. It is unfortunately balanced out by MP's reputation as a liar concerning his extra-marital affair. I realize his love for his children is separate from that, but we have to realize that maybe he has compartmentalized his life and not everything he does is as noble as protecting his children (a basic instinct in most humans anyway).

There are people under suspician for many other crimes here on WS even though they used to be "Homeroom Mother of the Year" (Terri Horman) or "Policeman of the Year" (Drew Peterson). Scott Peterson was an ex-Boy Scout who helped old ladies across the street and he loved his Mommy, but that didn't win him any points with the public, the police, or the Jury system.

So....are you agreeing with me or disagreeing or just naming all the other cases to hit the media in the past few years. I don't think Matt is involved with gangsters, mafia, or terrorist, and I am going to take a huge leap and say that I am 100% positive he wasn't involved with Bin Laden.

My original statement was that no one should be protected from investigation because of their children. I do think that parents have the right and responsibility to protect their children, and I believe that Matt has done so. So, I am not understanding what you are getting at with all the other case reference.

carolinagirl56
07-25-2011, 03:30 PM
Sorry- the loop just south of Balmoral...

I think that you are talking about Sunset. I don't remember how many houses are there. Seems that they are a bit private if I remember. I will drive over and let you know in a bit.

Oriah
07-25-2011, 04:08 PM
I think that you are talking about Sunset. I don't remember how many houses are there. Seems that they are a bit private if I remember. I will drive over and let you know in a bit.

Thank you, carolinagirl56!
If you have a GPS on your vehicle, or a portable GPS- would you mind clocking the time and distance?

Thank you so much in advance. Be safe!

Emeralgem
07-25-2011, 04:48 PM
Thank you, carolinagirl56!
If you have a GPS on your vehicle, or a portable GPS- would you mind clocking the time and distance?

Thank you so much in advance. Be safe!

The distance from 40 Ridgerock to Balmoral is listed on the map I provided...

4.68 miles

Sleuthy1
07-25-2011, 04:53 PM
http://www.wrcbtv.com/

:great:~ HEADS-UP EVERYONE ~ Tune in to Channel 3 WRCB TV in Chattanooga tonight at 6pm EST for the latest news on the Gail Palmgren missing case. If you are not local to Chattanooga, TN then be sure to go to the above website and CLICK on WATCH TV LIVE at 6 pm EST to watch LIVE as it is broadcast.:seeya:

BeanE
07-25-2011, 05:50 PM
I just listened to WRCB livestream online. Coming up at 6, Arlene Durham will be telling everyone about how the FBI joined the case today and more details on that. They didn't explain how Arlene would know those details. Should be interesting.

ETA: Ya know, I've been busy on 4 different cases this evening and have a million windows open. Maybe I heard it wrong. Maybe it wasn't Arlene's name.

believe09
07-25-2011, 05:56 PM
Thank BeanE.

believe09
07-25-2011, 05:59 PM
This is interesting...do they know the mike is on? :)

confused
07-25-2011, 06:01 PM
I just listened to WRCB livestream online. Coming up at 6, Arlene Durham will be telling everyone about how the FBI joined the case today and more details on that. They didn't explain how Arlene would know those details. Should be interesting.

ETA: Ya know, I've been busy on 4 different cases this evening and have a million windows open. Maybe I heard it wrong. Maybe it wasn't Arlene's name.

No, I think you got it right, they had video showing Arlene talking. Just wondering, didn't they announce on the news last Friday that the FBI was on board, and wasn't it pretty much confirmed by a family member on FB that the FBI had been involved since mid May? Sooo, is there something more there?

believe09
07-25-2011, 06:05 PM
The jist as I understand it-

AD was questioned by the FBI for two hours.

There is no sign of foul play according to Jim Hammond.

Matt Palmgren is cooperating with detectives according to Brian Hoss, and Matt's PI turned over a wealth of evidence to police.

I hope whatever the PI turned over cracks the case and brings Gail home. If that is where she wants to be.

BeanE
07-25-2011, 06:06 PM
No, I think you got it right, they had video showing Arlene talking. Just wondering, didn't they announce on the news last Friday that the FBI was on board, and wasn't it pretty much confirmed by a family member on FB that the FBI had been involved since mid May? Sooo, is there something more there?

Well they had an interview with the Sheriff but I missed maybe the first minute because my earphone fell off and I didn't know it. It's hard being old. Please remind me to wear a shirt to my next doctor's appt. Dear Lord God.

believe09
07-25-2011, 06:09 PM
I think the lead in was misleading-I think they meant to say that the FBI spoke with Arlene today, not that the FBI entered the case today.

More accurate reporting, lol.

BeanE
07-25-2011, 06:13 PM
I think the lead in was misleading-I think they meant to say that the FBI spoke with Arlene today, not that the FBI entered the case today.

More accurate reporting, lol.


AD was questioned by the FBI for two hours.



They questioned her for two hours? Not talked to her for two hours but questioned?

I didn't see the beginning part.

Pearl*
07-25-2011, 06:15 PM
I think the lead in was misleading-I think they meant to say that the FBI spoke with Arlene today, not that the FBI entered the case today.

More accurate reporting, lol.

The ONLY new information I heard is that Arlene was interviewed today and the PI turned over evidence to the HCSO. All else was a re-hash of old stuff. Did I miss something?

BeanE
07-25-2011, 06:17 PM
The ONLY new information I heard is that Arlene was interviewed today and the PI turned over evidence to the HCSO. All else was a re-hash of old stuff. Did I miss something?

Did Arlene turn over the DVR?

Pearl*
07-25-2011, 06:20 PM
Did Arlene turn over the DVR?

