TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #4

[Pearl*]

So he withdrew the motions. I think he filed them in the first place in order to back up the theory that he believed she would return. Now that it is appearing less likely she will return, even to the average observer, it is probably more important to try to repair his image. Filing those motions didn't do much for him on the PR front. Now he can drop them because they have served their purpose, as far as I'm concerned.

I do remain most concerned for the children, and I'm afraid that withdrawing the motions is bad news for them. Whether he is innocent or not, I do not believe it is in his best interests to permit them to be talking to anybody. I think it is extremely important for the court to intervene somehow on behalf of the children. Withdrawing the motions has taken the court out of the loop for the moment, and I think that is very bad news.

As to the mention of the school counselor being a resource, that is now a couple months away at best. Even then, I do not know whether a school counselor can speak to the children without parent consent. Furthermore, if a parent were to specifically request the counselor NOT speak to the children, I very much doubt the school could go against that. Does anybody know?

I would really like to hear gitana1's thoughts on resources for the children. GAL? CASA? A counselor not hand-picked by dad?

 

[hollyblue]

Bet the children will be sent somewhere with someone in his family.

 

[confused]

It may simply be that this attorney and MP are friends and as a friend he decided to help and/or advise his friend. Or a friend of a friend of....you know?

Bingo!

 

[hollyblue]

Sent Gail's info to The Red Jeep Club. CA, UT and the area. Asking to please pass her info on to anyone in their loop.

 

[Snowbunny]

Sent Gail's info to The Red Jeep Club. CA, UT and the area. Asking to please pass her info on to anyone in their loop.

Has anybody hit the truckstops and passed out fliers to the truckdrivers? They have some of the best eyes on the road.

 

[confused]

:clap:Thank you for coming over to Gail's thread. My ?: Can Gail's family (siblings) have a say at all in the upcoming hearing on the children's behalf, scheduled for this Friday? Or her close friend in AL who she gave important docs to hold and was helping her with the divorce process.? TIA

In the beginning he did not allow Gail's sister from NY to even have company with the children or enter his house; as far as we know, that remains the same. She arrived 5/2 and he filed with the firm of Hoss & Davis on 5/6. He is also on administrative leave from his Director's job at BCBS of TN....[rumors of affair in MSM--(with subordinate, also placed on leave)]

.

Your statement about him not allowing the sister to see the children or enter his home is not exactly correct. Can't say more, but those are not facts.

 

[confused]

The kids have finished the school year so Matt does not need custody?

Well we could jump off of all kinds of cliffs with the statements Mr Hoss is making. Was there something going on at school that Matt wanted to gain control of using his temporary order? Is Matt comfortable that Gail will continue to be missing? Has she surfaced in some way shape or form? Would the judge have appointed a GAL for the children to sort out what was in their best interests?

Hmmm...

With the kids in school, Matt or one of his trusted friends/family could not be with the kids constantly. Parental abductions often occur at school and similar places. with them home from school, the possibility would be less.

 

[ThoughtFox]

With the kids in school, Matt or one of his trusted friends/family could not be with the kids constantly. Parental abductions often occur at school and similar places. with them home from school, the possibility would be less.

Because . . . their mother doesn't know where they are when they are at home in the summer? :waitasec:

Sorry, you lost me . . .

I get that he might have needed to file something to keep her from abducting the children from school. And I get that he wanted to be separated and eventually divorced with custody.

He also had a restraining order filed, I believe. And he has also withdrawn from the Separation Agreement, correct?

WRCB: Husband drops lawsuit(s) against Missing Signal Mother

So are we to believe he no longer wants a separation? Or does he just not need a separation, since she hasn't been found anyway?

Personally, I agree with those who say this is damage control. I think he realized that in order to get full custody the court was still going to ask about his personal life and all that entailed, and those 911 calls were going to be a problem. Plus it left the door open for him to be challenged by Gail's family for custody.

