TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #8

[BeanE]

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.

Agreed. And the RO against her.

 

[confused]

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.

Well, here again do we really know that PI's etc were involved? Matt hired his PI to search for Gail after 4-30. We have AD saying that Gail hired a PI, but no info from that. Diane said that Gail was gathering info, but never stated that a PI was hired. The only info we have on that is from AD. Not saying that her info is wrong, but it is the only source, so we don't have an unbiased idea of what was really going on.

 

[Oriah]

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.

Hmm.
So both Gail and Matt shared full access to this safe?

How does one grant sole custody to a parent of a child, when there is no custody issue at hand already in the court system and parents are still married?

Who has the childrens' social security cards?

 

[confused]

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.

If my spouse was missing, and had possession of my childrens BCs and passports, it would concern me that he could appear and take the children at any time, transporting them to anywhere. The filing was for RO and custody, isn't that correct?

 

[glorias]

snipped

he doesn't have them, so she must.

But in my opinion, that doesn't necessarily follow. This isn't an either-or situation where either Matt or Gail has them and there's nowhere else they could be, because there are PLENTY of places they could be. They weren't in the safe, but they could be in another safe location, with a friend, accidentally left in luggage from past trips, who knows?

I know he wanted to use this as evidence for why he wanted a restraining order three months ago; what I am saying is that he jumped to the exact conclusion he needed in order to make it look like Gail ran off with nefarious plans to steal the kids from him. And I personally question why he did that.

ETA: I personally question why he did that when he ALSO knew Gail did not have her drivers license or credit cards.

 

[Emeralgem]

In reference to myself until MP quits hiding behind his lawyers, steps forward and fully cooperates and is cleared by LE, I'm not believing too much of anything he or his attorneys have said...Personally, I cannot believe he is not LE's #1 suspect eventhough he hasn't been named as a person of interest...JMHO

 

[Oriah]

If my spouse was missing, and had possession of my childrens BCs and passports, it would concern me that he could appear and take the children at any time, transporting them to anywhere. The filing was for RO and custody, isn't that correct?

That's correct. But why would you be concerned that your spouse would sudddenly 'appear' and take your children somewhere? Let's say your spouse is your childrens' mother and no custodial issues have been filed prior to this.

In addition to that, you just agreed with your spouse to take them to a different state several days prior to your spouse disappearing. And your spouse returned them to your joint primary residence promptly. Your spouse did not disappear with your children.

If there's a history of Gail disappearing with their children for extended periods of time without informing Matt where they are- then I could understand this.

But is there? :waitasec:

 

[glorias]

snipped

BBM Agree. I guess I just can't understand, if moving to the lake house, why she wouldn't have opened an a/c there...along with a SDB for the jewelry. Now I'm really curious where the change of address (PO Box) was TO.

This has been poking at me for a couple of days and I realize now why: You were asking what town the PO Box was in! That's a good question. For some reason, it never dawned on me to question that. I assumed it was in SM, but we don't know that.

Arlene said she thought Gail was going to move to the lake house. Maybe the PO Box was down there? Does anyone know for sure?

 

[Emeralgem]

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.

BBM..IMO.. Not necessarily so..JMHO

 

[confused]

That's correct. But why would you be concerned that your spouse would sudddenly 'appear' and take your children somewhere? Let's say your spouse is your childrens' mother and no custodial issues have been filed prior to this.

In addition to that, you just agreed with your spouse to take them to a different state several days prior to your spouse disappearing. And your spouse returned them to your joint primary residence promptly. Your spouse did not disappear with your children.

If there's a history of Gail disappearing with their children for extended periods of time without informing Matt where they are- then I could understand this.

But is there? :waitasec:

That I don't know, but AD herself said Gail was waiting till school was out, then she planned to take the children and leave. Until she left and did not return, Matt had no reason to be concerned, but when she didn't return and the passports and BC's were missing, and AD said she was planning on taking the children and leaving, that all adds up to Concern that she might do something. Honestly, we don't know, she could have told him that she would take the children and leave the country. And again, if it were me and my children, I would not leave that to chance.

 

[F. Lee]

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.

Okay, I vote to believe the overbearing friend who won't stop talking.

At least she's talking.

What has she said that we know to be false? Nothing that I'm aware of. What do her intentions seem to be? To find Gail. What would she have to gain by lying? Nothing that I can think of. Who are her tears for? Her friend, Gail.

As to the estranged husband who hasn't said much, maybe he should start talking so we'd have more information on which to make an decision as to whether or not he's telling the truth.

The only time I recall hearing him talking about Gail was his one appearance with his attorneys, along with Gail's sister, at the press conference -- if one can call what that was a press conference. In my view he said what he had to say (or what his attorneys told him to say) which was essentially, Gail, come on back if you can hear us because the kids need/or miss you. Economy of words and emotions to say the least. It didn't strike me at the time as being a heartfelt plea to try to find the mother of his children. And he certainly didn't offer to stay around to answer any and all questions to help find Gail. He was later asked one question by a reporter and he quickly looked to his attorney who told the reporter that he would have nothing further to say.