I heard no mention of the DVR. All I heard from AD was, again, that she believes Matt knows answers, all family members are hiding behind their attorneys, and she'll never give up until she finds Gail. Again, did I miss something? I think the WHOLE thing was media tease.

Melodie
07-25-2011, 06:23 PM
http://www.wrcbtv.com/

:great:~ HEADS-UP EVERYONE ~ Tune in to Channel 3 WRCB TV in Chattanooga tonight at 6pm EST for the latest news on the Gail Palmgren missing case. If you are not local to Chattanooga, TN then be sure to go to the above website and CLICK on WATCH TV LIVE at 6 pm EST to watch LIVE as it is broadcast.:seeya:

So so so glad to see Melydia Clewell actively following this case. Thank you Melydia!! This case needs you. :great:

BeanE
07-25-2011, 06:31 PM
I heard no mention of the DVR. All I heard from AD was, again, that she believes Matt knows answers, all family members are hiding behind their attorneys, and she'll never give up until she finds Gail. Again, did I miss something? I think the WHOLE thing was media tease.

All family members? Oh Lordie.

Melodie
07-25-2011, 06:33 PM
All family members? Oh Lordie.

I heard Matt, his mother and TH. I'll listen again...

BeanE
07-25-2011, 06:36 PM
Oh my God they're posting videos for stories that came after Gail's - including a darn facelift - but no Gail video yet.

I want to listen to what the Sheriff said again. It was something like "It would be difficult to get rid of a person AND a Jeep, and not leave a single piece of evidence."

Melodie
07-25-2011, 06:52 PM
Oh my God they're posting videos for stories that came after Gail's - including a darn facelift - but no Gail video yet.

I want to listen to what the Sheriff said again. It was something like "It would be difficult to get rid of a person AND a Jeep, and not leave a single piece of evidence."

Good. Found it. Here's the quote: "If we can find the Jeep, we can find her. And I think he knows what happened to the Jeep and what happened to her, where she's located," Durham said. "You don't hide behind a criminal defense attorney, your girlfriend doesn't hide behind a criminal defense attorney, your mom doesn't hide behind a criminal defense attorney if you have nothing to hide."

And here's part of what the sheriff said "It would be very difficult for you to plan to get rid of someone and a Jeep and not leave some piece of evidence that someone saw," Hammond explained.

The sheriff did say that it's extremely unusual for a mom to go this long without making contact with her children.

http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/15144246/fbi-now-looking-at-gail-palmgren-disappearance

BeanE
07-25-2011, 06:55 PM
Good. Found it.
And here's part of what the sheriff said "It would be very difficult for you to plan to get rid of someone and a Jeep and not leave some piece of evidence that someone saw," Hammond explained.

http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/15144246/fbi-now-looking-at-gail-palmgren-disappearance

This is the Sheriff's quote I wanted. Thank you so much, Melodie!

More from the article:

"There's nothing at this point to indicate that anything nefarious has occurred," Hammond told Channel 3.

Hammond: "From a mother's standpoint, they would say, 'I could tell you one thing, if she loved her children, she's dead, cause she'd be trying to get to 'em,' but we have to deal with the reality and we just don't know what that is right now."

Now, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is becoming involved in the case. Special Agents spent two hours Monday morning interviewing Gail Palmgren's friend, Arlene Durham.

I have so much more hope now that Gail is alive. I got a very positive vibe from the Sheriff. I would be so thrilled if she could be found (if she wants to be) or comes forward, and re-establishes a relationship with the kids so they can get what they need from their mom. And hopefully Gail would be able to establish a life for herself that is more satisfying and fulfilling to her.

Melodie
07-25-2011, 07:01 PM
More quotes from the story today:

"No credit card activity. No calls from her phone."

"Earlier this month, Gail Palmgren's siblings pushed Hamilton County District Attorney Bill Cox to write a letter asking Chattanooga agents with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation to review detectives' work on the case to date."

"Now, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is becoming involved in the case."

The last part, bolded by me, may help to settle another often posted concern.

ETA- Glad to see that the FBI wants to hear what Arlene has to say.

hollyblue
07-25-2011, 07:03 PM
So I guess any questioning the FBI may have involving MP, his mom or TH has to be with their attorney at hand? Wish we knew if this was done.

Melodie
07-25-2011, 07:16 PM
So I guess any questioning the FBI may have involving MP, his mom or TH has to be with their attorney at hand? Wish we knew if this was done.

Maybe we'll see some changes and more action since the FBI seems to be officially involved now. No matter when they were asked or when they offered, they are on it now, of that we can surely agree. I am very pleased to see that they are listening to what Arlene has to say and hopefully they will be talking to the others soon, too. Maybe they will find the one little piece of evidence they need that the Sheriff mentioned not having. :twocents:

believe09
07-25-2011, 07:18 PM
This is the Sheriff's quote I wanted. Thank you so much, Melodie!

More from the article:

"There's nothing at this point to indicate that anything nefarious has occurred," Hammond told Channel 3.

Hammond: "From a mother's standpoint, they would say, 'I could tell you one thing, if she loved her children, she's dead, cause she'd be trying to get to 'em,' but we have to deal with the reality and we just don't know what that is right now."

Now, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is becoming involved in the case. Special Agents spent two hours Monday morning interviewing Gail Palmgren's friend, Arlene Durham.

I have so much more hope now that Gail is alive. I got a very positive vibe from the Sheriff. I would be so thrilled if she could be found (if she wants to be) or comes forward, and re-establishes a relationship with the kids so they can get what they need from their mom. And hopefully Gail would be able to establish a life for herself that is more satisfying and fulfilling to her.

It is interesting BeanE-I viewed this the exact same way that you did.

