TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #13

[hollyblue]

I thought the same thing because how could she hear a crash and then someone turning around? Gail couldn't turn around if she already went off the bluff, so who was it? If it was just someone driving along, why didn't they report it? Well, I can think of several reasons ~ it was someone chasing or following Gail, or it was someone who ran into her and they had car damage also.

If I had heard a terrible crash, I would have gone outside to see what happened, wouldn't you?

I thought it was interesting she couldn't recall the time. I mean she did look out...so was it day or night? Her husband was asleep...was he taking a nap or retired for the night?

 

[Emeralgem]

I thought it was interesting she couldn't recall the time. I mean she did look out...so was it day or night? Her husband was asleep...was he taking a nap or retired for the night?

BBM..Thats what I would like to know... IF she saw a car turning around or backing out of her driveway seems to me IF it was during daytime hours she could identify what type car it was, color or something..... Nightime might be harder...So which is it?
I still don't believe Gail or her jeep went off that mtn in broad daylight on a Saturday afternoon...JMHO

Also..IF the "W" was closed for maintenance that Saturday workers would have heard the crash during daytime hours... .JMHO

 

[Shelby1]

I'm sitting on my hands for the rest of this evening except for to say that MP's actions and in-actions should have been looked in to further IMO.

God bless and look after the children.

 

[Melodie]

Thanks for pointing this out.


And, so, because LE was suspicious, by God, don't do anything pro-active to search for your wife.

Agreed. It also was surprising because what I had read from the news reports seemed to suggest that from the beginning LE did not suspect a crime was committed and they had no evidence of a crime, yet this seems to contradict that.

 

[glorias]

Personally, I'm so tired of repeatedly giving sincere, thought-out answers about specific things Matt and his lawyers have said and done that I couldn't possibly do it again. If anyone honestly wonders why people believe Matt deserves criticism, it's all very easy to find. It's all out there, said over and over by LOTS of people here on WS and even on other sites.

I can't speak for anyone else of course -- I know no one here specifically mentioned me -- but if someone still wants to think I'm just randomly, viciously vilifying Matt for no reason other than I'm closed-minded, so be it. Knock yourself out.

 

[ruthieroo]

MP is not the victim here...Gail and her children are. You don't go on the news and smile as you discuss a tragedy of this magnatude. He cried about losing his job which was his own fault, but there were not tears for Gail losing her life and the children losing their mom. He would have been better off not saying anything. He and his attorney did their best to make Gail out as a crazy person and if she was having some sort of meltdown he probably contributed to it under the circumstances. Where is his compassion for Gail? I think this is exactly what people are trying to say here.

Well said Snowbunny.

MP is most definitely NOT the victim. He never once showed an iota of concern for his missing wife and wholeheartedly threw himself into CYA mode by obtaining criminal attorneys and attempting to paint Gail in a negative light every chance he got.

And as far as people judging him in that interview he was not overly concerned about that fact. Frankly he deserves no more compassion than he had for his wife. Try having a little respect for the mother of your children when you're asked what the most difficult moment of the past 7 -8 months was.

I'm sure the unraveling of the marriage was difficult and there were hard feelings on both sides. I can't say I don't find the 'tragic accident' more than a little FISHY but unfortunately there is no evidence telling me MP is involved.

But let's not for a second say that MP treated Gail with any modicum of respect while she had been missing and even after she was found. As I said I'm sure there were hard feelings but again how about taking the high road when dealing with the MISSING mother of your children?

He may be cleared of any wrong doing in Gail's death but he is clearly wrong in his callous treatment of Gail in these last several months. And in my observation ~ THAT TREATMENT ~ does not make him a victim.

 

[hollyblue]

I'm reading a lot of analysis and criticism of MP's interview based on responses (or lack there-of) and body language. But the question I have for many of you who are being critical is simply is there any answer he could have given that would have satisfied you and not drawn your ire? Please understand, I'm not intending this to be combative or as a criticism of how you feel, after all it's been stated frequently that we are all entitled to our opinions. But is seems to me that if he'd expressed more remorse for Gail or stated that he was heartbroken by her loss that many of you would accuse him on being insincere and pandering to public opinion.

My point is that many of you have clearly vilified MP. You have your reasons. But in all fairness I read these criticisms and believe there is nothing he could have said for which you wouldn't have found fault.

Fair question. My answer...many feel that MP could write a book on how to look guilty when your wife goes missing. Now a question for you that I feel should have been the first question ask by the reporter. Why did MP want to do the interview? ***This isn't only for you, but for others who may feel that MP was/is overly criticized.

 

[hollyblue]

I'm sitting on my hands for the rest of this evening except for to say that MP's actions and in-actions should have been looked in to further IMO.

God bless and look after the children.

I'll clean up a phrase my mother use to say. If you act like a piece of lower anatomy....you end up with dirt on you.

*** Not pointed at you Shelby...but main character in discussion here.

 

[Columbo]

BBM..Thats what I would like to know... IF she saw a car turning around or backing out of her driveway seems to me IF it was during daytime hours she could identify what type car it was, color or something..... Nightime might be harder...So which is it?
I still don't believe Gail or her jeep went off that mtn in broad daylight on a Saturday afternoon...JMHO

Also..IF the "W" was closed for maintenance that Saturday workers would have heard the crash during daytime hours... .JMHO

I think she just heard the vehicle in her driveway, she didn't see it (unless I am missing the gist of your question).

Good point about the workers there who would have heard the crash!

 

[Yoda]

I think she just heard the vehicle in her driveway, she didn't see it (unless I am missing the gist of your question).

Good point about the workers there who would have heard the crash!

Lunch time for the workers? Noon-1:00?

