Do we have a date on when Matt noticed the birth certificates and passports missing? Is that in the filing and I missed it?
TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #8
- Thread starter SheWhoMustNotBeNamed
- Start date
- Status
Do we have a date on when Matt noticed the birth certificates and passports missing? Is that in the filing and I missed it?
RO and temp custody filing says:
"within the last few days[filing was 5/6], the plaintiff was examining the contents of the marital safe and noticed the defendant had taken the children's passports."
Filing for legal separation:
"within the last few days[filing was 5/6], the plaintiff was examining the contents of the safe at the Signal Mountain residence and noticed the defendant had taken the children's passports and birth certificates."
Ex parte motion for exclusive use & possession of the marital residence:
"the father also discovered that the mother took the passports and birth certificates of the children upon leaving them alone in the marital residence"
So the implication here is that Gail entered the SM residence after returning from the lake with the children; and at that time removed the passports and birth certificates?
Question: How would Matt know the time frame on this? Is it common practice for both Palmgrens to access the safe on a daily basis?
BBM
That would be my question. I suppose if were suspicious of gail doing this he could have been monitoring the contents. OTOH, the items may have been gone longer and he just did not realize.
Hmm.
How thoroughly perplexing.
So, according to this scenario- Gail entered the SM house when dropping the children off after coming back from the overnight trip to AL...accessed the safe and took out the childrens passports and birth certificates... took them with her...and left her drivers license behind.
How odd.
Odd for sure. Took what she needed to abscond with the kids-oh except she not only forgot to take the kids -she actually dropped them off.
Perhaps she had the thought that Matt was going to take the kids and that is why she took the passports and BC's after she dropped off the kids.
Either which way, imo she was planning on returning.
Hmm.
I suppose if I thought my spouse were going to take our children out of the country without joint consent (and there were serious domestic issues involved) I might be tempted to take their passports - so that if passports were reapplied for and/or flagged as lost; the State Dept would require my approval for reissuing.
If I was intending on taking my children somewhere without the joint consent of my spouse, I'd think I would have to be concerned enough about the situation to take my children with me when I left.
If I were not planning on returning and just wanted ID's in a safe location, then I'd take my own as well. :waitasec:
So.... all of that combined with the ping situation... does this mean that when Gail left the SM home, she headed in the direction of MP's mother's home?
Sleuthy1
Verified Expert
:twocents:Exactly! Thank you Glorias....Do we really want to take what MP and his attorney's say as "golden"? Look thoroughly at all MP's statements within the court documents. He(MP) has not said much since Gail went missing....with the exception of a VERY short "staged" press conference...in which not much at all was said....and the ONLY EMOTION ...the only real emotion was shown ONCE AGAIN by Gail's sister DNN...and not the estranged husband MP. :maddening:The same man who claims that Gail is poison and they (the children) and MP would be better off without her....saying things will be better "when she's gone". :banghead:
How do we know everything he has CLAIMED is actually TRUE? How do we know that what MP (through his CD Attorney's) has stated is truly accurate at all.? Maybe...just maybe MP's statements, as seen in his court docs are part of a "plan" to "disappear" Gail for good. I ask that you all just wait and see what the "real" evidence, that is the EVIDENCE collected by TBI & FBI reveals. Hopefully, we will get closure and find Gail soon.:twocents:
I don't think we do.
That's why I was wondering if there had been any re-applications for ID.
Imvho- if I were to find myself missing the legal, government ID's of my children- and thought my estranged spouse had them, AND was concerned enough to file for custody, and knew my spouse had filled out a COA- I'd request replacements of those ID's, and notify the appropriate agencies of my concerns asap. :waitasec:
(Then again- I don't have children, so what do I know?!)
ETA: Sleuthy1, you must have been posting at the same time I was....
believe09
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 28,094
- Reaction score
- 506
I think it is fair to say we don't know that anything that has been said is true unless it has been backed up by LE. I think the passport and b/c' only makes sense in the context of a divorce filing because those items can be used for custody filing.