It is never too late to come home and nothing that has happened can't be undone. I hope she is OK. I hope she is within reach.

believe09
07-25-2011, 07:20 PM
I would think that the only ones who know when, where and if the FBI questioned the Palmgren's et al would be LE.

Oriah
07-25-2011, 07:21 PM
I have another question.

There are several navigation buoys in between the 27 route and the Cash Canyon route (at the conjuntion of waterways.)

Does anyone know if they were operational between the 28th and the 3rd? (By operational, I mean stationary.)

TIA.

ETA: Nevermind, answered my own question!
http://www.tva.gov/river/navigation_aids.pdf

I hate to bump my own question (again!) but I actually didn't answer my own question, lol- because I have several more!
I have the access points marked all along the 27 route and the Cash Canyon route. They are staggered back and forth bank to bank (as is normal, especially for high volume waterways) but now I am wondering exactly which ones flooded during each storm system; and which navigational aids were non-functional during the time period we are talking about. :waitasec:

BeanE
07-25-2011, 07:22 PM
"There's nothing at this point to indicate that anything nefarious has occurred," Hammond told Channel 3.


That's a very strong statement for LE to make. And it is such a blessed relief to me.

I wonder if that would include suicide? I hope so.

I wish LE would do some aerial searches and ground searches around the mountain to reduce the likelihood of an accident.

If they did, I think I could then, based on LE's statement above, and if nothing changed in that by the time the searches were done, move runaway to my #1 theory.

I'm just feeling very, very hopeful tonight that Gail is alive.

believe09
07-25-2011, 07:22 PM
Go Oriah, Go! I wish I knew...

Irish_Eyes
07-25-2011, 08:24 PM
I don't know. I didn't read the sheriff's statement the same way as some here did. I just think it basically is saying they don't have a clue what happened to Gail. It does seem to suggest that maybe he personally is wondering if she just ran off somewhere. If that was his attitude from the beginning, and Arlene knew what she did, I can see why she would have felt frustrated.

I'm going to have to go back and find the other cases where LE suspected foul play because a significant amount of time had gone by and the person had not been seen or made contact with anyone, had not accessed their bank accounts or used their phone, etc. Ironically, these aren't even always cases where the day before the person goes missing they are given the number of a "safe place to stay." Ironically, these aren't always cases where the last phone calls a person is making are saying "I'm scared. I'm scared." Ironically, these aren't always cases where everybody and their mother is hiding behind criminal defense attorneys and not speaking with LE.

I think it's a call at the discretion of the law enforcement agency who is the lead on the case. So, no, I have no ray of sunshine after reading this article.
Yesterday I could hope that LE was close to cracking this case. But today, it seems we are much further away from finding out what happened to Gail then I had hoped.

Melodie
07-25-2011, 08:43 PM
I don't know. I didn't read the sheriff's statement the same way as some here did. I just think it basically is saying they don't have a clue what happened to Gail. It does seem to suggest that maybe he personally is wondering if she just ran off somewhere. If that was his attitude from the beginning, and Arlene knew what she did, I can see why she would have felt frustrated.

I'm going to have to go back and find the other cases where LE suspected foul play because a significant amount of time had gone by and the person had not been seen or made contact with anyone, had not accessed their bank accounts or used their phone, etc. Ironically, these aren't even always cases where the day before the person goes missing they are given the number of a "safe place to stay." Ironically, these aren't always cases where the last phone calls a person is making are saying "I'm scared. I'm scared." Ironically, these aren't always cases where everybody and their mother is hiding behind criminal defense attorneys and not speaking with LE.

I think it's a call at the discretion of the law enforcement agency who is the lead on the case. So, no, I have no ray of sunshine after reading this article.
Yesterday I could hope that LE was close to cracking this case. But today, it seems we are much further away from finding out what happened to Gail then I had hoped.

I agree with you completely. I am not convinced that they have nothing. I believe that LE must tread very carefully because of the lawyers. They're not going to show their hand yet. :twocents:

Irish_Eyes
07-25-2011, 09:02 PM
Wonder if this is possibly part of the problem? Ohio has a section in its revised code specifically geared towards missing persons: what defines a missing person and what defines a suspicion of foul play, etc. Tennessee has no such section in their code. There is a section on procedures involving missing children, and a section added last year that creates a special kind of alert for seniors, developmentally disabled persons, and those with dementia. Gail seems to fall in between the cracks of Tennesee law....there is no consistent, codified, statewide policy from what I can tell regarding how to handle a missing adult. So it would seem that when to call a disappearance suspicious would be a local call and obviously therefore more subjective.

cocomod
07-25-2011, 09:10 PM
After following Laura Ackerson's case this week, it just feels so familiar to Gail's case. In the beginning, LE also said that there was no sign of foul play. However, they treated it like an investigation from the get-go. I have a great deal of respect for how the NC LE treated Laura's case. They heard that a woman was missing; and they immediately investigated her disappearance.

In Gail's case, I am very frustrated with how long LE took to even start to investigate an obvious problem in Gail's life - MP. I am very Pro-LE; and I have many friends that are LE. I have a great deal of respect for them and I appreciate their service. However - I do know that in some of these cases; it appears to me that LE in difference cities/states/counties handle cases much differently. And - I have found that some are definitely more effective. Kudos to NC for the way that they handled and solved Laura's case so quickly.

I side with a few here- I am still not convinced that Gail is coming home. I am still not convinced that MP didn't do something horrible to her. Prayers for Gail!

glorias
07-25-2011, 09:24 PM
I'm going to have to go back and find the other cases where LE suspected foul play because a significant amount of time had gone by and the person had not been seen or made contact with anyone, had not accessed their bank accounts or used their phone, etc. Ironically, these aren't even always cases where the day before the person goes missing they are given the number of a "safe place to stay." Ironically, these aren't always cases where the last phone calls a person is making are saying "I'm scared. I'm scared." Ironically, these aren't always cases where everybody and their mother is hiding behind criminal defense attorneys and not speaking with LE.