So for now, yeah, I believe the friend who is talking rather than the estranged husband who isn't.

I pray I'm wrong and Gail comes back to town tanned and rested. And healthy and unafraid.

 

[Snowbunny]

Also- if the children's passports and birth certificates are missing...has anyone requested a replacement of the birth certificates? Or notified the Dept of State of the missing passports?
http://travel.state.gov/passport/lost/lost_848.html#report

TIA.

One of the first things I did when I was getting ready for my divorce was make sure I had all my children's medical records, social security cards, school records and bank account information put in a safe place.

 

[Oriah]

Wow, easy everyone...

I hope I didn't spark this debate by wondering about Gail's PLS!

Back to figuring out where Gail and her Jeep might be.

Does she have their childrens' birth certificates, passports, and social security cards with her? Was she seen at the SM residence removing these items from the safe at some point? Did she have them in her vehicle?

Let's not shut down this thread with TO's!

 

[Pearl*]

Okay, I vote to believe the overbearing friend who won't stop talking.

At least she's talking.

What has she said that we know to be false? Nothing that I'm aware of. What do her intentions seem to be? To find Gail. What would she have to gain by lying? Nothing that I can think of. Who are her tears for? Her friend, Gail.

I agree that she wants to find Gail. I think we also have many indications, however, that she likes to be the center of attention. This, of course, does not mean she isn't telling the truth. I don't know if she is or isn't. I think the attention element is worth some notice, however.

As to the estranged husband who hasn't said much, maybe he should start talking so we'd have more information on which to make an decision as to whether or not he's telling the truth.

The only time I recall hearing him talking about Gail was his one appearance with his attorneys, along with Gail's sister, at the press conference -- if one can call what that was a press conference. In my view he said what he had to say (or what his attorneys told him to say) which was essentially, Gail, come on back if you can hear us because the kids need/or miss you. Economy of words and emotions to say the least. It didn't strike me at the time as being a heartfelt plea to try to find the mother of his children. And he certainly didn't offer to stay around to answer any and all questions to help find Gail. He was later asked one question by a reporter and he quickly looked to his attorney who told the reporter that he would have nothing further to say.

So for now, yeah, I believe the friend who is talking rather than the estranged husband who isn't.

I pray I'm wrong and Gail comes back to town tanned and rested. And healthy and unafraid.

[bbm]

I think it's too late for him to start talking. Certainly it is reasonable to wonder about the timing of his retaining an attorney. Once he has an attorney, though, he can't be makng statements on his own unless he would like his attorney to withdraw from the case. Most attorneys don't want to keep clients who ignore their advice. So, I think it almost comes down to Monday morning quarterbacking at this point.

 

[Allusonz]

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.

and credit cards but took her purse

hmmmmmmmmm

sorry it is simply not adding up

 

[Sleuthy1]

Well I guess we ALL said our piece tonight didn't we Maybe it's good to let a little steam out sometimes when the kettle starts to whistle...as long as we don't get to attacking each other so let's not go there.

I don't think it's accurate for anyone to say AD has a spokesperson or mouthpiece on this forum. Whether you like or agree with her or not, I'm pretty sure the consensus view around here is that she's pretty capable of speaking for herself. Even if someone repeated something AD said, that doesn't mean they are posting at her behest.

I think after reading all the passport discussion, it does reinforce my belief that GP is not intentionally missing. I can see taking the kids and not the passports, but I can't see taking the passports and not the kids. It serves no purpose. So if she took the passports with her or left them with another person or in a safe deposit box, I have to believe it was because she was planning on leaving WITH her kids. And somehow her plans were severely interrupted on 4/30.

:twocents:The children's passport NEVER left the SM home. MP overlooked them initially and had to change his story on that:banghead:. Also, Gail's passport was given to SB for safe keeping and after some time passed and Gail did not return for it....SB turned the passport over to LE and it was returned to MP by LE. So all the passport have been and are accounted for. MP had the kids passports in the house and didn't even know it until further investigation and Gail's was with SB but SB gave it to LE and LE gave Gail's passport back to MP.

:twocents:As for the PO box change. This was at the SM PO where she had her original PO BOx for her PI to send her correspondence to. When MP found the PO Box key #1 ...Gail decided to get a NEW PO Box and new key #2 to be sure MP would not have access to her materials. The Post Office is located on Signal Mountain.:waitasec:

 

[glorias]

Thanks Sleuthy -- I wondered about that. It seemed possible that Matt just didn't know where everything was, and apparently the kids' passports were never missing. And the PO Box was specifically for the PI to send correspondence.

Why would LE give Gail's passport to Matt, though? It seems like they think she's merely missing, no sign of foul play or similar, so wouldn't it be held until she was located? I don't know why the husband would automatically be given his wife's passport ESPECIALLY if they were going to be divorced.

 

[JBean]

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.

Hi Confused-
According to the filings Matt specifically says that Gail took them the 30th.


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"

 

[JBean]

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146390"]TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 #9 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]