 

[JBean]

Just a reminder that we need to qualify information as opinion or fact. If it is being stated as a fact then it should be linked. If you are posting with inside information you must be verified.
Please do not drop hints about private information.
Thanks.

excerpt from Rules and Etiquette:

>>...snip Additionally,please don't drop hints or post on the board that you know something or are privy to inside information but you won't or can't post it.
If you can't post it, don't.<<

[ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65798"]Rules Etiquette & Information - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]




this post is placed randomly in the thread.

 

[hollyblue]

Your statement about him not allowing the sister to see the children or enter his home is not exactly correct. Can't say more, but those are not facts.

The info on Diane not being allowed to speak to the children was from MacGyver's post here in the first thread.

[ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6497056&postcount=814"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - TN TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #1[/ame]

She/he talks to Diane. I also made the statement

" as far as we know, that remains the same "

So, yes things may have changed; but to post a comment in rebuttal of a statement and saying it is not exactly correct, and then refuse to post the facts to back it up is walking with weak legs and has nothing to stand on. IMO, JMO

 

[glorias]

snipped...

On the other hand, if they are friends, I think it would be most unfriendly for the attorney to take the case, knowing he's probably not the best man for the job.

One would think a lawyer, even one who was a friend, would tell Matt that he needed an attorney who specializes in divorce cases and such. You also mention that SM has a ton of attorneys, so surely Matt had a large pool of qualified lawyers from which to choose. It's just kind of odd that he picked Bryan Hoss, but I'm not sure it really means anything, either.

 

[SmoothOperator]

He said he had received a notice from the Post Office indicating she had entered a change of address form dated April 30. He said he was notified that she had changed her pin number to three bank accounts in her name. He said the accounts contain approximately $420,000.
Snipped from link in Jade's post...

This particular statement ImO stands out to me greatly.. Always has..
IMO suspicious to say the least, especially given the particular timing of it..

IMO it is quite likely that this is something that was done on 30th as to attempt to further put proof out there that Gail did willingly leave of her own volition...

I would be anxious to see the computer record of this change of address that took place via online.. To see the IP and the exact time that the change was made online.. If I were a betting person I'd be willing to bet that it was after 12:15 on the 30th.. Why?? IMO because at some point after 12:15 on the 30th Gail was permanently "disappeared" and IMO Matt wanted there to be as much evidence as possible that would back his claim(I.e. That Gail disappeared herself willingly) and by showing she had changed her address IMo it's just one more thing that Matt thought would be perceived as corroborating her willingly and wantingly leaving.. Abandoning her entire life including her children...

IMO this many times is where the male perp in a case makes his biggest err or mistake in carrying out getting rid of their spouse.. That mistake being to attempt to make it appear as tho the spouse not only left him, her husband and their life together, but also that they willingly, wantingly abandoned their children.. That is where IMO their greatest err is.. Very, very few mothers truly abandon their kids, totally starting over and leaving their young children behind without so much as a hug good bye.. And even more so when speaking of an active mothering role In these children's daily lives.. And in speaking of a mother who doesn't have drug history and battles with dependency(and I in no way am saying that women who "use" or "abuse" drugs/alcohol are known to abandon their kids.. But it is known that the percentages are greater for abandonment when speaking of severe addictions in mothers).. That is not a factor in this case(nothing that we've seen or heard woukd in any way indicate there was any addiction history with mom, Gail).. Which just further points to the chances being slim to none for this woman to suddenly and completely sever all ties and completely abandon
Her two elementary aged children...

Again my point is that IMO this is what in the end is the undoing of a "husbands" plot to disappear his wife permanently...

These are jmo, tho !!


Posting via mobile so please excuse errors as there is not the same amount of control as I'd have posting from my laptop! Thanks!

 

[believe09]

With the kids in school, Matt or one of his trusted friends/family could not be with the kids constantly. Parental abductions often occur at school and similar places. with them home from school, the possibility would be less.

Hmmm, wouldnt the school have a sign out list? I am assuming once he received the temporary order, the one he dropped, he would have notified the school that she was not to take the children out of school.