I snipped to this part because I think what you said bears repeating.

The cases I'm familiar with lately all seem to have one thing different from Gail's case: They were adults who didn't have their car. Not having the car made everyone, even LE, think that this was a serious situation that needed to be addressed immediately. My impression is that people think Gail and the Jeep missing means Gail drove off deliberately and is still in/with that Jeep, hiding out somewhere.

To believe she's just hiding out you'd have to believe that:

1. She has a stash of hidden money somewhere; the money she gave others to hold has not been touched, nor have her accounts. She'd have to use cash for everything.

2. She wouldn't be able to get a job under her real name without alerting people to her whereabouts.

3. She has a new driver's license and/or passport, perhaps with a false identity. Or she's avoiding every single situation where she might need a photo ID.

4. She'd have to rely on disposable cell phones.

5. She probably has a new vehicle and was somehow able to dispose of the Jeep without having the VIN reported by Carfax or any similar agency.

6. She wouldn't contact her kids or her family despite past history of staying in contact with them.

7. Related to #4, she would either have no access to news, or she would be able to ignore what she saw on the news. If she did see the news, she would have seen Arlene, Diane, Susie, etc. all worried about her. She would hear reports that her family cannot talk to the kids without Matt or his representative there, know that K&D filed papers in court, see that people online (primarily the newspaper forums) are saying she's a bad mother for abandoning her kids.

8. She has some way to get her needed prescription meds without drawing attention to herself. If she needed medical help for anything, even something minor, she wouldn't be able to use her insurance or her real name without alerting people to her whereabouts.

And on and on and on. There's a lot of stuff you have to do to disappear completely. It's a lot of work, a lot of preparation, and possibly even black market or grey market activities (fake IDs, under the table jobs, etc). In my opinion, we do not have one scintilla of evidence that Gail engaged in any of that. Not a single speck to indicate she's off in hiding.

ETA: Also, in my opinion, as yet we have not heard a motive for Gail to go into hiding to this extent. Arlene said Gail was scared and in hiding, but her fear alone would not account for her being gone this long. She would have contacted a doctor, LE, lawyer, shelter, etc. by now if it was just fear that caused her to leave.

BeanE
07-25-2011, 09:25 PM
Wonder if this is possibly part of the problem? Ohio has a section in its revised code specifically geared towards missing persons: what defines a missing person and what defines a suspicion of foul play, etc. Tennessee has no such section in their code. There is a section on procedures involving missing children, and a section added last year that creates a special kind of alert for seniors, developmentally disabled persons, and those with dementia. Gail seems to fall in between the cracks of Tennesee law....there is no consistent, codified, statewide policy from what I can tell regarding how to handle a missing adult. So it would seem that when to call a disappearance suspicious would be a local call and obviously therefore more subjective.

Gail is classified as an endangered missing adult. I think this applies in TN:

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Bill/SB2940.pdf

For things like definitions of suspicion of foul play, sometimes you have to go court cases and supreme court rulings. You might find something looking up probable cause. I found this, for example:

State v. Henning, 975 S.W.2d 290, 294 (Tenn. 1998) (footnote and citations omitted). “A showing
of probable cause requires, generally, reasonable grounds for suspicion, supported by circumstances
indicative of an illegal act.” State v. Stevens, 989 S.W.2d 290, 293 (Tenn. 1999)

From there, you can look up cases and rulings where 'reasonable grounds for suspicion' and 'indicative of an illegal act' were issues.

AZlawyer could, I'm sure, tell you better than I could more specifically what to search for to get to the info faster.

Snowbunny
07-25-2011, 09:46 PM
I agree with Arlene..who hides behind a criminal defense attorney if you don't have anything to hide? As a cop, I was always told to go by my gut feelings and in this case my gut tells me he's dirty and I have felt that way from day one. My gut tells me he probably had a throw away phone and called Gail and told her to meet him someplace, rather than have it out in front of the kids and when she got to her point of destination someone else was waiting for her rather than him. He just seems like the type who would play her to serve his purpose. Example: Its ok to leave the kids for a few minutes and meet me here so we can figure out how to tell the kids, but when she doesn't come home again he tells everybody she left the kids alone unsupervised. I can just see it.

JBean
07-25-2011, 10:02 PM
I completely disagree. I think that rather than the children being used to protect Matt, Matt has endured unbelieveable bashing and hatred to protect his children.

Guess it's just a matter of opinion and we may have to agree to disagree!

But Matt could have avoided that completely. That's what bothers me. I would expect him to be falling all over himself to make sure that LE is not suspicious of him. By living in a shroud of secrecy,by way of lawyers, he makes himself a target and the by product of that trickles down to the kids. if for no other reason, open up for the kids so any thought of involvement can be put to rest.

His behavior before the fact wasn't honorable, so we know he is capable of being deceptive.

If gail truly just drove away, then he needs to deal directly with LE on that truth and he will be fine. he should have enough information, alibis and hard cell and/or computer data that will clear him completely. If he has already shared all that with LE, then good on him. But I don't think he has.

The clean get cleaner and the dirty get dirtier.

carolinagirl56
07-25-2011, 10:03 PM
Thank you, carolinagirl56!
If you have a GPS on your vehicle, or a portable GPS- would you mind clocking the time and distance?

Thank you so much in advance. Be safe!