Any idea why the kids had passports? We may have covered this.
Any idea why the kids had passports? We may have covered this.
Ironic that you're questioning Matt's statements and how true they are, and using a quote from AD in doing it.
AD has made that statement on every interview she's done, but how are we to know if Matt ever really said that? Are we supposed to take Arlene's word as 'golden'?
Are we to believe the estranged husband who hasn't said much, or the overbearing friend who won't stop talking? I guess that is something we each have to decide for ourselves.
glorias
Active Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 738
- Reaction score
- 100
Well, I'm just wondering out loud here. The passports were gone and Matt immediately assumed they were taken on or around the 30th by Gail in preparation for running off with the kids. Seems like a lot of jumping to conclusions IMHO. Remember, early on he said Gail's passport was gone, too -- only to find out later she gave it to Susie. To me, it sounds like he lost track of the passports and has no idea on what date they were removed from the safe.
I believe Susie got the passport before the 30th, and as far as we know Gail didn't give Susie the kids' passports. That seems to undermine his theory that Gail took all the passports because she was going to run off with the kids, in my opinion.
I believe Susie got the passport before the 30th, and as far as we know Gail didn't give Susie the kids' passports. That seems to undermine his theory that Gail took all the passports because she was going to run off with the kids, in my opinion.
Irish_Eyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2008
- Messages
- 4,060
- Reaction score
- 1,577
I was about to post this same thing. There is only MP's statement to go on.
Passports can be used to leave the country but they are also just a valid acceptable form of identification for other purposes. So perhaps GP took them as a form of ID to enroll the children in school if she did move after the pending separation. Or perhaps she took them to prevent MP from trying to move out of state with them and enroll them somewhere else. Or perhaps MP just said she took them because it made the "Gail just up and left" scenario more plausible.
Or maybe they are in her safe deposit box, and neither MP or GP has them. I think it's possible she took them but I'm not willing to take his word as gospel.
Irish_Eyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2008
- Messages
- 4,060
- Reaction score
- 1,577
We know Gail and Matt traveled out of the US mainland from their FB photos. i don't think it's a stretch to assume that they may have taken their children along on such a trip at some point?
I don't think Matt said she took them on the 30th. That was the question posed here, a few posts back.
The court filings seem to indicate they (Matt and Gail) had a certain place where the passports and BCs were kept, (the safe) and when he did go look they were not there, he doesn't have them, so she must. For the purpose of the court filing it wouldn't matter if she removed them on the 28th or 30th, or when, they are still gone.
What kind of safe are we rumoring to talk about here??
I am THOROUGHLY perplexed as to how a couple that is so intent on divorcing contentiously (and with children involved) as to have PI's tracking vehicles, cell phones, GPS's etc... would both share open access to a safe, within their home, where important documents such as ID's were stored??
I mean- seriously. I am... perplexed.
Is LE concerned about missing government issued ID's?
Because they should be. If they are actually missing.
I am THOROUGHLY perplexed as to how a couple that is so intent on divorcing contentiously (and with children involved) as to have PI's tracking vehicles, cell phones, GPS's etc... would both share open access to a safe, within their home, where important documents such as ID's were stored??
I mean- seriously. I am... perplexed.
Is LE concerned about missing government issued ID's?
Because they should be. If they are actually missing.
But for the purpose of the court filing... why would it matter if Gail had the childrens' passports and birth certificates? :waitasec:
Not trying to be contentious at all, but this aspect of the case makes no sense to me. I really don't understand this filing.
Irish_Eyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2008
- Messages
- 4,060
- Reaction score
- 1,577
But I think that's the point. Why would we take MP's word as "golden?"
I think a lot of credibility to me comes from motivations. What is AD's motive for talking to LE and the media? I think it's to help find Gail. What is MP's motive for not saying much - to the media OR LE?
Irish_Eyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2008
- Messages
- 4,060
- Reaction score
- 1,577
I think he was trying to imply that he had a reasonable fear that she could remove them from the area if he wasn't granted exclusive custody.
- Status