Thank you, AZ!
Two things were mentioned about not following procedure:
- lack of notice
- not disclosing that Gail had sent her sister Diane a cashier's check for $17,000 five days before she disappeared
Would they have been a part of the judge's decision? Or just part of the points the attorneys argued?
In other words, with no legal basis as you say, would the procedure issues have been comparatively minor, and not a part of the decision to toss it?
Hope I'm wording that clearly.
Thank you again, AZ. :grouphug:
I assume the "lack of notice" was just for the original temporary order, which was requested
ex parte so, by definition, there would be no notice. This is not a procedural defect. The problem was that there was no basis for the original order, not that it was issued
ex parte.
The lack of disclosure of the cashier's check is not really a procedural
or substantive defect, but probably did set off a "red flag" in the judge's mind and make him feel that he had been taken advantage of in the
ex parte proceeding.
The judge likely did consider the cashier's check, as he was apparently oblivious to the fact that there was no legal basis for his order in the first place.
The two children were the last ones to see Gail at their home when she dropped them off.
They are 12 and 9 years old.
Can LE question them without Matt's (their father/Gail's husband) permission?
If so, do they get an attorney or some kind of person with them during questioning to ensure independently they don't get too upset, tell LE to hold off if they do get upset, that sort of thing?
The dad has an attorney. Would LE have to contact the dad's attorney before questioning the kids? Or are the kids separate in that representation?
Thank you! :grouphug:
They can be questioned (I assume they are witnesses, not suspects) without parental permission where the parent is a suspect. They would not have a right to an attorney if they are not suspects, but likely there would be an LE person with child psych experience present and the questioning would be videotaped.
The dad's lawyer would not have to be involved.
Could we please have your expert opinion on this? We're all pretty "upset" to say the least!
When Hamilton County Sheriffs Office detectives entered the Signal Mountain home of a missing woman a couple of weeks ago, the familys computers were missing.
The computers instead had been turned over to Lee Davis, an attorney representing Matthew Palmgren, the husband of Gail Palmgren, the 44-year-old mother of two who has been missing since April 30.
Davis said in an interview Thursday that the computer hard drives have been sent to technicians to see if any files or history can be recovered that might lead to Gail Palmgren.
Weve sent them off to see whats on them, he said. Obviously, if files have been deleted, theyve been deleted.
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jul/08/missing-palmgren-computers-turned-over-defense-att/
AZ, I think it should be noted that Lee Davis has stated that within 15 minutes of being retained very early on, he contacted LE and offered for them to search the property. LE turned him down.
I think it should also be noted that Matt (Gail's husband) retained the PI who works with this attorney and is an ex-cop from Chattanooga PD, to find Gail.
Under these circumstances, wouldn't it be reasonable for the attorneys and PI to have the hard drives scanned to see if there was any lead to what happened to Gail? If I were paying them to find my missing spouse, well, they better scan those hard drives. It seems a very basic thing to do to find a missing person.
Thanks! :grouphug:
Sounds like LE made a mistake here. If they declined the opportunity to search, it is reasonable for the homeowner to think the property can be used as he sees fit.
If I were LE, I would seize the computers from wherever the attorney sent them RIGHT NOW. I would also ask the attorney, in writing and copied to the media, whether the computer company was retained to assist with providing legal advice to his client, or to help find Gail. The attorney will likely respond "to help find Gail," as the media will be badgering him for a response. Then, as there would be no attorney work-product privilege involved, I would seize all work orders and communications between the attorney and computer company, and question the employees of the computer company as to what work they did and why.
ETA: Looking back at the questions above, it sounds like the attorney has already admitted that he sent the computers off for analysis to help find Gail.