Sorry, Oriah, I didn't read this post before I left. I counted 16 homes on Sunset Drive. Some were in a natural setting with a lot of trees and others had lawns. It curves around into Balmoral and then Balmoral continues on the side of the mountain. I will be happy to clock the time for you tomorrow if you want me to do so.

Irish_Eyes
07-25-2011, 10:04 PM
Gail is classified as an endangered missing adult. I think this applies in TN:

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Bill/SB2940.pdf

For things like definitions of suspicion of foul play, sometimes you have to go court cases and supreme court rulings. You might find something looking up probable cause. I found this, for example:

State v. Henning, 975 S.W.2d 290, 294 (Tenn. 1998) (footnote and citations omitted). “A showing
of probable cause requires, generally, reasonable grounds for suspicion, supported by circumstances
indicative of an illegal act.” State v. Stevens, 989 S.W.2d 290, 293 (Tenn. 1999)

From there, you can look up cases and rulings where 'reasonable grounds for suspicion' and 'indicative of an illegal act' were issues.

AZlawyer could, I'm sure, tell you better than I could more specifically what to search for to get to the info faster.

Yes, your link to the above law is the one I indicated was passed last year in reference to the elderly and disabled individuals. There is a separate section of code that spells out procedures with regards to child abduction. There is not a section in code that covers missing adults like Gail.

State v. Stevens seems applicable, but also broad and subjective. Given what we know, I think it's possible that in another jurisdiction in the same state, under Stevens, a search warrant might have been obtained given the recent interactions with LE and Gail's last known comments to her sister, and the time she has been missing with no bank or cell activity, etc.

Snowbunny
07-26-2011, 12:01 AM
I find it so hard to feel sorry for a man who has shown no concern for his wife, the mother of his children, who is missing. <modsnip> wants everybody to believe this man is concerned about his children and their wellbeing, when I beg to differ. He wasn't too concerned about his children when he was out gallivanting around the country with all his gal pals. Where was he then? MP has only shown that he was concerned about himself. Gail had lost her job but he didn't think nothing about spending thousands of dollars which rightfully she had earned. Now he's without a job so I wonder if he wished he hadn't spent that money since he might just need it to support his children. I honestly don't think he wants LE or anyone talking to his kids because of what they just might say. Once a cheater always a cheater in my books. A skunk doesn't change his stripes.

Oriah
07-26-2011, 05:41 AM
Sorry, Oriah, I didn't read this post before I left. I counted 16 homes on Sunset Drive. Some were in a natural setting with a lot of trees and others had lawns. It curves around into Balmoral and then Balmoral continues on the side of the mountain. I will be happy to clock the time for you tomorrow if you want me to do so.

Thank you carolinagirl!

When heading west on Balmoral, (after you've looped around Sunset- headed back toward 127) is there another, much smaller loop on the west side of 127?

Some1Nose
07-26-2011, 07:45 AM
Some more thoughts:

While MP was away on “business” until 4/29, maybe that’s partly when Gail removed things from the home “for safe keeping”, disconnected tracking devices, transferred her portion of any funds, went through some of MP’s belongings, etc. any of which he may have noticed upon arriving home and didn‘t appreciate (all speculation only).

While MP was away from home, Gail had the freedom to put her separation plans into action. It was previously stated (not sure from what source, now, so not sure if confirmed fact) that Gail and MP only talked once while he was away from home the week ending on 4/29 and it was then that MP told Gail that he wanted a separation and she reportedly said, “okay”. That interaction, if correct, must have given impetus to Gail’s plans.

I don’t believe it has been confirmed how MP got home on 4/29. Was he in his vehicle, alone? And what type vehicle/s does he own, anyone know? Was he in his vehicle with someone else? Was he with TH, still? And upon arriving home, unexpectedly, did he find Gail going through certain business docs, or something personal to MP? Something/s caused a big enough blow-up that the police were involved in a DV call and LE gave Gail a phone number for a safe house. One could surmise from this info that LE thought, at the time, they had enough Probable Cause to believe Gail’s safety was at risk.

Further, do any of us really believe MP would have been able to initially “call the shots” regarding the LE investigation in to Gail’s disappearance if he had not of lawyer-uped with local, well-heeled criminal defense attorneys? I don’t…I believe that more intensive, thorough searches for Gail and her Jeep would have been conducted from the get-go not to mention property searches, imo.

Regarding the issue of the children being interviewed: I agree with a previous poster who said, (paraphrased here) at the very least, MP should have been interviewed and been given a polygraph test, early on, to be ruled out as a suspect. And, I totally believe that the children should have been interviewed immediately. Allowing the children to tell what they do know to professional, understanding LE interviewers without MP present so they can candidly talk without the fear of reprisals would be best, imo.

It would probably do the children a world of good to get their concerns off their chests to someone whose job it is to help find their mother. Possibly, a Guardian ad Litem could be appointed to represent the childrens’ interests and accompany them to any LE interviews. (I believe the court petition brought by Gail’s siblings mentioned court appointed representation for the children?)

I’m thrilled that the FBI interviewed AD for two hours. That fact seems to indicate that she is being taken seriously, and I hope AD was able to shed light on Gail’s disappearance.

If LE wants to find Gail there are two key words involved here: Searches and Interviews! Professional searches of the vacant house across from Gail’s SM home, the surrounding neighborhoods, wooded areas (especially along and below egress/ingress roads), and water ways on and around SM should have been conducted, by now. (It is possible that LE/SAR searches have been conducted but kept confidential, which is fine by me, as long as they look for Gail and her Jeep.) Official LE interviews of the children, MP, TH and all other pertinent parties need to be conducted asap, if they haven't been, yet, imho.