 

[hollyblue]

I don't remember where I read about how a vehicle in a similar situation falls, but at one point there was a posting either here or MSM that explained that although the weight is in the front of the vehicle (engine and all that), the vehicle does not fall straight down like a bullet. It was said that momentum would cause the vehicle to start an end over end roll.

If this is plausible, it could be that the jeep did hit the first bluff with the back end. (I believe the jeep was found sitting on it's wheels at the bottom of the second one, right?)

I also wonder about Ms. E's recollection after 8 months. She was unsure of date or time and memories can be susceptible to suggestion as well.

Anyway, I'm not an MP fan...he is a cad, but I do not think he is a murderer or accessory to such, however, many are not satisfied because the accident cannot be "proven". Isn't "burden of proof" just for determining a crime? What tangible evidence points to a crime?

The burden of proof is put on the law to prove....investigate... and there is always the circumstantial evidence. The car was found in neutral at it's resting place at the bottom. That was AFTER the recording of drive, neutral and park. ?? Just saying....it's easier to push over in N vs P. Not implying that happened. If the Jeep has a manual transmission, it's instinctive to grab the gear shift when applying the brakes. Maybe when it hit the impact jolted it to N. 4000 lbs falling almost 8 stories would be one heck of jolt.

In answer to the question of why the vehicle increased in speed even tho the brakes were being applied....look at the pics just provided. It's a slope downward...not a level grassy area...and if she hit the rock putting the wheel in the air...less friction...and if the rock then lodged as speculated, it's weight.. along with the downward momenteum would add to the increase in speed and pull. IMO.

 

[Columbo]

Agreed. It also was surprising because what I had read from the news reports seemed to suggest that from the beginning LE did not suspect a crime was committed and they had no evidence of a crime, yet this seems to contradict that.

From the outside, it totally appeared that LE gave him a "pass". Didn't search the house, etc. So what is he talking about, they made innuendos about his innocence?

Besides, as an example: LE was suspicious of John Walsh when his son was kidnapped and that didn't stop him from searching and making an all-out effort to clear himself and find his son. I think it's a matter of character here.

 

[Columbo]

Lunch time for the workers? Noon-1:00?

Good point. Would road workers generally stay on site and eat lunch there?

 

[ThoughtFox]

Good point. Would road workers generally stay on site and eat lunch there?

No, I think most workers around here would stop and go to a restaurant.

Even if they were there, they might not have heard it because of the sound of machinery. We had workers all over our neighborhood that week due to the tornadoes and it was constant noise of chainsaws and cherry-picker trucks.

Or maybe they heard it and assumed it was a large tree falling down the bluff? We had several fall on the powerlines a few days after the tornadoes in the middle of the night and it was quite loud.

 

[hollyblue]

Good point. Would road workers generally stay on site and eat lunch there?

And would they all take lunch at the same time? On another note...I hope someone local will take a pic of the infamous rock once it's in place again. I thought for the longest time it was a flat grassy area and the pics make it hard to see the actual distance. Has anyone that has seen the report or local know or could speculate on how deep in feet/yds it is? TIA

 

[ThoughtFox]

Also, it was Gail's brother that started/sent the info to CUE, right?

Yes, MP says that in the interview.

JOHN MADEWELL: You said Cue?

MATT PALMGREN: Cue is the . . . uh, Kevin, Gail’s brother helped sponsor that in. (smiles) And we were supportive of it. He did it behind the scenes. Again, we kept our names out of Facebook and everything else. I didn’t even know Kevin was behind it but he is a sponsor. (smiles) And he did a great job of bringing them in – that’s the missing persons—

 

[ThoughtFox]

And would they all take lunch at the same time? On another note...I hope someone local will take a pic of the infamous rock once it's in place again. I thought for the longest time it was a flat grassy area and the pics make it hard to see the actual distance. Has anyone that has seen the report or local know or could speculate on how deep in feet/yds it is? TIA

They may call it a "slope," but I think just beyond the hedges it basically goes straight down. That's the face of the mountain, the same one that the W-Road goes down. It's rocky and bumpy but it's not flat anywhere, probably not even where the jeep and body landed because the slope continues down to the W. That's why the Body Farm people had to climb up there with ropes.

Here's a good view of how steep it is - not a 90-degree angle, but close enough. Notice how the trees are growing at an angle towards the sun away from the slope. It's precipitous.

http://timesfreepress.com/news/2011/dec/04/remains-removed-from-signal-mountain-crash-site/?print

​

 

[ThoughtFox]

Here you go from the Homeowners Report: No one came by their house inquiring about an accident. "We thought no more about it because there have been several occasions where we have observed people parking high chassis pick-up trucks on our landing and leaving tire marks in the grass."

The reason they didn't inquire was probably because LE wouldn't have expected Gail to be on that road. Why John Madewell didn't ask questions about that is truly a lost opportunity. Did she have a friend on that road? Did the kids have a friend? Was she cutting through to another street? What was she doing there?

I would have asked MP why he thought Gail was up there - even he explained it by calling her crazy again, at least he would be on the record about it.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

And would they all take lunch at the same time? On another note...I hope someone local will take a pic of the infamous rock once it's in place again. I thought for the longest time it was a flat grassy area and the pics make it hard to see the actual distance. Has anyone that has seen the report or local know or could speculate on how deep in feet/yds it is? TIA

Law, are they going to put it back?!!!!! The rock???!!! Surely not!!!

 

[hollyblue]

Law, are they going to put it back?!!!!! The rock???!!! Surely not!!!

Oh yes. I can't remember if it was from MSM or in the report. Go back a few pages earlier today or last night.

ETA: Here it is...It was a bit further back than I thought....and it was a statement from the Sheriff during the PC on the 4th.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Found Deceased TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #13

***Still can't help but ask why the PC was never video taped. It's not like the MSM didn't have enough time to prepare. IMO