TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #2

I have a hunch his attorney is not gonna let him do many more of those press conferences. If he isn't guilty of something he sure makes it look as if he is...... just my opinion again. Gail, please prove me wrong and call your sister - or brother. Let them show you how they will stand right by you through this.

redfish said:

I have a hunch his attorney is not gonna let him do many more of those press conferences. If he isn't guilty of something he sure makes it look as if he is...... just my opinion again. Gail, please prove me wrong and call your sister - or brother. Let them show you how they will stand right by you through this.

Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth! He said remarkably little about Gail, really. He thanked people, said the Jeep had been spotted several times, then started talking about himself and telling people that he's done "everything in our power". When he got back to talking about Gail, he said "yell if you hear us". Might as well have said "holler when you get back from the grocery store" for all the concern he showed.

I do hope she's out there somewhere, but I won't lie: I have a really bad feeling about this. And I think LE is going to try to do as little as possible until a vehicle (or worse) is found.

I do feel that there is foul play here...but it is possible that if Gail left her DL behind and credit cards. she may have had a DL from another state-one perhaps no one else knew about. She may also have had some credit cards only she knew about. She may have felt she needed to leave immediately for some reason, and felt she could come back for the kids at a later date. I suppose it is even possible she had acquired ID and credit cards in a false name, if she ever anticipated she would need to 'hide out'. Just random thoughts..it would be nice if it were that easy...

glorias said:

Ain't that the truth! He said remarkably little about Gail, really. He thanked people, said the Jeep had been spotted several times, then started talking about himself and telling people that he's done "everything in our power". When he got back to talking about Gail, he said "yell if you hear us". Might as well have said "holler when you get back from the grocery store" for all the concern he showed.

I do hope she's out there somewhere, but I won't lie: I have a really bad feeling about this. And I think LE is going to try to do as little as possible until a vehicle (or worse) is found.

Click to expand...

Well I think we are watching him sink his ship one way or the other.....

“We’ve hired a private investigator,” said Matthew Palmgren. “We continue to look. We’re turning over everything we can,” he said at Tuesday’s news conference in Signal Mountain, where the couple live.

Palmgren, 40, reported 44-year-old Gail Palmgren missing on May 2, according to police records. 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 and 9-year-old daughter.

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.

All this "we" talk about him and Mr. Hoss's efforts to help find GP, but the same day Hoss filed a motion to continue the order previously filed. Wonder how many posters they both have distributed?

CarmelEyesD said:

I do feel that there is foul play here...but it is possible that if Gail left her DL behind and credit cards. she may have had a DL from another state-one perhaps no one else knew about. She may also have had some credit cards only she knew about. She may have felt she needed to leave immediately for some reason, and felt she could come back for the kids at a later date. I suppose it is even possible she had acquired ID and credit cards in a false name, if she ever anticipated she would need to 'hide out'. Just random thoughts..it would be nice if it were that easy...

Click to expand...

This scenario is absolutely possible, except that she left the kids. Gail is too smart to plan all that and then leave the most important part to chance! These are smart, mature kids and they would be quite able (IMO) to pull this off with her. One thought that no-one says, is that perhaps they didn't want to leave? I can't really conceive of this, but kids can be strange, and home is home.....

hollyblue said:

She would have been in her teens when her mother passed. That must have been pretty tragic for her.

Click to expand...

It was. She would NEVER do that to her own kids. Never.

kikidee said:

It was. She would NEVER do that to her own kids. Never.

Click to expand...

This is the sticking point every time.

Wrinkles said:

What was Gail's routine with the car, let the kids out to go in the house, then pull the car into the garage? If so, Gail could have let the kids out, pulled into the garage, had someone jump in the car with her, get down in the back seat area covering her with a gun and telling her, "if you want the kids to be okay, back out and start driving." If that were the case, it would explain her not stopping to talk to a neighbor with whom she was friendly.

Click to expand...

IMO, this is one of the only scenarios make makes any sense. My children are close in age to Gail's and after traveling for 4 hours, the first place my children would go when getting home would be to their various electronics. ie: computer, xbox, etc. in their rooms or in the playroom. I would most likely have gone in the house, thrown my purse down, and then started getting things out of the car from the overnight trip. Someone could have easily had access to the house that morning and with the kids occupied, forced Gail into her car. This would explain her leaving her DL and not stopping to acknowledging her neighbor. In a situation where nothing seems to add up, this is just a theroy. I pray that this isn't what happened.