Oriah
07-26-2011, 08:43 AM
I am also interested in several locations where 77 crosses the Choccolocco Creek in AL- both north and south of Smiths Mill. Does anyone know the area well enough to recall which truck stops/rest stops surround that area?

ETA: (yet ANOTHER question for people familiar with the SM area)
Are there three James Blvds on Signal, or just two? TIA!

Emeralgem
07-26-2011, 10:00 AM
I am also interested in several locations where 77 crosses the Choccolocco Creek in AL- both norh and south of Smiths Mill. Does anyone know the area well enough to recall which truck stops/rest stops surround that area?

ETA: (yet ANOTHER question for people familiar with the SM area)
Are there three James Blvds on Signal, or just two? TIA!

I thought there was just one James Blvd.. I think there is a James Place though.. But what do I know?

Pearl*
07-26-2011, 10:15 AM
I thought there was just one James Blvd.. I think there is a James Place though.. But what do I know?

One James Blvd. I'm sure of that. It is one of the two "main roads" on Signal Mountain, although it is not the "highway" that becomes Ridgeway Avenue and then Taft Highway as it progresses north toward Dunlap after reaching the top of the mountain. A large portion of James Blvd. runs parallel to Taft Highway. This is the branch that connects with St. Ives. after a couple of turns. The other section circles around by Signal Point through what we call "Old Town."

The section running parallel to the highway intersects with the main highway as you approach our ONE traffic light immediately upon reaching the top of the mountain. It has two short connectors about a block long each before becoming technically "James Blvd." The initial turn is left on Signal Mountain Blvd. which then branches left, and then Maryland Avenue which then ends at the point it becomes James Blvd.

At that intersection, which it more a V than a T, James splits into two directions, one toward Signal Point and the one running parallel to Taft. Then the "Taft" branch ends at Taft Highway near the top of the W road.

Is that complicated enough? James Place, if I'm not mistaken, is the name of some condos and not a road.

Oriah
07-26-2011, 10:43 AM
One James Blvd. I'm sure of that. It is one of the two "main roads" on Signal Mountain, although it is not the "highway" that becomes Ridgeway Avenue and then Taft Highway as it progresses north toward Dunlap after reaching the top of the mountain. A large portion of James Blvd. runs parallel to Taft Highway. This is the branch that connects with St. Ives. after a couple of turns. The other section circles around by Signal Point through what we call "Old Town."

The section running parallel to the highway intersects with the main highway as you approach our ONE traffic light immediately upon reaching the top of the mountain. It has two short connectors about a block long each before becoming technically "James Blvd." The initial turn is left on Signal Mountain Blvd. which then branches left, and then Maryland Avenue which then ends at the point it becomes James Blvd.

At that intersection, which it more a V than a T, James splits into two directions, one toward Signal Point and the one running parallel to Taft. Then the "Taft" branch ends at Taft Highway near the top of the W road.

Is that complicated enough? James Place, if I'm not mistaken, is the name of some condos and not a road.

Thank you, Pearl!

BeanE
07-26-2011, 10:54 AM
Yes, your link to the above law is the one I indicated was passed last year in reference to the elderly and disabled individuals. There is a separate section of code that spells out procedures with regards to child abduction. There is not a section in code that covers missing adults like Gail.


No, I don't think so. The one I posted is for endangered missing adults - not seniors/dev disabled/dementia.

Gail is classified as an endangered missing adult, so the one I posted is what applies to her.

Here it is again:

HOUSE BILL 2993 By DeBerry
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Bill/SB2940.pdf

You said in your previous post:

There is a section on procedures involving missing children, and a section added last year that creates a special kind of alert for seniors, developmentally disabled persons, and those with dementia.

and I believe that would be this, separate, different one:

HOUSE BILL 346 By Hackworth
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Bill/HB0346.pdf

This one is for seniors, developmentally disabled, dementia, etc.

Endangered missing adult, which Gail is classified as, appears to me to be completely different from senior, developmentally disabled, dementia, etc adult. I think that's why they have these two, separate, different bills.

State v. Stevens seems applicable, but also broad and subjective. Given what we know, I think it's possible that in another jurisdiction in the same state, under Stevens, a search warrant might have been obtained given the recent interactions with LE and Gail's last known comments to her sister, and the time she has been missing with no bank or cell activity, etc.

I gave the State v Stevens clip only as an example of the sort of thing you can search for in looking for the information you posted about, and how that example can help you in that search.

Probably, though, the fastest and easiest way to find out what the Sheriff uses as his guideline for the definition of suspicion of foul play is just to email and ask him. It would be interesting to email and ask the DA's office at the same time what guideline they go by for the definition of suspicion of foul play. Me being me, I wouldn't let either know I'd asked the other lol. One would hope the definitions they use would match, but ya never know lol.

BeanE
07-26-2011, 11:17 AM
I am also interested in several locations where 77 crosses the Choccolocco Creek in AL- both north and south of Smiths Mill. Does anyone know the area well enough to recall which truck stops/rest stops surround that area?

ETA: (yet ANOTHER question for people familiar with the SM area)
Are there three James Blvds on Signal, or just two? TIA!

I thought there was just one James Blvd.. I think there is a James Place though.. But what do I know?

Oriah, I just want to tell you that I really appreciate all your hard efforts on this case, and all the other cases you work on. You're always in there, working hard for the missing person. :blowkiss:

Emeralgem, I noticed that every time Oriah asks a question, you jump right in to help. That's wonderful, and I just wanted to tell you that I really appreciate your efforts. :grouphug:

Oriah
07-26-2011, 11:28 AM
Oriah, I just want to tell you that I really appreciate all your hard efforts on this case, and all the other cases you work on. You're always in there, working hard for the missing person. :blowkiss:

Emeralgem, I noticed that every time Oriah asks a question, you jump right in to help. That's wonderful, and I just wanted to tell you that I really appreciate your efforts. :grouphug:

Aww thank you Bean! Right back atcha! :blowkiss:

I've got another question that maybe someone can help with.