 

[glorias]

Is there a copy online of the paperwork submitted by Matt's attorney today? I haven't seen anything online since the 5-23 docket but I might not be looking in the right place.

 

[believe09]

Regarding the incidents and statistics around parental abductions-

The perpetrators tend to be, obviously, non custodial parents. (Gail and Matt had equal custody when she disappeared and she had voluntarily turned her children over to their father. As others pointed out, she could have been long gone starting on 4/29 and she still would not have been guilty of parental abduction.)

Parental kidnapping peaks at the age of 6, which I thought was pretty interesting.

84% of parental abductions occur at the child's home or from other residences. Here are the stats I found for schools:

"It is important to note that schools
are an unusual site for abduction, even family
abduction (only 5 percent of family,
4 percent of acquaintance, and 3 percent​

of stranger kidnaping occur at school)."

I think that is pretty interesting...fwiw. It may or may not relieve Matt to know that the kids really didnt appear to be in that much danger, but that is just statistically speaking.

Here is my reference for the data:
http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2816#7

The pamphlet is called kidnapping juveniles.

 

[believe09]

Actually, I do think the 4/30 COA is a little bit too much...although have we seen where the change was made to?

 

[xTiffanyTerror]

That is VERY interesting about MP dropping the divorce proceedings. I could have missed it, but is that all he is dropping or is he also dropping custody?

I wonder if the lawyer has seen possible proof of the (alleged)affair that was going on. If so, and if it was possible it would come out..he may have realized he would fare badly because of it in the proceedings.

Also, since Gail is still missing, IF they had been granted a divorce, how would the marital property have been divided?

Just wondering if possibly he found out that he would lose access to her accounts or her share of funds etc. As it stands now, as long as they stay married he gets everything no matter how long she is missing.

IMO.

 

[looking4lost]

I'm new here but had a few questions-
Since MP dropped everything, does that mean they aren't going to court tomorrow? Which makes me wonder if he's afraid of information that her family has that could harm him.

Thoughts about the car:
I'm local and it would be very hard to drive off the Mtn. without someone seeing at noon on a Saturday.
I am curious about the possibility of hiding the jeep in all the storm damage. I haven't been to see, but it seems like everyone's stuff is gone or mixed up. Could a person dump a jeep there or are there too many people around?

 

[happy409]

The husband of a missing Signal Mountain woman filed court papers Wednesday to dismiss his attempt to legally separate from his wife.

Matthew Palmgren also dismissed motions seeking temporary custody of their two children and exclusive use of their Signal Mountain home, according to Hamilton County Chancery Court documents.

No one has seen or heard from Palmgren&#8217;s wife, 44-year-old Gail Nowacki Palmgren, since April 30. Matthew Palmgren, 40, filed the motions in court May 6.

&#8220;The case can be refiled at pretty much any point in the future,&#8221; said Bryan Hoss, attorney for Matthew Palmgren. &#8220;Nobody loses anything because it&#8217;s voluntary.&#8221;

Hoss said the motions were necessary initially because his client wanted to make sure the children, ages 9 and 12, completed their school year.

&#8220;The fear before was she could appear and take the kids out of school,&#8221; Hoss said. &#8220;If and when she does reappear, it&#8217;s one of those things we can refile and get in front of the same judge rather quickly.&#8221;

http://timesfreepress.com/news/2011...sband-dismisses-custody-motions/?breakingnews

 

[believe09]

Welcome to WS looking!!! We are glad to have you.

The hearing is cancelled tomorrow-that is my understanding. We have been speculating the cause, and your guess is as good as mine for sure. I just thought Mr Hoss' statement was surprising given the number of reasons he could have stated...such as "my client is focusing on locating his wife right now and has decided to set aside this kind of litigation until she has a chance to respond once she has been located."

It is weird for me to see such LACK of spin tbh-it seems clear that MP's attorney is not concerned with soft pedaling his clients message regarding concern for his wife.