Maybe a financial planner in the crowd could shed some light on the extent that MP should have been concerned about the retirement accounts.

I know that when you have a 401(k) - and this could be similarly true about a 401(k) rolled into an IRA - that the spouse has special rights (i.e. status as beneficiary is basically irrevocable - you'd need the spouse's written authorization to change the beneficiary). Considering that the couple seems to have copious amounts of cash and neither of them are of the age to take non-penalized deductions from such an account - I'm not sure why changing the PINs would have TRULY had him all up in arms unless he's just a total control freak. If they divorce, a settlement regarding the accounts would have been made - and Mr. Palmgren surely shouldn't have expected to take all the money, especially if it had been earned through remunerative employment on the part of Ms. Palmgren.

Maybe she had Roth IRAs in her name, but the only thing that can be taken there without penalty there would be the principal (and the yearly contribution maximums are very low for a Roth - not even sure she would have qualified given the household income amount they seem to have - or had 400k+ in the account).

Can anyone shed light on whether his concern about the retirement accounts is an overreaction?

OK, got it done! I will let you all know when they contact me [if?].

whimdriven said:

I'm not sure why changing the PINs would have TRULY had him all up in arms unless he's just a total control freak.

Click to expand...

Snipped with respect.

This is exactly what I've been thinking. IMO, his slip is showing.

glorias said:

Ain't that the truth! He said remarkably little about Gail, really. He thanked people, said the Jeep had been spotted several times, then started talking about himself and telling people that he's done "everything in our power". When he got back to talking about Gail, he said "yell if you hear us". Might as well have said "holler when you get back from the grocery store" for all the concern he showed.

I do hope she's out there somewhere, but I won't lie: I have a really bad feeling about this. And I think LE is going to try to do as little as possible until a vehicle (or worse) is found.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I was just thinking after reading your transcript.

This wording wasn't in the first transcript, right?

Thank you for taking the time to write exactly what was said.

CarmelEyesD said:

I do feel that there is foul play here...but it is possible that if Gail left her DL behind and credit cards. she may have had a DL from another state-one perhaps no one else knew about. She may also have had some credit cards only she knew about. She may have felt she needed to leave immediately for some reason, and felt she could come back for the kids at a later date. I suppose it is even possible she had acquired ID and credit cards in a false name, if she ever anticipated she would need to 'hide out'. Just random thoughts..it would be nice if it were that easy...

Click to expand...

That's a good point regarding the DL from another state.

I've never really thought about it because I've never had a house in a different state.

Would there be a reason that Gail has an Alabama license? Since her jeep is tagged there?

Shelby1 said:

That's a good point regarding the DL from another state.

I've never really thought about it because I've never had a house in a different state.

Would there be a reason that Gail has an Alabama license? Since her jeep is tagged there?

Click to expand...

Since the Jeep is registered there it is possible that Gail would have an AL license. You can register your car with an out of state license as a "new resident" but most states require you to get that state's license within 30 days of registration. I don't know if that applies for AL, but in most cases one has to show proof of residency to use an address for registration of a vehicle (utility bill works). I would think it is entirely possible that she has an AL license considering the jeep was registered there.

I have seriously been trying to analyze the purpose of the news conference yesterday. To say almost nothing to the media for over two weeks and then to suddenly have a news conference and reveal absolutely nothing new, (except the car spotted, about that in a minute). Did LE decide to do it because of outside pressure, pleas from Gail's sis and friends, or the husband wanted it?

About the only difference than what we've been seeing, is the husband made his obligatory appearance to the public and 'word' has it her car has been spotted in different locations. The emotional plea from Gail's sis has been happening all along through the news articles written, etc.

Now, the NEWS that the car has been spotted, didn't come from LE, it came from the husband. IF it was considered even a remote possibility it was Gail, LE would have mentioned it. But since the husband did, and since he didn't say it could have been, might have been and he said SPOTTED or something like that; makes it sound like it WAS her. HE knows if it was a possible legitimate sighting or not. The dismissal of the info by LE tells me it WAS not her and the husband MAY HAVE said that to take the 'eye off him,' by the public. In other words, just CYA from the hubby.

The fact that he also had TWO criminal defense attorneys there (on his payroll) and they kept in check he didn't answer ANY questions,........well, just doesn't sit right with me. Why not answer questions? seriously, he may have been able to shed some light to the public at large to something that may *click* a light bulb in someone's mind and think, "Hey, I might have seen her, and this is why." 'no comment'.................bothersome.