Does Gail wear glasses all the time? Or only for reading or driving? Does she sometimes wear contacts as well?
TIA if anyone can answer this question!

JBean
07-26-2011, 11:30 AM
beane-I am following the Bryan Stow beating case. They made 3 arrests and charged 2 people with the beating based on the information put together by LAPD's "Clue Coordinator" This person reminded of you and your mind maps. They put all the leads and information together and look for patterns with tips and leads and see if it takes them anywhere. The case is making great progress based on the findings of the clue coordinator and he is being credited with solving the case. I just wanted to share that with you because I thought of you right away!

Oriah
07-26-2011, 11:38 AM
beane-I am following the Bryan Stow beating case. They made 3 arrests and charged 2 people with the beating based on the information put together by LAPD's "Clue Coordinator" This person reminded of you and your mind maps. They put all the leads and information together and look for patterns with tips and leads and see if it takes them anywhere. The case is making great progress based on the findings of the clue coordinator and he is being credited with solving the case. I just wanted to share that with you because I thought of you right away!

Mind maps rock! :rocker:

Emeralgem
07-26-2011, 12:06 PM
One James Blvd. I'm sure of that. It is one of the two "main roads" on Signal Mountain, although it is not the "highway" that becomes Ridgeway Avenue and then Taft Highway as it progresses north toward Dunlap after reaching the top of the mountain. A large portion of James Blvd. runs parallel to Taft Highway. This is the branch that connects with St. Ives. after a couple of turns. The other section circles around by Signal Point through what we call "Old Town."

The section running parallel to the highway intersects with the main highway as you approach our ONE traffic light immediately upon reaching the top of the mountain. It has two short connectors about a block long each before becoming technically "James Blvd." The initial turn is left on Signal Mountain Blvd. which then branches left, and then Maryland Avenue which then ends at the point it becomes James Blvd.

At that intersection, which it more a V than a T, James splits into two directions, one toward Signal Point and the one running parallel to Taft. Then the "Taft" branch ends at Taft Highway near the top of the W road.

Is that complicated enough? James Place, if I'm not mistaken, is the name of some condos and not a road.

BBM...Could it be both? I know it is on the left before Hathaway and Birnam Woods..

http://mapq.st/nDzPGS

Oriah
07-26-2011, 12:23 PM
Could it be both?

http://mapq.st/nDzPGS

Emeralgem, I think it is.

Also- what do you think about the 'scenic' route (rt 8.) Would that have been passable on the 29th?

Pearl*
07-26-2011, 12:50 PM
BBM...Could it be both? I know it is on the left before Hathaway and Birnam Woods..

http://mapq.st/nDzPGS

Oriah and Em, I called a friend who was driving that route today, and that road simply does not exist, or if it does, it's so obscure it has no marker. I knew I remembered nothing there. Will check other maps. Condos are Jamestown and not James Place, and they are at the end of James, on the route to go down the front of the mountain.

Would be interested in hearing from other locals on this.

ETA: Not on Google maps. Nothing between Stratford Way and Westwood. I don't know how to link the map though.

Emeralgem
07-26-2011, 01:06 PM
Emeralgem, I think it is.

Also- what do you think about the 'scenic' route (rt 8.) Would that have been passable on the 29th?



I don't know but I believe it was passable..My relatives usually take the "W" up and down and I know they didn't have any problems.. My understanding is Signal Mtn sustained very little damage from the storms. Hopefully, a poster who lives up there and travelled up or down the mtn. after the storms may have more information as to whether or not they encountered any problems with the main road going up and down the mtn...JMHO

ETA.. I don't live on the mtn but I couldn't even get out of my driveway for two days. I was in a panic too since we were planning to leave town on the 30th to attend a destination wedding of a family member..

Emeralgem
07-26-2011, 01:17 PM
Oriah and Em, I called a friend who was driving that route today, and that road simply does not exist, or if it does, it's so obscure it has no marker. I knew I remembered nothing there. Will check other maps. Condos are Jamestown and not James Place, and they are at the end of James, on the route to go down the front of the mountain.

Would be interested in hearing from other locals on this.

ETA: Not on Google maps. Nothing between Stratford Way and Westwood. I don't know how to link the map though.

Mapquest driving directions shows James Place to be between Stratford Way and Westwood..

http://mapq.st/ov5rkl

Jamestown Condos are on the left when you reach the top of the mtn just before the traffic light.

Pearl*
07-26-2011, 01:21 PM
Mapquest driving directions shows James Place to be between Stratford Way and Westwood..

http://mapq.st/ov5rkl

Jamestown Condos are on the left when you reach the top of the mtn just beofre the traffic light.

Promise. It's not there. Mapquest has a mistake. Look at Google. I had somebody actually drive down James and look for it about 30 minutes ago.

Emeralgem
07-26-2011, 01:24 PM
Promise. It's not there. Mapquest has a mistake. Look at Google. I had somebody actually drive down James and look for it about 30 minutes ago.

I'm not on the mtn right now to check, but I'll take your word for it not being there...

Pearl*
07-26-2011, 01:39 PM
I'm not on the mtn right now to check, but I'll take your word for it not being there...

Em, I appreciate your polite answer, but I'm not sure you're convinced. Maybe I just can't find it. I do drive the road frequently myself, and I knew I didn't remember seeing it; that's why I asked a friend to go looking since I knew she was going that way anyway. I'm familiar with Westwood, Stratford, Hathaway, and Inverness, but never saw James Place.

