TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #3

[believe09]

I suppose if he was cheating, and his other woman was a fellow employee, there might be a big downside for both of them if she talks.

You know what, and this is from my heart-there are always secrets in cases like this...and people think they need to keep it quiet because they are protecting someone or because they are trying to paint a picture.

The truth is the truth. It will come out eventually. Why not give it up now when it could impact the investigation substantially? I mean if MP is cooperating fully with LE-well he is brave and it is best to give them a chance to clear him whatever they might find...I mean let's assume FOR THE MOMENT he was having an affair. It might make him a bad husband, and it might rock his employer a little if she is a co worker, but in the end if that is the big secret, it is out....and it doesnt mean he actively caused Gail's disappearance.

Signal Mountain strikes me as a small community-let's say, for the sake of argument, that Gail was being followed...I mean we know a neighbor already commented on it. Well, people know who it was and whose car it was...go to PD. Let them know who it is.

LE needs to fill in these brush strokes before this case get's cold. It is an active investigation and they are trying to find her...they are burning their resources and they are trying to find her. Help them out.

 

[JBean]

Who did the writing that is printed on the letter? It seems remarkably different than the signature.

I was assuming it was either written by the PI or Arlene is keeping notes on everything and she wrote it.

 

[fedfan4life]

Could it be possible that there is an unknown 3rd party who might have wished Gail harm? I mean, a compelling reason for her bringing the children back to TN from AL within 24 hours would be that she had a prearranged appointment w/someone on 04/30/11. Whomever that someone might be could be the individual who caused her disappearance.

 

[10EC_Dad]

Who was it that the LEO gave info regarding help for domestic violence? :banghead:

Well, I don't think that is any indictment against him. That seems like a normal MO torwards any couple that has had several arguments leading to a call to LE.

<modsnip>

I just don't understand why she would allow her kids to stay with someone she thinks is an abusive personality. Yet, she took steps to protect material things but not her kids.

I also don't understand why should risk further abuse by calling the police during non physicial confrontations. Yet, should would not call LE when she and the kids were out of state.

I don't understand why a supposed controlling and abusive person would get out of a car and walk home rather than make the other person do so.

Oh well, just some things to consider I guess.

 

[10EC_Dad]

Hello 10EC Dad,

You wrote:
>>There is as much evidence of her being abusive as there is of him being abusive. <<

Did her husband have a black eye that he explained away too?

Please provide the link.

 

[jeni4smith]

Well, once again, there is a ton of assumption thrown in against eveidence to the contrary.

Evidence reflects her being out of control.

There is as much evidence of her being abusive as there is of him being abusive.

10EC_Dad-

I understood and followed what you meant by "neither party is without fault". Without jumping to conclusions about things that are not supported by facts, you are merely saying that it takes two to make and two to break a marriage.

I have been reading this thread for the value of trying to spread the word and find a missing mother <modsnip>. While I understand that speculation will occur where there is a lack of solid information, many of these <modsnip>.

I can also see that your point of mentioning "as much evidence of her being abusive as him" was to point out the LACK of evidence of abuse on both parts, not to indicate that she was abusing him.

I'm sorry if this comes across as harsh, it's not meant to. <modsnip>
That's JMHO.

 

[happy409]

Is is possible that GP left SM April 30 to meet MP at the base of the mountain? Could that be why she called AD and said to "say little". Maybe she wanted AD to not talk, but to listen to what was said between her and MP. Is there anyone that can say that MP returned to the house in 10 minutes to meet GP there? Do we really know where he was?

He said he was at his mother's. She could have run home first, dropped the kids, and then met at the bottom of the mountain near where his mother lives, the bottom of the W road. If that is plausible...what happened then...?

I think MP is the ONLY one that has said he was home 10 minutes after (can someone clarify?), from his mother’s (25 minutes is a stretch). How did he know the exact time GP was there, except maybe for the neighbor, then to place himself somewhere else at the time. I wonder if the neighbor could verify he was not at home. What went on between the 30th and May 2nd, or later when questioning began? That is a long time to collaborate or conjure stories.

If in fact he stayed back at the house on the night of the 29th, since we know GP left, are we to assume he went to his mother's, when, for how long? Was it to set up his alibi? (IMHO) Could GP have found someone at the house when she got there (leaving her DL and CC's), not acknowledging neighbor running up the hill? GP's sister mentioned (if that is cleared up) speaking to her moments before her disappearance, referenced 'someone following her'…from the house, from down the road? JMHO.

 

[10EC_Dad]

Interesting-so are you saying that she dropped the kids off and disappeared for the purpose of abusing him?

I don't see where I said that at all.

How do you connect those dots?

 

[10EC_Dad]

BBM above: Diane was talking about prior knowledge that she knew of. Maybe she did find some solid proof and it would be damaging not only to the marriage, but his new promo of just several months...with a new boss ...in a new atomosphere.

Also stated by Diane:

"She did mention she found some things and she was going to further investigate it. She may have found something. She could have gotten concrete proof.”

He hasn't come forward in the media and disputed it? He was placed on leave from his employer. Why do you think that is?