Now, it IS possible that Gail is out there somewhere in fear for her life. But,........the background of the story just doesn't point that way, imho. My bet that any reputable LE agency in most big cities, would already be handling this as a 'crime.' The SOP for NORMAL LE agencies to respond to this, is initially handling the matter as a 'missing person case,' but at the same time observing family and friends initial reactions to the situation. Now because the husband told LE and everyone else that Gail had mental problems, at the most could delay 'criminal' type investigation at the most, 72 hours, at which time they usually then bring in 'homicide detectives' to review the case.

I've seen several cases where LE felt there was foul play immediately and the 72 hours were waived by first responders and the ball got rolling immediately. Because by the time LE received this case, it was already more than 48 hours. The husband said she's done this before, but she keeps in touch with the kids. That hasn't happened in this case, so did he tell LE immediately she'd keep in touch with the kids? or did he just add that later for the benefit of Gail's family, but then realizing it was a mistake, because it hadn't happened here and it instantaneously set off a firestorm of concern and action.

We discussed a great deal here on Websleuths the husband not appearing to the public. Now I don't want to *spook*, but it's quite possible, and even likely, he's been reading here, or a 'friend,' and they told him he needed to do this to take suspicion off himself. But............................sorry, it doesn't work that way. This hoarse was already out the gate and there is no 'do over' with it.

You add in the filing for separation, custody of the kids, sole custody of the marital home, changing his cell phone #, the allegations of an affair on his part, the two previous dv 911 calls, the alleged black eye, statements by Gail's friends and family that she was *in fear*.................well, you see the point.

LE needs to step up to the plate and handle this investigation, rather than sitting back and sending out BOLOs and HOPE Gail gives someone a call. Nope! I've seen too many of these cases to smell a rat when we DO NOT know the answer to,..................WHERE IS GAIL?

JMHO
fran

whimdriven said:

Maybe a financial planner in the crowd could shed some light on the extent that MP should have been concerned about the retirement accounts.

I know that when you have a 401(k) - and this could be similarly true about a 401(k) rolled into an IRA - that the spouse has special rights (i.e. status as beneficiary is basically irrevocable - you'd need the spouse's written authorization to change the beneficiary). Considering that the couple seems to have copious amounts of cash and neither of them are of the age to take non-penalized deductions from such an account - I'm not sure why changing the PINs would have TRULY had him all up in arms unless he's just a total control freak. If they divorce, a settlement regarding the accounts would have been made - and Mr. Palmgren surely shouldn't have expected to take all the money, especially if it had been earned through remunerative employment on the part of Ms. Palmgren.

Maybe she had Roth IRAs in her name, but the only thing that can be taken there without penalty there would be the principal (and the yearly contribution maximums are very low for a Roth - not even sure she would have qualified given the household income amount they seem to have - or had 400k+ in the account).

Can anyone shed light on whether his concern about the retirement accounts is an overreaction?

Click to expand...

I think if we take Matt's version at face value, overreacting about the accounts would make more sense.
If she is truly suffering from some sort of mental breakdown then changing PINs,"leaving" without a trace,dropping the kids off, or doing other uncharacteristic behavior would be a red flag to Matt and he would perhaps take extreme precaution to protect children,money,etc.

But there are inconsistencies and some really bad behavior on his part that make it impossible to determine what is really going on. Looking at both sides of what we know doesn't really clear anything up either.

I just hope Gail is alive and confused because then there is still hope for her with a strong network of friends and family.

fran said:

I have seriously been trying to analyze the purpose of the news conference yesterday. To say almost nothing to the media for over two weeks and then to suddenly have a news conference and reveal absolutely nothing new, (except the car spotted, about that in a minute). Did LE decide to do it because of outside pressure, pleas from Gail's sis and friends, or the husband wanted it?

snipped for emphasis
JMHO
fran

Click to expand...

HI Fran. IMO, the news conference was for the family to get on TV and make a personal plea for Gail's safe return.

Hate to do this, I'm already wordy enough! But.....

The other thing that really bothers me, is the phone ping the DAY Gail was reported missing. Coincidence? Well, you know the saying, "There is no coincidence when it comes to murder."

Oh, I'm not SAYING it is murder, just that it is POSSIBLY, unfortunately.

But why that day, at the base of the mountain? The one thing it does tell us is HER PHONE was moving. Where did it come from? Who had it? Where had it been BEFORE it pinged there? Where is it now?

bothersome,
fran