Seriously, if somebody finds it I really do want to know about it.

Emeralgem
07-26-2011, 01:44 PM
Em, I appreciate your polite answer, but I'm not sure you're convinced. Maybe I just can't find it. I do drive the road frequently myself, and I knew I didn't remember seeing it; that's why I asked a friend to go looking since I knew she was going that way anyway. I'm familiar with Westwood, Stratford, Hathaway, and Inverness, but never saw James Place.

Seriously, if somebody finds it I really do want to know about it.

LOL..I don't know IF I am convinced or not..I just Googled street view map for Jamed Blvd. and I couldn't even find Stratford Way off of James Blvd and I know for certain that road exists....JMHO

Oriah
07-26-2011, 01:54 PM
Oh my goodness, lol.

I really appreciate everyones input.

And I think developers need to stop naming things James!

Emeralgem
07-26-2011, 02:07 PM
Oh my goodness, lol.

I really appreciate everyones input.

And I think developers need to stop naming things James!

BBM..Me too especially IF it doesn't even exist or they haven't even developed it yet...JMHO

Oriah
07-26-2011, 02:19 PM
BBM..Me too especially IF they haven't even developed it yet...JMHO

Emeralgem, that makes me think of something else- housing construction on SM. And demolition contractors.

Now I am off on another pursuit of info!

Pearl*
07-26-2011, 02:46 PM
Okay.... I sent search party #2. There is a narrow dirt path/road, just wide enough for one car to drive into the woods. No room to pass; looks much like a dirt driveway. No street marker, and it's closer to Westwood than Stratford Way. That HAS to be the "road" in question, but it hardly looks like a road. It doesn't look like an area under development and does not look like a place I would want to drive into, because who knows what is at the end or if it is possible to turn around. Can see nothing but woods.

Emeralgem
07-26-2011, 02:50 PM
"There's enough physical evidence out there that we'd like to take a look at, that tells us that hopefully there's someone out there who can provide a piece of information that we need," the sheriff added.

http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/15144246/fbi-now-looking-at-gail-palmgren-disappearance

There's enough physical evidence out there that we'd like to take a look at? Wonder what physical evidence the sheriff is talking about?

BeanE
07-26-2011, 02:54 PM
beane-I am following the Bryan Stow beating case. They made 3 arrests and charged 2 people with the beating based on the information put together by LAPD's "Clue Coordinator" This person reminded of you and your mind maps. They put all the leads and information together and look for patterns with tips and leads and see if it takes them anywhere. The case is making great progress based on the findings of the clue coordinator and he is being credited with solving the case. I just wanted to share that with you because I thought of you right away!

I just want to remind everyone that the Mindmeister software I use has a free version. You just sign up for an account. There's nothing you have to download or install. All your work is online.

You can not only use it for your case timelines, but also for your case theories, taking the known case info, and building step by step how things would have had to happen for your theory to work. It's very helpful, especially on complicated cases.

Emeralgem
07-26-2011, 02:56 PM
Okay.... I sent search party #2. There is a narrow dirt path/road, just wide enough for one car to drive into the woods. No room to pass; looks much like a dirt driveway. No street marker, and it's closer to Westwood than Stratford Way. That HAS to be the "road" in question, but it hardly looks like a road. It doesn't look like an area under development and does not look like a place I would want to drive into, because who knows what is at the end or if it is possible to turn around. Can see nothing but woods.


Do we know IF this area has been searched?

Pearl*
07-26-2011, 02:58 PM
Do we know IF this area has been searched?

I think that's an excellent question, Em. But I'll tell you one thing...it's not gonna be me! I don't like the description I got from my friend. I swear, I've driven by there probably 1000 times, and I've never noticed it.

ETA: I must admit, Em, I was irritated with you for not believing me when I told you it wasn't there. I'm glad you were persistent enough to prompt a second look. I'm curious as to why it rates a spot and a name on Mapquest when it isn't even a marked road, though.

Emeralgem
07-26-2011, 03:12 PM
I think that's an excellent question, Em. But I'll tell you one thing...it's not gonna be me! I don't like the description I got from my friend. I swear, I've driven by there probably 1000 times, and I've never noticed it.

ETA: I must admit, Em, I was irritated with you for not believing me when I told you it wasn't there. I'm glad you were persistent enough to prompt a second look. I'm curious as to why it rates a spot and a name on Mapquest when it isn't even a marked road, though.

Please know I wasn't being a smart a$$ when I replied to you, so please don't be irritated with me...... I don't live on the mtn... I was just checking out maps...

BeanE
07-26-2011, 03:16 PM
"There's enough physical evidence out there that we'd like to take a look at, that tells us that hopefully there's someone out there who can provide a piece of information that we need," the sheriff added.

http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/15144246/fbi-now-looking-at-gail-palmgren-disappearance

There's enough physical evidence out there that we'd like to take a look at? Wonder what physical evidence the sheriff is talking about?

I'm thinking of the FBI's offer of technical support and to use their lab for tests. The FBI can run more in-depth analysis on phones, GPS, computers, etc than local LE agencies can. It can take quite a while to get the results back, so I'm thinking this could be the sort of thing he meant.

offering technical support and letting local authorities access its lab to process any evidence collected in the case.

Well, like an idiot, I closed the window before I copied the link. It's Times Free Press. I'll find it again if anyone wants it.

Pearl*
07-26-2011, 03:16 PM
Please know I wasn't being a smart a$$ when I replied to you, so please don't be irritated with me...... I don't live on the mtn... I was just checking out maps...

Em, I'm not irritated with you. :blowkiss: You did a good thing! You made me go back and question it again. Now we found something we may have needed to find! I was just admitting I was wrong....