Maybe maybe maybe

Maybe there was never an affair.

My point is this is just rumor.

He does not have to dispute any allegations against him in the public forum.

Maybe his employer is allowing him to take care of the kids through all of this.

 

[JBean]

Please provide the link.

[ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6474230&postcount=234"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - TN TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #1[/ame]

 

[10EC_Dad]

At which point did she not have proof? That implies to me that at some point she did. JMO

Following that line of thinking, at this point, we have no proof that she had a fatal accident without foul play. Does that imply at some point we will?

 

[happy409]

Interesting-so are you saying that she dropped the kids off and disappeared for the purpose of abusing him?

That is not so far fetched, even though I saw nowhere that was insinuated.

If GP were to think he preferred to be somewhere else, that could be annoying to MP knowing he would be responsible for the children, unable to carry out plans for the day. IMO

 

[Pearl*]

While I understand that speculation will occur where there is a lack of solid information, many of these speculations seem very one-sided and far from objective. It bothered me to see your [10EC Dad] opinion to be so quickly refuted by more opinion and speculation.
....
I hope this all comes to a very peaceful end, but in the meantime it seems that it would serve a lot more good if we looked at things a little more objectively.

As I see it at this time, the evidence has become very one-sided over the past few weeks.

In the beginning, in the absence of any substantial evidence at all, I read a fairly balanced range of possible explanations for Gail's disappearance.

The situation has changed drastically since then, however. I've read no objective evidence to back up any statement made by Mr. P.

If I have missed anything in that regard, please post it. The goal is to find the truth, after all.

 

[stilettos]

Maybe maybe maybe

Maybe there was never an affair.

My point is this is just rumor.

He does not have to dispute any allegations against him in the public forum.

Maybe his employer is allowing him to take care of the kids through all of this.

Placed on leave sounds so much better than taking family leave doesn't it.

 

[glorias]

I also don't understand why should risk further abuse by calling the police during non physicial confrontations.

If she called LE over disputes that had not turned physical, she was doing the right thing. I have to vehemently disagree with your characterization that she was putting herself at risk for more violence, not only because it implies she brought it on herself, but because it implies that only physical violence counts as abuse.

Plenty of crimes can be committed without physical violence, such as threats, aggressive behavior, assault. Assault does not involve physical contact, by the way, battery does. LE has also confirmed they gave Gail the number of a safe house, and that they found no evidence of her alleged mental instability.

Also, note that Susie Button flat out said that Matt was having an affair with a woman at BCBS:

http://www.newschannel9.com/articles/palmgren-1001248-button-gail.html

Other articles confirm Gail had hotel receipts as proof.

 

[Wrinkles]

Hello Jeni4Smith,

And welcome to WS. I wanted to respond to your questions

You wrote:

"On My Behalf" can be a term used to indicate that the PI was doing what he was asked to do and not there on his own accord. It isn't necessarily the indicator you presented, just to be fair.

Also, "Rest assured, Gail's sudden departure from the Lake house was absolutely due to something she learned to take away her peace there."... is this something that is fact or your opinion? Please clarify.

Nope, it is not necessarily the indicator, but this article says:

>>"We've done everything in our power to find Gail. We've hired a private investigator. We've continued to look, turning over everything we can," said Palmgren.

...Palmgren hired Private Investigator Mike Mathis, a former detective with the Chattanooga Police Department to help with the search.<<

You see...when someone states that they have done everything in their power (but uses "we've" instead of "I've" oddly) and it is with the intention of suggesting that they have done it "to find Gail" -- that they have done it to "help with the search" -- then that would make it appear that they have done it on behalf of the missing party. Right?

There is no way that those statements were made except to try to indicate to the public that MP was doing what he/we could to find Gail, he/they were making an effort on Gail's behalf. Or was it on the children's behalf? Didn't MP file to get custody of them? Or was it on MP's behalf, he who had filed for separation, exclusive use of the home, custody of the children, restraining order (wasn't it all of those things on around the 6th of May?)

I suppose to be fair, one could stretch and think that what was written about "on my behalf" could just have been to explain that Mr. Mathis was "serving" MP. On the other hand, I am reading what I think is the deeper meaning that seems fairly apparent, at least to me. I think that it is really clear that Mr. Mathis is serving MP's behalf, not Gail's, and not Gail's and MPs.

The letter...

>>It is my understanding that you are in possession of a security system DVR that you picked up from Best Buy in P[*advertiser censored*]ville, Alabama on May 2, 2011. This is my property. Please give this DVR immediately to Mike Mathis, who is the private investigator whom I have hired on my behalf. I have asked Mr. Mathis to deliver this letter to you.

Further, if you should have any other property that belongs either to me or to Gail, please give the same to Mike Mathis as well.<<

You see, if this was done on Gail's behalf, or Gail and MP's behalf (and not just specifically on "my behalf," it certainly seems that MP would have been seeking to catch flies with honey and not vinegar. He would have opened his letter with an intro to Mr. Mathis who has been hired to find Gail -- appealing to Gail's friend to assist. Instead he starts with something like, "You picked up something, it is mine, give it to me immediately, give it to Mr. Mathis, I sent him, he's working for me, give it."

Now then...maybe others don't read the letter that way, but I do. AND if this was about Gail, I believe MP would have called the local LE and said, "The neighbor has something that could be helpful to finding Gail, could you please go speak with her about the DVR she picked up, perhaps there is something on it that you can use to help find Gail." Nopers, that isn't what happened...

So, deductive reasoning and gut tells me that this was on "my behalf" (as in MP's) and not at all on Gail's behalf. If it was on Gail's behalf, I believe that the use of LE would have been the ticket. See what I mean? MP has a college degree -- he knows how LE can work on someone's behalf, then again maybe he didn't want to call the LE who gave his wife numbers for a safe house and maybe he didn't want to call the Alabama LE because they were probably in communication with his local LE? Why send a PI to strong arm a neighbor into giving him something, when LE could have done that by subpoena in an investigation? oh my!

As far as something taking Gail's peace away... She was known to love the Lake house, she texted her friend about something "happy" (as in let's go to a happy place or some such), her friend said she left abruptly on the last day she was seen "from the Lake house" and without explanation to the person with whom she had plans (that neighbor), and then later she was seen leaving her neighborhood in Signal Mountain while not acknowledging another neighbor/friend... Gail also spoke with her sister that very morning, or if there is confusion about the time of that call with her sister -- then later on that day, and she was scared and thought someone was following her.

None of the above sounds like a woman who hadn't lost her peace somehow, and then left the place that meant peace to her as a result. Call it opinion, but I don't abruptly leave a place I drove 4 hours intending to stay, make "happy" plans with a friend while I'm there, and then just abruptly head out without word to my friend before or on the long drive of heading out, and later say "I'm scared" to my sister AND diss my friend at the other end when they try to get my attention as I am driving by. Nopers...

I guess I cannot bend about the "on my behalf" or something taking Gail's peace away, causing her to leave the Lake property. I suppose we can call it opinion... I suppose I could also be of the opinion that Gail was at peace in leaving her DL, her children, all of her homes etc... I am not though

Why do you think Gail left the Lake home?

 

[10EC_Dad]

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - TN TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #1

And if a friend of his says that he had a bruise on his arm, it would be from her abusing him?

<modsnip>.

I think many possibilities are on the table. Including some that many of you would not involve the husband.

<modsnip>

I think the following possibilities have equal merit as this point:

1) He was involved in her dissappearance
2) She left on her own
3) She took her life
4) She was involved in a fatal accident
5) She was a victim of foul play not involving her husband

All can be discussed rationally with the evidence we have available.

 

[10EC_Dad]

Placed on leave sounds so much better than taking family leave doesn't it.

I am not really using an employer's internal terms, that we do not know, to place guilt on anyone.

If you wish to play that game, she was "layed off". Sounds much better than "fired".

Now, let's not try to make evidence. Let's just work with what we have.

 

[glorias]

As I see it at this time, the evidence has become very one-sided over the past few weeks.

In the beginning, in the absence of any substantial evidence at all, I read a fairly balanced range of possible explanations for Gail's disappearance.

The situation has changed drastically since then, however. I've read no objective evidence to back up any statement made by Mr. P.

If I have missed anything in that regard, please post it. The goal is to find the truth, after all.

I very much agree with this. Having read all the media articles, comments from people close to the family here on WS, and even seen mentions of other cases that were all to similar to Gail's, I can't find any reason to assume we're being told the wrong thing in the media reports.

We have seen several examples of something Matt said -- for example, that Gail had mental problems -- which was contradicted by solid sources. Her sister, her friends, and LE all said there was no proof of mental problems. There are multiple examples of just that kind of thing, all coming from Matt, and I don't believe any of us on WS have made anything up out of whole cloth. We've based it on information we were given from sources that seem to be solid.

And the logical questions are, why is Matt saying these things? Why does Matt want the DVR? Why hasn't Matt helped in the search?

There are huge areas of information missing, but it's pretty much undeniable that something happened to Gail. Whether it was accident, fear, foul play, or something else we don't know yet. I just hope for her family's sake that she is found soon, or some clues open up new avenues.

 

[fedfan4life]

And if a friend of his says that he had a bruise on his arm, it would be from her abusing him?

I suspect some have indeed lost their objectivity.

I think many possibilities are on the table. Including some that many of you would not involve the husband.

This forum appears to have become a place of rumors and unbased speculation. Emotions have overcome reason.

I think the following possibilities have equal merit as this point:

1) He was involved in her dissappearance
2) She left on her own
3) She took her life
4) She was involved in a fatal accident
5) She was a victim of foul play not involving her husband

All can be discussed rationally with the evidence we have available.

Problem is, there is no concrete evidence that points to any particular scenario, EXCEPT the behavior of the Significant Other. I guess that I am back to my previous suppositions - What are the odds that either #4 or #5 happened, in the face of what is clearly (based upon evidence) a rapidly deteriorating marital relationship?

Personally, I discount both #2 and #3 completely.